I was in a local shop the other day and they showed me a new scope. It was MOA so I asked if they had the same thing in mil/mil. They said the don't order mil/mil because no one will buy them.

I have no problem running moa or mil but I also started shooting a mil dot reticle with moa knobs back before there were affordable laser range finders. It always bugged me that manufacturers couldn't seem to match the turrets to the reticle so things have improved much now that most of them do.

I just don't understand the fear of going mil/mil. At a basic level it's all just turning numbers on a dial to what your chart or app says. I prefer mil just because its decimal and a .1 mil is a little coarser than 1/4 moa. I think mil reticles are a little less crowded and more intuitive than moa.

Another thing I think manufacturers get wrong is bragging on 4 or 5 times magnification on a ffp scope.
I think ffp is better at 3 times magnification because the reticle is easier to work with on the extremes. I really prefer to hold my windage off from the reticle. For example I think a 5-15 ffp makes more sense than a 3-15. Five power being plenty low enough.

I actually think a 5-15 would do nearly everything I'd ever do hunting. Any higher than 15 and you get heat distortion and poor low light.

If I owned a scope co I'd probably go 3-9, 4-12, 5-15 and maybe a 6-18 for dual purpose varmint rigs all ffp and mil/mil with smaller capped windage turrets. All though personally I could do it all with 3-9 and 5-15

And of course my flagship model would be a fixed 8 with a 42 or 45 mil objective, mil/mil, small capped windage, and parallax down to 10 meters or even lower so it could also run rim fire and airgun.

Bb

No clue....but my typical logic is that if it’s on my mostly set and forget rigs, MOA is preferable. On my turn and/or hold rigs, MIL is better (for me), because that’s the intended use for it, and how I was broken in on my LR training. It’s where my mind naturally goes: to the mil and tenths, not a ruler measurement and uneven fractions. Hell, I don’t even do it as much in most of my hunting or range time. It’s more nostalgia, from past days and play time. To my logic, mils are inherently easier to grasp, even though MOA does exactly the same. Most outside the military (even now, with LR shooting being Uber cool) have only ever overheard of mils during range or shop gossip. They haven’t actually used them back and forth with MOA. A few have used both for LR forever, and they maybe think in MOA faster....but mostly it’s probably mere familiarity from figuring out their Tasco ‘06 @ 100, a week before deer season.

Not sure it's fear, just unfamiliarity. Also, many if not most hunters are well equipped for what they do with simple reticles in set and forget scopes. Rifles in the approximate range of 2800-3000 fps or so zeroed at 200 are good to go to 300 without dialing, and multi-point reticles like Leupold's LRD work well too for such work, and don't require much thought from excited hunters. Guys who forget to turn their variables down after using them instead of binos are also likely to futz up with their knobs.

Dialing requires accurate adjustments too, and how many hunting scopes have those, even now?

I’m pretty excited to have my first MIL/MIL scope in my hands tomorrow, after much apprehension. Today I went about adding a tab to my ballistics spreadsheet rerunning all my tables to mils...the calculator I used for this (Zeiss) will do MIL drops but still spits out click in MOA, so I began converting the click values to MILs based on the MIL drops and woah...that was easy. -1.9 MILs? That’s 19 clicks. The same drop in MOA on my rifle is -7.24 MOA. 7.24 MOA? That’s err uhh 28-29 clicks? Just a small example.

Good luck with your new scope. I think you'll love it. Let us know when you get it mounted and shot a few rounds through it if you don't mind.

The scope the shop showed me was supposed to be a long range tactikool style with target turrets etc. Definitely not a set and forget hunting style. They still said no one wants it in mil/mil. I think it is just fear of the unknown. I see no downside at all to mil but do see some upside. Tenths would seem more intuitive to most than 1/4s. Maybe it's easier for me to accept because I've spent a good deal of time in metric countries.

Bb

Same with the metrics. Ohhhh chit what the F'?

.0001, .001, .01, .1, 1,10, 100, 1000, 10000

What's not to like?

Took me about 10 minutes with my first good Mil/Mil scope to know I'd never go back.

I bounce back and forth between mils and moa makes no difference to me

^^^^Swings both ways.

I ain't sceered of mil

Might just be because many still think of MOA as inches, and that's easier for them to relate to and doesn't require learning anything new. Not at all the same as "fear", more like reluctance or laziness. I doubt very much that everyone, or even most, that buy scopes like that are really planning to use them to dial much anyway, but rather to hold up or off as needed, or for "the look". Based on the people I see at the couple of ranges I frequent, few really have a grasp of how to use or adjust scopes in general, and once they wander into a zero, don't want to take a chance of futzing it up by messing with the knobs (actually, considering how most scopes "work", that might be wise!)

Sometimes it's hard for those who are experienced or accomplished to relate to those who aren't and who maybe just want to find a way to get by; and not just with shooting.

I also like the mil dot, but only on a scope I intend to do hold overs on. I would not like it that much on a dialing scope. I also agree that these erector ratios have gotten out of hand. In particular we see it with the nighforce 8:1 series NX8. but unlike you I want a scope that goes down to about 3x on the low end and maxes around 15x. so I guess for me 5:1 erector is about perfect. that would be 2-10x for 3-15x etc. I think 6:1 is too much. I basically generally operate my scopes on low or high power and seldom in between. I only dial to high power if I need to.

as to the rest of the mil system. If you live in a country that uses the metric system. Mil is a no brainer. but for me I still prefer MOA. because when I miss I think oh I missed by 5 inches, or 14 inches whatever. I still think of my misses in inches. Mil for me makes me convert the inches to mils which is an extra calculation for me, not that MOA at distances isn't also a calculation but its just an easier calculation in my head.

I do think FFP and the mil system goes together better. If you want to do a MOA reticle and FFP you need to really jump to 2 MOA markings which isn't ideal.

I'm not skeered. I just don't like cluttered reticles.

I have organized nuts and bolts from 2-56 to 7/8-14.
A bucket is labeled, "Metric and suspected metric"

Why do so many mil shooters think "their" way is better?

Color me as reluctant, possibly lazy. Bull headed? Commonly called, Old School.

I'm 66, have over 2 dozen scopes, all MOA. And, MOA is all I've ever had. My ballistic software only uses MOA, or I haven't found a way to change it(Sierra Infinity) & I don't have smart phone. I'm not a once a year shooter & I've been twisting knobs for nearly 30 years. I shoot @ 800 plus yards several times a year just for fun or friendly local competition. Everything I do with my rifles/scopes has become nearly second nature, or as far as my pea brain will let me.

I am reluctant, but not against it.

But seriously, should I try to change across the board? Or try to blast some cobwebs out of this old brain & try to deal with both?

Exactly-- Mil/Mil is stupid simple! MOA gets convoluted when thinking in inch's which most every shooter i have been around does. I can't count the times shooting an prone match when the guys would go down to check targets after the sight in string with a tape measure trying to figure out how many clicks needed for so many inch's correction. With my Front Focal scope I look at the reticle, look at point of impact and dial. Duh ---------- doesn't get any easier.

I've never had anyone explain to me what is so complicated about MOA. Of course, I have no trouble understanding feet and inches either. GD

i like mil-dot scopes but yes many don`t. but there might be a golden time to get a deal on a mil-dot scope too just because many don`t use,want or understand a mil-dot scope .

Nightforce moar reticle does the same thing. I all the same just a different unit of measure. Use what you like

Is in an moa ~ an inch at 100 yards and a mil dot ~10 centimeters at 100 meters?

Sometimes I have mil dot reticles, mil dot turrets, or range finder stuck on meters..... I hate that.

MOA and inches is about a 5% error. which isn't enough to worry about when holding for windage.

Nobody I know of uses MOA for military tactical LR applications. A lot I know use MIL for LR hunting, match, and every other application. MOA isn’t hard to understand at all, if you grew up under a US measurement system, but unless you have YEARS of using it for LR shooting, it doesn’t seem to translate as easily/quickly from adjustment to hit, for shooters universally. For hunting/target shooting, whatever you like and can use or just want to use is best. There is no wrong answer with either. When there’s no way to go down range with a tape, and not much in the way of a known size reference visible, MIL and especially mil with FFP overcomes that far faster for many. MOA and using FFP can do the same thing, probably just as fast for those ingrained in the inches conversion forever, OR who are mentally capable of throwing that indoctrination out the window and just running their system as intended and not thinking they HAVE to view it as a linear to understand it. MILS tends to force that, out of the gate, and since it’s a 10-factor, it’s easy to grasp from an entry point. Reticle clutter, style, etc with either is preference, too......I wouldn’t argue against either from any sporting perspective. Not sure if my perspective makes any sense, but it’s just how I’ve seen it back when it mattered and was far more common for me than these days.

While the origins of a "mil" is metric, the way we use mils in shooting is not metric or imperial, it can be used with either system. It is decimal, but not metric; I think that sometimes gets confused. I'd rather not have my range finder set in meters either, but that's a different thing than using a mil/mil scope.

If a guy prefers to think in inches (as I do), it's pretty easy to recognize a mil is 1 yard in 1,000 yards. (same as 1 meter in 1,000 meters; the angle described is the same regardless of units). 1 yard = 36 inches, so a mil is 36" across a target at 1,000 yards, or 3.6" across at 100 yards.

It's even easier than that though - you don't need to think in inches at all except if you're using it to range a target. Just think of drop and windage units in mils rather than inches; it doesn't get any simpler than that. If a round hits low for example - we don't need to know or care what that is in inches; just measure it with the reticle, lets say it's 1.2 mils low, then just hold or dial that 1.2 mil correction.

Thanks.....I think you just explained the differences FAR better than I had tried to in all that typing just before. LOL

I think mils can be very metric in use. They have a base ten correlation when used with metric measurements of distance. One mil is 10 cm at 100 m and 100 m at 1000 m.

I suppose they are not metric when we insist on using them with yards and inches. I'm guilty of doing this too. I'm too indoctrinated in the use of American measurement. I think there is a definite metric advantage, though.

How many inches per mil at 632 yards?

How many cm per mil at 632 meters?

I can answer the latter immediately, 63.2 cm. I'm not so fast at 3.6x632/100 to solve for inches. It comes out at 22.75.

As mentioned, as long as you are getting corrections in mils, none of that matters. If, however, you are told your shot was off by 18" on that 632 yard shot, what are you going to do about it? On the other hand, when told you missed by 45 cm at 632 meters I'd like to think that most of us would be able to quickly realize that a 7 click correction or .7 mil hold is in order (45 is 75% of 60, .7 of a mil should get you there).

I'd like to see more binos and spotters offered with milling reticles. Being able to make corrections with angular measurement is so much easier than converting linear values, even in metric.

Tell your spotter to smarten up, for starters, and get him to give you drop and windage in mils. If you're using MOA, same thing.
If you are your own spotter, you've got the mil "ruler" right there on the reticle, so that's how you measure how far off the shot is.

There's no good reason to use an offset distance measurement (inches, cm, whatever) in that situation rather than angular mil or moa measurement, and people's insistence on doing so is the reason this thread exists; it's what makes people afraid of using mils because they think it's difficult. It's only hard to use if you make it that way.

While there's nothing inherently metric about Mil scopes, people don't like thinking in centi-yards and that's what happens with Mil + imperial units. MOA has the advantage that you can fudge to 1" at 100y and only be off by a factor of pi/3 which is close enough for most applications.

So in the US MOA will continue to win as long as imperial units dominate.

When you spot your own shots, why do people insist on measuring how far off you are with the reticle, when it's easier and faster to just dial to your impact.

Do you call your corrections out loud then holler "send it" too......

Only when I wear my skinny jeans and flat brimmed hat..... send it mo fo

And hopefully not blow the ass out of your pants going prone.........

The bling on my skinny jeans bedazzles and confuses them...... "send it"

I’m sure his skinny jeans are at least 8% spandex.

That'd certainly help the cause, providing he's under 50% bedazzled coverage...........

I think it depends on what they're using it for: big targets at very long range or tiny varmints at medium-long range. For small varmints at distance, I want the smallest adjustments possible (1/8MOA or 1/4MOA) to allow slightly finer click adjustment, and a matching MOA reticle in SFP since I'm likely only turning turrets at maximum magnification.
For big targets at a variety of distances, I think FFP and mil/mil is easier to calculate for and the slightly larger 1/10mil adjustments will be advantageous when twisting turrets. That said, the most important thing is having the reticle and clicks on the same scale. Mildot reticle+MOA clicks is a PITA.

Why would you do any of that? There's no need unless you're using it to determine range to the target (which is prone to error anyway).

Unless you're shooting from a bench rest, it's not always easy to dial the turret with one hand and hold the rifle steady and on target with the other. Easier to stay in position/on target, take a measurement, and dial it in. If the rifle is entirely supported and secured by a rest, then dialing to the impact is a good way to go.

Yep, mil/mil is stupid simple, to the point that even I get it, lol. What I wish for, for my 1000 plus yard steel clanger, is a straight power, say along the lines of a SWFA 12X, with repeatable turrets and half mil hashmarks on the windage only...dial elevation and hold wind.

You meant hold it, eehh?

I use mil/mil.

I'll counter by saying if you can't hold to dial to impact, maybe you shouldn't have taken the shot to begin with, PRS not withstanding.....

Also, if you hold isn't good enough to dial to impact, then more than likely you couldn't spot your shot anyway.

Big difference between holding with one hand and holding with two. Think prone, unsupported. Dialing to impact requires watching the sight picture, holding the rifle with one hand, and dialing with the other hand, all while holding the rifle rock solid on your original POA.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. It sounds to me like you're describing taking a shot, spotting miss through the scope, holding on original POA and dialing until the POA matches POI, yes?

Either way

Exactly.......

Again, I'm not talking about PRS and all the gyrations a guy has to go through during a match. Although I just went through this yesterday sitting, shooting off my tripod. Just not a good enough hold to spot every shot until I put a strangle hold on the gun.

There is no way that someone who actually shoots in a field environment would say something like that.


But I guess it works if you’re shooting water filled milk jugs.

Bullshit.....

I have no issues with one, I like them for bench rest shooting, but have found for my hunting (100 yards is a long shot) they are much to busy and there is no need for "ranging" A #4 is a great point and shoot, but sucks for a bench target scope. Horses for courses.

So on a live animal, you shoot, miss, and you’re going to hold a rifle resting sitting on a pack, and adjust your turrets until it lines up with where the bullet impacted, on an animal that almost certainly moved after the shot?



There’s someone full of chit, but it ain’t me.

I'm glad someone else was scratching their head other than me...

LOL...not to speak for anyone, or to get in someone else’s pissing contest, but it’s done every day on ‘live animals’ from improvised rests, though the correction is usually faster to use the reticle to move the MILS and not the knobs, if time is an issue. The better the rest, the better everything is, but that technique has to be and IS used, often and accurately. Now, it’s not a typical hunting technique for 90% of what I do these days, but neither is any dialing or true FFP need on all but a few of my rigs. It’s good to know, good for practice/improvement, and not intended to be any ‘ideal’ solution or final ‘range type’ refinement....just an adaptation to circumstances in evidence.

Ok, help me out here- When is that used hunting animals?

I don't think you're talking about the same thing as aalf.

You appear to be talking about seeing POI (somewhere offset from zero) and just holding the reticle that amount over to make the hit. That's basically the same as what the rest of us do, and whether you hold that amount on the reticle or dial it depends on the circumstances and is the same end result either way.

Aalf is talking about holding the rifle still enough to remain aimed at the same spot while he adjusts the dials to the bullet's POI, which is a different thing altogether. I won't say I've never done that, but it's certainly more prone to error if the rifle shifts even a tiny bit, so that it's mostly a useless technique in the field. I honestly don't know why anyone would do that when it's more accurate and reliable to just dial or hold the offset you see on the reticle, other than specific situations like benchrest where the rifle is held in a very solid rest.

Dialing to a miss is asinine these days when a reticle can be used as a ruler to give an exact measurement to either dial or hold vs trying to hold a rifle completely steady with one hand while dialing with the other.

From a bench with a flat bottomed rifle in a rest that doesn't allow it to move, well maybe.... (not really.)

Oh, I’d agree that trying to re-zero the rifle in the field, for only one range/wind scenario might seem a tough concept, especially IF you tried to do it the way it seems to be being presented. If you can’t make the MIL/MOA E&W call, you are gonna have trouble more trouble getting there, just blindly moving a reticle, but it can be done. I didn’t say I did it hunting, but I’m sure you could.....especially if the animal was asleep. LOL. My point is (1) Yes, a good reticle and using it is far faster. (2) calling the E&W accurately lets you just run the dials, off scope, faster.......which you all probably knew or know better than I do.....I’m just saying #2 is the SAME THING, whether you try to stay on the scope in a circus act outside of a good rest or not. The ONLY difference (really) is one is trying a visual confirmation instead of tactile/math, due to either spotty scope adjustments (mechanical issues) or not being able to use the E&W as indicated (mental issues). The physical ability to get there seems to be the sticking point being argued over. I’m not arguing what another individual can/can’t do. I’m just not seeing the need to go about it THAT way, in field/hunting, to arrive the same place as others utilizing the system and equipment as intended. I make ZERO claims to be an ‘expert’ here, because I happen to know and have worked with some serious SMEs, and good teachers of the art. I’m just trying to indicate the differences in thought process some seem to insist on having with trying to do the exact same thing, and how the simple appears magical sometimes, when it shouldn’t. Is YOUR way better/worse/doable/right/easy/hard?.....DEPENDS, but I guarantee someone else is getting it done ‘better’ no matter what we like to think.

No fear, I’m just not that sophisticated.

I Have one and plan on fooling around with it. However, if this means it is a simpler way of doing things, it may go back.

I honestly don't see what the fuss is about if all that is being discussed is a unit of measurement. In the end, one can call it what he wants and it is still a unit of measurement. If you have a scope on which the adjustments are marked in "glorps", with twelve glorps making a "fliggle", the end result is the same. Only the name has changed. Now, if one is speaking of the difference between using a scope with crosshairs or a single dot, as opposed to a scope with a whole bunch of dots, then there is a difference in how a problem is approached but, again, it doesn't matter what the unit of measurement is. It only matters that you are able to hold or dial for range and condition. When I'm on the silohuette range, I know I have to come up ten minutes from my 200m setting to hit a ram (hopefully). If the alternative is to come up 2.5 mils, the bullet won't care, the ram (which has about a fifty/fifty chance of being safe either way) won't care, the universe won't care. The only difference is in my mind. I happen to not care for reticles with a whole bunch of dots, hash marks, or printed instructions. I am perfectly happy with a simple reticle for hunting or target use and it doesn't much matter to me if the adjustments are in minutes, mils, or glorps, once I know just how far the measurement is. My only desire is that the bullet hit the point of aim; the rest is just crap. GD

These seem to be fine for use in the wide open, and where the target is on something that will fling up a sign if you miss. Not so fine for out there when the target is standing in the timber.

Or running in the timber....

Many here have came to believe shooting at moving game is unethical.

I prefer to use MOA because when necessary, I can back-calculate/double-check corrections more quickly. I don't have to do it all that often, but, when I do, I usually need to make the calculation and correction relatively quickly, so I use something I'm familiar with.

The range I shoot @ goes to 300yds. Most of my shooting beyond 300yds is steel targets set up @ whatever ranges terrain allows shooting w/friends for fun/practice, not organized competition. Most of us have "Alpha" spotting scopes and binocs, None of us have reticles in them. So, if I'm spotting and someone misses, I'm probably telling them "X inches/feet" left-right-up-down. When I'm being generous, I'll give them the estimated correction in MOA. This is the same sort of info I get when I'm shooting and someone else is spotting. I need to quickly convert "You shot 1' over his back" into a correction I can dial or hold. I'm able to do that more quickly w/MOA due to familiarity and ability to turn inches/feet into MOA in my head quickly.

I'm sure I could do the same w/Mils if I swapped over it'd just take some practice.

As they hunt from an elevated heated shooting house over a timed corn-flinger with a forged Dr's Note that allows them to drive cross-country/off-trail to same?

You forgot about hunting in their work clothes, because game only moves in the early morning and right at dark.

battue, how far is the avg shot in standing timber? Just curious.

I have no problem shooting at running game, with limitations of course.

Always get a kick out of one hunter's opinion of what is ethical for sure. Corn feeders in non ag areas are no different than food plots, green fields, bean fields, or whatever.

We agree, just having some fun.

Don’t know what the average would be, but from the last few posts, the jest/advantage seems to be on marking a miss for correction. Well, that is kinda hard to do, by yourself under recoil or with the bullet perhaps finding moss or anything that doesn’t throw smoke.

Addition: Here in Pa I’ve been in the wood where a few yards may be the max, or if things line up just right a couple hundred. Dang few times will a first miss leave a visible mark, visible under recoil, even way out there in our fields. Have a spotter then yes, sometimes.

I hear you. I was just going to point out there are likely some instances where FFP mil/mil scopes would be out of their "comfort zone", and perhaps standing timber/mostly closer ranges would be one of them. I'm guessing running deer in this timber even moreso.

Respectfully Sir,

I don't think it's that MOA is 'so complicated', as much as that Milliradians are 'less complicated'. Especially under a time crunch.

I've used both MOA & Mil, and work in Imperial measurements every day- understanding feet and inches quite well. And I still prefer Mils by quite a bit. To each their own however.

As someone who actually hunts with a mil reticle, I haven't found that to be true at all. A decent mil reticle points just as well as a duplex or #4 or whatever other older reticle you care to use, but it also has advantages at longer distance that the others don't.

I've honestly never understood the guys who claim a mil dot reticle is too busy to hunt with. If they were talking about something like a Horus reticle with lots of little lines, sure, but a simple mil dot reticle is pretty basic and never has caused me any confusion for quick shots.

IMO the confusion most people have is about the type of measurement, which then gets mistakenly associated with the units. Scopes adjust and measure in angles; moa, mils, degrees etc are angles, so it's simple to use those measurements and it doesn't matter much which units one prefers. The confusion comes when people want to measure windage and elevation in inches, which is not an angle but just one leg of an angle so math is required. That makes it more complicated, and it doesn't need to be, which is the point of this whole thread if I understand it right.

I don't understand people's fear of people who just don't LIKE the same things they like. Why are they so fearful. WHY do you fear people who don't want mil/mil scopes?

I hunt with them too, and exactly what did I say that you quoted that you disagree with? You pretty much made my point.

What's fear got to do with with? The original question imposes a judgmental bias. What's wrong with mere preference?

I've owned mil dots and non, scopes with Christmas tree hash marks, etc. and prefer a simple duplex. I've liked a red dot on my .22. My kind of shooting and hunting I don't need mil dot and like minimal sights, so will pass. If I did some shooting where a mil-dot was useful, I'd have one.

Please read my post again, I said my experience is pretty much the opposite of what you stated, so I'm not sure how that "makes your point". A mil/mil scope is no more out of it's comfort zone in the woods than a duplex reticle is, in my experience.

If we're only considering FFP then your comment is valid, especially for the higher zoom factor stuff like a 3-15x, but this discussion is not about FFP it's about mil/mil scopes. I see no reason to confuse the discussion further by adding FFP vs SFP into the mix.

FFP Mil Quad subtended like the 3-9 is pure joy.

Hey JackRyan, I think I have a picture of the girl in your sig line. Couple of days later:.....

My point was it is pointless to use a FFP mil/mil reticle in dense woods when you may shoot 100 yds or less, especially at running deer. Argue with that.

Easy point to dispute, the rifle I hunt with is used in the scrub, on the plains and in the mountains and wears a scope that will cover all situations

That’s mostly the overriding point in both these threads. In woods, set and forget, mpbr lovers, 90% of typical hunting scope use..... it doesn’t matter one whit. OTOH, translating how most use/setup/sight in for those things is in a linear measurement of (inches) vs yards. Which (although still not technically correct) has been translated from an angular unit of measure of MOA, to work great for sighting in at the range. MIL works just fine converted for that, also. When you get out to LR and dialing and using the scope mechanicals and reticle as MOVEABLE measuring/adjustment devices, then there’s just units of angular measure: MOA/MILS.....take your pic, but trying to think of either as some set of linear measured units is just making it far more complicated than it is at that point......whichever you use/like. Just use your range and your MOA/MILS and roll. JMO

To paraphrase a line from Quigley Down Under -
"I didn't say I am afraid of them, I just don't have any use for them"

I think that is the way the average shooter thinks of them. Speaking for myself I have never shot a game animal over 300 yards, even when shooting ground squirrels and PD's I usually shoot in the 100 - 300 yard range. For a hold-over scope I much prefer something simple such as the Leupold LRD - it's fast, simple and does not require any mental gymnastics.

If I were playing the long range game then I would have a scope with MILS/MOA or some other fancy reticle but for my shooting it is not necessary and is just more clutter in the field of view.

drover

Been awhile since we had a good, "my brush is thicker than yours" argument..

No bush in my playground

the MIL Trend is absolute Garbage, ...even The Military don't allocate that Nonsense

LOL. Hope that's sarcasm, or we have another one that's almost sigline worthy.

This thread is hilarious, Buy a 'good' [ss 3-9 hd] scope w/ turrets that match the reticle, read Formi's post on how to use it and go kill schidt. I have had one for about 4 months and have killed coyotes and jackrabbits w/ it and it works as well for hunting as it does for shooting steel. Anyone who can't figure out FFP and an MQ reticle needs to stay w/ what is comfy.


mike r

Why would I change scopes for one situation to another, when one scope can do everything I need? If I have a good 3-9x mil/mil scope on a rifle and decide to hunt in the woods (and I do), I've got no reason at all to swap the scope out, and it's certainly not at a disadvantage.

Maybe your argument is against using a mil scope on something that'll never shoot past 100 yards, but that's really nothing to do with this thread. And still nothing I said backs up your argument. I'm not really sure what you're trying to show here?

Where did your PHD in professional arguing come from? You just like to hear yourself talk.

I have, and use, both. If forced to make a choice (glad I'm not), I'd choose mil/mil.

One thing I like about "mils" is the ease of calculating:

1 mil is equal to 1/1000 of whatever unit you are working in.

For yards, 1 mil is 1 yard at 1,000 yards.

From an earlier example, it is .632 yards at 632 yards. Multiply .632 by 36" and you get 22.75"...I need a calculator or pen and paper to do that.

We were recently shooting .22 LR at 500 yards. Our hold was just over 30 mils. I was asked "How many inches above the target are we holding?"

At 500, 1 mil is .5 yards. Therefore, at that distance, 30 mils is 15 yards. There are three feet/yard...45 feet. Multiply that by 12 and I'm back to needing a calculator or pen and paper.

The reply was telling: "Nah, I understand feet. Thanks".

I will say, however, IF you have a reticle designed for holdover, the adjustments should match the reticle.

Having a mil reticle and moa adjustments, while workable is less than ideal. I've never seen a scope with moa reticle and mil adjustments. Curious. Have any of you?

AND, before anyone calls me out for 500 yards with a .22 lr, remember, I said we were "shooting" at 500 yards, not "hitting" at 500 yards. The occasional hit was fun. Almost a 2 second time of flight to the target and almost a 2 second time of flight for the sound to get back.

Sure is.

At 100 yards or more a FFP mil/mil scope is a benefit.
Say the deer is running at 20 mph perpendicular to you , depending on caliber /bullet/velocity, say a full value wind (10 mph) is 0.5 mils at 100 yards. The 100 yard shot will require 1.0 mil mil lead on the deer. this can easily be done on the retical, aka windshield.

How do you know the deer is running 20 mph? Take 3 average speeds a deer runs at, choose the one closest to your observations. This works all the way out in distance.

You can add or subtract wind to the equation as taking % differences if the deer is not running perpendicular to you.

A running deer can be used in the same way a steady wind.

Gee, those mil/mll scopes sure do make the difficult easy....

The SS 3-9 hd checked a lot of boxes for me and is reliable and affordable, not an easy combo to find.


mike r

I reject the metric system so mil/mil means nothing to me but cluttered lines on a piece of glass. I hunt elk, not terrorists. But to each his own. Last week I watched a world-traveled hunter screw up his math on a $10,000 rifle scope combo. Zeroed at 200 yds he tested zero at 400 and was off 8" high. After we discussed, I said you errantly doubled your vertical scale by a factor of 2. He called the company out in UT, I believe it was and they told him he mistakenly doubled his vertical adjustments.
So he was going to write it all down on masking tape placed on the massive scope tube body. I said it was a good idea.............jeez

LOL.....them multiples of ten are just plumb confusing for some.....others just screw up with rifle and scope adjustments, no matter what.

It’s just a 10-factor of whatever, instead of an arbitrary fraction of 1/60th of 1/360th. LOL

That’s all.

.

Did you at least hear the whoosh?

Errrr...yes, eventually. Irony travels slower out here in desert


mike r

👍

I wish we'd just settle on one of the two.

My pick would be Mil radians mainly because splitting stuff into tenths is easier on my poor math skills.

Why are so many shooters afraid of mil/mil scopes?

My guess would be they're math-challenged, or were beat up in junior high by somebody named Millford--or maybe Millie.

Millhouse was his name and math shaming was his game.

Lol

There is a technical point (which usually goes unnoticed) about the amount of vertical change in the target plane not being the same for successive increments of angular correction. For the relatively small angles involved the difference doesn't amount to too much, but it is there.

I bet her eyes are still rolling around.

I love the debates about whether MIL or MOA is easier because the debates are entertaining. However, I always wonder why proponents of one or the other feel that counting the little marks in the scope is somehow easier with one over the other. Count the little markie things and then adjust that number of little markie things.

Yeah, it CAN be that simple, when it’s just you and your reticle, and you’ve seen every impact or trace while on the gun....but “Come up 4 ‘little markie things’ “...sometimes doesn’t translate well between others outside your scope, or between a dope card and a reticle. Neither matters, you just gotta be able to think in MOA or MIL.....your pick.

As long a you (the shooter) and the "others outside your scope" know what unit you are using, not only CAN it be that simple, it IS that simple, irrespective of the units. The only caveat to that is the assumption that the units of measure on the reticle = the units of measure on the turret. This applies whether we are talking, mis or moa or 1/4" or 1/10" or 10 feet.

Ranging is a useful capability. It doesn't replace a laser rangefinder for long shots, but it can be done without having to break your position.

Any adjustment you make with a mil scope will be in units of centi-yards if your range to target was in yards. That's just the way the math works. You're shooting at 375 yards? Each click is 3.75 centi-yards. Either you like that sort of thing or you don't. Most people don't.

Which is totally irrelevant when attempting to hit your target.

I don't think most men are "afraid" of them at all.

It's more likely they see them as being a long way around to get to the same place for no good reason.

I’m not disagreeing/saying it can’t be, just that the ‘caveats’ can be rather extensive between reticle markings and call outs between folks. 1/2 MOA, 18”, 2 mils, etc.....can all equal 7 squiggly lines or 2.5 dots, etc.....depending on whatever the fancy reticle is marked in. You go to the lowest level until you know everything is on the same page/wavelength....that’s using the system chosen, not the variable graphics on the lens.... unless you know what the other sees in THEIR window.

To the other, centi-who cares? What’s the MIL/MOA value at the range, no matter what the range units are? That’s all you need.....not some linear measurement superimposed onto the angular.

If you think that’s the way it works and that using either system is the ‘long way around’ (especially mils), then you’re using neither correctly. Hell, I’m no LR ‘expert’, and even my dumbass can figure out that ditching some imaginary ruler and needing to contemplate some greater meaning into either system is the slooooow part. LOL

I think it's pretty clear to most of us the OP's use of "afraid" wasn't meaning trembling in fear, but avoidance just like you've displayed. bigwhoop's post on the previous page is another example.

IMO after all the discussions about it, anyone who still thinks a mil/mil scope is "the long way around" is being intentionally ignorant. It is the easy way, some guys just refuse to accept how simple it is. It's only difficult if you make it difficult.

I spent 50 years here in Alaska killing critters and all was well until I discovered the "Optics Forum" on the Camp Fire. I even did most of my hunting and shooting with "set & forget" Leupold scopes zeroed for 200 yards.

Then I found out the truly good shots were shooting further then I ever dreamed of shooting at a critter. They are turret twisting, ranging and hitting way out there, I was awe struck because they might miss a first shot at steel, but they always got first shot killing hits on critters, no matter what the distance. It's not just them, they usually have a minimum of one and often more people assisting them with range finders, spotting scope, scouting, etc. After what seems to me like for ever they take the shot and "bang flop".

I will never experience that type of hunting/shooting here in Alaska. Most Alaskan game is shot well under 200 yards, more like 150 yards. Often any extra time is spent making sure the antlers or horns are legal or the bear does not have cubs and quickly looking for an improvised rest.

But, that has not stopped me from getting a couple of quality FFP Mil Mil scopes to learn something new and extend my shooting range. I even have a CDS and turrets and ballistic tape from Kenton Industries.

When I shot the bull moose this year I fired immediately after I saw 3 brow tines on the left side. Scope was on 10 X and I estimated the range was about 150 yards and I had a good improvised rest.

I admit to being a bit "scared" by the mil mil stuff, but know it is not that hard if one puts forth a little effort.