Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Alpine DPT


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62
Like Tree58Likes

Thread: Mil/Mil vs MOA/MOA

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Jafa land
    Posts
    4,023

    Mil/Mil vs MOA/MOA

    Eventually I will have enough saved for a decent dialling scope.

    I have done a bit of reading up on mil rads vs MOA.

    Which one do you prefer and why?

    What sort of reticle do you think works best with each one.

    Cheers.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Otago
    Posts
    112
    Reticle is a matter of preference........MOA would be the standard but i think eye and finger control make all the difference......people blame bad trigger, bad sights..... but it comes down to sight picture and a clean pull of the trigger without moving the gun.

  3. #3
    LBD
    LBD is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Murchison
    Posts
    378
    Are you a metric thinker (MM or CM) or an Imperial thinker (Inches yards feet etc)

    If metric go with mils... 1 click = 10 mm at 100m

    If you are in imperial thinker go MOA... 1 click is usually 1/4 inch at 100 yards.

    From that you can reason that 1/4 inch is smaller than 10mm... so M OA should be more accurate...but really 4 mm at 100m is nothing...
    Moa Hunter, xtightg and Tribrit like this.

  4. #4
    Member stagstalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    North Island, New Zealand
    Posts
    486
    Whats the application?
    rossi.45 likes this.

  5. #5
    Fulla
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cni
    Posts
    1,474
    Should have done a poll.
    Something's just lend themselves better to metric or imperial. Reloading has the same question,
    Everyday stuff I'm metric like most of new Zealand, but not for the other two examples.
    I don't know if 1/4 is smaller than 10mm, I don't have to. Don't mix and match, pick one and stick to it.

  6. #6
    Caretaker
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hawkes Bay
    Posts
    6,511
    Moa Moa
    A big fast bullet beats a little fast bullet every time

  7. #7
    Member Flyblown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Waikato
    Posts
    1,414
    Doesn't matter, both work equally well. Thinking in terms of "clicks" works for me, I use a rangefinder and a laminated drop table. Working in clicks sorts out any confusion. With windage, its a hold on the animal, else its too much wind.
    Last edited by Flyblown; 02-09-2019 at 08:24 AM.
    Puffin and chainsaw like this.
    Britain's Favourite Dog 2019!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tasman
    Posts
    977
    Personal preference.
    At the end of the day they both do the exact same thing.
    Mil rad is a slightly courser adjustment.
    Personally I use Mil rad.
    I am also careful to think of corrections in Mil, not in inches or cm vs the distance then converted to MOA or Mils.
    A 0.1 value adjustment that is always a 1000th the distance I am shooting makes sense to me.
    Moa Hunter likes this.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Jafa land
    Posts
    4,023
    Quote Originally Posted by nowool View Post
    Reticle is a matter of preference........MOA would be the standard but i think eye and finger control make all the difference......people blame bad trigger, bad sights..... but it comes down to sight picture and a clean pull of the trigger without moving the gun.
    I had a look through a night force shv with an moa/moa reticle which looked like a useful one.

    Quote Originally Posted by LBD View Post
    Are you a metric thinker (MM or CM) or an Imperial thinker (Inches yards feet etc)

    If metric go with mils... 1 click = 10 mm at 100m

    If you are in imperial thinker go MOA... 1 click is usually 1/4 inch at 100 yards.

    From that you can reason that 1/4 inch is smaller than 10mm... so M OA should be more accurate...but really 4 mm at 100m is nothing...
    I have always had cheap moa scopes so usually think in that but metric for every thing else.

    Quote Originally Posted by stagstalker View Post
    Whats the application?
    Hunting and prs style events.

    Quote Originally Posted by bully View Post
    Should have done a poll.
    Something's just lend themselves better to metric or imperial. Reloading has the same question,
    Everyday stuff I'm metric like most of new Zealand, but not for the other two examples.
    I don't know if 1/4 is smaller than 10mm, I don't have to. Don't mix and match, pick one and stick to it.
    That's a good point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flyblown View Post
    Doesn't matter, both work equally well. Thinking in terms of "clicks" works for me, I a rangefinder and a wee laminated drop table. Working in clicks sorts out any confusion. With windage, its a hold on the animal, else its too much wind.
    Great idea!

  10. #10
    Member ANTSMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,383
    metric mils- any calcs you make are in multiples of 10, moa is in multiples of 4(if scope is 1/4moa clicks)- for me harder to get me head around............................................ ............
    Russian 22. likes this.
    Rule 4: Identify your target beyond all doubt

  11. #11
    Member Puffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Porirua
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyblown View Post
    Doesn't matter, both work equally well. Thinking in terms of "clicks" works for me, I use a rangefinder and a laminated drop table. Working in clicks sorts out any confusion. With windage, its a hold on the animal, else its too much wind.
    Exactly this for me too. If using a pre-prepared drop table then from a practical standpoint it's all just clicks so it really doesn't matter.

    Inherently though I consider Milrads to be the better system, for the same reason that we are metricated and use a decimal system of counting.
    Russian 22. likes this.

  12. #12
    Sending it Gibo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Hill
    Posts
    21,064
    Im a metric person but if it goes bang I work in Imperial for some reason. Yards, MPH, inches, thou's etc etc....I think its simply what I started on in the shooting world and it just compounded. In saying that anyone that is good at maths shouldn't have any issue between the two.
    gadgetman and Russian 22. like this.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Tauranga
    Posts
    1,184
    Depends what you are using the scope for. A good reticle for shooting targets ( for me ) was a MIL / MIL one with proper hash marks on a FFP scope.
    Drift / elevation was easily matched to the fall of shot. So adjustment was either holding off by the number of hash marks or by dialing them in. ( look up GD 2 reticles)
    It would be far to "busy " for a hunting scope though.
    Russian 22. likes this.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Rotorua
    Posts
    308
    For me it MIL's for the simple fact that as @ANTSMAN pointed out they are 10 based like our metric system and that's easier on my brain. But as long as the reticle and turret are the same it does really matter. I reckon they need to match for 2 reasons.

    (1) When I Zero my rifle I fire a 3 shot group, go up to the target and put a bright orange sticker right in the center of that group then go back to rifle and measure from point of aim to point of impact (sticker) using the scope, then adjust as required. Shoot another group to confirm and usually job done. I have lost count as to how many people I see chasing there tails trying to sight in using a ruler and trying to work out how many clicks to adjust (Especially with MOA scope's and our metric range)

    (2) When shooting at distance if you can spot your shots and have a miss you can measure this with scope and adjust aim accordingly. Easier with no math if MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA.
    Moa Hunter and Russian 22. like this.
    If power matters, recoil will be a necessary evil

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    529
    When I was first trying to learn about MILs it was confusing because most info was written by Americans who use MIL with yards/inches, which IMO ruins its simplicity. (not much of an issue if using a ballistics calculator where you just follow whatever it tells you)
    They will tell you that a MIL = 3.6" at 100y (which is technically correct but more difficult than it needs to be)
    I will tell you a MIL is a 10cm circle at 100m, and each .1mil click = 1cm

    Use Mils and meters to make it as simple as possible if not relying on a ballistic app-
    For example distance to target with MILS and ranging in Meters = Target size in CM, divide by Target size in MILS, x 10 = distance to target in meters
    If you used MIL and yards, then distance to target = Target size in Inches, divide by target size in MILS, x27.7 = distance to target in yards.
    Trying to work that out off hand is much easier in MILS / Meters
    Russian 22. likes this.

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!