Thread: 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.

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.

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...

Whats the application?

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.

Moa Moa

Originally Posted by 7mmsaum

Moa Moa

Praise the lord and pass the sausage rolls, the correct answer has been outed.

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.

Originally Posted by nowool

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.

Originally Posted by LBD

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.

Originally Posted by stagstalker

Whats the application?

Hunting and prs style events.

Originally Posted by bully

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.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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!

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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.

MOA MOA for me, but doesn’t really matter which really as both are just angles. As other say, it’s easy to overthink this, but you can just think in clicks and have a drop chart taped to your stock. I don’t like busy reticles and measuring adjustments using mil dots isn’t my thing.

Don’t forget that drop charts are only as good as the info used to produce them. Differences in temp, pressure, altitude, azimuth and even spin drift all have to be accounted for, esp at long range. Some of those factors make very little difference but they all add up. That’s why I’m not a fan of CDS type reticles too. I don’t see the point of having a good quality dialling scope and then limiting accuracy to the set parameters dictated by the dialling system.

I did a test in the US on temp effects with my .300 Win Mag. Can’t remember exact temps now, but they were about -2C and +24C. At 500 yards there was a 19 inch difference in drop with the same loads. Admittedly that’s a big temp range but it makes the point about the limitations of fixed inputs.

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.

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............................................ ............

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.

Originally Posted by Gibo

In saying that anyone that is good at maths shouldn't have any issue between the two.

I have one of my scopes with a mil dot reticle and MOA adjustments. She’s a hoot and a holler when you haven’t used it in a while.