Thread: Mil/Mil vs MOA/MOA

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.

Got to keep the grey matter firing somehow uncle

Originally Posted by Gibo

Got to keep the grey matter firing somehow uncle

That is what NZ Herald Sudoku is for Gibo.

Originally Posted by Rushy

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.

Shit that might drive you to drink @ Rushy ; Waikato of course?????

Originally Posted by Rushy

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.

Rushy, did someone slip you a real beer (not Waikato) to make you buy that? if it is SFP it really doesn't matter much anyway, as at some zoom level it will likely be an MOA reticle.

You best to learn both, but there is no need to be an expert in either.

Majority of the scopes, especially low to mid range, uses 1/4 MOA dials. So there is no escape MOA. Also people tend to talk accuracy in MOA. You hear people say their rifle shoots 1 MOA, how often do you hear people say their rifle shows 0.3 Mil?

But the concept of mil is important. For one thing, a lot of scopes have mil dot reticle (even though the majority of them still uses 1/4 MOA clicks). Reticles with MIL based subtention are far more common than otherwise. If you have been high school educated in New Zealand, you would have learned all your maths and physics in metric and decimals. To think of the height of a person or a fence post, the acceleration of the gravitational pull, in terms of metres and calculate everything in decimal is just far more intuitive.

Having said all that, you can actually get by without understanding all that really well. You just need a range finder and a ballistic app on your phone. Do the range reading and then punch numbers in the app. Voila.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Having said all that, you can actually get by without understanding all that really well. You just need a range finder and a ballistic app on your phone. Do the range reading and then punch numbers in the app. Voila.

I really wish people would stop saying this.

But now here is the rub.... if your reticule is in the second focal plane then, unless you are at the precise correct zoom that it is calibrated for, any calculations using reticule divisions is meaning less.

Originally Posted by LBD

But now here is the rub.... if your reticule is in the second focal plane then, unless you are at the precise correct zoom that it is calibrated for, any calculations using reticule divisions is meaning less.

Indeed. But it will often be close enough for you to work out your correction. I prefer the SFP reticle for small targets, where the reticle stays the same size, so shrinks relative to the target as you zoom in.

Originally Posted by LBD

But now here is the rub.... if your reticule is in the second focal plane then, unless you are at the precise correct zoom that it is calibrated for, any calculations using reticule divisions is meaning less.

Yes I found out the hard way that they're glorified fixed power scopes.

Works mint on ten times zoom.

But point of impact is well off at 2.5 zoom. Enough to completely miss a deer at less than 50 metres

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Indeed. But it will often be close enough for you to work out your correction. I prefer the SFP reticle for small targets, where the reticle stays the same size, so shrinks relative to the target as you zoom in.

I used to prefer this but the more I shoot the more I prefer FFP scopes...............mind you that won't be much longer once our lords and masters have finished punishing us!!

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

Yes I found out the hard way that they're glorified fixed power scopes.

Works mint on ten times zoom.

But point of impact is well off at 2.5 zoom. Enough to completely miss a deer at less than 50 metres

Not sure if I understood correctly, but on a decent second focal place scope (or any scope), the point of impact should not shift as you adjust magnification - but the hash marks/holdovers are only accurate at one magnification, but zero should not alter with magnification. Its fairly common on faulty or low quality scopes that the zero does shift with magnification, but it shouldn't.

Originally Posted by ChrisW

Not sure if I understood correctly, but on a decent second focal place scope (or any scope), the point of impact should not shift as you adjust magnification - but the hash marks/holdovers are only accurate at one magnification, but zero should not alter with magnification. Its fairly common on faulty or low quality scopes that the zero does shift with magnification, but it shouldn't.

Well to be fair. I was on a hill above it and just aimed at the middle but if the deers shoulder. So it's quite possible I didn't account for the height difference. Just was very annoying

Originally Posted by Mauser308

Fall or rise will do that, the bullet thinks it's travelling a much shorter path and doesn't listen to the laws of gravity. There's a correction chart for it.

The biggest difference is not mil/moa, it's FFP or SFP. FFP generally are always in mil, SFP are generally found in MOA. For smaller targets at longer ranges, FFP is crap as the increased size of the graticle can block out your target if you zoom-zoom it. Had a very expensive optic for a loaner that did that, stupid idea. On the other hand, SFP stays the same size (but does throw the measuring ability out) so you can range, set, check with the scope set to the right power, zoom and shoot on SFP. Try that on FFP, range, set, can't see the f*&ken thing, back down, back down, gawd thats small...

FFP is a good idea if you happen to only be shooting at man-sized targets on a two-way range, but there can be limits to practicality in the real world.

For a sfp scope does the ballistic compensator markings on the reticle change with the magnification? Seems to me to be different depending on the magnification