Thread: Mil/Mil vs MOA/MOA

Lots to consider guys.

Thank you for all the advice

I'm happy with either, though I've not used MIL. I prefer MOA as it is a finer adjustment. It is also handy at the range where 7mm holes are about the size of a click and my 24mm dot targets are about 3 clicks. Makes it easy to make adjustments to zero and work out rough group sizes from the bays. I'm happy doing the mental arithmetic to convert in either units or a mixture of the units. The reason I buy MOA is there are more of them on the used market, I'm a cheap bastard.

I have a mixture of Mil and Moa scopes. Its doesn't actually matter a single bit when it comes to having to dial something. Think of it as a number that is actually meaningless; you dial the number calculated by your ballistics solver and do the thing you do (shoot the target). Recording and verifying the data is likely to be more important.

Mixing the two within the same scope is about the dumbest thing you can do. An example of this would be a Mildot reticle with MOA adjustment.

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.

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 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 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 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

Yes it is all opinions and preferences.. my experience went from a SFP MOA scope to a FFP mil scope... I will never go back.