Reticles - Mil vs MOA

[Pthfndr]

Lots of people are asking these days about getting into long range shooting, and what scope and reticle they should get.

Disclaimer: I am not an "expert", but shoot my fair share of long range and steel matches with a bolt gun. After talking with a lot of people that do the same I think the following is some good basic information.

Hopefully some of the other experienced long range scoped rifle shooters will chime in with their information.

Opinions are varied. Mostly it comes down to what one is comfortable using, and what you have to know and remember to get the most out of the reticle you use. These days it goes without saying that if the option to have the knobs and the reticle both MOA or both MIL, it's better to do so. Not all scope manufacturers offer that option. It's not a deal killer, just nicer to have.

There are literally dozens of reticle choices depending on who you get a scope from. Most are variations on a theme and offer more or less detail depending on the needs of the shooter. When it comes to MOA reticles pretty much the only choice is lines. With MIL you can have either lines or dots. Lines are exactly that, whereas dots are circles and ovals of specific size, but centered at the same place as a MIL line would be.

Typical reticles.

The Nightforce NP-R1, a MOA reticle.



The Nightforce MLR, a MIL reticle.



Since by volume Leupold is probably the largest, their TMR, a MIL reticle.



With MIL dots there are 2 types. The Army dot, and the USMC dot.

Army



USMC



Whether MIL or MOA, the reticle is not used just for ranging, but also for "holding over/under" for elevation, or "holding off" for windage instead of dialing the knobs. This is most useful when engaging targets at different ranges in rapid succession, or when making multiple quick shots in changing wind conditions.

Some people will ask, "Which reticle gives better accuracy, or the ability to make a finer compensation for adjustment?"

Well, when it comes to MILs, if you ask the Army and Marines, you will get 2 different answers because they each calculate it differently. The Army says a MIL is 3.53 inches at 100 yards, the Marines say it's 3.6" at 100 yards. When it comes to MOA there are also 2 different answers because some are made in Shooters MOA, which is 1" at 100 yards, and some are made in True MOA, which is 1.047 inches at 100 yards.

But since most people can't make really fast rapid calculations in their head in the field, and often times in competition (or on the battle field) time does not allow one the luxury of pulling out a calculator, we'll go with the Army MIL definition and Shooter MOA because it makes math easy.

I made the chart below (I'm pretty sure I got it right, and if I didn't I know someone will correct me) so you can see what what the different gradations are in inches at various distances.

On most scopes with MOA lines the lines will have gradations of .5 and 1 moa, MIL line scopes will have them in .2, .25, .5 and 1 mil. This is not taking into account the thickness of the lines themselves, just the main horizontal and vertical lines. Mil dots are a different animal and take a lot more practice to use.

[MontClaire]

get leupold , not too expensive and not cheaply made. as with specs, look for tactical mid range to long range types on it's website. leupold tmr reticle works for me. everything else is a rangefinder from bushnell, about 400 bucks, wind estimator-79 and horus software. you need to calculate coriolis at 1000 yards, the earth turns from the time you pull the trigger till the projectile perforates your target.....as you will find out. i use moa.

[Pthfndr]

get leupold , not too expensive and not cheaply made. as with specs, look for tactical mid range to long range types on it's website. leupold tmr reticle works for me. everything else is a rangefinder from bushnell, about 400 bucks, wind estimator-79 and horus software. you need to calculate coriolis at 1000 yards, the earth turns from the time you pull the trigger till the projectile perforates your target.....as you will find out. i use moa.

I'm not looking to buy anything. I posted this for informational purposes about reticles, not brands of scopes.

[Jicko]

Buy matching reticle/knobs.

If you want a mil-reticle, get mil knobs. If you want a moa knob, get moa reticle. NF provides that option.
And it IS the DEAL KILLER..... if you are spending any significant $$ on high-end gas, MIL-MIL or MOA-MOA is a MUST HAVE.

TMR and MLR or NP-R2.... all these are good.... you do want some finer markings... for hold over or wind hold purpose.

Problem with Leupold is that they don't have a good MOA based reticle... and most, if not all, Leupolds have MOA-based knobs.

[grandslam]

I think that Jicko hit it spot on.....for the money that most of us spend on a scope, the knobs and the reticle should match. I am a firm believer in Nightforce because I think that you get the most bang for your buck. I know several shooters that use them regularly and we dont see many problems occur with the scopes. I am also a fan of the MOA/MOA system, I think that its easier to get started with this simply because most people can think in inches before they can in Mils. The NPR1 reticle that I use is great, especially for what pathfinder is talking about, holdovers for wind and elevation.

[CRTguns]

Pthfndr is just now graduating form a german post reticle

But he did outshoot me with that post reticle- and I was using a MKIV TMR.

[Bongos]

USO RDMOA is my choice, MOA all the way, easy to calculate. If you have to go Mil, I guess USO GAP is also good, in NF my favorite is NP-R2

[ar15barrels]

First, Having a calibrated reticle with known-marks is uber-important.
You can't consistently hold for elevation or wind if you don't have some sort of calibrated scale to work with.
Matching the knobs to the reticle is the 2nd most important thing.
If you fire a shot and you observe that the impact was 2marks low and 1mark right, you know that you can adjust or hold 2marks high and 1mark left and your next round will be a hit if the wind has not changed.
If your knobs don't match you reticle, you have to do more calculations to figure out how many marks in the scope equate to how many clicks on the scope knob.
The 3rd most important thing is being able to quickly range the distance to target.
This requires you to know the size of the target.
The more accurate your assessment of the target's actual size, the more accurate your range estimation will be.

Here's my take on MIL vs. MOA reticles and knobs.
I'm an MOA guy, so my overview may be biased, but I think that even the MIL guys will agree that overview is factually correct.

The actual choice of either MIL or MOA is a ford vs chevy arguement.
Both cars will get you to work every day and both measurement systems will get you hits when used properly.

There are basically two camps supporting the two different systems.
First, you have the MIL crowd.
1 MIL is 3.6" at 100yds and can easily be rounded to 3.5" for ease of calculations in your head.
This rounding will create a 2.8% margin of error.
The biggest thing the MIL crowd have going for them is the military's use of that system and all the development the supporting of MIL-specific tools, binoculars, scopes etc.
The basic premise why you should get a MIL reticle is "because military/leo uses it".
When used in a rangefinding role, the MIL system requires a more complicated calculation to figure out how far away a known-dimension target is located.
The accuracy of the MIL system at rangefinding relies on the ability of the user to divide up the milradian markings as precisely as possible when measuring the angular size of a target.
To reach 1/10MIL reading, you have to divide up the space between two dots into 10 segments and then approximate how many segments your target occupies.
Try this: hold your thumb and first finger out in front of you like you are measuring something.
Now look across the room and find something that fits say 1/3 or 2/3 of the distance between your thumb/finger.
Do not adjust your fingers to fit the object.
Now determine how many 1/10's of that space between thumb/finger does the object fill.
Is it 2/10? Is it 3/10? Is it 4/10?
That's what you need to determine when measuring the height to 1/10 of a MIL.

Then, you have the MOA crowd.
1 MOA is 1.047" at 100yds and can easily be rounded to 1" for ease of calculations in your head.
This rounding will create a 4.5% margin of error.
The biggest thing the MOA crowd have going for them is the ingrained use of inches as a common measurement system.
The basic premise why you should get an MOA reticle is "because everyone knows what an inch looks like".
When used in a rangefinding role, the MOA system has a less complicated calculation to figure out how far away a known-dimension target is located.
It's easier to calculate a distance in MOA without a calculator as there is no "27.7 MIL factor" in the formula.
The MIL crowd will be quick to point out that for the best accuracy of measurements, you still need to use a calculator and they are correct, but for a really quick (no calculator) range calculation, the MOA formula is simpler.
The accuracy of the MOA system at rangefinding relies on the finer resolution of MOA markings when measuring the angular size of a target.
To reach a 1/4 MOA reading, you only have to divide up the space between two hash marks into 4 segments and then approximate how many segments your target occupies.
Try this: hold your thumb and first finger out in front of you like you are measuring something.
Now look across the room and find something that fits say 1/3 or 2/3 of the distance between your thumb/finger.
Do not adjust your fingers to fit the object.
Now determine how many 1/4's of that space between thumb/finger does the object fill.
Is it 1/4? Is it 1/2? Is it 3/4?
That's what you need to determine when measuring the height to 1/4 of an MOA.

The adjustment of a single 1/10 MIL click is roughy 3/8" at 100yds so that's the intrinisic accuracy of the MIL system.
The adjustment of a single 1/4 MOA click is roughy 1/4" at 100yds so that's the intrinisic accuracy of the MOA system.
So, while MIL clicks are not as precise as MOA clicks, they also requires fewer clicks to adjust the scope from one elevation setting to another elevation setting.
This is an important factor when you need to adjust the scope from your 100yd zero to another distance quickly.
Let's say your bullet drops 54" from your 100yd zero to your 500yd zero.
That would equate to 10.25 MOA or 3 MIL of adjustment.
If you were to compare two nightforce scopes, the MOA knobs have 10 MOA of adjustment on one turn and the MIL knobs have 5 MIL of adjustment on one turn.
So, you can see it's quicker to turn the MIL knob 2/3 of a turn than it is to turn the MOA knob 1 full turn plus another click.
However, at 500yds, a single 1/4 MOA click equals 1.3" while a single 1/10 MIL click equals 1.8" so you can also see that the MOA system has 30% finer resolution when trying to dial-in your impact precisely.

My summary in support of the MOA system is that you have a finer resolution to work with that's easier to use for rangefinding without a calculator, but fewer companies making scopes with MOA reticles.
My summary in support of the MIL system is that you have quicker adjustments and more support in the variety of scope manufacturers and the wonderful "mil-dot master" sliderule that eliminates the need of a calculator to quickly estimate ranges.

[Vu 308]

Ford Vs. Chevy.

Use what works for you and allows you to shoot well.

I have never lost points due to me using MOA vs Mils and I doubt Rob lost points using the mil system.

Vu

[M. Sage]

The only thing that bugs me about the mil system is that it's 1 mil isn't a real number.

There are 2(pi) radians in a circle. Huh? Pi is a number with an infinite decimal.

Maybe it's the mechanic in me, but a degree is finite, and it won't change. I like that. A radian (and therefore a milliradian) is going to change depending on how far out you calculate pi.

It's just something that bugs the crap out of me.

[anthonyca]

Thanks Randall. Also thanks OP.

[Novadesigns]

The only thing that bugs me about the mil system is that it's 1 mil isn't a real number.

There are 2(pi) radians in a circle. Huh? Pi is a number with an infinite decimal.

Maybe it's the mechanic in me, but a degree is finite, and it won't change. I like that. A radian (and therefore a milliradian) is going to change depending on how far out you calculate pi.

It's just something that bugs the crap out of me.

Well that's true, but it doesn't really matter, because:

A: you can't subdivide in your reticule fine enough for it to matter.

and

B: You aren't going to be able to shoot far enough for it to allow you to make a mistake.

For all intents and purposes either system will work very well for you to make accurate enough calls to get hits, depending on how well you can accurately subdivide your reticule and measure objects.

For my 43 year-old eyes I would rather divide into quarters than into tenths. And I know inches and can do the MOA math in my head, which is faster. MOA is for me.

[Timberwolf]

Whether one chooses to use MOA or MIL reticle is as much a personal preference as whether you drive a Ford or Chevy or dress in earth tones or basic conservative black / grey. The same is true with the knob choices, MOA vs. MIL, matching the reticle vs. not. Both systems have their high points and low points as Randall has already pointed out.

One of the services that we offer at APS is mounting and zeroing scopes for customers. You would be surprised the number of people I see on a weekly basis with Leupy, Nikon, Zeiss, S&B and even US Optics scopes (and that many more of the lesser brands) that don’t truly understand how to use them, what those funny dots or hashes mean or how to “get it on paper” (you have to love the current love of the “tacticool sniper rifle”) As a result I get to look through, use and in turn explain many different reticles and knob set ups.

In looking at everything there is no real true answer of which is better except that it depends on the person using it, how they were trained and what they feel comfortable with.

Personally I’ve used a MIL reticle with MOA knobs for years. It is what I was trained with, and what I am comfortable with. In my mind I know my holdovers, leads and wind corrections in mils, I know my come ups in minutes. I can also convert one to the other with no problem such as if my come up is 7 MOA, I know that I can holdover 2 mils and if my shot is .5 mils low I can dial in a 1.75 MOA correction. As to ranging I carry a mildot master in my databook cover and a thin credit card sized solar calc in my stock pack.

Recently I purchased a SN3 with the Type 1 MOA reticle thinking I may convert over to MOA/MOA for many of the same reasons outlined as high points. I only got to use it very briefly before recent events forced me to sell it, but I did realize that I’m not fond of hash marks (too busy for my bad eyes) and like my dots, and I would have to completely retrain myself to think totally in MOA instead of MIL/MOA. In other words if I’m every in a position again to get a US Optics scope it will have a Mildot (not hashes) reticle. As to knobs, I prefer MOA with .25 MOA corrections. Switching to MIL means I loose .10” in precision and it would just be too much of a hassle to relearn come ups in MILs.

In sum, guess I’m just old school but make mine MIL/MOA please (preferably with a Gen II mildot).

[Jonathan Doe]

I just use the scope with the mildot and that is all I need. If I don't use a mildot scope, then I use a range finder. I just want to keep my equipment simple. Some scope are too crowded with all the bells and whistles on the reticle.

[Mute]

I'm in the same camp as Timberwolf. I've been using MIL reticle with MOA knobs for so long it's second nature. I'll dial my initial shot on the knobs but, all subsequent shots re going to be mil holds with the reticle.

If you're starting from scratch without any experience then I believe it's best to have matching knobs and reticles. Just plain easier. As to MOA vs. MIL. I'm agnostic. As long as one works better for you who really cares which one is "better?"