Reticles - Mil vs MOA

[SDJim]

Not that I've really thought about the difference, but now that I am. Wouldn't MIL's be better suited to estimating / shooting odd distances vice MOA's where your shooting known distances? Well that and everything I have for HP Rifle is set up for MOA's (scorebooks, the targets themselves).

[ar15barrels]

Not that I've really thought about the difference, but now that I am. Wouldn't MIL's be better suited to estimating / shooting odd distances vice MOA's where your shooting known distances? Well that and everything I have for HP Rifle is set up for MOA's (scorebooks, the targets themselves).

You don't need to range known-distance targets.

[rksimple]

Theres already been a lot of info posted. Let me add and correct some misconceptions. As Randall noted, if you were to compare a standard mildot reticle to a, say, NPR1, the NPR1 would have the advantage in being able to discern down to the .25 MOA. But thats not an apples to apples comparison. The NPR1 isn't a standard reticle, and those who would be buying such a reticle would also be looking at improved mil reticles. I have .2 mil tick marks on my P4fine and at 25x, getting down to discerning .05 mil is EASY. So that supposed advantage is right out the window.

The only advantage MOA has is the ease in calculating distance. It can be done easier (for some, lets face it, some people can't divide without paper and pencil, let alone reduce the result by 5%). Easiest would be a shooters MOA/MOA scope. That would eliminate some of the variables.

But thats the issue with most MOA adjusted scopes. Call Leupold and ask someone if they use 1/4 in at 100 yards as adjustment or 1/4 MOA. Then call back an hour later talking to someone else and you'll get a different answer. Then you'll get out to the range with your loopy and you'll find they were both wrong. Mil adjusted scopes tend to be much more consistent across the board.

For me, I wanted a Schmidt. So if I wanted to have things matching, it had to be mils. In reality, both systems work equally well. I don't miss having the "finer" adjustment of 1/4 MOA (vs .1 mil) and my scores don't show any ill effect either. Most tactical guys will tell you that .1 mil or .5 MOA adjustments are better for a field rifle anyway.

Nightforce offers killer bang for the buck and allows you to get matching reticle/adjustments easily.

Most of this is purely academic anyway as on any given day we could all get our a**es handed to us by some dude with a 700p and a fixed 10x scope. If he knows his rifle and shoots straighter than us, he wins. Doesn't matter we had cooler gear. The sweet gear just gives us all the help we need in this competitive arena.

[trinydex]

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.

it might bug you to realize if you use certain fractions in your degrees calculation you'll also end up with irrational numbers.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

[CSTactical]

Good Info Rob.

Here is another link to more info. https://www.cstactical.com/Magazine/Blog-Articles/MIL-vs-MOA.html

Mike @ CSGW

[glock_this]

How about a sticky thread on explaining all the different types of reticules themselves & why you might want it over another?

Red/Green/Amber Triangles, Red/Green/Amber Dots, Duplex, German #4 crosshair, Mil-dot, circle, standard crosshair, mark 4 tactical, and the list goes on....

[rksimple]

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.

Mr. MOA himself using a calculator with an MOA reticle.

[Mute]

Mr. MOA himself using a calculator with an MOA reticle.

Ha ha! Busted!

[ar15barrels]

Ha ha! Busted!

That's unfair.
He knows I could have put a shot on ANY of those targets with the distances obtained in my head.
The only need for the calculator was to be the more accurate which was required in the stage.

I stand-by the fact that MOA is still faster/easier for a quick ranging job.

[rksimple]

Next year I think we'll have a chance to shoot using our ranges. MOA isn't too bad. Worked out ok for me.

[SteelRain]

personally, I like the finest reticle available. The less crap to look at in your scope the better you can see your target.

Also most reticles such as a duplex from leupold use a MILL and some MOA widths on the lines for their reticles. You can use your reticle for good reference with out all the fancy dots and lines.

[Pthfndr]

personally, I like the finest reticle available. The less crap to look at in your scope the better you can see your target.

Also most reticles such as a duplex from leupold use a MILL and some MOA widths on the lines for their reticles. You can use your reticle for good reference with out all the fancy dots and lines.

That may be true for shooting known distance such as bench rest, or when hunting. But in the tactical rifle competition world, the need to rapidly transition from one distance to another requires being able to hold over/under fairly precisely. Something you cannot do with a duplex reticle.

[iwn730]

I like MOA especially with the new kac bullet flight app for the iphone

[Krabby Patty]

FYI - Use the following link for a trigonometry lesson about MOA and MIL:

http://files.thetallengineer.com/RangeEstimation_Rev1.pdf

[nrakid88]

I like MOA especially with the new kac bullet flight app for the iphone

Hahahaha, I thought you were kidding untill I googled it, lol