MOA VS MILL optics?...
 
Notifications
Clear all

MOA VS MILL optics? What do you prefer to use?


Rambo03
(@rambo03)
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 28
Topic starter  

What do you prefer to use?

 

Discuss


Quote
Topic Tags
Rambo03
(@rambo03)
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 28
Topic starter  

No preferences out there?


ReplyQuote
Gratewhitehuntr
(@gratewhitehuntr)
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1261
 

Explain the differences for us please.

 

I feel confident that your question will be answered, as you try to formulate a "100 words or less" type response.


ReplyQuote
Bigbore
(@bigbore)
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 173
 

I've been using Mil because it breaks down in units of 10, but I'm indifferent. I think of the adjustments as being, MOA  .25" at 100 yards and Mil being roughly .33".


ReplyQuote
Rambo03
(@rambo03)
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 28
Topic starter  
Posted by: @gratewhitehuntr

Explain the differences for us please.

 

I feel confident that your question will be answered, as you try to formulate a "100 words or less" type response.

 

Now what do you prefer?


ReplyQuote
RockDoc65
(@rockdoc65)
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 123
 

This question made me realize that I actually have a "rule" regarding sighting systems that I didn't intentionally put into place.

Light weight hunting rifles get low powered scopes (4X or 3-9X) with capped MOA turrets and a simple reticle; either a plain cross-hair or a "duplex."

The heavy, long-range rifles get high magnification variables with "tactical" turrets, milliradian adjustments, side-parallax adjustment, lots of adjustment range, "mil-dot" reticles, zero stops, large diameter tubes, and generally sturdy construction.

So to answer your question; I prefer a MIL/MIL system. However, on a hunting system where it's zeroed, capped and forgotten, it doesn't really matter. This jives with my soldier/scientist background and appreciation of the metric system. "A MIL is a meter at a kilometer."

I love questions that make you evaluate yourself.

(MIL=MRAD=Milliradian or one one-thousandth of a radian.)


Rambo03 thanked
ReplyQuote
Gratewhitehuntr
(@gratewhitehuntr)
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1261
 
Posted by: @rambo03

 

Now what do you prefer?

Pretty weak answer.

If you had participated in the exercise, re-reading your own text would make it clear, if your brain had a higher affinity for one system or the other.

 

 

Split the range into multiple, shorter ranges. Add up the 20s, 50s, or 100s. MUCH more reliable than guessing the entire distance.

SFP Duplex can be used as a simple rangefinder. (shout out to RockDoc65 shooting to 350yds with a 4X)

Find a reticle which corresponds to your cartridge's MRT, adjust it, make notes.

 

So, I rangefind by eye, and have WHAT-EVER reticle with known POI @x-y-z distance.

Every reticle is a BDC reticle.

The system doesn't matter, or rather, has been superseded by my own system.

Yeah, I'm a hick. Inches then?


ReplyQuote
RockDoc65
(@rockdoc65)
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 123
 

(shout out to RockDoc65 shooting to 350yds with a 4X)

Oh, hang on now. I never said anything about shooting at tree-fiddy with a four power. I'm workin' with 55-year-old eyeballs. I do shoot at 300m with a .22LR but I use 25X and the wind is boss. Seriously, if I'm hitting a 16-inch gong 60-70% of the time, I'm having an awesome day...and it must be dead calm.


ReplyQuote
CyberDyneSystems
(@cyberdynesystems)
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 21
 
Posted by: @rockdoc65

This question made me realize that I actually have a "rule" regarding sighting systems that I didn't intentionally put into place.

Light weight hunting rifles get low powered scopes (4X or 3-9X) with capped MOA turrets and a simple reticle; either a plain cross-hair or a "duplex."

The heavy, long-range rifles get high magnification variables with "tactical" turrets, milliradian adjustments, side-parallax adjustment, lots of adjustment range, "mil-dot" reticles, zero stops, large diameter tubes, and generally sturdy construction.

So to answer your question; I prefer a MIL/MIL system. However, on a hunting system where it's zeroed, capped and forgotten, it doesn't really matter. This jives with my soldier/scientist background and appreciation of the metric system. "A MIL is a meter at a kilometer."

I love questions that make you evaluate yourself.

(MIL=MRAD=Milliradian or one one-thousandth of a radian.)

This is a great reply. Makes perfect sense,. yes we can have a preference, but it is not about which is better, more about different tools for different applications. Personally my own use of scopes has been the duplex on a sporter set and forget, and use in the head adjustments.. so at this point the question for me is purely academic. That said, I'm, now recently bitten by the airgun/PCP bug and have suddenly found myself in position of my first massive magnification scope with mil dots.. I didn't even consider the difference when I bought it, it just seemed to be what PCP shooters were using. I expect once I really get serious about precision shooting, I may very well end up in the mil camp for that application.

 


ReplyQuote
JungleShooter
(@jungleshooter)
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 244
 

Well, simple minds prefer simple over complicated — if I can get the same performance and results.

 

So, below's a dope card (trajectory card, TRAC) for a 16FPE gun — for holdover or dialing.

I'd prefer not to have to mess with fractions, and the additional numbers they involve.... My brain is small, so less numbers and simpler numbers are my friends. 😊 

 

Matthias

 

 

DOPE CARD:

YARD:          ELEVATION:

              IN MOA:     IN MIL:

10          1 1/2 up     0.4 up

15          1 dn            0.3 dn

20          1 1/4 dn     0.3 dn

25          1/4 dn        0.1 dn

30          1 up            0.3 up

35          2 3/4 up     0.6 up

40          4 1/2 up     1.3 up

45          6 3/4 up    1.9 up

50          9 up           2.6 up

 

 


ReplyQuote