MIL vs MOA: An Objective Comparison

YeeHaa

YeeHaa

Member
Charter Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,812
Location
T'ville ~ Trinity
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
“You can’t really go wrong with either (MIL or MOA). They’re both equally effective, it comes down to how well you know the system. If you’re comfortable with MOA, I wouldn’t recommend switching to MIL. I have a few MIL scopes but primarily because they’re on rifles used for military evaluation projects, and that community is now mostly converted to MILS, so when in Rome…


[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/2poqx8tjzgi65olp24je4x4n.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/mil-vs-moa-comparison-article-logo-1024x473.jpg"}[/IMG2]



http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/
 
I like having MOA scopes on my rim fire rifles, more granular measurements. However, on the bigger stuff it's all MIL.
 
I just want my turrets to match my reticle. I would prefer moa/moa but those are very rare, at least at my price range so I typically end up with mil/mil.
 
Flashpoint;n98601 said:
I just want my turrets to match my reticle. I would prefer moa/moa but those are very rare, at least at my price range so I typically end up with mil/mil.
Click to expand...

They do if you know how.

Let's say you have a scope like mine. Moa dial and Mil reticle. If so, 1 mil to 2nd mil is about 3.5 moa (Really 3.438 moa)

So if you see a 1/2 mil hold under take off 1.75 moa

It's simple if you take the time to come to one of my Precision Rifle classes.

John
 
Reading this and feeling like a big baby pouting cause he didn't get his lollypop. None of my good rifles have optics. All of the cheap ones have cheap scopes in MOA. One day I will grow up and join the rest of you guys in the big toy playground where I can afford nice glass and classes to know how to use them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JBoyette;n98607 said:
They do if you know how.

Let's say you have a scope like mine. Moa dial and Mil reticle. If so, 1 mil to 2nd mil is about 3.5 moa (Really 3.438 moa)

So if you see a 1/2 mil hold under take off 1.75 moa

It's simple if you take the time to come to one of my Precision Rifle classes.

John
Click to expand...

No doubt I would learn a lot, I just think it's weird how most scopes are like the one you describe, using different units of angular measurement thus requiring the 3.5x conversion. Sure it's not hard, but it why should it even be necessary? Seems like an obvious advantage to just make them the same.
 
You should create a poll to see (generally speaking) which people prefer. Would be helpful to someone in the market for their first optic :D
 
J.R.;n98775 said:
You should create a poll to see (generally speaking) which people prefer. Would be helpful to someone in the market for their first optic :D
Click to expand...

Interesting, but wouldn't such a survey land a few $1,200 to $2,500 scopes in 1st & 2nd place?

I believe most ( including myself ) would prefer the same turret & reticle standard for simplicity.

I think a fair number of us are limited by income for choices , just the way it is, and are financially left out of the Medium to "High End" market.

I have come to the conclusion that most do not really fully understand optics ( scopes ) and also believe most buy a scope ( among other goodies ) thinking it will vastly improve their shooting.

I have limited exposure with Med ~ High end glass and it has been when another shooter looks through my glass and compares clarity to theirs & vise versa.

Here's a few things I go by with or for any scope,

Know where your rifle shoots before a scope is mounted. Some will say, " I don't have iron sights" but while it's a bit of a chore one can still do it. If you don't really know where your rifle shoots 1st, it's Too Easy to blame the glass.

Any LDS launching a .30 cal is going to have to be med heavy scope and any .30 cal semi auto is going to need a heavier scope , especially a semi with a heavier bolt carrier.

Make sure the ocular or eyepiece is tight and does Not wobble around,

Make sure ALL adjustments are Smooth and Consistent.

Adjust the ocular so that the reticle is in focus and leave it there unless you go back and forth with prescription glasses,

Parallax adjustment, depends on the type of shooting one plans on doing, however personally I have come to DISLIKE this feature because my shooting has been and is short to mid range and the parallax adds more complexity and another damn knob to turn. If one is on the "Optical Center Line " ( for majority of us ) you don't need a parallax adjustment and if you want one the front adjustable is more reliable than the side adjustable.

Scope mounts and fit to rail and the scope. I have witnessed Experienced Shooters miss this because the mount to rail fit was in fact OFF and was close enough it looked OK.

IMHO FWIW
 
YeeHaa;n99393 said:
Interesting, but wouldn't such a survey land a few $1,200 to $2,500 scopes in 1st & 2nd place?

I believe most ( including myself ) would prefer the same turret & reticle standard for simplicity.

I think a fair number of us are limited by income for choices , just the way it is, and are financially left out of the Medium to "High End" market.

I have come to the conclusion that most do not really fully understand optics ( scopes ) and also believe most buy a scope ( among other goodies ) thinking it will vastly improve their shooting.

I have limited exposure with Med ~ High end glass and it has been when another shooter looks through my glass and compares clarity to theirs & vise versa.

Here's a few things I go by with or for any scope,

Know where your rifle shoots before a scope is mounted. Some will say, " I don't have iron sights" but while it's a bit of a chore one can still do it. If you don't really know where your rifle shoots 1st, it's Too Easy to blame the glass.

Any LDS launching a .30 cal is going to have to be med heavy scope and any .30 cal semi auto is going to need a heavier scope , especially a semi with a heavier bolt carrier.

Make sure the ocular or eyepiece is tight and does Not wobble around,

Make sure ALL adjustments are Smooth and Consistent.

Adjust the ocular so that the reticle is in focus and leave it there unless you go back and forth with prescription glasses,

Parallax adjustment, depends on the type of shooting one plans on doing, however personally I have come to DISLIKE this feature because my shooting has been and is short to mid range and the parallax adds more complexity and another damn knob to turn. If one is on the "Optical Center Line " ( for majority of us ) you don't need a parallax adjustment and if you want one the front adjustable is more reliable than the side adjustable.

Scope mounts and fit to rail and the scope. I have witnessed Experienced Shooters miss this because the mount to rail fit was in fact OFF and was close enough it looked OK.

IMHO FWIW
Click to expand...

You can buy a mil/mil or moa/moa for under $500 that is perfect for one's needs, if one's needs don't call for the features of the higher end glass. Of course, there is qualitative differences between such a scope and a high(er) end scope. The scope itself doesn't need to be heavy but 'it's all about that bass' ("base" if you know the song). Your base needs be of good quality, mounted properly, and preferably bedded. Not an imperative, but most definitely helps, particularly with heavier rounds.

Good post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Flashpoint;n98766 said:
No doubt I would learn a lot, I just think it's weird how most scopes are like the one you describe, using different units of angular measurement thus requiring the 3.5x conversion. Sure it's not hard, but it why should it even be necessary? Seems like an obvious advantage to just make them the same.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree.

But is stuck in that system with mixed up optics learning how to run them is cheaper then replacing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom