MOA v/s Mils ????

coleridge

Active member
I posted this in another thread but since I took the time to write it down, figured I'd start a thread so maybe more guys can see it & possibly stunt some of the confusion; if there is anyone left that's not an angular professional... Hopefully it will help someone. I apologize to you metric folks but I have most values in terms of degrees & inches. I think most guys in the US use inches & likely come from MOA scopes so.

To answer the most common question… Speaking in "easy" terms and leaving off long decimals 1/4 MOA is ~.26 inches (let’s call it .25 for ease) at 100 yards. 1/10 "Mil" radian is ~.36" at 100 yards. At 100 meters .25 MOA (a “click”) is ~.29” and .1 Mil (click) is ~.39” which is 1 centimeter.


Other than "the military uses it"; the main reason most guys like "mils", which is really "milliradian” is because the metric system is easier. It's based on 10 verses 4, 6, 12 or some other number that's hard to divide in your head. Yet most carpenter, workers, and even laymen in the US still like/use/prefer feet, inches & the fraction of inches verses meters, decimeters, centimeters & millimeters (all decimal or factions based on 10, which is "easier"). If you still use inches, feet, yards instead of meters & centimeters, you can still be OK with MOA scopes...

Mils to MOA is the exact same thing as meters to yards; exactly... No not the same measurement of length, the exact "comparision" of measurement. MOA is "minute of angle", based off the English measurement of a degree. You know, 90 degrees is straight up & down, 45 degrees is a perfect slant. Well one radian is most near 57.296 degrees. As you likely know in the metric system; deci is .1 (1/10), centi is.01 (1/100), & milli is .001 (1/1000) of a unit. So one milliradian (mil as it has grown to be called) is .001 radian. So to convert that to English, 57.296 degrees (one radian) divided by 1000 is equal to .0573 degrees. To get that down more precise for shooting, they break the down in tenths because .0573 degrees (1 mill) is still ~3.6" at 100 yards (3.594" to more precise). So 1/10 "mil" or .1 milliradian is really .0001 of a radian (or .0001 times 57.296 degrees=.00573 degrees).

Now, for the English units, I'm sure you know that one degree is 60/60 minutes (again, here is those hard to divide odd number denominators, a 6 instead of a 10). And 1 minute is 60/60 "seconds" (no not talking about time, we're talking angles still). So 1/4 of a minute is also 15/60 seconds (15 is a quarter of 60) or .00416666 degrees (.25/60 minutes). More commonly written 0º 0' 15" or 0º .25'.

So there we have converted one tenth mill radian & 1/4 MOA to decimal value of "degrees" --- .00573 verses .00416. At 100 yards this converts to .358 inches & .264 inches. Similar triangles says that at 1000 yards (hear we are finding it easy to multiply & divide by 10) shows that one "click" in a MOA scope moves you 2.6" (if your gun is a laser & shoot one hole groups that far) and .1 "mil" moves you 3.6" at 1000. Again, it's easy to see the MOA scope is more precise...

The main advantage of a "mil" scope (unless your ranging in meters & not yards) is that you can talk in shorter decimal or easier fractional values of a whole. If you know how to speak in fractions of 4 and usually base your ranges on yardages, nothing wrong with MOA and may be better (again contrary to popular belief).

Yes most PRS guys have switch to "mils" but it amazes me the competitions still give ranges in yardages. It's just bass ackwards...

In summary, my opinion (based on facts above)------

Reason to stay with MOA…

-More precise correction
-1 MOA at an arbitrary distance is “about” that distance in inches
Pretty much 1 inch at 100 yards (really 1.047 but the .047 is so small it’s negligible)
Pretty much 5 inches @ 500 yards (really 5.28” but doubtful your gun shoots that good)
Pretty much 7.5” at 750 yards (really 7.85” but really…)
Hoping you have picked up the pattern on this by now...
-Familiar English based units are used with it

Reasons to go away from MOA

-Difficult to say fast & keep up with fractions (if speed is a concern)
-The numbers get higher faster & possibly more confusing
-Based on a 4 in the denominator & not an “easy” 10
-If you use metric units of measure (cm or m) instead of inches

Reasons to go to Mil-Radian

-More course correction (takes less “clicks” to get to where you want to go)
-Lower number base
-All values & corrections are based of “tenths”, no odd denominator fractions
-.1 “mil” is 1cm correction at 100 meters
.2 mils 2cm correction
.3 mils 3 cm correction & so on…
-Easier math (and not “close enough stuff" the correction is 1cm at a 100 meters not "almost 1 inch")
-Easier to call corrections fast with little/less likely confusion

Reasons NOT to go to Mil-Radian

- If you’re still trying to think of corrections in “inches” your only confusing yourself & making unnecessary conversions
-Ranges in yards doesn’t “work” with system (metric base) although with any system you can have corrections for any distance. No biggy and again only a problem if your thinking length at that distance & not angular (which is the case with most people for some reason)
-Goes with above but if your converting yards to meters your doing unnecessary conversions
- If ranging from reticle, given the target size in inches (usually the case) gives you a complicated (non-“ten”based) multiplying factor. (Although the MOA multiplying factor for yards is 95.5; that # is close enough to 100 that you can estimate quickly). The multiplying factor (for radian reads coming from inches) is 25.4 or 27.77 depending on if your answer is yards or meters...


Still, if you’re thinking of corrections in angles, it doesn’t make much a difference one or the other. Take your pick. But it hard for most guys to get away from “I shot 3 inches left what do I need to turn to get that zeroed”.


I'm sure there are pro's & cons that I missed for each but this is the high points for today...
thumbup.gif
 
Thank you, that was much easier than any math instructions I have ever had. I did not have to force myself past the first numbers and I still learned(maybe something finally clicked) how to transition between the two systems.
 
Originally Posted By: spotstalkshootThank you.
Originally Posted By: tugboaterDouche...

One bad, one good. I'll take batting .500
tt2.gif



Hugs and kisses Tug
wub.gif
 
First and foremost, this is a very good write up. Thank you for the time you put into this thread.


Instead of calling the MOA scope more "Precise" why not say it has more "FINE RESOLUTION". Resolution better defines what you are saying about the two types of reticles. It's like using a microscope with higher resolving power ( that's my background and how I think of more resolution. A higher resolution objective lens on a microscope will allow me to see smaller things under the microscope.

Both the MOA and the Milliradian/10 type scopes can be precise.

Precision is the ability to do the same thing the same way each and every time. I use the terms accuracy and precision in the analytical Chemistry Lab all the time.
 
Originally Posted By: tugboaterDouche...

That was not necessary. If you can't say something good then why don't you just NOT POST in here. Really. Some people are just rude.

This was a good thread and very informative. A lot of the people new to shooting could learn something from the OP. The only thing that they can learn from "tugboater" is how to be a Douche.
 
Pretty good stuff CR.
I have had a fascination myself with subtension/angular math for quite awhile now. In all the years of researching its applications for shooting, I've learned 2 important concepts--

1) Reticle subtension is ~ inversely proportional to magnification in SFP scopes,
2) The mil-ranging formula defines rangefinding as well as downrange zeroing with any multistadia reticle from simple plex to Ballistic Plex to mil-dots, and even archery sight pins if one wishes to apply it as a rangefinding tool.
 
Originally Posted By: Tim NeitzkeVery good post.
Thanks for taking the time to type it out....

Agreed, I always like to "refresh my mind".
 
mils are for people that think its cool because the military uses it. I was watching video of the utah state sniper championship. all spotting corrections I heard were in inches. when you miss a target you think of missing in feet and inches. MOA is the better system. YES I know MOA is not inches but there is only about 5% error which no one can accurately shoot enough to know the difference.
 
Originally Posted By: steve garrettmils are for people that think its cool because the military uses it. I was watching video of the utah state sniper championship. all spotting corrections I heard were in inches.

Yep, just a bunch of dang posers and sniper wannabes!!!
They need to watch more videos so they'll know what's going on in the real world!
lol.gif
 
I want learn mils so I too can be cool, er tacticool
I bought a shemagh and watched youtube on how to tie it
I watched a video about Woodstock so I could learn about DOPE the snipers talk about too
I'm thinking of putting a mil-dot scope on my sniper Air Soft rifle
This is a great thread.
 
Great to see a moderator showing up, talking down to members that use Mils.

I started with second focal plane MOA shooting and it was perfectly fine. Now I use first focal plane and mils. Is either one better? No, not really. It comes down to the options available when you buy equipment, and communication with shooting partners.
If you shoot mils and your shooting partner shoots MOA...good luck trying to communicate.

I don't think one is better than the other, but I won't be going back to MOA or 2nd Focal Plan any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: cbass16Great to see a moderator showing up, talking down to members that use Mils.

Pretty certain those comments were dripping with sarcasm
 
Originally Posted By: Buster HindendOriginally Posted By: cbass16Great to see a moderator showing up, talking down to members that use Mils.

Pretty certain those comments were dripping with sarcasm


I am rather confident it is purely sarcasm, especially knowing some of the optics he uses.
 
Originally Posted By: cbass16you think a new member knows that?

Probly not.
You've been here almost 6 years and you didn't know it.
 
Originally Posted By: cbass16you think a new member knows that?

Did you miss the
lol.gif
?

Calm down a bit, it was all in fun. The feller above his post seems to be a little too tall in the saddle, especially comparatively speaking.
 
Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: cbass16you think a new member knows that?

Probly not.
You've been here almost 6 years and you didn't know it.

Exactly.

I'll keep my mils to myself. Wouldn't wanna offend you again.
 
Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: cbass16you think a new member knows that?

Probly not.
You've been here almost 6 years and you didn't know it.

That's funny.....
lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top