Confused - Mil Dot vs MOA

PSXDupe

Trying to get my head around why you would have turrets measured in MOA (1/4 MOA) and have a Mil Dot reticle.

From what I've read, 1 MOA = 1" at 100yrds, 1 Mil Dot = 10cm @ 100m (3.6" @ 100yrds)

Seems to me that MOA = Imperial and MilDot = Metric, why have both on a scope.

Surely it would have been better to have turrets = 1/10 MilDot (1cm) or 1/4 MilDot (2.5cm) with a Mil Dot reticle.

Am I getting this completely a$$ ways

clivej

A good question,
I'm waiting for a good answer as well.

All my hunting scopes are Milldot with MOA target turrets.

Vegeta

PSXDupe wrote: »

Trying to get my head around why you would have turrets measured in MOA (1/4 MOA) and have a Mil Dot reticle.

While I own one scope like this on my .22lr, there is no good reason I can think of either. As someone who likes to dial for shots beyond my zero, it makes my reticle pretty much useless. On top of that it's an SFP scope so it makes the reticle even more redundant. A simple duplex cross hair would have been fine.

Now my main scope is Mil/Mil and FFP which is much more user friendly imho.

I consider scopes with mixed reticle and turrets undesirable and would avoid them in future, personally.

Vegeta

Should point out if I was target shooting only I'd buy Moa/Moa as it is a finer adjustment.

PSXDupe

Totally agree, from all the reading I've done, the MilDot reticle is excellent for range esitmation.

Very simple formula,

Target Size (mm) / mil = range in metres. Then you have to convert that to MOA to dial it in. Mad.

HW100S

Vegeta wrote: »

Now my main scope is Mil/Mil and FFP which is much more user friendly imho.

Agreed, But also way more expensive than the MIL/MOA.....

Vegeta

PSXDupe wrote: »

Totally agree, from all the reading I've done, the MilDot reticle is excellent for range esitmation.

Very simple formula,

Target Size (mm) / mil = range in metres. Then you have to convert that to MOA to dial it in. Mad.

I've never used a reticle for range estimation, ever. I've got two good electronic range finders for that

I prefer Mil because it is a smaller number with one decimal place (scopes adjustments in 0.1 mil) so it's easier to write down drops. Turrets are usually less cluttered too.

I prefer FFP because if a shot presents and I don't have time to dial I can use the reticle at any magnification for accurate hold over (reticles are manufactured more accurately than turrets too) SFP has to be at a specific magnification, which is an extra work step in my mind.

You'll also hear that Mil works for people who think in centimetres and meters and MOA for people who think in inches and yards. That's also bollocks, if you buy a scope in Mils then think in Mils and same with MOA. If you fire a shot, miss and spot your miss, don't think "Oh I missed by X inches or centimetres" think "I missed by X Mils or X MOA"

Again as a caveat to all that, if I was doing target shooting only I would go MOA/MOA and have a long hard think about SFP or FFP. I'd prefer FFP but it would probably come down to reticle design and how big the reticle got at max magnification.

lefthooker

I wouldn't get too hung up on matched adjustments and reticles as long as you know how to zero your scope. IMO it's only relevant to FFP and fixed power scopes and competition/shooting disciplines. With a sfp scope the holdover are constantly changing as zoom is adjusted.
On the range it's useful to have matched turrets/reticle to measure for adjustment between shots but in the field I don't think it's as big an issue cos once you've zeroed you either range and dial in, in which case all that's needed is a plex reticle, or you use the holdover values on your reticle, which is only really usable on a FFP scope either ways.

Sparks

See that button on your calculator? This one?



Stands for degrees (°), minutes (') and seconds ("), which was how we used to break down angles (and still do for some applications like latitude/longitude readings). MOA - Minute of Arc - is just that minute, one sixtieth of a degree on the protractor.

The Mil in Mildot on the other hand, stands for Milli-radian. One radian is the angle between two points on a circle that are one radius apart, like so:



So one milli-radian, one mil, is one thousandth of one radian.

They're just different ways of measuring an angle - and by that I don't mean they're different the way miles and kilometers are different ways of measuring distance, I mean that you use different instruments and are measuring at different places. MOA you measure with a protractor at one end of the range, MIL you measure with a ruler at the other. Or, you know, a measuring wheel or a rangefinder or whatever.

In practice they're pretty close and for target range shooting, it really doesn't matter which you pick. 1 MoA is 1 inch at 100 yards (roughly); 1 MIL at 100 yards is 3.6 inches. If you know the range, then which of those you're using is academic - you'll know how many clicks it takes to move a set distance on the target, it'll just be a different number for one than for the other. And if you shoot at several distances, you can just note down the settings in a range notebook.

The reason you'll see some turrets in MOA settings is that a lot of targets used to be sized by angle. So you shoot a ten on a 50m target, and a ten on a 100yd target, they're comparable. If your scoring rings are in MOA and you want to dial in your scope, it's easier to have MOA turrets, you just remember "three clicks per scoring ring" or whatever, for any of the ranges you're shooting at (more or less). (Incidentally, if you use one of those programs on the web to scale down a 100yd target to use at 25yds or the other way round, that's how they're doing it internally).

The reason you see a lot more MIL-dot reticles these days is that if you are shooting at varying range on the fly, a MIL-dot is a little easier to work with, because for radians, you measure with a ruler and the thing you're measuring, the radius, is just the range to the target, which you usually know or have a guess at. At 100m, one MIL is 10cm. At 1000m, one MIL is 1m. At X range, one MIL is X divided by a thousand. Which is easy enough to do in your head. Aim at the target, guess/measure the range, look at the reticle and the dots are one thousandth of the range apart at the target.

How much of an advantage that is... eh. You could go through a lot of pints coming to a conclusion on that one. Personally, I prefer iron sights anyway :P

nastros

Here is a good article on it http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/ Brian Litz is the ballistician for Berger bullets and an expert an all things long range shootng. He seems to take the view it is whatever you prefer.

long range shooter

PSXDupe wrote: »

Trying to get my head around why you would have turrets measured in MOA (1/4 MOA) and have a Mil Dot reticle.

From what I've read, 1 MOA = 1" at 100yrds, 1 Mil Dot = 10cm @ 100m (3.6" @ 100yrds)

Seems to me that MOA = Imperial and MilDot = Metric, why have both on a scope.

Surely it would have been better to have turrets = 1/10 MilDot (1cm) or 1/4 MilDot (2.5cm) with a Mil Dot reticle.

Am I getting this completely a$$ ways

Cass

I have and have had scopes with both mil-dot reticles and MOA turrets and ones that were solely MOA. Never had a pure Mil-Dot scope (turrets and reticle).

The advantages for me with an MOA turrets system and mil-dot reticle are i get the best of both worlds. When hunting i am used to MOA adjustments so can click with confidence. However if i need to aim off the mil-dot reticle gives me a clearer sight picture and less "fussy" means of aiming off. I know on a SFP scope the marks are only true at a set range, but i've already checked to see what they are on range conditions so i know at say 10 power the mil-dots actually represent X amount of adjustment instead of the Y they should give at the ranging setting for the scope.

I've also used an MOA reticle when hunting and the amount of hash marks on the crosshair is a nuisance. Too many and i found myself counting the hash marks instead of being able to aim and shoot.


Lastly all my Nightforces have been MOA reticle and MOA clicks. I prefer this for target shooting only. The MOA adjustments are much finer than Mil-Dot at 1,000 yards. For example one click of my MOA scope will move the crosshair 0.125" (1/8" inch). The same one click of a Mil-Dot scope would move the crosshair 3.6 inches at 1,000 yards. That could be the difference between holding the left edge of the V-bull and movign all the way across to the right right edge (using the Mil-Dot scope/adjustments) or moving from the left edge of the V-bull to the left/middle, then middle, the right middle, then right of the V-bull )using an MOa scope with 1/8 click value. Even using a 1/4 click value i can move from left edge to middle to right edge. Remembering that the V-bull is 5 inches in diameter.

I rarely used the scope on it's ranging setting (22 power) but again knew what the hash marks represented at say 32 or 42 power. As this was the most common magnification setting i learned it and kept using it if holding off.

long range shooter

i use strelok pro ballistics calculator,which also shows reticle and holdovers for various distances.
find this to be a good help when fast holdovers are needed.