I grew up with SFP hunting scopes, started using them for my desire for long range. Great explanation Mark, I personally think it helps knowing both but I’ve adopted the mil reticles for just ease of dialing.on longer ranges, and ease of remembering.
This is a great video telling realistic differences between moa and mil. Too often guys bad mouth one or the other but only have practical experience with only one of the two. Very few shooters have mastered both. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. Generally older American hunters won't know metric, so moa, inches, feet, etc are easiest for them. Military and prs shooters will know metric much better. Thanks for the quality content and for sharing your vast knowledge base.
Always used MOA but will be making the switch to MILs, biggest reason is everyone I shoot with uses MILs, I'm still confused on some things but everyone says once it clicks it's easier 🤷🏻♂️ Good stuff from across the world 🇺🇸👊🏼
I went to a local gun shop and talked to the gunsmith about a possible build. He is also a PRS competitor. When i nentioned the scope with 120 MOA of elevation adjustment, i requested a 60 MOA rail. He said i would have to zero at 1000 yards and asked why i would do that. I just put his scribbled estimate in my pocket and left. Great video as always, Mark. Thanks.
@@DS-gd1xw its just to be able to use all of the elevation adjustment. With a 0 MOA rail, your zero will have you approximately in the middle of the scopes adjustment range. If it has 100 moa of adjustment, youll have abiut 50 up and 50 down. For long shooting, 50 MOA wont get you super far. Add some cant in that rail and you get more adjustment. Of course getting all the way to one end or the other can reduce optpical quality in many scopes, but thats the basic idea.
Thanks for simplifying the difference between the two. I’ve watched a few vids from others on the specifics of each and have been struggling to decide which I want to stick with. Your video has definitely given me more to think about but in a more logical manor. I know the accuracy of both is dependent on many factors, my skill being one of them.
Also remember that mils works for yards also, 1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards. 1 inch at 1000 inches, 1 mile at 1000 miles etc. I would also mention danger space, the concept of how important it is to get distance to target perfect the further out you go. If you read 1.2 mil when it is actually 1.23 mils then you could end up missing depending on how far out your distance is. Or like you said, animals and humans come in all sorts of variance which you are guessing by using an average could also cause a miss. Ranging an animal with the reticle can be really unethical with all these stacking errors. For my 6.5 creedmoor, 100 vs 120 yards is nothing (.2”) but 600 vs 620 yards is .7 moa or 4.4” and the kill zone of a coyote is 6” so your very likely to injure it at that distance with just 20 yards of error.
Well thought out explanation of the differences between MIL & MOA . The only reason i will probably go with a Mil Rad for my next long range rifle is simply because of less click adjustments , rotation and easier to see and read the tick marks on the dial than a Moa scope .
Glad to see the details. I spent 30 years in the military and so the metric system is abundant. But now (I’m retired, my friends are yards abundant). Talk about messy for me. Basically my solution is a hunting reticle for hunting either ranges of yards and meters (~300 meters or yards) but my fun gun is a 6.5CM with a Schmidt and Bender PMii in mills. The older I get (now 60) the harder it is to float back and forth. But I’m still having fun so I don’t care at this point. Cheers
I really appreciate your practical use, view and explanation of topics discussed in your videos. It’s so irritating when people over explain to try to sound smart. Good job man!
.001 of any radius using any unit is a mil. 1 mil = 1mm at 1000mm 1 mil = 1" @ 1000 inches. 1 mil = 1 ft @ 1000 feet. 1 mil = 1 yard @ 1000 yds. 1 mil = 1 meter @ 1000 m.
Thank you have educated me.. I've heard this explained previosly by other Shooters but never articulated in such an easy to digest manner, learnt so much just from this one video.
Mil is really intuitive and fast at least for us that grew up with metric. I think it might just come down to what measuring system you are used to. I think most important thing is to be comfortable. So moa for imperial folk and mil for metric.
In Sweden we do a lot of competitions where we mil targets at unknown distances on the clock out to at least 1300 meters. Usually done at competitions together with the military. Works fine with the right tools and training.
Switched over from MOA to MIL this year. Primary reason slightly less clicks to dial and a little quicker to communicate solution from spotter to shooter. In hunting, this reduced time can be the difference from filling freezer or not. Our range finder returns solution in 1/10 mils, and it would return 12.85 MOA, so now spotter has to decide between and 12.75 and 13.0 and this takes a little time and takes more time to communicate a bigger number to shooter whispering where it can be hard to hear the bigger number.
Great explanation of the two. I am an engineer, and believe it or not, it helped to remind me about MOA. In my line on engineering, we primarily work in metric because it is somewhat easier for sharing and receiving information from around the world. When I was thinking about MOA, I had forgotten that in 1 degree there are 60 minutes and in 1 minute there are 60 seconds. It my sound stupid that I had forgot but it happens. Anyway, thanks for the video. To easy your mind, I don't design or build bridges. Lol.
Being an FO in the Army (of which doesn't use a true milliradian but 6400 for ease of use in artillery and navigation, just a tidbit) I prefer MIL reticles as I'm just way more used to meters and doing the ranging math in my head. I can run either system though, which to me is more important to know than which system you prefer. Great video as always!
Because, here in America, we use the Imperial Measurement System instead of the Metric System (we should have thrown it out with the tea !) I have never been desirous of owning a Mil-dot scope. I prefer the MOA because I have always used yards as a measurement form. The Metric system should have been adopted instead eons ago because everything is divisible by 10, making it a much easier system mathematically.
I think the best way to understand Mils in relation to shooting is to use it as it's own measurement. There is no reason to convert it to meters, or centimeters. Measure your impacts in Mils, adjust in Mils. That has been helpful for me to understand it practically. Too many people get caught up in conversion when it just isn't necessary.
Thanks for helping out a lot of folk who have been scratching theyre head over this one.👍 I’m currently in the market for a second scope and am tempted by milliradian but it’s just dawned on me that my other scope is moa and that having one of each and having to swap mindset when I swap rifles is probably gunna cause problems. So decision made!
MOA here because it's the measurements I use most. 6" a dollar bill, 12" ruler, 16 stud space, 24" two rulers, 36" height of a door knob and so on in a pinch. Dialing in quarters just like counting quarters for a dollar or an inch. KISS was taught in my training, (Keep it simple stupid) which is outstanding for me!🤣
I learned with moa being in america. Ill make it simple for anyone reading this comment. As the fine math is much better than you can shoot Based on 100 yard 1 moa is 1 inch 1 mil is 3.6 inch 1/4 moa .25 inch 1/10 mil .36 inch Moa is more accurate mil is more used based on systems of measurement. At 1000 yards you have roughly 1” of variance 1 minute of angle is 10” at 1000 Therefore you cannot shoot the difference they are both accurate.
While I grew up using the decimal system, for shooting I really like the fact that 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1 inch. That 1:1 relationship makes it really easy to range. While it's not exactly 1 inch but 1.04 or something, you would have to shoot at extreme ranges for it to matter.
I grew up with the decimal system and I don't need to use inch or yards, you just use cm and meter all on 10 base so 1MIL is 1cm at 100m it's just easy to use. No need to make complicated calculation between a yard, miles, inches. Also I does mater and not for extreme long range but in the end If you know how to shoot with one keep it. BTW I wouldn't touch the imperial system no even with a 1/4 mile long stick, you'll never get a precise measure; That's why lo lose a lunar or planetary probe. Just stick to the metric system. So many peoples couldn't be wrong!!!!!
You present a very easy to understand version of what many others complicate to the point of insanity! Thank you... As for me?!, I like things simple and easy to figure out, so I'll stick with MOA. :)
Great explanation. My Dad bought a mil scope by accident and I've used moa for years. And it is tough for me to make quick corrections to get him on Target when I'm spotting for him.
Here is your cheat sheet for one complete MRAD or MIL of adjustment out to 1000 yards: 100yds = 3.6" (.36" per 1/10th) 200yds = 7.2" 300yds = 10.8" 400yds = 14.4" 500yds = 18" 600yds = 21.6" 700yds = 25.2" 800yds = 28.8" 900yds = 32.4" 1000yds = 36" Keeping in mind the 500 & and 1000 yard measurements of 18" and 36" of adjustment helped my comprehension when I made the switch over to a MIL/MIL scope. I've never looked back. Hope this helps.
Force Multiplier beat me to it... Another thing that can help get you really close with correction if you are familiar with MOA is to think in 3:1 ratio and then shift the decimal to the left for the MIL value. Its not dead accurate since its really 2.9:1 but its close enough. At first it might seem a bit odd because 1moa = 0.290888 milliradians but that is why I say think 3:1 because its really roughly 0.3:1 (or 3/10's to 1) but multiplying by whole number of 3 is easier for people to comprehend and usually do in their head and then by shifting the decimal back to the left 1 place, you are right back into tenths. Or you could think of it as the result (no shifting the decimal) is the click value for very common .1MIL click value for most MRAD scopes. What I mean by that above is say a you're calling corrections and you know that the shooter needs to make a 1.25moa correction, if you just multiply that by 3, you thus have 3.75 (1.25 x 3 = 3.75) and then shift the decimal to the left and the MIL correction would be .375MIL Now obviously since you (in most cases on only go in tenths, the just round it up to .4MIL (or 4 clicks)
Great video. Being raised in the States, my brain sees things in inches and yards. I can “understand” the breakdown of those when, for example, someone is describing a person’s height, or the length of piece of lumber. When I’m told that something 1m 65cm tall, I now have to imagine how that meter is a little less than half my height, and then stack a bunch of tiny units together into the remainder and hope to be in the ballpark. The inch/foot/yard allows for more mental/visual reference points. That said, when I’m measuring to cut something, hang something, or any other small/fine projects around the house, I break our a metric ruler to utilize the easier math of 10’s and 100’s. None of this 3/8 + 7/16 mumbo jumbo for me! LOL
Even though I fully understand the metric system and know many conversions to go into imperial. I will never be able to change the way my brain thinks in, which is imeprial since I am from the USA. Hence when I have a choice I go with MOA. Thanks for the refresher.
Most comp disciplines provide a range to target as either fixed or for the stage. Conversion to/from imperial to metric (if needed) is simple math and for the most part can be solved prior to engagement. I haven’t ranged off a reticle in 10 years for random distances, short of a EMP taking out electronics I’m not sure I’ll ever have to range from a reticle again......
After switching to ffp mil/mil I prefer those for range estimation. Just have to have a good estimation of target size. That may not be best for bullseye shooters but it is best for me.
Mark, good explainer, but I think you’ve got one part wrong: Mill wasn’t designed for meters. It is most correct to say that mill was designed to be unitless. Meaning it does not contain a unit of measure by itself. You can convince yourself of this by going back in your video to the unit circle you show @2:30. Imagine that the length of the radius is 100 inches. Then by definition, a radian is also 100 inches and a milliradian in that case is .1” so you can actually apply any unit of measure you like with mills. Further on in the video when you show distances of 1000 meters, 2000 meters and so on, you could just as easily said yards and it would still be true. At 1000 yards a mill is 1 yard. At 2000 yards a mill is 2 yards. This is the key understanding that everyone messes up with miliradians, because in trying to help others understand it we are often desperate to assign familiar attributes to it. In this case it is a mistake. Any unit of distance can be used correctly with milliradians. Personally I use mill scopes and yards, and it works out just as accurately.
Nobody can shoot the difference between them if the turrets track properly. I prefer mil just because it’s unitless. But I’m running moa for f-class just because it’s ubiquitous there. But for other applications I prefer mil. Less clutter in most reticles.
Even though I never use imperial for anything else I stick with MOA in shooting because there is normally more choice in gear given everyone is chasing the American market.
Yeah, they're an odd lot. I use MPBZ for hunting and just learn the hold-overs for shots past that distance. Rarely have I adjusted my scope when hunting.
It isn't just hunters.. I see lots of guys at the range with $5000 rifle/ scope packages, who are shooting whatever factory ammo they can find, and have a hard time shooting any decent groups.. but are constantly fiddleing with thier knobs, chasing "zero" :)
@@mikecollins8241 More often I see rich guys with $6000 rigs with handloads shooting 3-4" groups at 100 yards. I talk to them and they clearly know the technical side of things well enough but they are just horrible shooters.
I was raised as a dumb American so my brain only works in inches, feet, yards. I stick with MOA even though everyone here seems to think you have to go mil. Guys here just go with whatever the current "cool" trend is regardless of what they really like. Just like FFP reticles...I hate them but the current trend is mil scope in FFP so thats what everyone buys. I MUCH prefer MOA SFP 1 MOA = 1" at 100 yards/10" at 1000...thats easy for me to work out
Why is there no value in having finer adjustments to achieve a better zero with MOA? I use .1 MIL, 1/8” and 1/4”MOA scopes for different purposes but hate to be in between clicks when zeroing.
@@markandsamafterwork I think there was a misunderstanding about what I was saying. I believe a MOA scope is more accurate because you can achieve a better zero WHEN you are between clicks of .1 mil. If you are a half a click left and a half a click high when zeroing, it really adds up down range.
@@JacobTerherst , worst case scenario for zeroing a .1 mil adjustment is .05 mil, which is 1.8” at 1000 yards. 1 mph of crosswind for my 6.5 creedmoor is 7.85” at 1000 yards. So the worst case scenario for 6.5 creedmoor is about 1/4 of 1mph of crosswind, which nobody is capable of discerning. Also, ballistic calculators have the ability to enter in zero offsets. Also note that when we compare .1 mil to .25 Moa adjustments, you have to remember that sometimes the .1 mil will be closer to perfect. If your poi is .36” left at 100 yards, the .1 mil scope will be dead on with 1 click right but the .25 moa scope will be .1” off. It works out to be half the difference between the increments so (.1mil minus .25 moa) / 2, so 1/4 moa is .05” better at 100 yards or .5” at 1000 yards. Most f class shooters are going to use 1/8 moa in sfp, most prs shooters are going to use .1 mil in ffp.
I grew up with SFP hunting scopes, started using them for my desire for long range. Great explanation Mark, I personally think it helps knowing both but I’ve adopted the mil reticles for just ease of dialing.on longer ranges, and ease of remembering.
Thanks Kort, Cheers
This is a great video telling realistic differences between moa and mil. Too often guys bad mouth one or the other but only have practical experience with only one of the two. Very few shooters have mastered both. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. Generally older American hunters won't know metric, so moa, inches, feet, etc are easiest for them. Military and prs shooters will know metric much better. Thanks for the quality content and for sharing your vast knowledge base.
Thank you Man, Cheers
Always used MOA but will be making the switch to MILs, biggest reason is everyone I shoot with uses MILs, I'm still confused on some things but everyone says once it clicks it's easier 🤷🏻♂️ Good stuff from across the world 🇺🇸👊🏼
Cheers Torrance
I went to a local gun shop and talked to the gunsmith about a possible build. He is also a PRS competitor. When i nentioned the scope with 120 MOA of elevation adjustment, i requested a 60 MOA rail. He said i would have to zero at 1000 yards and asked why i would do that. I just put his scribbled estimate in my pocket and left.
Great video as always, Mark. Thanks.
Yep, maybe they should have some training before they can do that job, lol, Cheers
Why would you run a 60 moa rail????
@@DS-gd1xw its just to be able to use all of the elevation adjustment. With a 0 MOA rail, your zero will have you approximately in the middle of the scopes adjustment range. If it has 100 moa of adjustment, youll have abiut 50 up and 50 down. For long shooting, 50 MOA wont get you super far. Add some cant in that rail and you get more adjustment. Of course getting all the way to one end or the other can reduce optpical quality in many scopes, but thats the basic idea.
@@tommyofthehillpeople I have a 20 moa rail never ran out of elevation adjustment. Never heard of anyone using that much can't. What's ur zero?
@@DS-gd1xw always 100 yard zero. It all depends on the cartridge and scope as to how far you can shoot without running out of adjustment.
Thanks for simplifying the difference between the two. I’ve watched a few vids from others on the specifics of each and have been struggling to decide which I want to stick with. Your video has definitely given me more to think about but in a more logical manor. I know the accuracy of both is dependent on many factors, my skill being one of them.
Cheers Neil, thanks
Also remember that mils works for yards also, 1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards. 1 inch at 1000 inches, 1 mile at 1000 miles etc.
I would also mention danger space, the concept of how important it is to get distance to target perfect the further out you go. If you read 1.2 mil when it is actually 1.23 mils then you could end up missing depending on how far out your distance is. Or like you said, animals and humans come in all sorts of variance which you are guessing by using an average could also cause a miss. Ranging an animal with the reticle can be really unethical with all these stacking errors. For my 6.5 creedmoor, 100 vs 120 yards is nothing (.2”) but 600 vs 620 yards is .7 moa or 4.4” and the kill zone of a coyote is 6” so your very likely to injure it at that distance with just 20 yards of error.
Cheers Matt
Great explanation of the differences, probably the best I've seen so far. Thank you!
Thank you Jeremiah
Well thought out explanation of the differences between MIL & MOA . The only reason i will probably go with a Mil Rad for my next long range rifle is simply because of less click adjustments , rotation and easier to see and read the tick marks on the dial than a Moa scope .
Cheers Man, thanks
Glad to see the details. I spent 30 years in the military and so the metric system is abundant. But now (I’m retired, my friends are yards abundant). Talk about messy for me.
Basically my solution is a hunting reticle for hunting either ranges of yards and meters (~300 meters or yards) but my fun gun is a 6.5CM with a Schmidt and Bender PMii in mills. The older I get (now 60) the harder it is to float back and forth. But I’m still having fun so I don’t care at this point.
Cheers
Thanks Man, Cheers
Thank you for your service JC.
I really appreciate your practical use, view and explanation of topics discussed in your videos. It’s so irritating when people over explain to try to sound smart. Good job man!
Thanks Johnny, Cheers
.001 of any radius using any unit is a mil.
1 mil = 1mm at 1000mm
1 mil = 1" @ 1000 inches.
1 mil = 1 ft @ 1000 feet.
1 mil = 1 yard @ 1000 yds.
1 mil = 1 meter @ 1000 m.
Cheers
Perfect timing, I was trying to explain this to a buddy new to shooting just the other day. Thanks and cheers!
same here ha
Cheers Mike, thanks
Cheers guys, good explanation as always 👍I'll stick to MOA, it's what i know..
Can't teach an old dog new tricks 😂
Thanks Dave
Thank you have educated me..
I've heard this explained previosly by other Shooters but never articulated in such an easy to digest manner, learnt so much just from this one video.
Thanks Man
At 300 yds (10800") the cord of a 1moa is pie π ( 3.1415926")
Cheers
Thanks Mark. Best explanation of mil I’ve ever heard. Combined with the visual aid, it worked well.
Thanks Man, Cheers
Mil is really intuitive and fast at least for us that grew up with metric. I think it might just come down to what measuring system you are used to. I think most important thing is to be comfortable. So moa for imperial folk and mil for metric.
Cheers
In Sweden we do a lot of competitions where we mil targets at unknown distances on the clock out to at least 1300 meters. Usually done at competitions together with the military. Works fine with the right tools and training.
Cheers
Switched over from MOA to MIL this year. Primary reason slightly less clicks to dial and a little quicker to communicate solution from spotter to shooter. In hunting, this reduced time can be the difference from filling freezer or not.
Our range finder returns solution in 1/10 mils, and it would return 12.85 MOA, so now spotter has to decide between and 12.75 and 13.0 and this takes a little time and takes more time to communicate a bigger number to shooter whispering where it can be hard to hear the bigger number.
Cheers
Great explanation of the two. I am an engineer, and believe it or not, it helped to remind me about MOA. In my line on engineering, we primarily work in metric because it is somewhat easier for sharing and receiving information from around the world.
When I was thinking about MOA, I had forgotten that in 1 degree there are 60 minutes and in 1 minute there are 60 seconds.
It my sound stupid that I had forgot but it happens. Anyway, thanks for the video. To easy your mind, I don't design or build bridges. Lol.
Lol, Cheers Alfred, glad you liked, Thanks
I refuse to switch to MIL.
MOA master race crew checking in.
Lol, Cheers Man
Being an FO in the Army (of which doesn't use a true milliradian but 6400 for ease of use in artillery and navigation, just a tidbit) I prefer MIL reticles as I'm just way more used to meters and doing the ranging math in my head. I can run either system though, which to me is more important to know than which system you prefer. Great video as always!
Thanks Scottie, Cheers
Because, here in America, we use the Imperial Measurement System instead of the Metric System (we should have thrown it out with the tea !) I have never been desirous of owning a Mil-dot scope. I prefer the MOA because I have always used yards as a measurement form. The Metric system should have been adopted instead eons ago because everything is divisible by 10, making it a much easier system mathematically.
Yes decimals sure make things easier, glad you liked, Cheers
craig.. you do know that metric was adopted by congress in the 1880's as a legal measurement.. seems that americans could careless about metric
I think the best way to understand Mils in relation to shooting is to use it as it's own measurement. There is no reason to convert it to meters, or centimeters. Measure your impacts in Mils, adjust in Mils. That has been helpful for me to understand it practically. Too many people get caught up in conversion when it just isn't necessary.
Cheers
Thanks for helping out a lot of folk who have been scratching theyre head over this one.👍
I’m currently in the market for a second scope and am tempted by milliradian but it’s just dawned on me that my other scope is moa and that having one of each and having to swap mindset when I swap rifles is probably gunna cause problems.
So decision made!
Cheers
This video explains the two systems in terms that even I can understand. I do however prefer the metric system
Thanks Colin
Great info, Mark.
Frustration is a Navy shooter (MOA) with an Army spotter (MILRAD) 😂😂😂
Lol, yep, Cheers Ray
Always excellent videos. I have learned tons from you. Thank you
Cheers Collin, thanks
" Close e-damn-nuff". Couldn't have said it better. One half of one ten thousandth is close e-damn-nuff.
Cheers
MOA for life, just works in my little brain. Good explanation.👍
thanks Man, Cheers
Definitely one of the better ways to explain it.
Cheers Ted
Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.
Cheers
Thank you Mark.
Thanks Chuck
The best explanation I’ve heard Mark! Thanks mate. 👍👍👌👌
Cheers Waldo
Great job Mark. Very well explained. Thank you.!
Thanks Terry
MOA here because it's the measurements I use most. 6" a dollar bill, 12" ruler, 16 stud space, 24" two rulers, 36" height of a door knob and so on in a pinch. Dialing in quarters just like counting quarters for a dollar or an inch.
KISS was taught in my training, (Keep it simple stupid) which is outstanding for me!🤣
yep, we do KISS here too, lol, cheers
I learned with moa being in america. Ill make it simple for anyone reading this comment. As the fine math is much better than you can shoot
Based on 100 yard
1 moa is 1 inch
1 mil is 3.6 inch
1/4 moa .25 inch
1/10 mil .36 inch
Moa is more accurate mil is more used based on systems of measurement.
At 1000 yards you have roughly 1” of variance
1 minute of angle is 10” at 1000
Therefore you cannot shoot the difference they are both accurate.
Cheers
Always awesome video!!! PLEASE keep 'em coming!!!
Thank you Ken
Excellent lesson, thank you
Cheers
My thaught is if you prefer measurements of distance in yards or meters makes your decision of moa or mil
Cheers
Best explanation I have seen!
Thanks Paul, Cheers
Very good my friends. Cheers.
Cheers Walter
Great explanation. Thanks.
Cheers
Great show.
Thanks Bob
Excellent breakdown in nice Laymans Terms :-))
Thanks Mark
While I grew up using the decimal system, for shooting I really like the fact that 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1 inch. That 1:1 relationship makes it really easy to range. While it's not exactly 1 inch but 1.04 or something, you would have to shoot at extreme ranges for it to matter.
Cheers
I grew up with the decimal system and I don't need to use inch or yards, you just use cm and meter all on 10 base so 1MIL is 1cm at 100m it's just easy to use. No need to make complicated calculation between a yard, miles, inches. Also I does mater and not for extreme long range but in the end If you know how to shoot with one keep it. BTW I wouldn't touch the imperial system no even with a 1/4 mile long stick, you'll never get a precise measure; That's why lo lose a lunar or planetary probe. Just stick to the metric system. So many peoples couldn't be wrong!!!!!
Great job.
Cheers
You present a very easy to understand version of what many others complicate to the point of insanity! Thank you... As for me?!, I like things simple and easy to figure out, so I'll stick with MOA. :)
Thanks Titus, Cheers
thank you for the info. i,ve used both. i,m a moa man. works for me. easier brain calculations.
Thanks Joe, cheers
Great explanation. My Dad bought a mil scope by accident and I've used moa for years. And it is tough for me to make quick corrections to get him on Target when I'm spotting for him.
Here is your cheat sheet for one complete MRAD or MIL of adjustment out to 1000 yards:
100yds = 3.6" (.36" per 1/10th)
200yds = 7.2"
300yds = 10.8"
400yds = 14.4"
500yds = 18"
600yds = 21.6"
700yds = 25.2"
800yds = 28.8"
900yds = 32.4"
1000yds = 36"
Keeping in mind the 500 & and 1000 yard measurements of 18" and 36" of adjustment helped my comprehension when I made the switch over to a MIL/MIL scope. I've never looked back. Hope this helps.
@@ForceMultiplier thank you that is going to help a bunch I'll copy and put in the dope book
Force Multiplier beat me to it...
Another thing that can help get you really close with correction if you are familiar with MOA is to think in 3:1 ratio and then shift the decimal to the left for the MIL value. Its not dead accurate since its really 2.9:1 but its close enough. At first it might seem a bit odd because 1moa = 0.290888 milliradians but that is why I say think 3:1 because its really roughly 0.3:1 (or 3/10's to 1) but multiplying by whole number of 3 is easier for people to comprehend and usually do in their head and then by shifting the decimal back to the left 1 place, you are right back into tenths. Or you could think of it as the result (no shifting the decimal) is the click value for very common .1MIL click value for most MRAD scopes.
What I mean by that above is say a you're calling corrections and you know that the shooter needs to make a 1.25moa correction, if you just multiply that by 3, you thus have 3.75 (1.25 x 3 = 3.75) and then shift the decimal to the left and the MIL correction would be .375MIL Now obviously since you (in most cases on only go in tenths, the just round it up to .4MIL (or 4 clicks)
@@CJ-ty8sv thank you. You guys are great. This is lots of good info
Thanks Guys, Cheers
Great video.
Being raised in the States, my brain sees things in inches and yards. I can “understand” the breakdown of those when, for example, someone is describing a person’s height, or the length of piece of lumber.
When I’m told that something 1m 65cm tall, I now have to imagine how that meter is a little less than half my height, and then stack a bunch of tiny units together into the remainder and hope to be in the ballpark.
The inch/foot/yard allows for more mental/visual reference points.
That said, when I’m measuring to cut something, hang something, or any other small/fine projects around the house, I break our a metric ruler to utilize the easier math of 10’s and 100’s. None of this 3/8 + 7/16 mumbo jumbo for me! LOL
Thanks Man
Even though I fully understand the metric system and know many conversions to go into imperial. I will never be able to change the way my brain thinks in, which is imeprial since I am from the USA. Hence when I have a choice I go with MOA.
Thanks for the refresher.
Cheers Braxton
Very well said and great video as always keepem coming brother!!!
Cheers Dan
Most comp disciplines provide a range to target as either fixed or for the stage. Conversion to/from imperial to metric (if needed) is simple math and for the most part can be solved prior to engagement.
I haven’t ranged off a reticle in 10 years for random distances, short of a EMP taking out electronics I’m not sure I’ll ever have to range from a reticle again......
Thanks Tony
After switching to ffp mil/mil I prefer those for range estimation. Just have to have a good estimation of target size. That may not be best for bullseye shooters but it is best for me.
Cheers
👍
👍
Mark, good explainer, but I think you’ve got one part wrong: Mill wasn’t designed for meters. It is most correct to say that mill was designed to be unitless. Meaning it does not contain a unit of measure by itself. You can convince yourself of this by going back in your video to the unit circle you show @2:30. Imagine that the length of the radius is 100 inches. Then by definition, a radian is also 100 inches and a milliradian in that case is .1” so you can actually apply any unit of measure you like with mills. Further on in the video when you show distances of 1000 meters, 2000 meters and so on, you could just as easily said yards and it would still be true. At 1000 yards a mill is 1 yard. At 2000 yards a mill is 2 yards. This is the key understanding that everyone messes up with miliradians, because in trying to help others understand it we are often desperate to assign familiar attributes to it. In this case it is a mistake. Any unit of distance can be used correctly with milliradians. Personally I use mill scopes and yards, and it works out just as accurately.
Yes, designed for measuring, just suits the metric a little better, Cheers
Cheers 🍻
Cheers
Great content thanks for sharing, very informative
Cheers
Just two different methods of chopping up a pie.
Yep, Cheers
😊😊
👍
Nobody can shoot the difference between them if the turrets track properly. I prefer mil just because it’s unitless. But I’m running moa for f-class just because it’s ubiquitous there. But for other applications I prefer mil. Less clutter in most reticles.
Cheers
Even though I never use imperial for anything else I stick with MOA in shooting because there is normally more choice in gear given everyone is chasing the American market.
Cheers
My first Leuopold Vari-X scope has a Mil Dot reticle and MOA turrets. I never understood why they did that.
Lol, yep, Cheers
the number of hunters that come out to the range saying their 1/8 scope is needed but they can barely shoot a 1 moa group
Lol, cheers
Yeah, they're an odd lot. I use MPBZ for hunting and just learn the hold-overs for shots past that distance. Rarely have I adjusted my scope when hunting.
It isn't just hunters.. I see lots of guys at the range with $5000 rifle/ scope packages, who are shooting whatever factory ammo they can find, and have a hard time shooting any decent groups.. but are constantly fiddleing with thier knobs, chasing "zero" :)
@@mikecollins8241 More often I see rich guys with $6000 rigs with handloads shooting 3-4" groups at 100 yards. I talk to them and they clearly know the technical side of things well enough but they are just horrible shooters.
Thanks Mark, did some bluewater work and celestial nav back before gps, so moa for me please.
Cheers
Mark, what is the device on the objective end of the scope behind you on the wall? A sun shade or some sort of periscope?
Charlie Tarac
@@markandsamafterwork Just got done watching your videos on the Charlie Tarac. What a cool piece of gear, but pricey. Thanks for the reply. Cheers
Moa please
Cheers
I was raised as a dumb American so my brain only works in inches, feet, yards. I stick with MOA even though everyone here seems to think you have to go mil. Guys here just go with whatever the current "cool" trend is regardless of what they really like. Just like FFP reticles...I hate them but the current trend is mil scope in FFP so thats what everyone buys. I MUCH prefer MOA SFP
1 MOA = 1" at 100 yards/10" at 1000...thats easy for me to work out
Cheers
Basically, 2 different languages. I do think there are reasons the PRS guys prefer Mil reticles. I'm always shunned when I show up with my MOA
Lol, Cheers
I know that question is off topic but I messed my new scope up I was zeroing because of exposed turrets because I’m an idiot
Lol, Cheers
Why is there no value in having finer adjustments to achieve a better zero with MOA? I use .1 MIL, 1/8” and 1/4”MOA scopes for different purposes but hate to be in between clicks when zeroing.
Maybe check that maths, .1 mil = .34moa, so 1/4 moa is smaller than .1 mil, Cheers
@@markandsamafterwork I think there was a misunderstanding about what I was saying. I believe a MOA scope is more accurate because you can achieve a better zero WHEN you are between clicks of .1 mil. If you are a half a click left and a half a click high when zeroing, it really adds up down range.
@@JacobTerherst , worst case scenario for zeroing a .1 mil adjustment is .05 mil, which is 1.8” at 1000 yards. 1 mph of crosswind for my 6.5 creedmoor is 7.85” at 1000 yards. So the worst case scenario for 6.5 creedmoor is about 1/4 of 1mph of crosswind, which nobody is capable of discerning. Also, ballistic calculators have the ability to enter in zero offsets. Also note that when we compare .1 mil to .25 Moa adjustments, you have to remember that sometimes the .1 mil will be closer to perfect. If your poi is .36” left at 100 yards, the .1 mil scope will be dead on with 1 click right but the .25 moa scope will be .1” off. It works out to be half the difference between the increments so (.1mil minus .25 moa) / 2, so 1/4 moa is .05” better at 100 yards or .5” at 1000 yards.
Most f class shooters are going to use 1/8 moa in sfp, most prs shooters are going to use .1 mil in ffp.
The advantage of MIL(MRAD) FFP scopes are unbeatable. Please not, I'm European. 😉
Lol.......Cheers