What's cool about mils is 1 mil = 1 inch at 1000 inches, 1 meter at 1000 meters, 1 foot at 1000 feet, 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 stick at 1000 sticks. Super easy to understand
Jason should have explained it this way. He explained MOA, which is quite simple, but didn't really explain MILS in a simple example. Thank you for your explanation.
It doesn't even have to be metric. The one basic tenet of the MIL system is that it's a thousand to one ratio. That's it. 100 yards is 3600 inches, so it makes a lot more sense that one mil at 3600 inches is 3.6 inches. The confusion comes from mixing units in the imperial system (inches, feet, yards) instead of just picking one and sticking with it. To stick with yards, it would be clearer to ignore inches entirely and call it 1/10 yard at 100 yards. (same as 3.6 inches)
@@michaelficarro2591 0.1 Mil at 100 meters is 1 CM. Sure sounds like metric to me. 1MOA @ 100 Yards is 1 inch as 1 Mil @ 100 Meters is 10 CM. MRAD corresponds to metric as MOA does to Imperial Inches.
This is the best video I've seen on the "MOA vs MIL" subject and... my head is still spinning 😂 My long distance .22LR plinking system is this: make a wildly inaccurate guess about the target's range, shoot a few practice shots to build confidence, then miss my most careful shot by several feet. It's the same system I use for putting.
You need to look up Ryan Cleckner videos here and his books on long distance engagements. Ryan is a former Ranger/Sniper and he really breaks it down Barney style. You'll never use moa again!
8:50 that's even something i was taught as a conscript with the binoculars our army fields. The binos have a mil scale in them, and so when you are observing something (a vehicle for example) and you roughly know the horizontal dimension, you can do the math for the distance quick to pass on the information. Or when there's no elevation distance you could also use the vertical measurement. (This was at the turn of the century, laser rangefinders weren't what a normal infanterist being on a short recon/observation trip was equipped with. And we use metric units anyway.)
i’ve watched a dozen videos trying to decide if i want moa or mil. i kept thinking mil but i was stuck on the inches to moa conversion ease. you really cleared that up for me. thanks!
The math stays the same, so if it's .047 at 100y, it's .47 at 1000y. So it's really up to you to say if 10" and 10.47" are the same or not. Personally, I would say at that range, .47" of additional spread is negligible.
@@ianloughney9570 I agree with you, without including the capabilities of the shooter and platform. The simple facts that half inch groups at 100 are amplified to 5 inch groups at 1000, and predictability of drop and wind drift negate the half inch deviation at 1000. Can you hold half inch groups at 100? Can you hold 5 inch groups at 1000? Please reread my post.
UUUUGGGHHHHH. I just bought (1 hr ago on amazon) my first scope, the Sniper VT5.9-39X56FFP. It is to be mounted on a Beretta BRX1 .308 win. As someone new to picking up hunting and long range target shooting (haven't done either yet), was this a good scope choice? Should I be choosing MOA or MIL. I do understand measurements easier in inches, feet and yards as I have some experience in DIY renovation and construction. I'm second guessing if I made the right purchase. Any thoughts for me? Thanks in advance.
1 mil = 10cm at 100m. Work with the world accepted standards is easier. I imagine there is no issue multiplying 10s. It's very similar to your 1 time table with a 0 on the end. Also for artillery... A mil is a meter at a range of one thousand meters. I believe the reference for "1 click" is 1 mil (so shift 5 mils left is 5m at 1000m (1km)) - simple is good.
Probably why he had trouble at first trying to convert back to 3.6 inches despite living in a metric country everything shooting related was in fps and MOA so I got used to it
Every ballistic program I have run have given moa corrections in tenths of an moa. 1/8 and 1/4 moa clicks don't line up with that. Mils, at 1/10 per click is easier to work with. Once you forget about inches, it all starts making sense. Pick your system and run with it. After 60 years of moa scopes I bought my first mil based optic this summer. I should have switched years ago. Just my thoughts.
2:38 growing up using MOA outisde of NA makes it hard to work everything out since everything I've ever done has been working in MOA inches and feet per second despite never using that in day to day things.
Excellent video for those who don't understand that both MOA and Mils are simply a measurement of angles. The video is spot on that thinking in moa or mils is the key when ranging. Though there are some inaccuracies in the video. Most prominently several manufactures offer turrets with 0.05 mill clicks (video said the smallest was 0.1 mil). Similarly, but not an inaccurate statement, scopes are available with 1/8 moa turrets. Also nothing inaccurate was said, but the video should have pointed out that mils are spot on, the rule of thumb that persuades most in the USA to use moa is close but not accurate (because 1 moa does not equal 1" at 100 yards, but is close enough for most hunting distances). Personally I use both and don't have issue switching between the systems. I simply pick the scope that has the best reticle and turrets that fit my needs. I use mil based scopes on rifles that are used where ranging is required and 1/8 moa turrets with fine crosshair center dot reticles for shooting at know distance targets. Because the 1/8 moa turrets allows hitting the center of targets at 50 and 100 yard with my 22lr while a 0.1mil turret does not and I couldn't find a reticle I liked with 0.05 mil turrets.
It occurs to me that the advantage you say MILs has with simpler numbers to remember could be magnified if you are frequently shooting different calibers. However there is one potential advantage to MOA you didn't mention. Red dots and other short range optics as well as pistol optics are almost exclusively set up with an MOA basis instead of MILs. If you are trying to test how far you can effectively use those being able to think in MOA maximizes your use of those otherwise limited reticles.
Mil or Moa? Both great. Used both and they do the same thing. Although Moa make for finer tuning and the metric system doesn't know the time. Did anyone see the deer at 5:41 on the range. Seems like the shooter might no should have been firing towards it.
As someone who uses inches regularly, I find moa is more beneficial for holding corrections. I can guesstimate pretty easily a miss and hold on the reticle easier. Now you can do the same for mil, and I do believe it is more widely used and superior but I've only used CM (correct measurement) for something else. 😂😂😂
I shoot both inch and mill scopes. I like the mill system best but it is easy to swap back and forth . The longer the range the better the mill system is for hold over and off set
MIL is faster but has some margin of error but allows a fast second round correction if miss the first shot. MOA is slower but has more accurate hold with a high chance of first round impact This is assuming you memorize the dope sheet and you estimated ranging imperial units for MOA, and centimeters meters in Mil. There is is a reason why tactical scenarios use mils and Hunters use MOA.
Good discussion. In summary, it's completely arbitrary, except that MIL, being a larger increment and subdivided by 10 rather than 4 is more practical when shooting longer distances. Got it.
The hardcore "MIL OR DIE" guys come off as try-hard CrossFitter types. Their first rule is to talk about MIL over everything. I used both systems in the military. As a civilian, I can still use both as it pertains to what I'm doing and perhaps most importantly who I am training with.
*I can make it REALLY simple for everyone.* *If you have a pocket computer/phone/tablet always with you, use MIL.* *If you only have a pencil, use MOA.*
You don't even need to use the metric system, though. 1 mil = 1 inch @ 1000 inches. 0.1 mil = 0.1 inch @ 1000 inches = 0.01 inch @ 100 inches. Change "inch" to whatever unit you like as long as it's consistent: 1 mil = 1 yard @ 1000 yards, 0.1 mil = 0.1 yard @ 1000 yards, etc.
This is still more complicated than necessary. Simplified MILs is a 10 base system and MOA is a 4 base system. The system you understand almost doesn't matter to a degree. MILs has a huge advantage when potentially blind dialing as it's ten base which is infinitely more easier than 4 base. I shoot PRS and BR and most MOA reticles are less cluttered. This is a personal preference. I am personally switching to MILs as my centerfire optic is a MIL system as it's the best reticle offered. In my rimfire I currently shoot MOA as the reticle is cleaner than it's MIL counterpart but I'll need to switch to MIL as the MIL version offers more elevation dial, I'll gain an additional 35MOA of dial from 95 minutes.
I understand the superiority of the mil system, but MOA seems more common for scopes in the US. I also see MOA, never mils, used for red dots - both for reticle sizes and adjustments for windage & elevation. It seems to me that sticking with one system that's used in both scopes and red dots is another argument in favor of MOA.
Mil reticles just make more sense for me as far as tracking and compensating my shots. I’d like to be able to track my shots and call my mils which I guess I could do with MOA as well but mil reticles lend themselves well to the task
Watching a report from the recent IWA show and noticed some European military manufacturers referring to the cant (incline) of the optics mount as "20 MOA". It just seems they would use mils, maybe it was because they were talking to an American civilian....
Despite MOA having a nice relation to inches and yards, it's not inherently imperial vs. metric. MOA simply comes from 360 degrees in a circle, 60 minutes in a degree, and scientists all over the world were measuring angles in degrees and minutes for years.
There are some things which have got stuck in spoken laguance from imperial system. Like barrel lenght in inches. Monitors inches and some pluming pipes are in imperial. But in 99.9% other cases everything else is in normal metric.
I'd like to see a vid on using a reticle to figure out ranges. I remember at my buddy's place where I figured out how many mRad a rain barrel was with my reticle... and then realized I had no idea what to do with that information when it came to determining how far away the barrel was.
angle (mils / MoA) target dimensions target distance You need to know 2 of those to be able to find the third. A list of common items and their dimensions is a critical tool for UKD work.
The key is knowing the size of a designated target. We were taught to estimate a man's height at 6'. This makes it easier to calculate distance through an optic. Let's be honest here, all targets are based on shooting combatants.
i learned it this way: (1000 x the known horizontal measurement of the target) divided by the number of mil hashmarks the target takes up in your optic = the distance in m. Easy to calcualte example: if the rainbarrel is 0.6m wide and you count 6 hashmarks: (1000x0.7)/7= 700/7= 100m So the barrel is in 100m distance.
@@nirfz One of the HUGE advantages of Mils is that it does NOT matter what units you use for the linear measurement of the target size and distance as long as they are the SAME, the formula of 1000 x (Known target dimension) / (Known target dimension in Mils) = target range. You can use inches, cm, yards, meters, etc. and it doesn't matter; the formula is the SAME. Not so for MOA.
@@brucewilliams3261 While that is true, I only explained how i learned it. For us there was no need to put any emphasis on the fact that you could use different units. Inches, yards or feet don't matter here, and as for infanterist use: mm, cm or km are impractical for the sizes of targets and distances. So we only got to use m. Artillery on the other hand is probably different. (but i am only trained in infantery and AAA and in the later one you use radar and a laser rangefinders who's measurings are automatically used in the SW calculation of the firecomputer.)
@@bghiggy And have the same height over bore and at the same elavation and with the same barrel length and with the same twist rate, etc etc etc. All variables need to be identical to what the scope was calibrated for or else it won't be correct.
@@GldenRetriever It won't be correct-correct but it will be good enough. At least up to certain range. BDCs are supposed to be quick and dirty. (Aren't quick for me, because I'm not thinking in yards while most BDCs are in yards - but let's be honest, BDCs do have a role in which they excell).
It bothered me so much that no one specified whether they were using Mils or Milliradians that I sat down to compute the difference. Turns out that they are the same to over three decimal places despite having different definitions.
You should have explained that both, are units of angular measurement. Minute of angle, a minute is 1/60 of a degree, with 360-degrees in a circle. A mil is milliradian, and there are 2Pi radians in a circle. Mils were developed for aiming artillery, not rifles. I was raised by an engineer/surveyor. I have known degrees, minutes, and seconds since I was nine. When I learned to shoot it was from my Dad who, used a surveyors transit as a spotting scope, and rolls of paper marked with heavy lines on the inches, and lighter lines on the tenths of inches. To sight in you shot a group at 100-yds. Then you read read the elevation and windage you were off from the bullseye. Then used the Weaver micro-trac adjustments to move the reticule to correct. Second groups would be on target. I hunt. My venerable old Weaver K58, has a “German reticule”. The heavy wires end to end subtend twenty moa. The heavy wire width subtends 5-moa top to bottom or side to side. The thin wires in the center subtends 1-moa. The chest on a bull elk is about 24-inches top to bottom. The chest on a big muley is about 18-inches, good rack is 30-inches. Rifle zeroed at 200. 2-inches high at 100, and 4.5 low at 300. So I can immediately without thought, or counting antler times, make the decision on whether to shoot. Center up on the chest just behind the shoulder, and squeeze off the round. With a very high probability of a fatal wound on something I actually want to shoot. Basically for hunting or target shooting you need to know the sizes of common targets you shoot at, in reference to the reticle you are using. And know how to estimate distance to target and dope your shot for the range.
I second your 36-50/200 zero. It is expedient at normal hunting ranges with a maximum PBR inside 6 inches. About a mil high hold at 300, depending. Any farther than that would benefit from a dope card. I cringe when I hear these fantasy 575 yard hail mary stories with a brand new rifle and a scope they just had to torque down that morning.
@@PBVader Many people are more able to picture in their mind what is going on, if you actually explain what is really happening. If you are on who is so smart you don’t need it, or one of those who just brute forces his way through things with no understanding, so be it. But most do a batter job of incorporating knowledge they understand.
@@randallthomas5207 I don't quite understand your response, unless it was meant as adversarial. Two ways of describing the exact same thing. I firmly believe a hands on approach, practicing at a range and documenting the results, is far more conducive to the human experience than brute force. Of course the prerequisite homework is helpful before implementing a training regiment. I live in Wisconsin where you make the paper if you fall out of your tree stand, tall tales of the elusive turdy pointer and wild shots in the vicinity of your hunting buddy are common place. Yet when you volunteer at sight in days you have a couple people that have their stuff together, some on the same system for 30 years, while every one else that should be learning from them always seem to have some problem. Wrong length of pull, scope and mounts loose, limbsavers folding sideways under recoil, gas blocks carboned up to malf levels. The info is available to those who would appreciate it, but that is very rare these days. So you're kind of right, brute force till someone gets hurt.
If You grown with metric system MRAD is obvious choice. 1MRAD = 1cm@100M and i mean exactly 1cm. All of metric units are 10 based. So if typical dude is 180cm then on 300m he'll be 60 MRADs tall. As European i have no idea on how many inches there are in a foot or how tall typical guy is in those espcially when You go into fractions that are not 10 based. So it seems to me it's basically imperial vs metric.
you are not going to like this but: learn metric and use mils. they are based on milliradians so 1 meter is 1 mrad at 1km. and so 0,1mrad is distance to target/10000. with this you can easily calculate the distance to an object with a known lenght or height.
The beauty of mils is that you can do ranging in ANY UNITS as long as you use the SAME UNITS for the actual dimension of the target and the range of the target. In every case, the ratio is 1000 whether you are using metric, imperial, Russian arshins, or any other crazy unit you might want to use. Just use the same units for actual target dimension and range of target.
Not being from America, mrad is way easier to understand at LR. The Best thing j ever did was chuck a "yds to meters" cheat sheet on my buttstock. (Some clubs here in aus still use yards for their ranges)
You should have started off with exactly what mils and MOA are. And once you get into using the reticle to estimate target size to range the distance then you will have to either be very used to either the empirical system or the metric system or learn how to do the conversions. If not then stick with the system you know.
MRAD to CM at 100m is the fastest and easiest system. Reticule design is the deciding factor to clutter. Scope manufacturers struggle to do repeatable and robust turret detents smaller than 1/4 MOA or 0.1 MRAD. With all the time in the world all the systems, bar mixing systems up, can work. Most of the world has gone metric, for good reason. Drop and wind are the same distance in any measurement, just gives different numbers. Lasers and ballistic calculators will provide the information in any format, just don't mix them up. MOA fine, MRAD better. Thankfully, I'm old enough to do both. If I started again I'd go MRAD.
Radian measure is the natural way to measure angles. This is because for small angles, the sine and tangent are both approximate by the angular measure. This makes trigonometry for small angles very easy. Consider approximating distances used a mil reticule Indeed, radian is so much more natural, when the aliens attack, their rifle scopes will have optics with radian measure.
@@Mpeterson1286. Yes, but 360 degrees in a circle was an arbitrary number used by ancient folks with a base 60 number system. Higher Mathematics doesn’t use degree measure because radian measure is objectively superior. These advantages inform long range shooting for those flexible enough to adopt radian measure.
Most sights and scopes move in MOA which describes inches of bullet displacement at target distance, thus a 1 inch bullet displacement at 100 yards requires 1 MOA of adjustment. Easy. I am a CMP-USAMU Military Rifle Instructor assisting the USAMU deliver Squad Designated Marksman Instruction. That training includes zeroing, wind, and bullet drop compensation in MOA and ranging in mils. The bottom line is holds in mils or perceived inch displacement is good but zeroing for a placeholder is better in MOA so come to understand both for best results.
I saunter to the periphery of a group in a heated discussion of Mils vs. MOA. I have my hands in my pockets, kind of wandering around suspiciously. From the back of the group I yell, "Mils are for people that need easy math!" and I skedaddle, leaving chaos in my wake.
Nobody that shoots long range seriously cares about linear measurements. Everything is done in angular measurements for drop and drift, and Mils are easier to work with. Converting either system to linear measurements is a waste of time and effort.
You forgot the coriolis effect is only measured in mils, multiplied by 2x the square root of velocity, divided by (bore diameter x projectile grains over G7 ballistic coefficient). Naw man, JBM calculator will spit out those mils too.
MILs is simple if you stay metric as intended. 10cm at 100M, 1M at 1000M, etc. It's not meant to convert to inches/yards. You're combining two different systems. Stick with one or the other. The simplest is MIL and is why it's used by USA snipers.
A miliradian is actually 1/1000th as wide as it is long. Thus, a miliradian is 1m at 1000m, 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 smidgen at 1000 smidgens, 1 light year at 1000 light years etc. It's a function of geometry, not part of the Metric system.
This is the main problem right here, and Josh touched on it indirectly. Hunters know how wide the vitals are of a deer (or whatever else they're hunting) in inches, so they're going to want to use MOA to easily judge their group sizes to quickly figure the maximum effective range with a given weapon to take a shot. Also, public shooting ranges have all their targets set up in yards rather than meters, which is why Henry has to do rough conversions with metric graduated irons on their range.
if you use inches to describe things shoot MOA. If you use centimeters shoot mil. As an army sniper, everything was in Mills. Except we all call shots in inches because we have an entire lifetime of using inches and we see things in inches. So then we’re converting 20 inches to mils then putting your dope in. The army uses metric for everything so it used metric for scopes.. but Americans don’t use metric even if we want to our brains see everything in inches in feet maybe yards.
just - for the love of god - *DON'T* get a scope with MOA turrets and a MIL reticle... thank you US Army... LMAO! MIL all the way!! don't even think about it. just. go. MIL. (you can thank me later.)
People- please don't fall for this-toosh. if you think in imperial- stick to it.(especially if you hunt at ethical distances) if you think in metric- stick to it. I grew up using both in a metric world.... I adapted to the Moa system and quite frankly it is superior unless you need to estimate distance based on the target size. side note-easy as to stack the deck and not show the exact opposite example-Mmmmm gas lighting so im told in merica lingo.
But... It's so Looney toons to work mils in inches, when the rest of the world is metric, and, if you range a target in metres, 1/10 mil is 1 centimeter at 100 meters, and 0.4" at 100 meters if you really need some imperial measurement.
MILS are 1000% easier to use, everyone needs to watch Paramount Tacticals video on this topic. Also MILS are not metric, MOA and MIL are simply a way to measure angles.......when I was in the military I never had a compass in degrees, everything was MILS, east is 1600 MILS, south is 3200, west is 4800, and north is 0 or 6400.....
I feel this video is more aimed for the USA because to me MOA is sh*t because when I zero my scope at 100m I always need to think that every 1/4 klick is 7mm and add that up for every klick. Meanwhile in MILs one klick is one or two cm it’s just way easier to calculate
"MILs are easier to range" Are you smoking crack? If you know how many inches/feet something is, and you see how many minutes tall/wide it is in your reticle, you know how far it is. 🤦♂️
It always makes me laugh when Americans explain the mil system but still use inches and yards lol. Once you get in the 21st century and use the metric sysem then mil becomes way easy.
What a laugh. As a rancher shooting predators and varmints everyday, who also loves to shoot long range, I laugh at the arguments about how 2nd focal plane isnt any good for all sorts of bs reasons, stupid cluttered reticles etc. A pro lifts his range finder, reads range, dials his drop in MOA or Mils and takes a shot, because hes worked out prior dope. Ballistic tables and programs are never right. FFP and 2FP makes absolutely no difference, except no calculations are needed for MOA. But hey, marketing in action, spend your money on ammo instead.
What's cool about mils is 1 mil = 1 inch at 1000 inches, 1 meter at 1000 meters, 1 foot at 1000 feet, 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 stick at 1000 sticks. Super easy to understand
ya, jam a iso unit system into imperial measurement is what gives those weird fractions
THIS RIGHT HERE!!!
Absolutely Correct!
Ya but in the real world (for the most part) targets are set up at 100yds, 200yds, 300yds, etc
Jason should have explained it this way. He explained MOA, which is quite simple, but didn't really explain MILS in a simple example. Thank you for your explanation.
You should have mention MOA to Inches at 100 yards vs MRAD to CM at 100 Meters. Once you start using meters for distance, then MRAD really shines.
Best comment ever. Just do it in metric and it's simple AF.
It doesn't even have to be metric. The one basic tenet of the MIL system is that it's a thousand to one ratio. That's it. 100 yards is 3600 inches, so it makes a lot more sense that one mil at 3600 inches is 3.6 inches. The confusion comes from mixing units in the imperial system (inches, feet, yards) instead of just picking one and sticking with it. To stick with yards, it would be clearer to ignore inches entirely and call it 1/10 yard at 100 yards. (same as 3.6 inches)
Great job Josh. Best comparison I have heard yet. Thanks
except that MILS is not metric.....
@@michaelficarro2591 0.1 Mil at 100 meters is 1 CM. Sure sounds like metric to me. 1MOA @ 100 Yards is 1 inch as 1 Mil @ 100 Meters is 10 CM. MRAD corresponds to metric as MOA does to Imperial Inches.
This is the best video I've seen on the "MOA vs MIL" subject and... my head is still spinning 😂
My long distance .22LR plinking system is this: make a wildly inaccurate guess about the target's range, shoot a few practice shots to build confidence, then miss my most careful shot by several feet.
It's the same system I use for putting.
You need to look up Ryan Cleckner videos here and his books on long distance engagements. Ryan is a former Ranger/Sniper and he really breaks it down Barney style. You'll never use moa again!
@@92naz32 -- I'm mostly looking for help with my putting 😂
@@92naz32 -- More interested in fixing my putting game honestly 😂
🤣🤣🤣
8:50 that's even something i was taught as a conscript with the binoculars our army fields. The binos have a mil scale in them, and so when you are observing something (a vehicle for example) and you roughly know the horizontal dimension, you can do the math for the distance quick to pass on the information. Or when there's no elevation distance you could also use the vertical measurement.
(This was at the turn of the century, laser rangefinders weren't what a normal infanterist being on a short recon/observation trip was equipped with. And we use metric units anyway.)
Josh, after 40+ years using MOA I took the plunge, getting a 1-8x ATACR. This vid is the best I've seen so far explaining the difference. Thank you!
i’ve watched a dozen videos trying to decide if i want moa or mil. i kept thinking mil but i was stuck on the inches to moa conversion ease. you really cleared that up for me. thanks!
Does the 1.047 of actual moa measurement make any difference at extended range or can you still just confidently say 10" at a 1000
It's actually closer to 7 inch deviation at 1,000, but it takes a special person with a custom load behind a special scope for to make that happen.
No bullet is accurate to .047 of an inch.
The math stays the same, so if it's .047 at 100y, it's .47 at 1000y. So it's really up to you to say if 10" and 10.47" are the same or not. Personally, I would say at that range, .47" of additional spread is negligible.
@@PBVader Where are you getting that 7 inch number from? That's not correct at all. MOA is an angular variation, it scales linearly.
@@ianloughney9570 I agree with you, without including the capabilities of the shooter and platform. The simple facts that half inch groups at 100 are amplified to 5 inch groups at 1000, and predictability of drop and wind drift negate the half inch deviation at 1000. Can you hold half inch groups at 100? Can you hold 5 inch groups at 1000? Please reread my post.
I am looking at purchasing a sfp 1-6x24 lpvo. can i use the 50/200 zero on this type of scope?
Yes make sure to do it at 6x
UUUUGGGHHHHH. I just bought (1 hr ago on amazon) my first scope, the Sniper VT5.9-39X56FFP. It is to be mounted on a Beretta BRX1 .308 win. As someone new to picking up hunting and long range target shooting (haven't done either yet), was this a good scope choice? Should I be choosing MOA or MIL. I do understand measurements easier in inches, feet and yards as I have some experience in DIY renovation and construction. I'm second guessing if I made the right purchase. Any thoughts for me? Thanks in advance.
1 MIL = 1/1000 of distance. If your target is 200 elbows (or whatever bodypart measurement you prefer) away 1 mil is 0.2 elbows of dispertion.
i see what you did there
1 mil = 10cm at 100m. Work with the world accepted standards is easier.
I imagine there is no issue multiplying 10s. It's very similar to your 1 time table with a 0 on the end.
Also for artillery... A mil is a meter at a range of one thousand meters.
I believe the reference for "1 click" is 1 mil (so shift 5 mils left is 5m at 1000m (1km)) - simple is good.
Probably why he had trouble at first trying to convert back to 3.6 inches despite living in a metric country everything shooting related was in fps and MOA so I got used to it
Every ballistic program I have run have given moa corrections in tenths of an moa. 1/8 and 1/4 moa clicks don't line up with that. Mils, at 1/10 per click is easier to work with. Once you forget about inches, it all starts making sense. Pick your system and run with it. After 60 years of moa scopes I bought my first mil based optic this summer. I should have switched years ago. Just my thoughts.
This is an awesome comment
That was fun. Can we factor polynomials?
2:38 growing up using MOA outisde of NA makes it hard to work everything out since everything I've ever done has been working in MOA inches and feet per second despite never using that in day to day things.
Excellent video for those who don't understand that both MOA and Mils are simply a measurement of angles. The video is spot on that thinking in moa or mils is the key when ranging. Though there are some inaccuracies in the video. Most prominently several manufactures offer turrets with 0.05 mill clicks (video said the smallest was 0.1 mil). Similarly, but not an inaccurate statement, scopes are available with 1/8 moa turrets. Also nothing inaccurate was said, but the video should have pointed out that mils are spot on, the rule of thumb that persuades most in the USA to use moa is close but not accurate (because 1 moa does not equal 1" at 100 yards, but is close enough for most hunting distances). Personally I use both and don't have issue switching between the systems. I simply pick the scope that has the best reticle and turrets that fit my needs. I use mil based scopes on rifles that are used where ranging is required and 1/8 moa turrets with fine crosshair center dot reticles for shooting at know distance targets. Because the 1/8 moa turrets allows hitting the center of targets at 50 and 100 yard with my 22lr while a 0.1mil turret does not and I couldn't find a reticle I liked with 0.05 mil turrets.
Exactly like you said, MOA is easier for me to quickly understand what I'm doing. So that's primarily what I use
Thank you for the practical explanation I bought a new 7mm Rem mag with a MOA and I had a 270win withe a mm Sistema
Josh, how about a "lecture" on the NATO type reticle and how to use this system.
It occurs to me that the advantage you say MILs has with simpler numbers to remember could be magnified if you are frequently shooting different calibers.
However there is one potential advantage to MOA you didn't mention. Red dots and other short range optics as well as pistol optics are almost exclusively set up with an MOA basis instead of MILs. If you are trying to test how far you can effectively use those being able to think in MOA maximizes your use of those otherwise limited reticles.
Mil or Moa? Both great. Used both and they do the same thing. Although Moa make for finer tuning and the metric system doesn't know the time. Did anyone see the deer at 5:41 on the range. Seems like the shooter might no should have been firing towards it.
As someone who uses inches regularly, I find moa is more beneficial for holding corrections. I can guesstimate pretty easily a miss and hold on the reticle easier. Now you can do the same for mil, and I do believe it is more widely used and superior but I've only used CM (correct measurement) for something else. 😂😂😂
or.... you just look at the reticle, and measure the exact amount you missed by and hold and fire.
Trying to think about inches is a waste of time. Measure how far off you were with your Reticle and apply the correction.
That's exactly how all folks that don't effectively use turrets shoot. Personally, I dial turrets rather than use holdovers.
Excellent description of the mil vs moa
Great video my suggestion to you is get a S&B scope with .05 mil turrets
I shoot both inch and mill scopes. I like the mill system best but it is easy to swap back and forth . The longer the range the better the mill system is for hold over and off set
Excellent video. I would like to see a part 2 with shooters employing both systems.
Very, very helpful primer on the topic, thank you!
MIL is faster but has some margin of error but allows a fast second round correction if miss the first shot.
MOA is slower but has more accurate hold with a high chance of first round impact
This is assuming you memorize the dope sheet and you estimated ranging imperial units for MOA, and centimeters meters in Mil.
There is is a reason why tactical scenarios use mils and Hunters use MOA.
Good discussion. In summary, it's completely arbitrary, except that MIL, being a larger increment and subdivided by 10 rather than 4 is more practical when shooting longer distances. Got it.
Bring back Larry and his God-level gunsmith videos. 😢
The hardcore "MIL OR DIE" guys come off as try-hard CrossFitter types. Their first rule is to talk about MIL over everything. I used both systems in the military. As a civilian, I can still use both as it pertains to what I'm doing and perhaps most importantly who I am training with.
Thank you professor!
*I can make it REALLY simple for everyone.*
*If you have a pocket computer/phone/tablet always with you, use MIL.*
*If you only have a pencil, use MOA.*
Good info. thanks so much
The mRad is easy peachy when combine wih the metric system.
You don't even need to use the metric system, though. 1 mil = 1 inch @ 1000 inches. 0.1 mil = 0.1 inch @ 1000 inches = 0.01 inch @ 100 inches. Change "inch" to whatever unit you like as long as it's consistent: 1 mil = 1 yard @ 1000 yards, 0.1 mil = 0.1 yard @ 1000 yards, etc.
This is still more complicated than necessary. Simplified MILs is a 10 base system and MOA is a 4 base system. The system you understand almost doesn't matter to a degree. MILs has a huge advantage when potentially blind dialing as it's ten base which is infinitely more easier than 4 base. I shoot PRS and BR and most MOA reticles are less cluttered. This is a personal preference. I am personally switching to MILs as my centerfire optic is a MIL system as it's the best reticle offered. In my rimfire I currently shoot MOA as the reticle is cleaner than it's MIL counterpart but I'll need to switch to MIL as the MIL version offers more elevation dial, I'll gain an additional 35MOA of dial from 95 minutes.
Milliradians aren’t hard if you don’t try to convert. 10mm at 100m pretty is pretty simple 2:03
I understand the superiority of the mil system, but MOA seems more common for scopes in the US. I also see MOA, never mils, used for red dots - both for reticle sizes and adjustments for windage & elevation. It seems to me that sticking with one system that's used in both scopes and red dots is another argument in favor of MOA.
Mil reticles just make more sense for me as far as tracking and compensating my shots. I’d like to be able to track my shots and call my mils which I guess I could do with MOA as well but mil reticles lend themselves well to the task
Watching a report from the recent IWA show and noticed some European military manufacturers referring to the cant (incline) of the optics mount as "20 MOA". It just seems they would use mils, maybe it was because they were talking to an American civilian....
Despite MOA having a nice relation to inches and yards, it's not inherently imperial vs. metric. MOA simply comes from 360 degrees in a circle, 60 minutes in a degree, and scientists all over the world were measuring angles in degrees and minutes for years.
There are some things which have got stuck in spoken laguance from imperial system.
Like barrel lenght in inches. Monitors inches and some pluming pipes are in imperial.
But in 99.9% other cases everything else is in normal metric.
I'd like to see a vid on using a reticle to figure out ranges. I remember at my buddy's place where I figured out how many mRad a rain barrel was with my reticle... and then realized I had no idea what to do with that information when it came to determining how far away the barrel was.
angle (mils / MoA)
target dimensions
target distance
You need to know 2 of those to be able to find the third. A list of common items and their dimensions is a critical tool for UKD work.
The key is knowing the size of a designated target.
We were taught to estimate a man's height at 6'. This makes it easier to calculate distance through an optic.
Let's be honest here, all targets are based on shooting combatants.
i learned it this way:
(1000 x the known horizontal measurement of the target) divided by the number of mil hashmarks the target takes up in your optic = the distance in m.
Easy to calcualte example: if the rainbarrel is 0.6m wide and you count 6 hashmarks: (1000x0.7)/7= 700/7= 100m So the barrel is in 100m distance.
@@nirfz One of the HUGE advantages of Mils is that it does NOT matter what units you use for the linear measurement of the target size and distance as long as they are the SAME, the formula of 1000 x (Known target dimension) / (Known target dimension in Mils) = target range. You can use inches, cm, yards, meters, etc. and it doesn't matter; the formula is the SAME. Not so for MOA.
@@brucewilliams3261 While that is true, I only explained how i learned it.
For us there was no need to put any emphasis on the fact that you could use different units.
Inches, yards or feet don't matter here, and as for infanterist use: mm, cm or km are impractical for the sizes of targets and distances. So we only got to use m.
Artillery on the other hand is probably different. (but i am only trained in infantery and AAA and in the later one you use radar and a laser rangefinders who's measurings are automatically used in the SW calculation of the firecomputer.)
Mil is the way. I can tolerate people who use MOA. We both however look down on BDC users lol.
All 3 are about matching the tool for the job. Bdc is really good for military rifles.
BDC works great if you set it up correctly and expect to be shooting 1 kind of ammunition.
Sorry I’m not a trained sniper lol
BDC is for the common man
@@bghiggy And have the same height over bore and at the same elavation and with the same barrel length and with the same twist rate, etc etc etc.
All variables need to be identical to what the scope was calibrated for or else it won't be correct.
@@GldenRetriever It won't be correct-correct but it will be good enough. At least up to certain range. BDCs are supposed to be quick and dirty. (Aren't quick for me, because I'm not thinking in yards while most BDCs are in yards - but let's be honest, BDCs do have a role in which they excell).
It bothered me so much that no one specified whether they were using Mils or Milliradians that I sat down to compute the difference. Turns out that they are the same to over three decimal places despite having different definitions.
You should have explained that both, are units of angular measurement. Minute of angle, a minute is 1/60 of a degree, with 360-degrees in a circle. A mil is milliradian, and there are 2Pi radians in a circle. Mils were developed for aiming artillery, not rifles. I was raised by an engineer/surveyor. I have known degrees, minutes, and seconds since I was nine.
When I learned to shoot it was from my Dad who, used a surveyors transit as a spotting scope, and rolls of paper marked with heavy lines on the inches, and lighter lines on the tenths of inches. To sight in you shot a group at 100-yds. Then you read read the elevation and windage you were off from the bullseye. Then used the Weaver micro-trac adjustments to move the reticule to correct. Second groups would be on target.
I hunt. My venerable old Weaver K58, has a “German reticule”. The heavy wires end to end subtend twenty moa. The heavy wire width subtends 5-moa top to bottom or side to side. The thin wires in the center subtends 1-moa. The chest on a bull elk is about 24-inches top to bottom. The chest on a big muley is about 18-inches, good rack is 30-inches.
Rifle zeroed at 200. 2-inches high at 100, and 4.5 low at 300. So I can immediately without thought, or counting antler times, make the decision on whether to shoot. Center up on the chest just behind the shoulder, and squeeze off the round. With a very high probability of a fatal wound on something I actually want to shoot.
Basically for hunting or target shooting you need to know the sizes of common targets you shoot at, in reference to the reticle you are using. And know how to estimate distance to target and dope your shot for the range.
I second your 36-50/200 zero. It is expedient at normal hunting ranges with a maximum PBR inside 6 inches. About a mil high hold at 300, depending. Any farther than that would benefit from a dope card. I cringe when I hear these fantasy 575 yard hail mary stories with a brand new rifle and a scope they just had to torque down that morning.
@@PBVader Many people are more able to picture in their mind what is going on, if you actually explain what is really happening. If you are on who is so smart you don’t need it, or one of those who just brute forces his way through things with no understanding, so be it. But most do a batter job of incorporating knowledge they understand.
@@randallthomas5207 I don't quite understand your response, unless it was meant as adversarial. Two ways of describing the exact same thing. I firmly believe a hands on approach, practicing at a range and documenting the results, is far more conducive to the human experience than brute force. Of course the prerequisite homework is helpful before implementing a training regiment. I live in Wisconsin where you make the paper if you fall out of your tree stand, tall tales of the elusive turdy pointer and wild shots in the vicinity of your hunting buddy are common place. Yet when you volunteer at sight in days you have a couple people that have their stuff together, some on the same system for 30 years, while every one else that should be learning from them always seem to have some problem. Wrong length of pull, scope and mounts loose, limbsavers folding sideways under recoil, gas blocks carboned up to malf levels. The info is available to those who would appreciate it, but that is very rare these days. So you're kind of right, brute force till someone gets hurt.
If You grown with metric system MRAD is obvious choice. 1MRAD = 1cm@100M and i mean exactly 1cm. All of metric units are 10 based. So if typical dude is 180cm then on 300m he'll be 60 MRADs tall. As European i have no idea on how many inches there are in a foot or how tall typical guy is in those espcially when You go into fractions that are not 10 based. So it seems to me it's basically imperial vs metric.
MOA!? What dose it stand for
minute of angle
you are not going to like this but: learn metric and use mils. they are based on milliradians so 1 meter is 1 mrad at 1km. and so 0,1mrad is distance to target/10000. with this you can easily calculate the distance to an object with a known lenght or height.
The beauty of mils is that you can do ranging in ANY UNITS as long as you use the SAME UNITS for the actual dimension of the target and the range of the target. In every case, the ratio is 1000 whether you are using metric, imperial, Russian arshins, or any other crazy unit you might want to use. Just use the same units for actual target dimension and range of target.
On a MRAD system you cannot adjust fine as in MOA? lol
Not being from America, mrad is way easier to understand at LR. The Best thing j ever did was chuck a "yds to meters" cheat sheet on my buttstock. (Some clubs here in aus still use yards for their ranges)
I use both cause I can. My 300 yard zero is 41 MOA or 12 MILS, I shoot Rimfire 😊
1 MOA about 1 inch at 100 yards.
1 MIL aboit 10cm at 100m.
This is how I remember it.
You should have started off with exactly what mils and MOA are. And once you get into using the reticle to estimate target size to range the distance then you will have to either be very used to either the empirical system or the metric system or learn how to do the conversions. If not then stick with the system you know.
Did he say “inches and empirical”? In English we say ‘imperial’.
MRAD to CM at 100m is the fastest and easiest system. Reticule design is the deciding factor to clutter. Scope manufacturers struggle to do repeatable and robust turret detents smaller than 1/4 MOA or 0.1 MRAD. With all the time in the world all the systems, bar mixing systems up, can work. Most of the world has gone metric, for good reason. Drop and wind are the same distance in any measurement, just gives different numbers. Lasers and ballistic calculators will provide the information in any format, just don't mix them up. MOA fine, MRAD better. Thankfully, I'm old enough to do both. If I started again I'd go MRAD.
It would have been simpler to say moa is standard vs mil is metric. Once you look at mil as metric distances it gets just as easy as moa.
My brother in christ
1 mil at 100 meters is 10 centimeters
1 moa at 100 yards is 1 inch
WE'RE JUST ARGUING ABOUT FREEDOM FRACTIONS AGAIN 😂
Seems to me your bias towards Mils
Radian measure is the natural way to measure angles. This is because for small angles, the sine and tangent are both approximate by the angular measure. This makes trigonometry for small angles very easy. Consider approximating distances used a mil reticule Indeed, radian is so much more natural, when the aliens attack, their rifle scopes will have optics with radian measure.
Angles are measured in minutes
There are 60 minutes in 1 degree.
360 degrees in a circle.
🤷♂️
@@Mpeterson12862π radians in a circle, half a turn is π radians, quarter turn is 1/2π radians. A miliradian is 1/1000th of a radian.
@@Mpeterson1286. Yes, but 360 degrees in a circle was an arbitrary number used by ancient folks with a base 60 number system. Higher Mathematics doesn’t use degree measure because radian measure is objectively superior. These advantages inform long range shooting for those flexible enough to adopt radian measure.
the whole decimal and fraction thing is not needed ,you're just making it all about inches and yards
Most sights and scopes move in MOA which describes inches of bullet displacement at target distance, thus a 1 inch bullet displacement at 100 yards requires 1 MOA of adjustment. Easy. I am a CMP-USAMU Military Rifle Instructor assisting the USAMU deliver Squad Designated Marksman Instruction. That training includes zeroing, wind, and bullet drop compensation in MOA and ranging in mils. The bottom line is holds in mils or perceived inch displacement is good but zeroing for a placeholder is better in MOA so come to understand both for best results.
👍
I saunter to the periphery of a group in a heated discussion of Mils vs. MOA. I have my hands in my pockets, kind of wandering around suspiciously. From the back of the group I yell, "Mils are for people that need easy math!" and I skedaddle, leaving chaos in my wake.
I find it odd the Mil Rad guys find it better than 1/4" adjustments.
All bullet drop and drift is measured in inches.
Keep it simple.
Nobody that shoots long range seriously cares about linear measurements. Everything is done in angular measurements for drop and drift, and Mils are easier to work with. Converting either system to linear measurements is a waste of time and effort.
You forgot the coriolis effect is only measured in mils, multiplied by 2x the square root of velocity, divided by (bore diameter x projectile grains over G7 ballistic coefficient). Naw man, JBM calculator will spit out those mils too.
MILs is simple if you stay metric as intended. 10cm at 100M, 1M at 1000M, etc.
It's not meant to convert to inches/yards. You're combining two different systems. Stick with one or the other. The simplest is MIL and is why it's used by USA snipers.
A miliradian is actually 1/1000th as wide as it is long. Thus, a miliradian is 1m at 1000m, 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 smidgen at 1000 smidgens, 1 light year at 1000 light years etc. It's a function of geometry, not part of the Metric system.
@@herknorth8691 I get that but it's about simplicity. Metric is less apples to oranges to mils than inches/yards.
This is the main problem right here, and Josh touched on it indirectly. Hunters know how wide the vitals are of a deer (or whatever else they're hunting) in inches, so they're going to want to use MOA to easily judge their group sizes to quickly figure the maximum effective range with a given weapon to take a shot. Also, public shooting ranges have all their targets set up in yards rather than meters, which is why Henry has to do rough conversions with metric graduated irons on their range.
if you use inches to describe things shoot MOA. If you use centimeters shoot mil.
As an army sniper, everything was in Mills. Except we all call shots in inches because we have an entire lifetime of using inches and we see things in inches. So then we’re converting 20 inches to mils then putting your dope in. The army uses metric for everything so it used metric for scopes.. but Americans don’t use metric even if we want to our brains see everything in inches in feet maybe yards.
Ummm, Mils is a metric measurement. Sorry US folks. 1 mil is 1 cm at 100 meters (or something like that)
Decimals are easier than fractions
just - for the love of god - *DON'T* get a scope with MOA turrets and a MIL reticle... thank you US Army... LMAO!
MIL all the way!! don't even think about it. just. go. MIL. (you can thank me later.)
Fact 😂
People- please don't fall for this-toosh.
if you think in imperial- stick to it.(especially if you hunt at ethical distances)
if you think in metric- stick to it.
I grew up using both in a metric world....
I adapted to the Moa system and quite frankly it is superior unless you need to estimate distance based on the target size.
side note-easy as to stack the deck and not show the exact opposite example-Mmmmm gas lighting so im told in merica lingo.
But... It's so Looney toons to work mils in inches, when the rest of the world is metric, and, if you range a target in metres, 1/10 mil is 1 centimeter at 100 meters, and 0.4" at 100 meters if you really need some imperial measurement.
" 0.4" at 100 meters if you really need some imperial measurement." - let's go full imperial: it's 1 inch at 1000 inches. :-)
Moa is easily for someone with dyslexia like me. And I can shoot long distance without it!
MILS are 1000% easier to use, everyone needs to watch Paramount Tacticals video on this topic. Also MILS are not metric, MOA and MIL are simply a way to measure angles.......when I was in the military I never had a compass in degrees, everything was MILS, east is 1600 MILS, south is 3200, west is 4800, and north is 0 or 6400.....
I feel this video is more aimed for the USA because to me MOA is sh*t because when I zero my scope at 100m I always need to think that every 1/4 klick is 7mm and add that up for every klick. Meanwhile in MILs one klick is one or two cm it’s just way easier to calculate
Bro lost me at very easy to remember and understand
Josh, please.
Stop being so handsome down to your voice. I can't listen right to all the super interesting things you are saying now, it's bothering !
Unless you're a drunk 45 year old woman this is a creepy af comment.
@@thefrogking481 then let it be creepy.
"MILs are easier to range"
Are you smoking crack?
If you know how many inches/feet something is, and you see how many minutes tall/wide it is in your reticle, you know how far it is.
🤦♂️
Mil is better for me
the metric system is far easier.....
Mil>moa
MIL is silly.
It makes no sense.
Angles are measured in minutes universally.
It always makes me laugh when Americans explain the mil system but still use inches and yards lol. Once you get in the 21st century and use the metric sysem then mil becomes way easy.
I don't like MILs. Simple as.
Another “just use what’s best for you” videos. No real content
Lost me about 30 seconds in with that weird voice stuff. WTH broski?
The americans are funny... resisting decimal system and meters.
.36 at 100 not 3.6
1 mil @ 100 yards = 3.6"
0.1 mil @ 100 yards = 0.36"
Wrong.
the 9 hole review dudes suck... more info that has been covered at length for a decade
What a laugh. As a rancher shooting predators and varmints everyday, who also loves to shoot long range, I laugh at the arguments about how 2nd focal plane isnt any good for all sorts of bs reasons, stupid cluttered reticles etc. A pro lifts his range finder, reads range, dials his drop in MOA or Mils and takes a shot, because hes worked out prior dope. Ballistic tables and programs are never right. FFP and 2FP makes absolutely no difference, except no calculations are needed for MOA. But hey, marketing in action, spend your money on ammo instead.
1 Mil at 100 yards = 10 cm, at 200 yards = 20 cm. and so on... if you use centimeters instead of inches - then Mils DO make sense