So the search here didn’t turn up much, and I have read various things elsewhere about the differences between the two, but its still as clear as mud to me. Since I trust most guys’ opinions on this site, I decided to start a thread about it here.
I need to know which would be the “better” system to use for ranging and precision work. I have been looking at the Vortex 2.5-10x and 1-4x optics for two different platforms. The 2.5-10x would go on a bolt gun that will be used out to 800 or so and the 1-4x would go on a “semi-precision” RECCE style AR for use out to 400 or so. I want to keep things consistent, so I want both scopes to have the same system (should be obvious).
Let me know your experiences fellas! School me on it!
1 MOA is 1/60th of 1 degree which is 1/360th of a circle. 1/4 MOA clicks would be 1/86400th of a circle. 1/2 MOA would be 1/43200th of a circle. 1/4 clicks would be .262" at 100 yards and 1/2 clicks would be .524".
1 MIL is just a milliradian which is 1/6400th of a circle. .10 mil would be 1/64000th of a circle. Basically 1 click is 1CM at 100M.
So 1/4MOA adjustments are slightly smaller of an adjustment than a mil based scope but 1/2MOA adjustments are slightly bigger. .10 a mil is .348MOA at 100 yards or .360".
You want the adjustments to match the reticle so if you have a mil dot reticle you want mil based adjustments. You can convert MOA to MIL and vice versa but its a step that doesn’t have to exist if you choose the right scope.
As to which is better the mil dot system is very easy to use, and coupled with mil based adjustments is near idiot proof. There are some similar MOA reticles our there too. I like mil because its based on multiples of 10 which is really easy to do math in your head on the fly. MOA akin is like inches yards and feet where theres no set pattern.
A far as click size goes this is also why I like mil based scopes because 1/4MOA adjustments can be a bit fine which causes you to have to rotate through tons of clicks to get any adjustment. 1/2MOA can be a bit imprecise at longer ranges. Closer in it works pretty well. So mil kinda splits the two nicely.
Damn Belmont, might be the best answer I have ever heard on the subject. Very non-biased and straight to the point. Thank you very much! It looks like mils is the way I will go. I know that with either system I get, I would have to learn it, but if mils are easier for calculations and adjustments, then that is the way I would go.
TXSUT, thanks for bringing the thread placement to my attention…I was in a hurry when I posted.
Mods…please move to Optics forum. Might get more responses there anyway. Thanks!
Mil is certainly simple in its based on multiples of 10 like the metric system but MOA can be used, too. I would just not have two systems going in one scope, and if you go with mils you have to think in mils. Kinda like if you are used to MPH and then switch to KPH on the HWY.
Now I just wish ranges for LR would convert to meters instead of yards…
You are correct the mil is 1/6400 of a circle and has been in US military usage since 1904. However a miliradian is not a mil, they are separate units of measurement.
For what ever reason, many people incorrectly refer to the mil and miliradian as interchange, they are close but 1/6400 is not 2xPi.
With a bullet drop/velocity type reticle, I think there is a lot to be said for MOA turrets being arguably more effective - quicker to set up if you’re using simple graph paper at 100yd and leaving the reticle for the most part.
If you’re going to be doing any mental math, adjusting the turrets, and then shooting, my preference is for MIL/MIL (reticle and turrets) all the way. Simple, less calculations, easier to be confident with.
If NF drops their second generation MilDot reticle into their NXS-Compact offerings, I’ll be all over the top end version of that scope.
So true. Remembering that 25 yards is about 23 meters helps (22.86 meters to be precise). Then you can just calculate 50, 75, and 100 yards as about 46, 69, and 92 meters respectively.
What I think is the most compelling argument for having the turrets match the reticle is that outside of using the reticle to range the target, there really is no math involved. You see the target, dial in/hold over your dope for the distance and send a round down range, if you miss you simply read the reticle, if its a mil high and .3 mils to the left then you hold a mil low and .3 mils to the right, or dial those in. There is no, “ok, .3 mils left, shoot, where is my mildot master, damnit, I can’t find it and can’t remember the formula for converting it to MOA”
Also there is no need when zeroing to have to go walk to the target to figure out your adjustments, you read the reticle and make the adjustments as it tells you to.
I have a preference for Mil/Mil in my optics. I have used MOA adjustment optics, Mil/MOA reticles/adjustment, and Mil/Mil.
The Mil/Mil is the easiest to adjust, easiest to remember, bold enough to adjust quickly but retains sufficient precision out to long range, easy to use for hold-over/hold-off, and easy to adjust observed strike.
As far as drop charts go, I just print them out in Mils.
I like Mil reticles over BDC reticles as they aren’t matched to a specific load and it becomes second nature once you learn your load.
I don’t much like BDC either unless its mass produced like the ACOG to meet a specific mass issued round. As a civie who would be shooting a lot of different types of rounds and on different guns if I wanted to theres no way a permanent BDC would work as well for me.
For most people you can memorize the adjustments especially for me since its zero’d at 100 and then I shoot at 250, 500, 750 and 1k since thats where the targets are… If I cant memorize 4 numbers then I need help…then all I have to do is adjust the for the wind.
If I cant memorize 4 numbers then I need help…then all I have to do is adjust the for the wind.