Who has scopes that are Mil/mil and others that are MOA? Can you run both systems without it overloading your math.
I would like to start to dabble with MIL/MIL but my others are MOA, any issues ding so? Any watch outs?
I just made the switch to mil/mil from the regular GI mil/MOA Leupolds. The beauty is it’s SO much easier - in fact, I still catch myself looking at a target going …'okay, 4.25" is xMOA, convert to-HEY, wait a minute! I need to dial in .4mils. Done!"
It boggles my mind that someone once thought…“I know we’ll make the reticle in mils and the knobs in MOA, it’ll be bangin’”.
Honestly I can’t understand why someone ever thought it was a good idea.
Running both moa/moa and mil/mil is suboptimal but still better than mixing them on one optic.
It’s not too tough. 3.5 minutes to a mil.
That being said, I’m a fan of running one or the other. I like mils because my brain works in 10’s and tenths easier than it does anything else.
I made the transition to MIL/MIL a few years ago. I still have to work with MIL/MOA optics when training people on the issued Leupolds. If you have a solid foundation it’s not hard to revert back to it when necessary.
My brain works in MOA… But I like the range estimating capability of the Mil Dot Reticle.
My next scope will be Mil/Mil and I’ll just have to reprogram my brain I guess.
You can range just as easily with an MOA reticle. Having a reticle that matches your turrets, and is in the first focal plane is key. What system one chooses to use isn’t nearly as important. It’s primarily personal preference.
I can call MOA corrections with my mil scopes… so it doesn’t really prohibit me from participating with MOA guys. It takes me a tiny bit longer… but it can be done.
Use the same stuff amongst your shooting buddies, so you can communicate easily. My group uses mils.
Use Mil/Mil. there’s no math involved. Your reticle is your measuring device, what you see is what you get, meaning after you watch your impacts and any adjustments need to be made just look at where in the reticle the impacts hit and make that adjustment.
It doesn’t get any more simple once you understand it and get out of the MOA mentality.
I’m no expert, so I’m just throwing this out there…
That’s all good when you can see your impacts. When your spotter is looking through a spotting scope with no reticle, he can’t tell you how many Mils to correct.
On the other hand, If he can see you’re about a foot off at a thousand… it’s a simple… “Come over 1 MOA” call.
It’s just as easy with MILS. Remember, 1 MIL is 36’’ (3 FT) at 1000 yards. So the correction would be to dial or hold .33 MILS (assuming 0.1 MRAD adjustments). In your scenario, MOA is only easier because the correction you have chosen equals 1 full unit of measurement in standard US units instead of Metric.
You should be using metric with MILS anyway. Where 1 MIL = 1 Meter at 1000 Meters and 10 Centimeters at 100 Meters. Couldn’t be simpler once you learn the metric system IMO:
Height of Target (meters) x 1000 / MILS = Distance to Target (meters)
Height of Target (cm) x 10 /MILS = Distance to Target (meters)
Furthermore, 1 MIL can simply be thought of as 1/1000th of the distance, regardless of what unit you want to use.
So,
Height of Target (yards) x 1000 / MILS = Distance to Target (yards)
I realize I’m off on a bit of a tangent here, but this will help somebody.
Or if he sees you’re about a yard off at a thousand… it’s a simple… “Come over 1mil” call.
I’m NEVER that far off!! 
I disagree with this completely. Mils has nothing to do with the imperial system of measurement, as its an angular unit… not linear.
I use yards as my linear measurement to target, and mils for my firing solution. It’s simple, and its effective.
I understand all of this and indicated the angular nature of the measurement at the bottom of my reply.
I use Metric for a few reasons. When you’re shooting targets behind cover, you don’t often have the luxury of a large target to measure. When your LRF is inoperable due to smoke, fog, or dead batteries, you’re left with the old way of doing things. Here are your options:
Height of Target (inches) x 27.78 / MILS = Distance to Target (yards)
VS
Height of Target (cm) x 10 /MILS = Distance to Target (meters)
Pick one.
I just like staying metric all around. Perhaps I should have said “I use Metric” not “You should be using Metric.” Nearly all systems I use require the use of Metric measurements, so it works for me. If your way works for you, then great. Still doesn’t change the fact that MOA works best with standard measurements…and while MILS do work with both standard and metric…things are simpler with metric.
The problem with cm is most of us dont use on a regular basis. I’m with orkan and use the same systems he uses. I’ve never met any LR shooters that use cm, i think thats a clue IMO.
While the MRAD system is obviously not metric / imperial specific (as I’ve been saying all along if you read my original reply), there are reasons to use Metric…some general like simplicity…some specific to my needs…like commonality with other systems and for communication with foreign militaries. Again, if you don’t want to, fine. But I still believe it works better.
Try relating measurements to indigenous Afghan forces in inches, feet, and yards (they use the Metric system). See how that works out. Good luck trying to train their marksmen to any level of proficiency when you can only think in the imperial / US system. Saying “you’re 8 inches right” makes as much sense to them as string theory means to me. Instead of making THEM adapt (they have enough to learn), it’s easier to learn and use the metric system and just say “you’re 20 CM right.” That’s on the zero range, nevermind ranging etc.
Also, I was fortunate enough to work closely with an extremely professional Latvian SOF unit on a recent deployment. This is what turned me on to, and dialed me into the metric system and the use of CM for ranging.
Thanks for your clue, though. I’ve got a few of my own.
I admit I’m mathematically stunted, and don’t even understand this sentence. It would take me a lot of study to get on to these procedures, and the way my brain works it would forget most of it after not using it for a while. If it was my job to use it regularly, I would catch on, but as a shooting for fun guy now, I would have to regularly practice the calculations.
My brain works in feet and inches, and I can figure out where to go in those terms. Any extra thinking just makes things worse for me, so I need the KISS principle big time.
Maybe I’m going full retard, or I’m already there!
a0cake… there in lies the beauty. You aren’t wrong. Neither are we.
You simply have an entirely different need. I have no desire, nor would I ever, to teach or talk shooting with afghan forces. I’m a civilian… hunting and shooting steel.
Your needs and what works for you is born out of necessity of completing an entirely different mission.
That being said, I’ve never had trouble ranging an object of any size using inches/mils to produce a firing solution based on distance in yards.
Yes. Agree. This is what I’ve been saying literally all along. Interesting to note that I never said anybody else was wrong. Not so the other way around.
If nothing else, I’m sure somebody reading this learned something. So it was not a waste.
Those are very legitimate reasons for using the metric system, no argument there. I find it interesting though that as much shooting as I;ve done with LEOs and Mil, all use inches. At the end of the day, it’s all mission based.
R.