Comments on: MIL vs. MOA Reticles — Which Are Better for Tactical Tasks?

By: 427Cobra

427Cobra — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:33:44 +0000

MOA’s are not inches, and MIL’s aren’t Metric, pick the right tool for job, static fixed distance shooting like BR or F-class, MOA scopes are better tool, MIL scopes are are the perfect tool for fast action shooting at varying distances, the reticle can be used for ranging targets, MOA and MIL, accurate fast holds are the meat n potatoes of so called ranging reticles

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 18:40:05 +0000

check out on you tube “sniper 101″ by TiborasaurusRex. watch the scope videos and he will clear up a lot of confusion some people have.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 18:38:02 +0000

when you shoot long range, even a high dollar laser will not be as accurate as milling the target due to the laser sending back distance beyond the target.
using mil or moa for range finding makes no difference, if you know the target size then the math will give you range either yards or meters, or both with a little more math. a youtube series of videos by Rex, video name TiborasaurusRex called Sniper 101. there is about 80-ish videos all from 15 minutes to over 30 breaking everything down and there are some free downloads to create a more detailed range cards. a few of the series deals with scopes, FFP vs second, HD glass etc… worth the time to watch, he does get a little windy, but very good info if you are interested in long range beyond 1000 yards or meters.

By: Louie Lindenmayer

Louie Lindenmayer — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:27:47 +0000

From a n00b perspective who hasn’t shot in competition: the MIL/MIL setup is easier for me to understand and get the ‘first round hit’ plus the hold-over/hold-off aspects for wind, etc. Not so sure that FFP makes that much of a difference in my case. I do use a laser, GPS w/barometer and s/w on smartphone to go thru the motions to learn what works for me.

By: Kris

Kris — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:49:22 +0000

94% of the top PRS shooters use mils and that doesn’t mean its better for tactical shooting?

Lets think about this for a minute. These are American shooters. Shooters in a country that basically hates all things metric (or perceived as metric), where the majority of the ranges and targets are in yards and inches. These kinds of matches were shot with MOA based scopes by the majority of shooters up until about maybe a decade ago. Yes, some shooters have military sniper/DM experience, but the vast majority do not. Of those that do, the older ones probably used MOA scopes when they were in. So, most of these shooters probably learned on MOA scopes. Why would they change from something they’re familiar with if there is no advantage in doing so? If there really is no difference, then it makes no sense whatsoever that the vast majority of top competitors in these matches have moved to mil based scopes. My biologist friend would call it a “mass migration” and would point out that populations don’t migrate if there’s no reason to do so.

btw, the reticle is rarely used for ranging. Ranging is the thing you probably do the least with it. Its used for holdovers, wind hold offs, leads on movers and correcting misses. F-Class shooters have targets that are scaled so that the rings are a known size. That lets them base adjustments and wind hold-offs off of the rings. The reticle lets you do exactly the same thing, but doesn’t matter what the distance is, what the size of the target is or what magnification the scope is set on. Its a ruler in your field of view that is accurate with anything you point it at. It eliminates the need to do math to figure out how many mils or MOA you need to adjust. You just measure.

By: Jim See

Jim See — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:13:59 +0000

Well valid points guys, I switched when I started into PRS series matches. I quickly learned that if I needed to engage 5 targets at different distances, in 30 seconds, that it was easier to remember my hold-overs in 2 digits vs 3. 6.3 is a lot easier to remember than 21.5 when your trying to memorize your data for 3-5 different targets. Application specific, does not apply to most shooters.

By: Mr.T

Mr.T — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 22:34:08 +0000

‘I hate to burst your bubble’ but experienced shooters will mil target ranges in competition better than most lasers under 1.5k $ past 700y ,even more so if there is any vegetation that might obstruct a huge laser beam common to most lasers. Laser beam sizes at 50m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcXprhRbN0Y

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:03:59 +0000

Moa vs Mil is like inch vs centimeter. There is no difference at all, use the one you learned, or are more comfortable with. That being said the most important thing is to have the reticle matching with the turret. The so popular mil dot reticle is never matching the moa turret. And is why the tactical world use mil turret. Making complicated conversion in the field is not easy. Plus you have to know at witch power your scope subtend.Why the invention of custom turret, the one that you dial for the range, and even tells you the windage. Range you previously obtain from a laser range finder. … In the end shooter you hunt you compete, you shoot for fun. KNOW your equipment know how to use it.

By: Boyd Allen

Boyd Allen — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 22:31:01 +0000

I hate to burst your bubble but the typical tenth of a mil adjustment is worth .36″ at 100 yards as opposed to .25″ or .125″ that are typical on American scopes. The point of mils is mostly about calculating distances. For holdovers or hold offs, they are a bit coarse, since mil is equal to 3.6″ at 100 yards. Have you ever done the calculation, or measured a distance to target using a mil dot reticle?

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:13:05 +0000

For most of the world that is now using the metric system for ranges, targets and most commercial objects, the MIL is the natural option. The statement that because the US uses Imperial measurement therefore x, y and z doesn’t wash in the rest of the world. Centimetres are smaller than inches and are likely to give a more precise measure when ranging.

Bottom line for scopes is to use what you are comfortable with. Then use it so it becomes second nature (and record the results). In the process of doing that, ignore the Internet where opinion and perception rule.