MIL dots vs MOA
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
The great debate.
MIL dots vs MOA
MOA because this is America
>>30199212
For practical shooting and ranging, mill-rad. For static known range shooting where the extra resolution on clicks may be useful such as f-class shooting, 1/8 MOA.
annoyingly, my scope is a mildot with MOA adjustments, but i also don't know if its actually a proper mildot, because the dots certainly dont look one mil apart.
It doesn't matter as long as your turrets match the reticle and you know how to use them.
Mil dot. For most of my rifles.
I work in meters when shooting and mil dot makes for easy math.
I think Moa is great for bench rest or if you refuse to metric.
I like moa on bench rifles because of the finer adjustments a 1/8moa scope gives vs a .1 mil
>>30199235
Keep in mind that there are 3 different types of mil-dot.
True mil-radian reticles with 6283 mils per 360 degrees. US Army (also known as artillery) mil reticles which are 6400 mils per 360 degrees, and USMC mil reticles which are the proper 6283 mils per 360 degrees but utilize oblong dots.
>>30199235
>my scope is a mildot with MOA adjustments
w-what?
what fucking scope is this?
>>30199277
eh, it's a bushnell 10x fixed, i still havent even gotten time to zero it yet, fucking savage locked up tight after like 6 rounds on my first range trip with it, need to take it out again now that ive got some decent brass ammo, not cheap slav steel.
>>30199212
Milradians is superior
Dots are awful.
Either short xmas tree, like HDMR or full Horus reticle.
>inb4 its too busy
>>30199290
Very common on the US market for decades since that is what the military used. Even though 1/4 MOA isn't actually 0.25 at 100y many users native to the imperial system are more comfortable using it to dial. With soldiers you have to cater to the lowest common denominator so best start with something they know then make them do the math as opposed to teach them a whole new system.
That is the same reason the Army mil reticles are 6400 mils per 360 since it is easier to swag an adjustment with a round starting number.
For fixed/known distances, MOA is fine.
But for unknown distances, I find milrads a lot easier.
I'm by no means an accomplished long distance shooter though.
Reticle-wise, I opted for the MSR.
>>30199290
>w-what?
There's strangely quite a few scopes that mix moa turrets with mil reticle and vice versa. Weird.
>>30199297
>Either short xmas tree, like HDMR or full Horus reticle.
Entirely depends on the type of shooting you're doing. For police response snipers etc those reticles are indeed great. But for shooters like myself, it's entirely over the top. No use spending the extra cash for a horus reticle (though some x-mas tree reticles aren't hugely expensive).
>>30199297
newfag to long range shooting, tell me the deffirence between milrads and mildots?
>>30199297
I agree on line subtensions vs dots, but go back and forth on christmas trees vs "clean" reticles.
I like shooting trees myself to spot my own impacts and adjustments, but prefer a clean reticle if spotting for someone else.
>>30199331
T or M series Steiner? I don't know them well enough to recognize them on sight. If it is a T series, have you had any tracking problems/ghost clicks like they were demonstrating early on?
>>30199331
Some are cheaper than that steiner.
>>30199357
Euro M5Xi Military 5-25x56mm MSR.
Clicks are solid. No tracking issues.
There's a bit of shadowing when fully zoomed in and the eye box shrinks, but at 25x that's to be expected.
>>30199343
Same thing, different name with the exception that not all mil-dot reticles are calibrated to true milliradian dimensions.
However that difference is slight enough it is within the noise outside of extremely precise and ultra long range shooting.
>>30199373
>Some are cheaper than that steiner.
I actually checked out several Bushnells before deciding on the Steiner. So yes, I'm aware. :)
In the end I was charmed by the MSR reticle and wanted euro glass.
Oh, did I mention you could club a baby seal to death with this Steiner without fearing breaking anything?
Call me a cheap faggot but i love the swfa mil-quad reticle.
Question: what is the use of these things?
>>30199445
>Question: what is the use of these things?
Ranging.
Check this explanation for various ranging options: http://www.finnaccuracy.com/msr.html
and if you don't want to read, there's a vid with a quick rundown too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4YD_-ZqI4o
>>30199445
It is a ranging device
A man of known height ( i dont remeber the height) fits between the line.... You know the distance.
>>30199441
Nothing wrong with the SWFA offerings, they track well and the reticles are true to the turrets, and those are really all that matter for most people.
Better glass, coatings, and spiffy features are nice but SWFA has the core of what makes a good scope down.
>>30199212
Unless you have a dedicated spotter with a MIL spotting scope, MOA has been, and always will be, superior for in-head calculator.
http://www.shooterready.com/lrsdemo.html
Post your first try score with each, MIL/MIL, MIL/MOA, MOA/MOA
>>30199516
That's interesting. Do you think this would still hold true for someone raised in a Metric using country? Sorry if that's a dumb question, I don't know jack shit about precision rifle stuff.
>>30199551
Metric with mil is easy.
Mil is divisible by 10.
Into .1 mill
At 1000m a mil is 1 m.
At 100m a mil is 10cm.
So at 100m each click on your scope us 1 cm.
So for example.
I range a 2m tall man. And he takes up 4 mil in my scope.
Two ways to find my range to him. Mathmatical and pattern recognition ( intuitive )
Mathmatically.
The formula for unknown range is
Ts x 1000 / mil reading = range.
2m x 1000 /4mil = 500m
Or intuitively. He is taking up 4 mils in my scope. I know he is 2 mils tall.
4mil/ 2mils = 2
1 mil is 1m at 1000m so he must be. Half that distance from me. At 500m
Mil dot with mil knobs in metric is easy and fast
My scopes are mil reticle and moa turrets... I dial for elevation and use the reticle for wind. Strelok displays both so it isn't too bad. The inability to "really" zero a 0.1 mil click scope would trigger an aspie storm anyways.
>>30199223
babylonians invented the sexagesimal system.
>>30199516
Nice program. How is the full version? I lvoe anything that lets me play with real worlf mathmatics
>>30199824
Well Americans invaded Babylon since 1991 so that's ours now.
>>30199212
Am I the only one who hates it when people are like "I shot a 3 moa group"
Like just say you shot an x inch group at y yards who cares about moa
>>30199212
Depends on the POU dood
>>30201741
What the fuck is wrong with that baby
>>30201761
Bad genetics from the parents
>>30199316
yup. there's "1/4 MOA" clicks that are really IPHY (Inch per Hundred Yards) clicks.
my precision rifle has mil/mil because conversions are for nerds.
>>30201733
you are. somebody was arguing a few months ago that MOA was a meme. i've been posting 'bout guns on the internets since 1999-ish and i've seen MOA the entire time.
Newfag here, how do calculate wind and compensate for it?
>>30201968
You don't "calculate" wind, you measure it.
To compensate for it, you use a table, and you interpolate.
>>30201999
care to elaborate further?
>>30201880
>somebody was arguing a few months ago that MOA was a meme
I seem to recall that the argument was that, while a MOA is by definition a non-dimensional angle, a rifle cannot be characterized by its MOA alone, you need a distance, because we're not shooting lasers.
>>30199257
All of my this.
>>30202009
A table will have a wind column that reads, for example, "10 m/s" at the top, with values for every distance that it indicates.
Say the cell that corresponds to 500m indicates a 2.5 mil correction, and the cell that corresponds to 600m indicates a 3.5 mil correction.
Say that your target is at 550m, and you measure a full value left side wind at 5m/s.
You'd have to interpolate for distance which gives you 3 mils for 550m, and then you have to interpolate for actual wind value which is 5 m/s instead of 10m/s, so you get 1.5mils left compensation.
These are really easy interpolations, you'd best have a calculator with you.
>>30201715
>>30201968
Since these are related I'll start by telling both of you to either download a good ballistic app for your phone like Strelok or to go buy a Kestrel and make your life easy.
Calculating ballistics longhand sucks.
Windspeed per second X Time of flight in seconds = drift at Full Value
Full value is a 90* cross wind (ie. from 3 to 9 oclock). If for instance wind is at your 1 oclock that is only half value as wind is only acting on the bullet half as much as it would at full value. 2 oclock would be ~85% value so the closer you get to 90* more impact the wind has on drift.
>>30202093
>Windspeed per second X Time of flight in seconds = drift at Full Value
That doesn't work. The bullet isn't a boat moving slowly through a river.
>>30199212
Why is this even a debate in the era of good laser rangefinders?
Literally nobody should be ranging with their reticle, it's terribly imprecise at distances you *need* to range, and pointless at the short distances it's precise enough to work since you don't need to hold over or off with anything larger than .22lr
>being off on your height estimation by 2 inches at a measured 500m means you'll range it as either ~470m or ~530m
>168gr FGMM .308 will hit 7" higher than intended at 470m or 19" lower at 530m.
So basically you have to decide if you want faster but cruder (mil) or slower but more precise (MOA) dialing.
>>30202019
yeah that dude was an idiot.
>>30202093
or you could just have a drop table. 10 mph full-value wind at distance and adjust appropriately.
>>30202140
because unknown distance stadiametric estimation is a pretty key skill to have. like targeting bombs using radar alone - everybody just jams coordinates into a JDAM, but if you need it you can find it and kill it with a radar.
>>30202140
>So basically you have to decide if you want faster but cruder (mil) or slower but more precise (MOA) dialing.
there are scopes with 0.025 MIL clicks, which is more precise than 1/8 MOA.
>>30202168
>yeah that dude was an idiot.
He's right tho.
You could totally be sub-MOA at 100m, and it wouldn't mean shit at 700m, because your ammo sucks, for example.
Staying sub MOA at extreme ranges is much more impressive than being sub MOA at 100m.
>>30202231
the only time i could see that happening is if you're going through the transsonic region at range and that's more of a overall failing of the
>>30202202
>here are scopes with 0.025 MIL clicks
Those things must be fucking buzzsaws when dialing.
>>30202289
*overall failing of the cartridge.
yay for .308 rainbows.
>>30202289
Or you simply can't read wind for shit.
But again, that's not the rifle's fault.
>>30202347
>not having wind flags planted every 50 yards like a benchrest shooter.
>>30199212
Mil dot is the best imo.
It's so simple once you get the hang of it you will never forget, also due to the fact it's simple you will still be effective and be able to do your corrections even if you're through an adrenaline rush.
That's all you really need.
>>30202202
I've never seen one.
Also there are 1/20th MOA scopes out there as well. Haven't seen anything other than the web advertisements for them either.
>1 click at 500m moves POI a *massive* quarter inch
>normal 1/4MOA scopes would move it an inch and a quarter, normal 1/10mil scopes would move it 50mm (approximately 2 inches)
>>30202382
There are people who could have a wind flag every 5 feet and not know how to interpret it, nor know how to correct for the data they represent.
>>30202289
>>30202347
Some bullets simply don't fly very well, and at a short range you wouldn't notice it.
>>30202453
Again, that's not the rifle's fault. Which is what the discussion is about.
As an example, by 6mmPPC varmint-class BR rifle can shoot quarter-inch 10-shot groups (or as low as .178" 5 shot groups) at 100m using a 62gr Berger Euwin flat-base bullet.
At 300m that load opens up to over an inch even in a dead calm. Because it's a short, flat-based bullet with the BC of a turd.
However, at 300m my 95gr SMK's will shoot .790" 10-shot groups. Yet they perform worse at 100m than the Euwins.
>kind of wish I'd gotten a tighter twist barrel so I could shoot heavier bullets, but I built the rifle around 100m competition
I really need to try the new 95gr TMK's.
>>30199257
This, and wear your dope on your stock.
Mils, all fucking day.
Mil is short for milliradian, or one one-thousandths of a radian. A radian is the angle such that for a given circle the arc length subtended by the angle is equal to the radius. This means that the arc length subtended by a Mil is one one-thousandth of the radius. One Mil is a very small angle, so the small angle approximation applies, and you don't have to worry about trig functions. This means the only conversion you have to do to relate the size of the target H, the angle it subtends, and the distance D, is divide or multiply by 1000. So you have:
D * angle [in Mils] = 1000 * H.
Notice using Mils doesn't depends on any particular system of units, just geometry.
MOA is a different kettle of fish. One degree of angle is one three hundred sixtieth of a circle, and one minute of angle MOA is one sixtieth of that, so one MOA is 1/21600th of a circle. To use the small angle approximation it is helpful to express this in radians, and from the definition above it follows that a full circle is 2 *pi. So 1 MOA is 2 * pi / 21600. We can then write
D * angle[in MOA] * 2 * pi / 21600 = H
In US Standard units it is convenient to express distance D in yards and target height H in inches. There are 36 inches to a yard, so we have
D[in yards] * angle[in MOA] * 2 * pi / 21600 = H[in inches] / 36
Simplifying we have
(36 * 2 * pi / 21600) * D[in yards] * angle[in MOA] = H[in inches]
This constant (36 * 2 * pi / 21600) just so happens to be about 0.01047, which is very close to one one hundredth. So we now have the pretty good approximation:
D[yards] * angle[MOA] = 100 * H[inches].
This is pretty convenient, but only if you use two different units, yards and inches.
>>30202728
>mfw math
>>30202755
One of our sales guys is an ex-scout sniper. That dude can dead reckon faster than most people can whip out their phone to crunch the numbers.
>>30202780
To paraphrase Ronnie Coleman
>Everybody wanna be a gunfighter, but don't nobody want to learn no trigonometry.
>>30201761
Looks like a not happy premature birth. That baby is probably dead.
>>30202796
triggernometry
Not seeing how any of this helps you dial in your scope.
I see the range estimation thing and understand how it works. But not what the lines and dots mean, and even how you're supposed to apply the number you get once you've done the math.
>>30202558
>Again, that's not the rifle's fault. Which is what the discussion is about.
Technically, when someone says "my rifle is x-MOA @200m" in understand it is "my rifle and ammo are x-MOA @200m".
>>30202926
So the reticle is twofold. You can determine range with it and that helps you decide what you need to dial or hold for your particular load.
Then, if you miss, you can measure from the point of impact to your point of aim and know how to dial or hold to correct for the following shot(s).
You still need to know your dope in order to dial or hold beforehand. Do yourself a favor and either use an online calculator or use a ballistic calculator/smartphone app to do that for you.
