Mil Vs MOA turret adjustments

[Detritus]

I've found myself in a situation where it is possible that the next scope that is "brought into the family" will have "Mil" based adjustments instead of the MOA based adjustments that I've been using and Used to for the past 16 years.

can someone please explain, in straight forward language what a "0.1 Mil" click will mean at say 100 and 200 yards? Tried to read the Wiki article on Mils but it made my eyes water, i think it's too late at night for my brain to process that level of "math" without a tutor/friend to help.

Is this system one that would be easy to explain to a new shooter? the scope would be for my wife's new rifle and I need to be able to explain and coach her in shooting, so i need to be able to say "You're off by this much, therefore you need to adjust by X number of clicks". sort of How hard does using the Mil system for adjustments make the math?


as always thank you for your time and any info you choose to share.

[sharpshooter]

A .1 mil click would be equal to aprox 3/8"@ 100 yds.

[helotaxi]

1 mil equals 1/6400th of a circle. The math works out such that the distention equals 1/1000th of the distance. That means for 100m, 1 mil = 10cm. At 100yds a mil is equal to 3.6". Nice thing is that I've not seen a scope with mil adjustments that didn't have a mil based reticule. Need to know what it works out to at a particular range? Measure with the reticule.

[Detritus]

A .1 mil click would be equal to aprox 3/8"@ 100 yds.

So that makes me think that a scope with 0.10 Mil clicks could be a bit of a pain to zero compared to one with say 1/4 MOA, at least at first.

I don't really know how to phrase it, but after dealing in 1/2, 1/4, or 1/8 MOA (which of course translate into roughly the same portion of an inch per click) for so long having adjustments that are 3/8" seems somehow less tidy mental math wise.

I know that realisticly Mil based adjustments are going to be found primarily on Mil/Mil type scopes, and that's where their utility is. But I think that for the use to which the scope-rifle combo in question is going to be put in teh next year or so, that it will be better to stick to MOA based adjustments for the time being.

which of course means that i am rather happy that the small " Oh, #$*@ " moment i had last night turned out ot be a false alarm (i think they were doing site maintainence or something).

again thank you for the info it WILL be helpful a little ways down the road when i upgrade my own scope (using a Simmons that's decent but lacking in a few details right now).

[geargrinder]

So that makes me think that a scope with 0.10 Mil clicks could be a bit of a pain to zero compared to one with say 1/4 MOA, at least at first.

I don't really know how to phrase it, but after dealing in 1/2, 1/4, or 1/8 MOA (which of course translate into roughly the same portion of an inch per click) for so long having adjustments that are 3/8" seems somehow less tidy mental math wise.

I know that realisticly Mil based adjustments are going to be found primarily on Mil/Mil type scopes, and that's where their utility is. But I think that for the use to which the scope-rifle combo in question is going to be put in teh next year or so, that it will be better to stick to MOA based adjustments for the time being.

which of course means that i am rather happy that the small " Oh, #$*@ " moment i had last night turned out ot be a false alarm (i think they were doing site maintainence or something).

again thank you for the info it WILL be helpful a little ways down the road when i upgrade my own scope (using a Simmons that's decent but lacking in a few details right now).

No, it will be just as easy. Like helotaxi said, if you have mil adjustments you will probably have mil reticule.

Shoot at the target. Look through the scope and count the number of mils you need to move to match point of impact to point of aim. You're clicks will be 10x the number of mils you need to move.

[Mike Vegas]

Simplest Explanation.

MOA adjustments. 1 MOA @ 100 yards = 1.047". If the elevation turret has 1/4 MOA per click, 1 click = .261" travel @ 100 yards (1.047 / 4)

MILRAD adjustments. 1 MILRAD @ 100 yards = 3.60". 1 click of elevation turret = .360" travel @ 100 yards (3.60 / 10)

I hope this helps...

[earl39]

I understand how mil-rad works but with the MOA reticles that are coming out now such as Sightron's MOA2 and i believe there are others the questions comes up as to why someone would even think about going to a courser adjustment unless needing the extra adjustment for extreme long distance shooting.

[helotaxi]

The math is much easier for rangefinding with a MIL based scope. The MOA reticules have only become prevalent as laser rangefinders have become affordable and commonplace. They're fine for holdover and correction based on a sighter, but the MIL reticules are more useful. As far as coarser adjustments, MIL scopes are typically used where 1-ish" of difference at 1000yds (the difference that we're talking about here) isn't an issue and the maximum amount of adjustment per dial rotation is more important. Shooting for hits not score.

[Detritus]

The math is much easier for rangefinding with a MIL based scope. The MOA reticules have only become prevalent as laser rangefinders have become affordable and commonplace. They're fine for holdover and correction based on a sighter, but the MIL reticules are more useful. As far as coarser adjustments, MIL scopes are typically used where 1-ish" of difference at 1000yds (the difference that we're talking about here) isn't an issue and the maximum amount of adjustment per dial rotation is more important. Shooting for hits not score.

Understood.

Thing is that my original post came about because my wife found and decided she wanted to try This scope (http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-20x42-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P502.aspx) which has a Mil-dot (older style) reticle with MOA adjustments and then wednesday night/thursday morning when I was checking on something else I discovered that the scope was (for a short time as it turned out) no longer listed on SWFA. And i had a little bit of a panic moment...

there is no short term plan to use the scope in question for shooting at anything other than paper, and "shooting for score" is a good way to think about how She is likely to see things for the time being. in other words i'm not worried about speed of adjustment or ranging ability at this point.
In the future we might look into trying out some of the various matches where ranging targets at UKD and then getting straight forward hits are the goal. But near term is her learning her rifle/rig and evolving up to shooting the locally available prone (F-class) matches. And then contemplating further development toward other match types for the heck of it

The only reason this even came up is that the person for whom this is being considered decided she wanted a Mil-dot rather than a Duplex reticle, and the chosen scope went AWOL from the retail site for about 12 hours.

If it were up to me, the scope for the new rifle would be a good quality Duplex equipped target scope. but it's her rifle, her gear, her money, her choice.

[Detritus]

Speaking for myself and my own intentions, without regard for anything to do with my wife's new stuff and what's going on with that...

Soon I plan on getting a Mil/Mil scope, mounting it to my Remmy, and learning how to use it. I really do want to learn the further skills that would let me go to something like Precision Multigun (http://www.precisionmultigun.com/) or similar and have it be fun not embarrassing.

[JCalhoun]

Get a Mil-Dot Master.

[Detritus]

Get a Mil-Dot Master.

It's on the list to be bought at same time as the scope for the new rifle.

[JCalhoun]

Good deal.

[Mike Vegas]

It will only become easy with practice...

I have more practice with MOA so it's easier for me and it's easier for me to range UKD and adjust windage, with MOA reticle and adjustments. I also have Mil / Mil scope, but it will take me a while to get familiar with it.

MOA or MILRAD, you guys can argue but in the hands of a marksman that trains properly either MOA or MILRAD will get the job done... There's is no such thing as easy, best or highly recommended, it's just a matter of preference. Bottom line is, with practice anything is possible...

[Amistoso]

Simplest Explanation.

MOA adjustments. 1 MOA @ 100 yards = 1.047". If the elevation turret has 1/4 MOA per click, 1 click = .261" travel @ 100 yards (1.047 / 4)

MILRAD adjustments. 1 MILRAD @ 100 yards = 3.60". 1 click of elevation turret = .360" travel @ 100 yards (3.60 / 10)

I hope this helps...

I like this explanation, Thanks Mike!

[sharpshooter]

Simplest Explanation.

MOA adjustments. 1 MOA @ 100 yards = 1.047". If the elevation turret has 1/4 MOA per click, 1 click = .261" travel @ 100 yards (1.047 / 4)

MILRAD adjustments. 1 MILRAD @ 100 yards = 3.60". 1 click of elevation turret = .360" travel @ 100 yards (3.60 / 10)

I hope this helps...

The little (") sign can be a bit confusing. It can mean minutes or inches.
1 m.o.a. @ 100 yds is equal to 1.047 inches.
1 mil @100 yds is equal to 3.6 m.o.a., OR 3.769 inches.

[Mike Vegas]

The little (") sign can be a bit confusing. It can mean minutes or inches.
1 m.o.a. @ 100 yds is equal to 1.047 inches.
1 mil @100 yds is equal to 3.6 m.o.a., OR 3.769 inches.

NO sir... 1 MIL @ 100 yards is a TRUE 3.60 inches... Don't confuse 1 MIL in MOA as it is 3.43 inches.

http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index.php/articles/maximizing_the_mil_based_reticle/

[thomae]

NO sir... 1 MIL @ 100 yards is a TRUE 3.60 inches... Don't confuse 1 MIL in MOA as it is 3.43 inches.

http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index.php/articles/maximizing_the_mil_based_reticle/

I am not arguing with anyone, but perhaps it would be clearer to actually do the math. (I love "math in real life.")

If your mil scope uses a true trigonometric radian measurement, in which there are 2π radians in a circle, than at 100 yards (3600 inches), under ideal conditions, an adjustment of 1 milliradian will move your point of impact 3.6 inches. [ 3600inches x sin(.001radians) = 3.599999 inches ]
1 mil ≈ 3.43774677078493 MOA

However, if you or your equipment use the NATO standard milliradian (6400 in a circle), your measurements will be slightly different
At 100 yards, 1 NATO milliradian will subtend 3.53429 inches
1 NATO milliradian ≈ 3.375 MOA

The difference is slightly less than 2%.



According to Wikipedia (admittedly not the "ne plus ultra" of academic citations) there are several commonly or uncommonly used definitions of the angular mil (milliradian)
Each of the definitions of the angular mil are similar or "close" to the value of the true trigonometric milliradian, but are easier to divide into many parts.


1⁄6400 of a circle in NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) countries.
1⁄6283 The “real” trigonometric unit of angular measurement of a circle in use by telescopic sight manufacturers using (stadiametric) rangefinding in reticles.
1⁄6000 of a circle in the former Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) and Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland) (Finland phasing out the standard in favour of the NATO standard).
1⁄6300 of a circle in Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden). The Swedish term for this is streck, literally "line". Sweden (and Finland) have not been part of NATO nor the Warsaw Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact). Note however that Sweden has changed its map grid systems and angular measurement to those used by NATO, so the "streck" measurement is obsolete.

[yorketransport]

I am not arguing with anyone, but perhaps it would be clearer to actually do the math. (I love "math in real life.")

If your mil scope uses a true trigonometric radian measurement, in which there are 2π radians in a circle, than at 100 yards (3600 inches), under ideal conditions, an adjustment of 1 milliradian will move your point of impact 3.6 inches. [ 3600inches x sin(.001radians) = 3.599999 inches ]
1 mil ≈ 3.43774677078493 MOA

However, if you or your equipment use the NATO standard milliradian (6400 in a circle), your measurements will be slightly different
At 100 yards, 1 NATO milliradian will subtend 3.53429 inches
1 NATO milliradian ≈ 3.375 MOA

The difference is slightly less than 2%.



According to Wikipedia (admittedly not the "ne plus ultra" of academic citations) there are several commonly or uncommonly used definitions of the angular mil (milliradian)
Each of the definitions of the angular mil are similar or "close" to the value of the true trigonometric milliradian, but are easier to divide into many parts.


1⁄6400 of a circle in NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) countries.
1⁄6283 The “real” trigonometric unit of angular measurement of a circle in use by telescopic sight manufacturers using (stadiametric) rangefinding in reticles.
1⁄6000 of a circle in the former Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) and Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland) (Finland phasing out the standard in favour of the NATO standard).
1⁄6300 of a circle in Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden). The Swedish term for this is streck, literally "line". Sweden (and Finland) have not been part of NATO nor the Warsaw Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact). Note however that Sweden has changed its map grid systems and angular measurement to those used by NATO, so the "streck" measurement is obsolete.


Good job being a downer and bringing math into the discussion!

I have a MIL/MOA, MOA/MOA, and MIL/MIL scopes. I prefer matching reticles and adjustments but I haven't found an advantage to either MIL or MOA. And I've never had any problem getting an accurate zero with the .1 MIL adjustments.

Andrew

[thomae]

Good job being a downer and bringing math into the discussion!

You are quite welcome. I'll be a wet blanket whenever I can! :p

The bottom line is to use whatever scope you have a lot so that you really understand what it does or does not do.
Cheat cards, or stickers or however you have your dope written down are very helpful as well.

I am not yet good enough for that 2% to matter, so I have no idea whether my mil scopes are set to the trigonometric or NATO values. I don't yet need that sort of precision.

Practice, practice, practice. (Which, of course I don't do enough)