MOA or MIL? Or both. What do you use, and why?

[MBsnow]

Just thought I might see what kind of response I would get. Would like to see what people are using and what reasoning they have to support it. I have recently gone from a mil scope to an moa based scope for my long range shooting. I am a little apprehensive of how my transition will be, or if I am just being a puddin'. LOL I really like the new EBR2C reticle by Vortex so I picked up a 6-24x50 Viper PST with EBR2C MOA reticle, and am now selling my FFP Bushnell Elite Tactical 6-24x50 with Mil Dot reticle(which really sucks for ranging by the way).

[Alpha2]

Well, I was familiar with MOA, as an NRA high power shooter, but didn't know squat about Mil-Dot. So, I bought a long range rifle, and a Mil-Mil scope, to learn what it was all about. I've been doing that a lot lately. Bucket list, and all that. It's been a bit of a challenge, as the familiarity with MOA, and the whole "one inch at 100yds, 2" at 200yds thing". (Okay, I know it's not exactly 1"...) It's been an education. That was the plan. I'm doing a long-range class this weekend, (Fri-Sat-Sun) out at Pawnee Sportsman's Center which should help with the limitations of my "self-taught" history. My response to your question, is...whatever works for you. They both work, but are you a hunter? Sniper? Casual shooter of varmints? All of this should go into your decision. I like both, but I don't hunt, and I don't shoot High-Power anymore, so for me, it's just learning something new. I'm 60, I'm in a hurry now. Tick-tick-tick...
Jeff

[smchop]

Its all Mil/Mil for me. Front focal plane, there is no inches, its just a mil. I think Lowlight said it best "a mil is a mil is a mil". Nothing more to it, so no matter what range your shooting your correction is as easy as half mil low, half mil right. But then again I never bothered with the MOA. Definitely didn't want to mess with Mil Dot reticle, MOA turrets. Made no sense to me to try and mix the two. I hunt, casual shooter, occasional match, varmint.

[MBsnow]

I dont hunt, but wouldn't mind getting into it. I am more intrigued with the long range practical shooting, and have done a handful of pdog matches and wouldn't mind doing a couple raton matches and hopefully on to a PRS match. I really like using mil as that is how I learned, but assumed it wouldn't hurt to use a an MOA based scope for awhile. If I really don't like it I can always get another mil scope I suppose. I figured MOA would give a finer adjustment. I suppose I was trying to find someone else in my situation that could let me know how there transition was. I probably over analyzing. O well. Trying something different isn't necessarily bad. Thanks for the input guys.

[XC700116]

mil/mil for me, 1 system to deal with in all my optics. I'm down to only 1 scope now that isn't mil based and it's a straight cross hair scope without target turrets, so the turrets haven't been touched in years.

Been shooting quite a bit of matches (pd matches, Raton, Snipers Hide, Steel Safari, etc) and with all the thinking and time constraints involved, I couldn't imagine screwing with what works for me. It's a simple system, it works, and there's no reason for me to change anything with it.

[Blowby]

Alpha2, Thanks for the heads up on the Long Range class this weekend. I just successfully booked a spot for another [blaster] shooter.
Mike

[Tim K]

I use both. Initially I started with MOA cause I'm old and it's what I'd used. It works well. Radians work just as well, but are less intuitive to me. The main advantage of the miliradian system for me is that's it's far and away the more popular system with competitive LR shooters. In a more casual match situation where competitors are discussing conditions during the shooting, it's much easier to give and receive information.

I'm about to re-scope my two primary rifles with identical scopes. I've not made the final decision yet, but I'll most likely go with mil rads for exactly that reason. Beyond that, it's irrelevant to me. It's almost exactly like saying measuring a distance works better with inches than centimeters. In the end (assuming reticle and knobs match), there's no difference to me.

[MBsnow]

Well dang. I am going to take this scope back tomorrow and order the same scope in Mil. I think Tim K has a good point about guys sitting around speaking MIL when you the only dude with MOA that could be confusing. I really don't need to complicate things more during competition. KISS!

[Delfuego]

Don't worry about the other guys. There are lots of guys speaking in minutes. I have watched and shot with some top-class guy shooting in moa.
I use mils because I'm dumb and went to public school. People mostly speak in wind "values" anyway, these are the same for mil or moa.
Get what your comfortable with.

[asmo]

I started of as an MOA guy because that was the only thing around, and when I shot benchrest that is what everyone did. I got into having a mil-dot scope and really liked being able to range things on the fly with FFP scope. I ended up with a NF benchrest with a Mil scope and MOA turrets -- that about drove me mad doing on the math constantly, I ran that for 6 years or so and hated every minute of it. But it forced me to learn fundamentals. Eventually I moved into only running MIL scopes with MIL turrets and have been happy ever since. I wish this is the way I originally learned oh so many years ago -- it just makes sense. I am never going back.

Long story short: Match your reticle to your turrets - either MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL, stick with it, and be happy. Do not, for any reason, unless you are total masochist, run mixed reticle and turrets. Its horrible.

Also, only run FFP scopes. Its just easier. The whole SFP thing will do nothing but mess you up unless you do a whole bunch of pre-planning. Oh, and only go for 1/10 mil if you do mil - it just helps everything out and again it just makes sense.

It sucks you are selling your Bushnell Mil Dot reticle - its a great scope for the price range (Not that the Vortex is anything bad). Sure the colors suck and the lines are huge, but I have two of their brethren (HDMRs) with the H59 reticle and hit anything I want all day long. Have you thought about just switching your reticle?

[MBsnow]

ASMO-
I returned the Vortex scope in MOA, and went ahead and found the same one in MRAD somewhere else online. I agree with you on not ever wasting your time with a SFP scope, unless its just a plinking fun gun, and I would definitely not buy a scope with unmatching reticle and turrets that really just sounds ridiculous that a manufacturer would even make something like that.

My bushnell treated me great but the mil dot just wasn't allowing me precise enough ranging, thats why I love EBR2C from vortex. I initially wanted to buy the Razor HD GEN2 directly through vortex via a veteran discount but didn't want to wait like 3 months. So I bought a cheaper scope(Vortex Viper) and used the extra cash to buy some accessories like a, kestrel, pimp ass rings, DBM kit, bubble level and of course some more bullets to feed the beast(currently trying some Lapua 139gr scenar). I realized not having a Kestrel was hurting my long range accuracy. I have been reading Bryan Litz- Accuracy and Precision for long range shooting, and I decided I should be accurately entering my environmental factors into my ballistic calculator instead of guessing. Guessing when shooting usually means your not hitting shit. LOL. Litz also mentions that Rifle Cant is something a lot of people don't think about when long range shooting(including myself) hence the bubble level. Damn I am blabbing on, going to shut up now.

[Tim K]

That's a great scope test. Nice of the author to credit me for his test jig! I remember a guy on the Hide asking me 20 questions about how I was testing scopes. He had these grandiose plans for a huge scope test. I thought he was just talk. Sure got that wrong. He did a fantastic job. It kills me he couldn't test the new Steiner, though.