JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

What is Better, MOA or MIL

  • MOA is best, don't waste your time with MIL.

    Votes: 18 60.0%
  • MIL is best, after all the Marines use it.

    Votes: 12 40.0%

  • Total voters
    30
MOA tends to be finer adjustment. Most moa based turrets adjust in 1/4" increments, some are in 1/8" increments at 100 yards. MIL based turrets tend to be in .1 mil increments, so 1 centimeter per click at 100 meters. If your range is measured in yards .1 mil will equal .36" at 100 yards. Finer adjustments in moa type scopes.
 
Is one more universal? Meaning if I'm at a range is one more used than another?

I'd hate to be talking beta in a world of VHS. (Yes old reference)

Seems the latest trend is MIL. But I am not trendy, in any way. If I was BRAND new, and had a choice and decided to make an educated decision, I still think would be 50-50 chance I would do either one. But that education on both would decide for me.

As of my thoughts right now: MOA being a finer adjustment I think I would go that route.
1 click = 1/4 MOA = .25" at 100yds.
1 click = 0.1 mil = .36" at 100 yds.

Something else that would change my mind is if like 85% or more people where going one way. Though the majority thinking does not make something right... on something like this going with the majority may make spotting and discussion easier. Tower of babel type of stuff.

Depends on what you like and know. My dad is a woodworker and everything he does is in fractions and feet/inches. He was/is MOA and will never think in MIL. I am a land surveyor and we work in decimal (decimal feet, talk about messed up), but I grew up wood working and think in fractions too. Being that is the way I learned, it would take a big swing to make me change.

If I started shooting precision rifle (which I want to someday) I may be open to changing, but for now I stay MOA.
 
Haven't read the entire thread, but I thought I would add to these last two comments.

MIL does have its advantages. One thing I was told is that MIL is slightly easier for dialing in drops at longer ranges. Because MIL is a more coarse adjustment, it takes fewer clicks to get on target, and Base 10 makes it slightly easier to keep track of the number of revolutions when dialing, especially if the turrets are 10 mils per revolution.

I really wouldn't know personally, as I prefer BDC reticles, and still use MOA because that's what I grew up with. ;)
 
I grew up wood working and think in fractions too.
Funny you should say that. I grew up and learned how to measure using a brick layer's folding tape measure.
They taught SI units in school. When I do engineering calculations (inertia matching for servos, dynamic loads, etc.), I use metric. For burner applications and heat transfer, BTUs, and if you want to get really eff'ed up, Tons for HVAC.
Long ago, a teacher drilled it into me, "pay attention to the units."
 
One other thing I forgot to mention: I have several high power scopes where each click is 1/8 MOA or 0.125" at 100 yards, I've never seen that level of precision in a MIL scope. Not that anyone needs that sort of adjustment but if you find yourself wanting it, MOA may be the only way to get there.
 
Whatever you are comfortable using.

I have all MOA so why should I add a Mils optic?
 
MOA tends to be finer adjustment. Most moa based turrets adjust in 1/4" increments, some are in 1/8" increments at 100 yards. MIL based turrets tend to be in .1 mil increments, so 1 centimeter per click at 100 meters. If your range is measured in yards .1 mil will equal .36" at 100 yards. Finer adjustments in moa type scopes.

As of my thoughts right now: MOA being a finer adjustment I think I would go that route.
1 click = 1/4 MOA = .25" at 100yds.
1 click = 0.1 mil = .36" at 100 yds.

1/4 MOA is actually .26" @ 100 yards so .1" or 1/10" difference @ 100 yards compared to 0.1mil.
 
What is better MOA or MIL and which one should I learn and become proficient with?

Below is a quote on the subject from...

Jack Leuba
Director, Military and Government Sales
Knight's Armament Company
and
Director of Training
F2SConsultingLLC...

MILS versus MOA; What the f&@k does it matter?

Before dragging an unwilling reader into this word-soup, allow me to lay down some ground rules/points of commonality. If these do not apply or appeal to you, you will likely have a more entertaining and interesting time perusing kitten videos on youtube or telling kids to get off your lawn.
-The shooter is interested in hitting multiple targets at irregular and inconsistent distances between 100 and 1,600 yards/meters using a modern center-fire rifle with time as a significant factor in a positive result.
-The user agrees that a ballistic data computer or detailed ballistic data reference is going to be needed for real world conditions as detailed above.
-The user is employing (or is considering, interested in, or intending on) a reticle that is more complex than a simple "crosshair", with an angular reference of some kind present for the purpose of applying reticle "holds" rather than dialing elevation for each target range.
-If the reader is simply interested in shooting groups at known distances under generous time limits, very little of this is going to matter to you, and fine, simple reticles with fine adjustments are likely going to be advantageous for that application.

There was recently a really solid article published by a very knowledgeable individual on Mils/Milliradian ("Mils" henceforth) and MOA/Minute of Angle/Minute of Arc ("MOA" henceforth) from a shooter's perspective over at recoilweb. It did a good job of cutting through a bunch of internet minutia/myth about the two angular measurements most commonly used as a reference in shooting stuff; from measuring group size to explaining where a shot will land in relationship to the reticle at ranges past "point blank", and builds the foundation of the math behind the measurements. Before going further, I highly recommend reading the article penned by Ryan Cleckner if you have not already done so.
MOA vs Mil | RECOIL

As I skimmed the comments (it's a guilty pleasure), I realized that many readers/commenters did not have strong personal experience with the information as applied to a practical setting, or at least not outside of fairly simple application such as measuring group sizes or zeroing for a specific distance, and that there was a disconnect as to the "why" behind making a "choice" between the measurement types. That led to a whole host of contention and "us vs them" sides being taken, which seems to boil down to a simple distrust of the Metric system as a whole.

On that note, we might as well get to the subject:

A "Mil" is not a metric-based measuring unit. The user doesn't need to know what a meter is, how many milliliters are in a can of Heineken, or have to wear pointy dress shoes with slightly small suits. 1 Mil is, very simply, 1/1,000th of the distance from the observer and the point being observed. That distance can be measured in inches, yards, miles, meters, watermelons, beer cans, etc., & ad nauseam. The angle doesn't care what numbers are on your socket set or tape measure. The user doesn't have to care either; I only care about what enables me to make hits on targets quickly, consistently, and predictably.

The important bit about angular measurement and this decision is reticle reference, not measuring group sizes or getting a rifle zeroed. Take a minute and google "Tremor 3 reticle" images. At first sight many readers will recoil in horror, with the lingering thought of "IT'S TOO BUSY!!!" likely still in mind if they even bother to return to this article. This really is the crux of the matter. Every line, every dot, every number in that reticle is an important reference, but only if the user knows what those references are for. Don't worry, I'm not going to lecture about the reticle, I just want the reader to be able to reference the image as the reading goes on, as I'm going to bring you back to it to help you experience the application because I don't have the ability to give you good graphical references at this point in time.

Mils, and the incremental breakdown of the Mil in current reticles (see more below), are a "just right" angular measurement for small arms employment with targets that are about medium mammal size, inside the visual limits of the planet earth, with a magnification of 4x or more. It's the "Baby Bear" of reticle reference; not too fine and not too course as popularly presented in the leading reticle designs (Tremor 3 leading the pack at present in my opinion for my applications).

What makes a Mil reference "just right"? At around 5x and above a whole Mil is easy to see, and once a user get up to 10+ magnification that Mil/Mil sized object is positively huge. For a visual reference, an average male index finger is 30 Mils wide when viewed at arms length, pointed upward. That perceived size is what 3 Mils will look like at 10x magnification: huge. Most higher magnification optics will feature reticles with those Mil references broken down to 1/2 Mil, 1/4 Mil, or 1/5 (0.2) Mil increments, which can be readily discerned and applied in the low to higher magnification ranges. At over 8x, I find 0.2 Mil increments to be my favorite (see that Tremor 3 reticle referenced), allowing the user to hold and measure with 0.05 Mil accuracy (easier at higher magnification) with a little effort at high magnification in a stable position, and to 0.2 Mil precision in a rapid/hasty/low magnification situation; and really it's the incremental breakdown and magnification relationship that make the reticles work. Only having full Mil value references would be too course past about 350 yards/meters if the user is going to use a reticle hold to compensate for drop on a target that is anything less than extremely generous, especially if the range is not precisely known, and that's before even thinking about wind effect.

Why doesn't a MOA reference do the same? Technically, there is no difference at all with regard to the angular division, one could exactly replicate a Mil reticle but label it in MOA, which would result in a major division of 3.4377 MOA, with 0.68754 MOA increments, which wouldn't lend well to fast mental math with which to establish a target hold. Instead, those reticles tend to be broken down into 5 or 10 MOA major divisions, with 1 or 2 MOA increments, which tend to either crowd the reticle on target (especially with a busy/dark background), or require really high magnification for the shooter to easily discern the needed hold points, which reduces the utility of the reticle at lower magnification or forces the user to go with a second focal plane optic (not that 2FP optics don't have their place).

There is also a bit of mental simplicity with Mil holds; basically it's going to be a simple, "single digit number, point, single digit number", such as "0.7", "1.7", "5.4", or "9.5". Those exact same holds in MOA would be "2.4", "5.8", "18.6", and "32.7". Those numbers happen to be the holds for my 7.62 rifle at 200 meters, 300 meters, 575 meters, and 780 meters, respectively. It's a bit of a minor/individual user aspect, but when I'm cycling through targets and trying to remember 4 or 5 target holds while constantly mentally updating my wind hold at the relevant distances, the lower Mil numbers are easier to remember, easier to find quickly on the descending stadia, and easier to mentally alter/update without dumping the other holds I'm trying to remember. With Mil holds, I'm under 10 Mils of elevation out to 800 meters/875 yards (pretty much the limit of effective use for a .308 Win. anyway) which means that the vast majority of my shooting is going to be inside the sweet spot of easy numbers.

But what about all that stupid math of turning drop in inches to Mils? Isn't it easier to just eat the 0.047" cumulative error with MOA? Easy: there is no spoon. Just tell your ballistic calculator to output the drop in Mils. Provided that the adjustments of your scope are true and the reticle subtensions (measurements of the reticle features) are correct, whether you dial or hold, there will be no difference between the two. The simple fact of the matter is that success on targets relevant to this type of shooting require accurate range determination and detailed ballistic reference regardless of what spacing your reticle uses. In the event that the user is forced to apply a "best guess", a "Baby Bear" reticle at appropriate magnification for the conditions will enable the shooter to quickly measure the seen miss and apply or record the correction needed to achieve a hit.

A 0.2 Mil reference also builds in a little bit of leeway. The vast majority of rifles and ammunition combinations applicable to this type of shooting will reliably place rounds within a circle with a radius of 0.2 Mils (0.4 Mil diameter = 1.4 MOA) out to trans-sonic range, which is a fast indicator to the shooter if the target is a marginal target (smaller than 0.4 mils wide/tall) and therefore a bit more focus/refinement may be warranted than needed for a wide-open 1.5 Mil target. I really don't care very much about the actual physical dimensions of the target (unless I'm using the known dimensions for reticle-relationship distance estimation), I care about how big my group will be on that target, which further prevents me from chasing erroneous corrections that are actually landing within my estimated impact cone. This allows me to pretty easily accept my wobble zone; if my aiming point is staying inside 0.2 Mils of the target edges I am running my trigger pressure application process. If not, the process pauses until the aiming reference point is back where it belongs inside the target edge margin. If I'm not feeling confident in my range and/or wind, I can open that "pause point" up with a quick visual reference as well without getting overly constrictive on the "gas pedal" if you will. Now, there is nothing inherent to Mils that makes it superior to MOA for these points, but reticle design and ease of visual reference absolutely make the difference, and the 0.2 Mil indicators do it well when balanced favorably against magnification.

So the "F" what?
The point is that while the differences between Mils and MOA are basically moot, the way that a well-designed reticle displays the information is directly relevant to the shooter's ability to reference and process the information pertinent to establishing a point of aim during each solution of a complex problem. Every reticle that I am aware of that is not a BDC that does this well is Mil-based. It matters not if you prefer Imperial measurements, you're not going to be standing next to the target with a yard-stick, so whatever is in the reticle is going to become the measurement method applied.
 
:s0101: I used imperial up until chemistry, then I switched over to metric. Now I use metric mostly but I still use feet, miles, and freedomheit a lot still. Haven't gotten around to understand Celsius yet.
 
I used to use MOA.
It never was a liability for me.

Now I use Mils.
It's easier as most of the people I shoot with use Mils and calling shots is nicer when you use the same ruler everyone else is using.
 
I used to use MOA.
It never was a liability for me.

Now I use Mils.
It's easier as most of the people I shoot with use Mils and calling shots is nicer when you use the same ruler everyone else is using.
Totally concur with this. It matters who you most often shoot with. Speaking the same language if you will...
 
I couldnt make a decision. There wasnt an option for it doesnt make a dang bit of difference to me. I would have checkmarked that box.... My ballistics calculator goes either way. Moa and mil. If im shooting a buck at 648 yards with my 7mm rem mag with a 4.5-14×42 rifle scope with moa adjustments, im going to dial according to the calculator and confirmed adjustments. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 moa. If im ringing steel with my creed and SWFA SS 16X with mil/mil quad reticle im going to dial up according to what the calculator tells me. Off the top of my head, its around 1.9 mils adjustment for a 400 yard shot. I etch my turrets on my SWFA's, so it takes the guess work out of it. Heres my old SWFA 16XSS with moa turrets:
WEwavkw.jpg

If you look closely, 500 yards is roughly 9.5 moa of adjustment on the turret...
 
Either can be used to create a dope chart by plugging known velocities and BC's of projectile into shooters calculator.

With knowledge of specific math required compared to reticle, either can be utilized to estimate size and range of target at unknown distances.

As previously mentioned, if one was a screaming deal over the other, I'd choose that. Although I have noticed that between two options that are similarly priced, I choose the mils.
 
I'm not sure I like the way "better" gets thrown around so much. Better is subjective. Better for what? When used by whom? What's the measure that qualifies something as better? Frankly I'm sure a professional Marksman could do wonders with an of the shelf 3-9x40 compared to what I can do with a custom "heat seeking laser guided, gnat's left nut" magnification whoopty-doo. Everything's gonna be ok. Or maybe not, I don't know.
 
Probably already been said, as I haven't read the entire thread, but there really is no "better" in this case, just different. Neither system has any inherent advantages over the other, it really just comes down to personal preference, with the "advantage" for either being what unit of measure you're used to thinking in. Although I'm not totally hopeless with the metric system, I still think in inches, feet, and yards, so for me, MOA works better, and all the math is simple stuff to do on the fly. For someone shooting competitively, ex-military, extreme long range, etc., MILs is probably a better choice. I do know that I don't like excessively busy reticles, my latest, a Sightron S-TAC 4-20x50, has a very nice, 2 MOA reticle. For me, that offers plenty of precision, while not getting in my way or being distracting. I have another scope with a 1 MOA reticle, I like the Sightron a lot more.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top