I understand the idea that MIL is better than MOA, especially from former military that has used it all over the world, and I agree, for most of the world, MIL would be better, since it is based on the metric system and easily multiplied or divided by 10. Here are the issues, though. First, it doesn't matter if you get more "MIL" adjustment than "MOA" adjustment. The actual distance you are going to be able to adjust the same scope in different formats is the same. It is just using a different nomenclature, and in reality, you get a finer adjustment out of MOA than MIL, .25 vs .36, respectively. Second, in this country, the vast majority of people THINK in inches, not decimeters. When you say, "You're an inch left, everyone knows that you are 4 clicks out, because each MOA is approximately 1" at 100 yards. That doesn't noticeably change until you get out to 1000 yards. Now you get to MILs. Same scenario, and how many MILs in 1 inch. Well, 1 MIL at 100 yards is approximately 3.6 inches. 1/10 would be .36 inches. So now you have 3 clicks, or 1.08. now extrapolate that out to 200 or 300 yards, and the math starts to gets progressively more complicated, when with MOA, you are dividing inches (what you think in) by quarter of inches, which is much easier and faster to do. Just my .02.
Well achtuallyyy 8-) Neither is metric or imperial based, they just line up very closely to those scales. MOA is exactly what the name implies, one full revolution is 360°, take 1° and further divide it into 60 pieces to get 1MOA. Mills are just based off a different unit for angular measurement called radians, where 2pi (~6.28) represents one whole revolution. As the name implies you then divide the radian by 1000 to get a mrad.
@@sdlillystone Just because the radian is the SI-unit of angular measurement I wouldn't classify it as metric. Radians work well with trigonometrical functions, but is not something you use in everyday life situations. Newtons are obviously metric since the base units behind a newton are seconds, meters and kilograms and used in everyday situations. Would you call seconds a metric unit of time, since it also is the SI-standard? Granted there isn't a competing unit for time, but you get the point.
@@sdlillystone Bro, I'm 90% sure you're trolling at this point, but in case you're not: what has angular velocity to do with anything here? SI is used for scientific and engineering purposes and I guess, especially in the US, SI = metric. For me metric means commonly used units in countries in which distance is measured in meters. Notice however, we do not measure angles in Radians or temperature in Kelvins, just because they are the scientific standard, we use 360° standard and Celsius.
@@sdlillystone That's what I've said from the very start...the DEFINITION isn't metric OR imperial, BUT they do match the different units of measurement very accurately. 1cm at 100m is not the definition, it is an accurate enough approximation for laymen to better grasp the concept of mrad, just the same way 1 inch at 100 yards works for MOA.
Maths graduate here. Minute Of Arc is a circle divided into 360 degrees then 60 minutes per degree. One radian is the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. So 360 degrees equals 2x Pi radians. Radians is not metric or imperial it is a ratio. Both are measure of angles. The only advantage radians has is in geometry and has no advantage in shooting. The argument that MilliRadians requires less rotation of the dial is wrong.. One rotation of the dial is about the same angle change in MOA and MRad the same as 300mm is about the same as 12 inches. The reason that for practical purposes MOA and MRad are the same iris is that we cannot resolve any greater accuracy with the human eye. A scope working one Second of Arc per click is 4 thou of an inch at 100 yards. MicroRad would be similarly useless in shooting. If you reload you will know that you can measure case length in mm or inches and achieve the same result that is the correct case length. Personally I can change between mm and inches, MOA and MRad easily because I use both. The analogy is that they are two languages that describe the same thing. If you learn to speak English, German is difficult until you learn.
I, by no means have your level of experience, but to me the 2 are equivalent. The one argument I agree with is the sharing data portion if you're around others who are using mils. Your analogy of dialing 8 mils vs. 24 moa, you are basically dialing ~80 clicks for both so I don't see an advantage for either. It, more than anything, else comes down to personal preference or what you have experience with. Coming from your military background and a desire to only have to deal with one in your classes, I can see that you would prefer mils because that's what you have the most experience with.
But you're not just dialing. You're very often having to use a reticle and when your ballistic solution is 26.3 that's hard to find on such a fine and small scale. I see it in practice all the time. Even dialing, finding 22.25 with all those numbers squeezed onto a turret you are going to be WAAAAY slower dialing that. Sure, a MIL turret is graduated in the 1/10th of mil but it's easy to dial fast to the much larger print number like 8 and then fine tune it to a 1/10. MUCH easier to do that. I don't mind teaching both at all and this video isn't about me not wanting to teach MOA, it's about constantly seeing MOA shooters struggle needlessly because they are stuck to a demonstrably inferior system. It's also about the fact that a large majority of people that start shooting MOA end up shooting MIL eventually for all the reasons I laid out. So it's to save people the wasted time and frustration and start with the better option first. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@paramounttactical In a tactical situation it is more likely that one would hold rather than dial, but as with most things, practice makes perfect. When dialing, I get to the whole numbers quickly, as you mentioned, then have from 1-4 minor adjustment clicks to get to the decimal portion of the solution. My next trip to the range I will exercise some of the points you raised to see how impacted I feel with an eye to dealing with the granularity of the MOA optics. Again, I have nothing like your level of experience, but I do feel I can manage well with moa. I would very much like to get training with far more experienced shooters such as yourself, just $$$ and location......
@@rabbahhagri1493 and we’re not disagreeing brother. MOA in fact does work. My argument is after have used both quite a bit, MIL is easier to learn, less confusing, and faster in practical application. I’m going to follow this video up with a video demonstrating actually shooting and filmed through the optic. I think that will illustrate the points better. Outside of this topic, if you ever have LR questions, hit me up here or our email is on our website. It’s all about helping each other and getting people out to shoot! 👊🇺🇸 Gary
There are some fundamental mathematical advantages to mil as well. You just need to be familiar with metric or be willing to work in deci or centiyards.
First and foremost, the provocative thumbnail aside, this video was formatted for people searching for “MIL or MOA” and to address the misconceptions that prevent some new shooters from starting on MIL, e.g., 1) You have to know metric system, 2) there’s more math, 3) it’s harder. This videos is not structured or intended to argue for established MOA shooters to switch. I can and I do to some extent in Part II. All that said this video and even Part II has revealed that a LOT of MOA shooters are using MOA based on misconceptions due to a complete lack of understanding of basic long range fundamentals and technical knowledge. MIL is easier and more efficient but most people for what they do would see no difference given how they shoot or what they do regarding long range. Also if people are happy with MOA and see no need to change, they shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t “prefer” MOA based on incorrect info and many do. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@paramounttactical Well..... you spent 9 minutes trying to tell us we have to use Mil because "everybody uses MIL." However, in the hunter's circle very rarely do people use MIL, even when hunting at 600 yards. Nobody with me is using MIL. I'm the only guy with a MIL scope and it's really freaking annoying. So MOA based on that argument......
@@joshuahunt1210 he is just trying to make his preference as something that's better only based on his preference, not based on facts. Even argument that one thing is popular is so dumb, we all know that many not so great things are popular only because people like to do what others like to do.
I am an old hunter too. Most of my shots have been under 200 yds. Several years ago, I really looked hard at learning the Mil system. He is spot on about the idiocy of trying to do conversions. I use a lot of metric at work and have for years. Once you learn to think metric instead of converting, a whole new world opens up. So did I switch to Mils? No. I have too much glass set up for MOA, my distantices are too close to matter, and I found scopes with BDCs. A good scope with BDC solves a lot for the average shooter. Kind of like going from a manual transmission to an automatic. Not much thrill, but it can be smooth.
As a new shooter, I went directly to a mil scope. I’ve always hated fractions, but I could always work with decimals. I also convert yards to meters to make the math much easier. I can calculate the distance of a mil at any range in about 2 seconds, and I can ascertain the range in about 5 to 10 seconds if I know the size of the target.
Maybe I’m still a noob, but the minimal math for MOA seems easier to me. The mils example got skipped in the video and it went straight to hold offs. Maybe I’m missing something.
@@jtmcfarland3512 math is totally not required at all. Not today! Sniper school yup but all you need is a balistics app. I use strelok pro, set it up properly input everything accurately. Weapon, load used, temp of ammo, weather conditions and direction to target. I have it figure my spin drift and correolus effect as well. I killed the spelling I know. Once set up u tube it if need be. It's a very simple act of ranging a target with a quality range finder buy once cry once here. Don't buy a Walmart Bushnell really look into a good one. I use a nikon black its not the most expensive but ive ranged things with it you can't hit with a gun! Next look for a scope with a good balance of optical clarity, dead on turret system, the features you personally like, and ruggedness and price. This is a huge babbitt hole I know! But everything dont have to be a smitt/bender pm2. Though that's absolutely in the top tier and if you have only one rifle then that's a righteous choice. $3600+ But some others will do just fine in the $500-1000 range Like the Athlon midas tac ffp mil radian 6-24x50 The Athlon Ares ETR ffp mil rad 4-27x56 The Athlon Cronus btr ffp mil rad The Arken sh4 6-24x50 mil rad ffp I shy away from vortex some guys like em but anything above will out perform everything they have up to the razor and the last two Athlon scopes will out perform it at half the cost. I like to spend as wisely as I can. Use good ammo take notes how things perform each outing log weather conditions as well. You'll get a feel for how it does and you get a feel for when to clean for copper buy looking at your targets.
@@jtmcfarland3512 I believe his main point was that new shooters have a perception that MOA is better than MIL because they believe you'll be correcting based on estimated distance, converting distance, to angle and correcting off of that. In reality, you'll just be using your reticle to tell you the angular correction to dial or just holding off rather than dialing. That said, he didn't explicitly say this, and I was confused as well.
@@michaelhill6451 The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary
You haven’t proved mil is faster than moa. Make a video that clearly demonstrates that. Your example with the reticle placement looked to be a tie to me.
When ever someone says that a well established system doesn't work well (sucks), generally they don't understand it. I use MOA, SMOA, and MILs across multiple platforms without difficulty. I'm also a US Army, sniper school graduate; a long-distance shooter, and a hunter. The various systems all work well.
I use, teach both, and understand them both well. So try again. MIL is demonstrably faster, easier to see using holdoffs, and more efficient. Cool, you’re a US Sniper graduate but how long ago? Go see what snipers are using now. Go see what Special Operations are using now. You won’t find an MOA scope in the house. Go see what Todd Hodnett is teaching to SOCOM snipers. I agree with your first sentence. I don’t think you do know about the advancements in shooting. We’ve come a long way from MOA turrets and basic MIL reticles. If you shoot at one target at one distance and time isn’t a factor, sure MOA works fine. If you need to engage multiple targets, at multiple distances, under a time constraint than there’s only one choice. MIL You know why? Because MOA SUCKS! While I am adding a shit talking tone in there. It’s all in a good spirit. We can disagree and it still be all good. I genuinely thank you for your service. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@paramounttactical moa is finner than mil and it is as fast as mil. Turning the dial is the same, no difference. You are simply wrong with your statement. You can have preferences but no matter how much you want, personal preferences don't mean that is better or worse.
Good video. My friends and I always have this same argument. AAANNNNNNDDDDDDDD, I still shoot with MOA. Lol. One funny thing is when we are all shooting and I make a good wind call, when someone ask what my hold was and I reply 1 3/4 MOA, they hate it. But they do it to me to. To me, it is six on one, half a dozen on the other. You can use the reticle to hold over on both of them. You can estimate range with both reticles. You can use the reticle to correct your miss. And there are certainly some times when the one inch = one MOA is very handy. You may not always know the size of your target, but there are times when you will know.
I was ready to be converted to mils, but the argument really mainly showed you can easily use either reticle to correct and hold off. I liked the argument that there are fewer rotations with mil, you can get all the way to 1000 with one revolution. Not sure that the finer scale is a problem, almost seems like an advantage. It seems like it would be more difficult to use a mil reticle with fewer hash marks if you’re trying to hit a small target and it not really close to one of the dots on the tree. I guess if its super small and precise you’d just dial for it and if you’re going for speed and approximate holds that a coarser scale would be faster and less confusing/counting?
You understand you can get a mil reticle that has stadia lines every 2/10ths (Horus and many others)? The finer MOA scale doesn’t make it more precise, just more difficult to see and find the right hold. The same goes for dialing. 6.25 MOA would require 25 clicks the same in MILS would be 1.8 MILS or 18 clicks. Which of those is simpler?
Very few people are going to be counting individual clicks, everyone should be reading their turrets and moving accordingly, so says a simple minded redneck no matter the units used
@@dannydivine7699 I don’t disagree with that but to dial 28 MOA which is equivalent to 8 Mils how many revolutions does that require? It’s not even one rev on a mil turret.
@@paramounttactical okay now I'm tracking. My SWAT buddy went to FBI sniper school and rolled his eyes when I showed him my MIL scope. He said it's more precise at distances father than I'll shoot this rifle (18" SPR)
@@SaneAsylum uhhh no. The MOA crowd keeps moving the goal post and Im addressing those arguments. Fact is MOA users believe and have a fundamental misunderstanding that you can move individual impacts .25 MOA or 1/8th. If you believe that you and you’re not shooting .25 MOA groups you don’t have a basic understand of Long Range Fundamentals. 1/10 Mil is too fine for 99.5% of all shooting applications as well but is more practical and useful than .25 MOA. If speed, ease, and efficiency don’t matter, then which one you use doesn’t matter. BUT… 90% of people are arguing that MOA is better based solely on incorrect information and misconceptions. Too busy arguing to listen. But hey… you do you boo.
Great explanation. Like you discussed, I was introduced to rifles by my roommate in college. Growing up hunting, using MOA, he convinced me that’s the way to go. 5 MOA scopes deep, I have no qualms switching to MIL after heeding your advice. I swore there was too much math with MIL scopes. Myth debunked. Appreciate it.
Doesn't really matter which system you use if your target is at a known distance. MIL has mild advantages for ranging and holdovers, and MOA a small advantage for precise dialing and typically have cleaner reticles. There's no reason you can't be proficient at using both, but I am tending to agree that MIL is probably all you need. It's just hard not to be allured into the simplicity of "1 MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards" when we mostly shoot targets at 100 yard increments.
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary
The fact you think MOA reticles are cleaner is baffling...makes no sense whatsoever. They're identical nearly and MIL is actually less cluttered with much smaller numbers usually under 10. MOA has a lot more numbers cluttering it. And precise dialing, they both do the same.
@@PkwyDrive13 Not what I meant, exactly. There are more simple duplex scope options with MOA reticles/turrets than with MIL. The clutter from numbers and hashes depends more on the reticle design than MOA vs MIL. It's debatable whether it matters, but it's simply a fact that 1/4 MOA adjustments are finer than 1/10 MIL.
@@paramounttactical, We're cut from different cloths... But both passionate about shooting, but YOU'RE WRONG about metric system and MILS, because MILS is based off of the METRIC system, 1 MIL at 100 Meters = 10 centimeters... I'm an MOA guy, use both, but the math in my brain works better in inches, a friend who grew up in Europe likes MIL, because his mind still initially measures in meters/centimeters... As far as dialing goes, with GOOD marked turrets, dialing 80 clicks or 8 MILS, vs 112 clicks or 28 MOA, don't really make that much difference to me, and using the reticle for a holdover is really pretty much same for me... I respect your opinion, and experience, but you're slightly misled thinking MILS isn't associated with the metric system...💯 And as a guy who used math all the time to dose drugs, and keep people alive, I don't mind doing calculations, and am pretty precise with them, which also pushes me towards a slightly more precise measurements. Good video, and explanation despite some slightly misguided info... 👍
When choosing a scope, the biggest things I look for: ensure the reticle and turrets match. MOA reticle, needs MOA turrets. MIL turrets need MIL reticle. I'm personally an MOA guy. It requires me to learn to read the wind. I cannot just rely on another shooter's wind call, as well as see the corrections and impacts. Serious downsides to MOA include significantly less scope and reticle selection. I prefer a christmas tree style reticle specifically the IOR MP8-Extreme reticle.
The scope I'm buying has a mildot reticle with MOA turrets which makes sense. I can calculate distance using mildots just by the height of the object in relation to the mildots on the reticle. With MOA turrets, 4 quarter turns is a mil which is faster than a Mil turret in adjustments.
@@MrCryptler69 1 mil is 3.43 MOA. So there’s a significant amount more math involved in swapping between the two measurement styles. Distance can also be calculated using MOA. If you’re going to get a Mil scope get Mil turrets
Other than providing a long-winded explanation for why competitive precision rifle shooters use Mils (short answer: it's because that's what everyone else is using so it's easier to speak the same language), you didn't explain why MOA actually sucks vs. MIL. The short answer is that there isn't really a gnat's ass worth of difference between the two other than MOA scopes generally have slightly finer amounts of elevation and windage adjustment. They're both just an angle of measurement. What does matter, as highlighted by your comparison of reticles, is that some reticles have a marked advantage over others when it comes to rapidly measuring a miss and making a corrected follow up shot. A crappy Mil-based reticle could underperform against a superb MOA-based reticle, and vice-versa.
Under no time limits and shooting a single target I don’t disagree with you. Doesn’t matter which you use, but it becomes self evident which is easier and one would say “better” the moment you have people shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges regardless if you’re dialing or holding. The difference in mistakes or the likelihood of making a mistake and miss due to incorrect holds or incorrect dials is very obvious. It’s significantly easier to remember, find, and hold 6.8 , 5.2, and 8.2 than it is 23.75, 18.25, and 28.75. The same goes for dialing. I mean if you never do anything to test practical ease of use and just shoot sitting on a bench shooting one target at a time, of course from your perception there’s no advantage of one over the other. It’s like saying there’s no difference in performance of a Ford Mustang and a Ferrari based on you’ve only driven them both at 35mph in a subdivision. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@paramounttactical It isn't necessarily easier or harder to remember 2/10th vs. .25 increments and the difference in time it takes to spin a turret is a moot point. Same goes for holdovers assuming you're working with a decent reticle. Heck, Leupold's Mark 5 HD rifle scopes (whose Mil-based reticles are graduated in .25 Mils with 2/10th dials) have won a massive number of PRS matches and are being used by a huge percentage of the top PRS Shooters? Remembering .25 holds doesn't seem to be a problem for them. Again, they're both just an angle of measurement and both are easy to use assuming one has the right reticle for the job. I've used both for PRS and hunting. Some people make a really big deal out of MIL vs. MOA but it's literally not a big deal at all to those in the know. They're just angular units of measurement. Ultimately it just comes down to speaking the same language as your fellow shooters. Speaking of shooting under time limits and "my perception"...maybe you and some of your cadre would benefit from coming out and shooting some national 2-day PRS matches and see how you stack up? ;)
@@allene.5306 that’s a strange argument given something like 90+% of PRS shooters use MIL and there’s more MIL shooters and less MOA shooters every year. That’s not without reason. I know both systems well and can use both systems but all things being equal MIL is significantly easier and less confusing. That’s not opinion, that’s unbiased observation. If you disagree with that, and you obviously do, that’s ok. Life is boring without the mundane to argue about. Thanks, Gary
@@allene.5306 sir, you are wasting your time. This "expert" knows everything the best and he isn't willing to look facts and understand them. He listed only his preferences
As a civilian shooter? All I know is MOA and Kentucky Windage. I sight my rifle into 100 yards using three shot groups and adjusting the scope onto bullseye using my choice bullet weight that I am going to hunt with. Once zero’d to 100 yards? I am done. I memorize my bullet drop of my cartridge and bullet weight and if the animal is 300 yards away? I will hold over as a guesstimate based on the size of the animal. If I am in wind? I will hold accordingly based on the size of the animal. Deer are this tall and this wide so I will hold here. This is how my father taught me how to do it. That’s how his father taught him how to do it. And it’s tough to walk away from something so old and tried. But I welcome it. Thank you for this video!
Agreed that's the fast way to engage targets . He's talking about a rifle that you make individual adjustments for each shot though. Very different application. But 300 yards or less your application is much quicker and plenty accurate
The, "I got a bunch of cheap, used MOA scopes so I stick with it." example made me chuckle. As soon as you said it, I immediately thought, "You got them used for cheap because nobody wants them!" and, sure enough, that's what you went on to say. LOL
Which ever one you run just practice with it and become proficient. For me both are as easy as the other. When shooting with a spotter running a mil optic I run a mil scope. Planned for and works. Moa, like you stated, is a finer adjustment thus more accurate when accuracy is important. When your objective is to ring a gong at any distance either optic works the same. It's just a reference mark. Longer range shots the first one is dialed for. Follow up shots, cats out of the bag, have to be referenced with the reticle unless speed doesn't matter. I feel that you hit one solid point as in the fact of how much more an moa reticle is cluttered compared to mil. Lots of ticks to get the same results with fewer. Though less accurate. It is also true that many hunters stick with moa. Go with what you know. I remember the days of moa turrets and mil reticle. What b.s. was that anyways? Just simply machining a mil turret, or etching a moa reticle would have been so easy. When shooting for groups, load development, I always use moa. When hunting I use moa. Ranging with the reticle on known sized game is very easy and adds a benefit on moving prey. If I'm shooting steel or paper at longer ranges by myself I'll stay with moa. If I'm with a spotter and on steel it's always mil. There does not need to be any translator involved in our conversations. No conversions. This is also a true point you have made. Overall good info and Thanks for taking the time to put this out here for us all to digest. I'll sub now and ring the notification gong. Don't ring bells!
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. MOA is not “more accurate” bc you’re optic doesn’t determine accuracy or the precision in which you can make impact adjustments. I cover that in depth in Part II. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@paramounttactical it's easier to learn for idiots. European here and still moa will do just as good if one knows what he is doing. Is there are difference? Yes. Is there enough difference to make a difference? No, at least not to people who aren't dumb.
@@Fivegunner Cool. Maybe you should ask every top level PRS shooter why they wouldn't even consider using MIL. You're not dumb, you're just ignorant and don't have the experience shooting both to know better.
Sounds like you heard what you wanted. And MOA is not more “precise”. You need to watch Part II. Does your gun shoot .25 MOA at distance? People are mired in a complete lack of understanding fundamental LR technical facts and concepts. The fact that you cannot reliably move an individual impact with greater fidelity than your group size at any distance is Long Range 101. So by having .25 MOA on your optic and believing it is more “precise”, is like having 200mph on the speedometer of your stock Honda civic and believing it’s faster than a Corvette with 175mph on the speedometer. Watch part II. If you have additional questions or arguments, I’d be happy to discuss those with you. We may never agree, but that’s ok. Thanks, Gary
Your video convinced me to buy all future scopes in MOA 😂. I think the only benefit would be if others were using MILs but nobody I shoot/hunt with shoot MILs.
Outside of the military I've been an MOA guy mostly because I havnt had proper instruction of Mil. This was probably one of the best examples I've seen thus far so thank you for the explanation i think i will be exploring the mil world a little more now!
Tremor 3 is only in mil too. Of course you need to have the self discipline to be able to handle the busiest reticle on the market, but built in wind holds, moving target holds, and so much more once you learn how to use it. It's amazing.
@@sdlillystone For windage holds you need to figure out which makes to use for specific wind speeds based on muzzle velocity. You have a relatively large margin for error until you start getting to pretty large ranges, so the speed holds are useful at pretty much any range where they would be meaningful. You aren't likely going to be trying to take one mile shots at targets moving twenty mph.
Great video and information. I got into long distance shooting 15 years ago. The place I compete is multiple targets, multiple distances and changes firing locations on unstable platforms in 2 minutes ex: two targets to hit twice each target at 348 yards, do it again at 505 yards, do it again at 708 yards, redeploy, do it again. All under 2 minutes. Shooting off tires, rope in back of a van, dirt mounds, sewer pipes, you get the idea. And this is where Mil is superior. On the left of the rifle a paper with the elevation dope. One can dial, but most do hold overs using the radical. And going from dialing 1.8 to hold over 1.7 to achieve the (3.5), then 4.4 hold over to achieve the (6.2) is easier to remember than double digits. One only has to memorize two numbers, 1.7 & 4.4. Secondary as the person in the video states, hold over for the new aiming point. I am one of those lucky people who have great spacial interpretation. So I never dial anything past the first setting of the first target. Some of the people I compete with especially use hold over for windage. I have learned my rifle and found I can dial in 0.2 Mils windage for anything past 500 yards. So I do dial that in if over 500 yards, In one completion I was very lucky that a Army Sniper competing noticed and gave me extra instructions that really helped me, especially not over zooming in, but making sure all the targets were easy to see at a certain setting. Moist of the competitors were military. So yes technically if one was only doing one shot, MOA might be argued as more precise, which really isn't true one one learns their platform. But engaging multiple targets at multiple distance, especially with a bolt gun, Mils is the only way to go. I have recently bought a Arken 5 x 25 x 56 with a Christmas tree for hold over. Still getting used to it. Up to then I used a SWFA 3x15x42 first focal plane. I love their radical once you understand it. Most of the people were using 6.5 Creedmoor. The other advantage of a Mil is ranging, both by radical and The Mildot Master. When I use my Strelok, 1000 yards for me is around 11.8. It is as simple as counting from 0 to 10. So hunting, benchers shooting MOA, sure. But I don't think it would work well in real life time limiting multi target situation.
One thing I will add. If someone is telling me to move 2.7 moa, ill have to multiply that by 4 to know how many click I need to do. On the other hand .8 mils (roughly 2.7moa) is 8 click.
Last time a did was literally last saturday lol. My point is the math are much faster in mil than moa, if im at 675m from the target one .1 mil is exactly 6.75 cm. Its just so quick and simple. @@AB.284
Other than for sharing data I agree but no matter which radical you choose they are a mechanical. Range your target use your turret to dial than any and all follow-up shots use the radicals. When time is crucial. Then note in your dope book what the proper hold is for future references at known distance and known environmental factors.
Dope book is another topic I’m about to cover. I don’t necessarily disagree but hold offs/reticle if used properly are generally more precise than mechanical turrets. It’s a longer discussion, but reticles are easy to get precise even in cheap optics. Mechanical turrets that are accurate are much more difficult and expensive so reticles essentially always track true but a lot of turrets do not. I hold almost everything and don’t worry about dialing 90% of the time. Doing do also forces you to practice hold offs constantly so you get faster and more proficient. The main argument to dial initial DOPE is that holdoffs are easier to get wrong (shooter error) but it is more accurate. So if you practice holding everything, you can train out that tendency toward error and end up being faster and more accurate. There’s additional nuance arguments for and against both but he rally speaking the reticle is always more accurate than your mechanical turrets.
I started shooting with MOA only because the people I know that shoot used it. So I’ve used it ever since. But I am definitely open to learning MIL. Will start after September course
Just found your channel. I am wondering if you cover any .22LR long-range shooting? I would like to start shooting rimfire long-range. If you do talk about rimfire, have you done any videos for good rifles to start with and a scope to go with it? I am a long time Bulleyes shooter looking to switch to long-range rimfire because it seems that Bullseye as I have known it is fading away. Thanks.
Thanks for this video. I'm a new competition shooter. I just participated in my first competition, which was a Civilian Marksmanship Program EIC rifle competition. The max range was 600 yards. Since I didn't expect to do good, I used my M16A4 clone with a Trijicon ACOG for fun. I ended up scoring a 378/500. But I'm looking at getting a real competition scope now and have been wondering about mils vs moa. Nearly all scopes available in my area at the big sporting goods stores are mils scopes. So thank you!
As a former sniper team leader, Green Beret, LR instructor and a student of LR for over 20yrs,I couldn’t disagree with you more. Fact is for engaging multiple targets at multiple distances, a decent level PRS shooter would smoke all military shooters in almost every practical shooting scenarios. When I got out, that was a hard pill to swallow. This is why SOCOM is abandoning this silly “Service Rifle” nonsense and going outside the military for much better long range instruction and overall mindset. Sure if “service rifle” is your jam, cool. But if you want to actually be proficient and efficient in practical, real works shooting scenarios, then your advice doesn’t hold water. Thanks for watching! -Gary
I recently bought a new scope which I paid decent money for and being an moa guy, I had to make the decision if I wanted to stick to that language or learn mils instead. I ended up going with mils because my shooting partner uses mils and I am so glad I switched. Speaking and working in tenths was much easer than I expected and I will never go back to moa. Also like you mentioned, if you use your reticle correctly and measure your misses you don't need to re-learn mils.. it's a non-issue
Thanks for the great explanation. I lucked out and was told by a few good shooters to just start with Mils. But wanted an explanation as to why (never just trust what you are told). And this video really helped to confirm what I was told.
I have scopes in both mil and moa, I'm not wedded to either. You showed that one can use the measurements in the scope reticle the same way with either system. The only thing that makes mil superior is that the number you come up with is smaller. So mil is superior to moa because it is less precise. That makes sense for long range shooting. For those of us who's sport is 22lr shot between 20 and 200 yards wouldn't the lack of precision in adjustment be a detriment?
Do competitive 22lr shooters in your area not use mils? Id say that the vast majority in mine are all using mils. The big TH-camrs who shoot 22 competitively mostly all seem to use mils as well. 🤷♂️
@@justinfee819 , I know about a dozen guys with Arkens, who shoot long range and all are pleased with them... Many 1000 yard impacts among those guys and myself!!!
There are a contingent of MOA shooters you forget: f class guys use MOA since their distances are fixed/known. They also like the finer adjustments. MOA also works out for capped scopes with simple recticles (ie not dialing like 3-9 hunting scopes). Otherwise yes mills all the way finally got our last MOA holdout to switch at our prs 22 Match.
F Class shooters is the most specialized, smallest minority of shooters. Probably safe to say they’re less than 1% of shooters out there. Even some of them do use mil, but your point is valid.
@@WhoDoe my two favorite are the Tremor3 and the MIL-XT. I have a new Zero Compromise with their MPCT 3 reticle which I really like the design but haven’t used it yet so not ready to fully endorse but in concept I like it.
During my time in the army ( 45 years ago) I only ever used scopes with MOA adjustment. So when I entered back into civilian life all my scopes were MOA. Until I got my hands on a reasonably priced scope with FFP and MOA, what a difference.
I liked the vid. You were also right on the money when you talked about why a lot of people - myself included - went to MOA rather than MIL for my first bigger scope. It was what I was already kind of familiar with. The more I delve into this subject, the more I see that I should buy MIL scopes from this point forward.
Mil just isn't nearly as much thinking. It's especially good of you switch to meters for your ranging ect, because then you can easily figure out that measurement on target in mils x 1000 = distance to target in whatever units you are using. You can do this in feet and inches too, but it's not as easy. Still easier than using MOA and feet=inches though.
Like you said, moa is much more fine than mil. When you're shooting at #8 limestone at a thousand yards, 1/4 moa still isn't fine enough. Wich is why some shooters use 1/8 moa. I would never sacrifice a chance to be more precise. Just so everyone knows, .1 mil is equal to .36 inches, 1/4 moa is equal to .25 inches, 1/8 moa is equal to .125 inches.
Lol. You have a gun or a shooter that can shoot with the fidelity of 1/8 MOA at 1000 yards? Does that gun and shooter shoot .12 groups at 100? No. But you think you can move a bullet impact with that level precision at 1000 yards while dealing with spin drift, winds, up and down drafts, other environmental differences of that distance, and coriolis effect? I don't think you really understand what you’re saying. A rifle system consists of the rifle, the optic, ammunition, and the shooter and there’s not a single component in that system that can shoot with the fidelity of 1/8 MOA and to get that fidelity you would have to have every single one of those components to shoot with that level of accuracy. 1/10 of mil = .35 MOA (.34 to be exact) which is more than precise enough. Thanks for watching! -Gary
Well, I have a video of me shooting .22 MOA on my masterpiece arms video on Rumble. Lmao, I’ve been to civilian long range courses too. Rifles Only among others. Can you shoot a .25 MOA group at 300? Can you shoot a 1.25” group at 500? Can you shoot a 2.5” group at 1000? The answer is not only NO, but it’s not even close. So why on earth do you think you could move a single round in a specified direction 2.5” if your group is most like 15-20” at 1000? The fact is you don’t even understand what I’m saying bc you don’t have the technical knowledge to even know what you’re arguing about.
Gary, thanks for the information. I recently took your excellent long range shooting class. Your instruction is clear, practical, and extremely helpful. Only one suggestion: You talk to fast in the videos! Slow down, just a little. Thanks.
I’d love to hear this guy try and convince people that kph is more effective than mph cuz that’s essentially what he’s doing… like others in the comments, I do not have his duration or level of experience (thank you for your service!) but he destroys his own argument in the video when he says “you don’t have to do the math with mils, you just use the reticle, which is what you should be doing with MOA anyway.” It just sucks feeling like I’m being sold to with no true benefit.. he just wants people to do things his way. And I do agree that a mil reticle with an MOA dialing system is the most obnoxious mind bomb conceivable.
I’m not “selling” anything. If MOA works for you and you don’t shoot in a manner that you see a need to change… don’t. I knew this video would generate as many haters ascribing some nefarious agenda to me simply bc we have a difference of opinion. But, I thought it was important to make and publish either way. This video is for those looking for answers, not for people happy with their current system. I admittedly don’t think I did the best job explaining everything in this video. Sometimes you have to flush these things out. Watch part II where I attempt to clarify some things. If you have questions after that, I’d be happy to spend as much time as needed to discuss. We may not ever come to a point of agreement, but that’s ok too. We’re all shooters and passionate about shooting, LR, and 2A… so we’re all friends even if we disagree on minor or technical points. Thanks for watching! -Gary MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks Part II - MOA Misconceptions and Myths th-cam.com/video/-ZpYFSqukhs/w-d-xo.html
as a former carpenter and slow learner, I just find the fractions in my head with MOA relate to me easier. Plus my money is already invested ...and time learning this stuff. I have a half dozen of friends that were military and the opinions between the two seem to be split.
As a carpenter I agree. I know that 1/8 is .125 or that 1/16 is .0625. That being said I'm not a pro long range shooter. My longest shot was at 600 yds and that was with an old 243 rem m788. I know what I can do i could care less what everyone else does.
Soooo glad I purchased a couple MIL scopes! I wasn’t sure what to purchase so I watched a couple videos and purchased MIL. This video just helps me feel ever better about my decision.
I didn't get a whole lot of time with either but I'd been introduced more to MILs while in the corps. I went with that in the first place for that reason. I'm not a christmas tree reticle guy, but the explanation of the typical use makes absolute sense. Adjusting the turrets is not a fast process so quick follow up shots are going to be dependent on the reticle. I've got some stuff to think about.
As a German metric guy the whole thing is a no brainer anyway. When I first came to shooting I didn’t know MIL existed, and all of This MOA stuff did my head in. FFP + MIL for da win.
If reticles had the same hash marks for multiples of MOA, there'd be no advantages I can see. The impact is still the same distance off and you still have to look at those tiny little lines. The only advantage I can see to using MILS is that more people use it so getting spotting information may be easier if you're in MILS.
It is a different measurement but there are some measurements more suited for specific jobs. You could measure a football field in inches or feet but it’s faster and more efficient to use yards.. and just as precise. There’s a reason not one single top tier PRS shooter uses MOA. There’s a reason 90% of all PRS shooters use MIL (the other 10% or so are new and will end up switching). There’s a reason why thousands of shooters well versed in MOA and invested in MOA optics end up making the switch every day. There’s a reason optics sell in MIL 4:1 with mils market share increasing every year. This isn’t out of popularity, it’s purely performance based. Mil is a different measurement but it’s not equal to MOA when it comes to shooting multiple targets at multiple distance for time. The only place where MOA is the standard are the disciplines that remove all reality from shooting. Disciplines/sports where you shoot a single target at a single distance on a manicured range paved with wind flags. 🤷♂️ Thanks for watching! -Gary
U.S. Military forces use MIL-based scopes for certain weapon sets like snipers, machine guns, and mortars, largely because they're capable of quickly measuring targets and compensating for changes in distance.
I still use both because I have them. I’m my opinion there is no difference. If I can dial 1 mil I can dial 3.5 MOA. Same thing with a hold you’re using a reticle, the numbers are just numbers. I didn’t hear any arguments that actually make one better
Numbers are just numbers and if all you ever do is shoot one target with unlimited amount of time to setup, I don’t disagree with you. However, the differences and/or advantages of MIL be one self evident when time constraints or multiple targets at multiple distances are involved. 5.2, 6.8, and 8.1 are much easier to find on a reticle or even dial compared to 18.25, 23.75, and 28.25. This is especially true when under stress. Thanks for watching. -Gary
@@paramounttactical I see the point you’re trying to make but if you put the time behind your scope one is no easier than the other. The truth is most people don’t put in the time to know their equipment. But that’s just my .02
Thanks for the intel. It's worth noting that you are one of the few content creators that has explained why MILs are better to MOA from a practical application. Would love to see when it is best to use SFP vs FFP or visa versa based off the application.
I think SFP vs FFP is obviously related but a separate issue. That said, I also think that FFP is far better and I think that’s generally accepted now. In the past (10 or so years ago) I think people looked for arguments not to spend the money on FFP but now that you can get FFP in very affordable optics, the argument for SFP has faded into the background. Thanks for watching! -Gary
Personal opinion: If you have a variable power scope with a reticle that has any sort of measurements then the only answer is FFP because all those measurements in the reticle are wrong unless you have the scope set at exactly the one magnification (usually maximum). SFP makes good sense if you have a reticle with no measurements -- such as a plain crosshair or post & crosshair etc. That being said, you have to consider how usable the reticle is for the conditions and the magnification you expect to be using. Not all reticles are practical for all situations. Scope makers are starting to understand that the reticle needs to match the use, but they still respond to what the market wants to buy (where choices are often made from a single picture of the reticle against a plain white background). One of the fancy christmas tree reticles may be good for long distance target shooting, but completely useless for hunting deer in the woods at under 100 yards.
It really depends on the application you are using your rifle for. For instance, for benchrest competition shooting where you are only shooting one single target multiple times at one distance, using a very fine/thin reticle that is always the same size regardless of magnification (SFP) is much better than a FFP. Usually in that type of discipline, you dial your optic in on test shots to get it set perfectly and then shoot for score. Once it is dialed, you never change anything until you get to your next target. A reticle that changes size will grow large enough that when shooting a close target for pin-hole accuracy, the reticle itself is larger than the hole you are making and it blocks out your point of aim. The same can be said for a hunting optic where you know you will never take a shot over 200 yards. Having a reticle that is always in the same place, and always the same size makes shooting your prey from 20 yards to 200 yards simple and fast. With the right zero, you never need to adjust elevation anyways, so a simple duplex type reticle on a SFP optic could be preferred. For target shooting at multiple distances that will vary constantly, FFP for sure!
Good video just feel like you should have explained what MOA and MiL are so people know why youre super sold on MIL. Exercise first arguments second lol. Good video tho. Thanks for the content!
I am a novice shooter for long range. The first example with the math going on made sense to me why MOA could suck. For the hold overs i honestly don’t understand why it matters even after watching. Seems like a 6 of 1 half dozen of the other situation.
Yeah, I don't disagree. I played around with how to go about it a lot. I think its a toss up. Most people you can sell on a concept easier and faster than getting technical first. I'll be posting some follow up videos on this topic to help further clarify. Thanks for watching. -Gary
@@14usair Because if I tell you to hold 23. 25 vs 6.6, (or dial) the 23.25 will take you twice as long to find. Also because it's a smaller scale, both the numbers in the optic and graduations (on both reticle and turret) are much smaller and harder to find quickly and use with precision.
@@paramounttactical ah okay got it. So a situation where you’re working with a spotter and not able to kinda call your shots yourself. I see. Im just thinking like… i see my splash i adjust myself. I really haven’t ever got to work with a spotter at all and had to work off their calls as im unable to call my own shots. Making more sense.
Got one moa scope I absolutely love using. It's on my lighter weight 300prc hunting rifle, it's a gen 1 vortex pst 2nd FP, perfect for that application. 6.5 Bergara approach, and heavy rifle 308, 300prc Bergara HMRs all use mil scopes. Arken and Vortex respectfully
One point in favor of Mils you left out is an engineering advantage. The most common tactical turret is a 100 spline turret: In other words you get 100 clicks per rotation. In an MOA turret 100 clicks yields you 25 MOA (in .25 MOA adjusting scope). In a 100 spline MIL based scope you get 10 Mils of adjustment per rotation (or 34.38 MOA). Using the example of an 8 Mil up adjustment in the video to hit 1,000 yards you would need less than one turn of the dial. For an MOA adjusting scope you would need 27.5 MOA of up adjustment putting you on the 2nd turn of the dial. So you get way more elevation per turn with a Mils based scope than with a MOA based scope, meaning you less like to get lost on what turn you are when dialing.
Dude. Thank you so much. Buying my first scope and this is exactly what I needed. Not sure it could be explained any clearer even for total noobs. Mil version all the way. Greatly appreciated!!
I agree that Mil scopes are what most everyone in competition uses. I was really looking for a compelling argument of why Mil is so much better than MOA but unfortunately, you did a poor job at expressing to me. All I really got out of the video was this reticle is so much easier to use because it's a mil reticle but you just using lines of measurement. Maybe I missed something.
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary
As a new shooter, seeing your hold over examples, the MOA reticle to me was easier to visualise or “hold over”. Nothing to do with MOA vs MIL debate, but the reticle was just better on the MOA reticle and was by far easier to “reverse” where the shot hit.
Honestly, we should just use metric when we're shooting. Things should be ranged in meters. Imperial is familiar, but it's so cumbersome in most practical applications.
Very convicing. I have been shooting precision rifle for several years and have used MOA scopes, but at some point will phase them out for MIL and will look forward to it learning.
Funny. I always sucked at math through school. I think it just had to do with interest. "What will I ever use this for?!" Especially Trig and milliradians. I guess things surprise us in life. Wanted to learn long range and realized this was the math I needed to know. Picked it up immediately and understood Mils over MOA.
Another outstanding video. Keep up the good work. If you don't mind me asking, what is the material you have in your background your rifles mounted on? I will never clean my gun like I used to after watching your video. You definitely have it dialed in
Love the video. For what I do and for what my goals are, I do use precisely calculated firing solutions because I want to hit the target with the first round, it doesnt always workout but that is what I strive to achieve. I don't want to have to make a follow up shot. So for my purposes, it doesn't matter whether I am using mils or moa, and I do use both depending on which rifle I'm shooting. I have separate sets of data and charts specific to each rifle and specific ammunition being used. This is also how I'm teaching. Because you know things tend to move once they realize they are being shot at. If the first shot results in a miss then it's easy to use the reticle to make a follow up shot regardless of being mil scale or moa scale. I will agree with one thing though, practically moa is too fine of a scale for long range and extreme long range. I remember dialing 69.7 (69 3/4) moa for a 1800 yard shot thinking it would be easy to get lost in the minutes.
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@paramounttactical from a practical/tactical stand point why not teach the concept of point blank range zeros and how vital zone radius pertains to pbr. I also think the concept of danger space is also valuable for those running dmr setups or those that may be engaging targets beyond 1000 yards. Using at pbr zero would be especially effective in a combat scenario from 0-400 yards. For example with my AR-10 6.5 Creedmoor running a 144gr Lapua fmj my point blank zero for a target with a vital zone radius of 5" is 268 yards. If I were to employ that as my zero, and not adjust at all, I would be able to keep every round in a 5" radius from 0-315 yards. And I wouldn't have to use any holdover. I just would have to be conscious of the fact that at closer ranges my impacts could be up to 5" high and at the max pbr of 315 yards my impacts would be 5" low. No guess work necessary, no math, no holdover. Just a point and shoot practical zero. Something that woodsman and hunters have been doing for a long time.
@RecreationalSniper we do teach that. But that’s not what this video is about. We cant cover all things LR related in one video. I don’t teach people WHAT to do but teach many different methods and HOW to do many different things so they can figure out what works best for them. For some a point blank zero makes sense, for others, not so much. There’s also speed drop, creedmoor hack and many other options. Giving people options is what it’s about.
Thk u 4 being so precise on explaining da difference n now I belive I can learn alot faster on how 2 use my scope align it so I can b a better shooter.
Thank you, I enjoy the content on the channel. It seems for this part 1 in this MOA vs. MIL series using your comment of “Oompa Loompa” seems to describe there is now significant advantage or disadvantage when using the reticle for compensating, i agree. For the information provided in the first part of this series, the preferred method for compensating would be to use the reticle over dialing, I agree. That being the case, a good quality reticle with graduated stadia marks “Oompa Loompa” will do, agree. This all works if impact is identified, correct? Using range and windage to compensate or dial for the initial (first shot) holdover and windage adjustment. Subsequent follow up shot using the “Oompa Loompa” marks to compensate. I look forward to the next parts of this MOA vs. MRAD/MIL series.
Very informative and spot on. I love how folks love to argue for the sake of arguing. The ability to keep an open mind is all but gone for most folks. I am convinced you could tell people a mouthful of sugar is better than a mouthful of shit, and some would still argue. Keep the videos coming.
Thank you for all your content. Starting my 12 year old off with a ruger precision .22 rifle and a vortex diamond back 4-16x44 ffp in MRad. Dude can shoot very well. Would you recomend a diffrent optic or will this work well to move to a larger caliber latter? Thanks Gary
Yeah, I would recommend something with a 50+ objective lens and a 34mm tube. I’ve done a review on the Arken EP5. It’s what I have on my son’s rifle and for $500 it’s hard to beat. It’s a really good optic for the money.
I know people that use both. Charlie Milton uses moa. Im sure you know him if your in the long range community. I learned from him. Mil is great but personally i perfer moa. Most is just preference. I agree the way things are going is mils.I know how to use both. But im hard headed prefer moa its what im comfortable with makes sense to me. Love your videos keep up the good work..
You’re right, it does. If you don’t require efficiency, or if you’re an F Class or bench rest shooter, use MOA. For every other situation, MIL is demonstrable better. Thanks for watching! -Gary
I know this video is 8 months old but I just wanted to say I started off using mildot in the early 2000s. I use both mrad and MOA today but I use mrad for my longer range rifle and MOA for my AR platform. I prefer mrad and most of the people I shoot with I try to talk them into it as well because when you're shooting with friends or in my case sometimes it's my job it's nice if everyone's on the same page for their holdovers
At one time I had one of those early Leupold scopes with a mildot reticle and MOA adjustments. I wasn’t doing much long range shooting in those days, but as soon as scopes with mil reticles and mil adjustments became available that’s what I switched to. I haven’t used MOA except with some of my other real old scopes since, and they just have simple uncalibrated reticles anyway. As I put it to people who are interested in my opinion, I find it much easier to think in base 10 (mils) rather than base 4 (1/4 of MOA which is how MOA scopes’ adjustments are usually calibrated). I therefore agree with you completely even without having your level of experience. I will say, though, that some of the top tier scopes that were originally offered only with milling reticles and adjustments are more commonly being offered in MOA versions these days as well. I wonder if that could slow the more common acceptance of mils by higher level certain shooters, and perhaps even reverse it to a degree. I just discovered your channel, so thanks.
John, welcome to the Paramount Family! Make sure to join us on this channel and/or Rumble live on Wednesdays for our Live Dangerous Liberty Podcast. It’s a lot of fun. Go check out all our other content. I think you’ll enjoy it. Thanks for watching! -Gary
You made a great argument on why I'll just keep my MOA reticle. You're going to use them the same way for hold offs. Isn't 1/10Mil about .35Moa? So the reticle would move less with each click on an MOA scope then on a Mil scope. Then that means I can't make as fine of an adjustment with a Mil scope. I believe that whatever you can shoot and understand best is fine. Neither is better then the other.
Cool… you do you boo. The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. As for .36 vs .25 adjustments, you can’t adjust impacts with more fidelity than your group size at any distance. .25 MOA adjustments are pointless. I cover that in detail in part II. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@paramounttactical First video I've ever seen of yours and it was very informantive. I'll watch part 2 with interest. I'm strictly a hunter and that's all I'll ever be.
I really like your videos and your approach based on your experience. This is another example of how you have been trained and successfully apply your training. Having said that there is absolutely no physical difference in using MOA or Mils, the math is exactly the same and it yields exactly the same results. It is just up to what you are used to work with. As a professional that devoted large part of his professional life on optical systems alignment I can tell you that as a physicist I probably will always use milliradians. However, as I shooter I probably will always use MOAs.
I appreciated what you said about Rumble and agree. Prob is I'm deaf. Rumble does not have a cc(closed caption) that you can click. Evidently it's possible to do it, but facilitation not easy. I looked across a range of vids on rumble, and I'm flat screwed. Is that the only other place you post? Thanks
Great video. MOA is fine for police engagement distances which national average is under 100 yards. For military engagements, or competition ranges, MIL is superior.
Ive been bitten by the long range bug. Unfortunately I ended up with the worst, Mil reticle and MOA adjustments. What a horrible idea that design was. So I mostly ignore the reticle and use a range finder for making adjustments. I like what you've shown here though. I will definitely keep it in mind for future scope acquisitions.
best case scenario (short of getting another scope) is to zero it with turrets then leave them alone. tape them over or something useful. Then use the hashmarks as holdoffs for fast shooting. imho ymmv and all that.
Two solutions. Adjust magnification (assuming it's a second focal plane scope) to match the hash marks of the reticle to your MOA clicks, and mark that position on your magnification ring. Otherwise, just remember that one mildot = 13.76 quarter MOA clicks, or approximately 14 clicks.
Kinda related question - today, when communicating with a spotter, when you stop going by eye and then go to glass and when target is confirmed and told to adjust parallax and mil target, do you still give a mil reading to make sure you are both looking at the same target (in the past it was for ranging) or do you skip that step and just receive your elevation?
No, it’s easier to confirm target through other means by either markings that describe the target or distinguishing features around the target. Once target is confirmed, go into your spotter/shooter dialogue.
I’ve always used holdovers with my moa scopes and it works for my application. Inside of 100 yards I like the precision of moa over mil. I’m also just shooting rimfire (.22lr)
@@3of11 I don’t understand why it’s harder to dial 5 revs and 7 clicks than it is to dial 1 rev and 40 clicks. I use both and don’t see a clear advantage to either. MOA has a less cluttered turret and MIL has a less cluttered reticle
@jerryhorton2899 cluttered vs uncluttered depends on the reticle design. A MOA reticle to have the equivalent of 10 MIL needs at least 34 stadia lines. That seems MORE cluttered to me. They do both work but after training people for many years and assessing which is better/easier over time and a good sampling of people, the simplicity of MIL becomes pretty obvious. Whether you’re having a student hold or dial mistakes are easier with MOA. Holding or dialing 4.5 MILS is easier than 15.75 MOA. I mean if you never push yourself to engage targets under a time constraint or attempt to shoot multiple targets a various distances than you can’t know “which is better”. Anyone can take an infinite amount of time to setup for and engage one target. If that’s what you do, you’re right. Neither has an advantage.
Great video. Thanks for putting in the time and effort in trying to help us. I'm in the category of thinking that MOA is easier to understand (mostly cause I don't know any better). I'm asking for help on my situation. I'll be primarily hunting prairie dogs at no more than 300 yards with my air rifle and I'm not real big on dialing. If you still recommend I get MIL instead of MOA then that is the direction I will take and I get it figured out. If it doesn't matter for what I'm doing then I'll whatever. Thanks again
No, I think especially if you plan on using holdoffs, you should use MILS. I go a little more in depth on the topic in part II. MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks Part II - MOA Misconceptions and Myths th-cam.com/video/-ZpYFSqukhs/w-d-xo.html
Yeah I watched with interest, generally prepared to be convinced. But after listening to your explanation, it just translated to "I learned to shoot long range with mil and therefore that is best". I like the finer adjustments with moa, down to 1/8 moa clicks with some of my scopes. And every instance you showed using the reticle for holding could be done equally well with a moa optic. Maybe I'm just old and it's because I started shooting distance in the 80s and moa is what I know. But I am not afraid to change if you can show me a better or more precise way, but I'm still convinced after this that moa is more precise and can't see where it will cause me to miss targets, short of a spotter calling adjustments in mil when I have no idea where my last shot landed. Know your dope and roll what you learn on. Mil isn't wrong, I just have far more experience with moa and I find the math to be easy.
Well for the record that’s what everyone said about Glock, red dots, or any other innovative improvement in the industry before they’re willing to evolve. All that said, this video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. As for the holdoff demonstration I said it could be used for but it was for people thinking they should estimate misses in inches and then convert to MOA. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those arguments in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary
@@Fivegunner I it’s not. Mil optics are able to engage multiple targets much quicker than MOA. That’s a fact. So, it couldn’t be more applicable. I’m sorry you don’t have the experience and knowledge to understand the analogy. It’s ok. Keep watching, we’ll get you caught up. Maybe…
For hunting, I prefer to stick with MOA simply because I don't intend to shoot game animals out much past 300 yards. When I bought a scope specifically for a long range rifle, I bought a MIL with a FFP Xmas tree reticle. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around MIL, but I plan on taking a long range training class at some point anyway.
I definitely see the benefit of going to a mil system for long range. I will also probably switch if I get to the 1000 yard shooting beyond occasional fun. As of now I barely play at 500~600 yard once in a while. Usually just aiming at a rock to find the smallest I can hit. Besides giving my ability to shoot is not exactly the best I still feel my inferior equipment is Superior compared to the one using it. It probably doesn't help that my first experience with mil was not good. I was much younger but the stigma is still there.
I understand the idea that MIL is better than MOA, especially from former military that has used it all over the world, and I agree, for most of the world, MIL would be better, since it is based on the metric system and easily multiplied or divided by 10. Here are the issues, though. First, it doesn't matter if you get more "MIL" adjustment than "MOA" adjustment. The actual distance you are going to be able to adjust the same scope in different formats is the same. It is just using a different nomenclature, and in reality, you get a finer adjustment out of MOA than MIL, .25 vs .36, respectively. Second, in this country, the vast majority of people THINK in inches, not decimeters. When you say, "You're an inch left, everyone knows that you are 4 clicks out, because each MOA is approximately 1" at 100 yards. That doesn't noticeably change until you get out to 1000 yards. Now you get to MILs. Same scenario, and how many MILs in 1 inch. Well, 1 MIL at 100 yards is approximately 3.6 inches. 1/10 would be .36 inches. So now you have 3 clicks, or 1.08. now extrapolate that out to 200 or 300 yards, and the math starts to gets progressively more complicated, when with MOA, you are dividing inches (what you think in) by quarter of inches, which is much easier and faster to do. Just my .02.
Well achtuallyyy 8-) Neither is metric or imperial based, they just line up very closely to those scales.
MOA is exactly what the name implies, one full revolution is 360°, take 1° and further divide it into 60 pieces to get 1MOA.
Mills are just based off a different unit for angular measurement called radians, where 2pi (~6.28) represents one whole revolution. As the name implies you then divide the radian by 1000 to get a mrad.
@@sdlillystone Just because the radian is the SI-unit of angular measurement I wouldn't classify it as metric. Radians work well with trigonometrical functions, but is not something you use in everyday life situations. Newtons are obviously metric since the base units behind a newton are seconds, meters and kilograms and used in everyday situations. Would you call seconds a metric unit of time, since it also is the SI-standard? Granted there isn't a competing unit for time, but you get the point.
@@sdlillystone Bro, I'm 90% sure you're trolling at this point, but in case you're not: what has angular velocity to do with anything here? SI is used for scientific and engineering purposes and I guess, especially in the US, SI = metric. For me metric means commonly used units in countries in which distance is measured in meters. Notice however, we do not measure angles in Radians or temperature in Kelvins, just because they are the scientific standard, we use 360° standard and Celsius.
@@sdlillystone That's what I've said from the very start...the DEFINITION isn't metric OR imperial, BUT they do match the different units of measurement very accurately. 1cm at 100m is not the definition, it is an accurate enough approximation for laymen to better grasp the concept of mrad, just the same way 1 inch at 100 yards works for MOA.
@@sdlillystone Probably a typo, but it's 0.1mrad for 1cm @100m
Maths graduate here. Minute Of Arc is a circle divided into 360 degrees then 60 minutes per degree. One radian is the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. So 360 degrees equals 2x Pi radians. Radians is not metric or imperial it is a ratio. Both are measure of angles. The only advantage radians has is in geometry and has no advantage in shooting. The argument that MilliRadians requires less rotation of the dial is wrong.. One rotation of the dial is about the same angle change in MOA and MRad the same as 300mm is about the same as 12 inches. The reason that for practical purposes MOA and MRad are the same iris is that we cannot resolve any greater accuracy with the human eye. A scope working one Second of Arc per click is 4 thou of an inch at 100 yards. MicroRad would be similarly useless in shooting. If you reload you will know that you can measure case length in mm or inches and achieve the same result that is the correct case length. Personally I can change between mm and inches, MOA and MRad easily because I use both. The analogy is that they are two languages that describe the same thing. If you learn to speak English, German is difficult until you learn.
I, by no means have your level of experience, but to me the 2 are equivalent. The one argument I agree with is the sharing data portion if you're around others who are using mils. Your analogy of dialing 8 mils vs. 24 moa, you are basically dialing ~80 clicks for both so I don't see an advantage for either. It, more than anything, else comes down to personal preference or what you have experience with. Coming from your military background and a desire to only have to deal with one in your classes, I can see that you would prefer mils because that's what you have the most experience with.
But you're not just dialing. You're very often having to use a reticle and when your ballistic solution is 26.3 that's hard to find on such a fine and small scale. I see it in practice all the time. Even dialing, finding 22.25 with all those numbers squeezed onto a turret you are going to be WAAAAY slower dialing that. Sure, a MIL turret is graduated in the 1/10th of mil but it's easy to dial fast to the much larger print number like 8 and then fine tune it to a 1/10. MUCH easier to do that.
I don't mind teaching both at all and this video isn't about me not wanting to teach MOA, it's about constantly seeing MOA shooters struggle needlessly because they are stuck to a demonstrably inferior system. It's also about the fact that a large majority of people that start shooting MOA end up shooting MIL eventually for all the reasons I laid out. So it's to save people the wasted time and frustration and start with the better option first.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttactical In a tactical situation it is more likely that one would hold rather than dial, but as with most things, practice makes perfect. When dialing, I get to the whole numbers quickly, as you mentioned, then have from 1-4 minor adjustment clicks to get to the decimal portion of the solution. My next trip to the range I will exercise some of the points you raised to see how impacted I feel with an eye to dealing with the granularity of the MOA optics. Again, I have nothing like your level of experience, but I do feel I can manage well with moa. I would very much like to get training with far more experienced shooters such as yourself, just $$$ and location......
@@rabbahhagri1493 and we’re not disagreeing brother. MOA in fact does work. My argument is after have used both quite a bit, MIL is easier to learn, less confusing, and faster in practical application. I’m going to follow this video up with a video demonstrating actually shooting and filmed through the optic. I think that will illustrate the points better.
Outside of this topic, if you ever have LR questions, hit me up here or our email is on our website. It’s all about helping each other and getting people out to shoot!
👊🇺🇸
Gary
There are some fundamental mathematical advantages to mil as well. You just need to be familiar with metric or be willing to work in deci or centiyards.
@@userJohnSmith in a base 10 world, MIL and metric makes way more sense...
I'm an old hunter, you didn't convince me. But then my shots are almost all well under 300 yards
First and foremost, the provocative thumbnail aside, this video was formatted for people searching for “MIL or MOA” and to address the misconceptions that prevent some new shooters from starting on MIL, e.g.,
1) You have to know metric system, 2) there’s more math, 3) it’s harder.
This videos is not structured or intended to argue for established MOA shooters to switch. I can and I do to some extent in Part II.
All that said this video and even Part II has revealed that a LOT of MOA shooters are using MOA based on misconceptions due to a complete lack of understanding of basic long range fundamentals and technical knowledge. MIL is easier and more efficient but most people for what they do would see no difference given how they shoot or what they do regarding long range. Also if people are happy with MOA and see no need to change, they shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t “prefer” MOA based on incorrect info and many do.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttactical Well..... you spent 9 minutes trying to tell us we have to use Mil because "everybody uses MIL." However, in the hunter's circle very rarely do people use MIL, even when hunting at 600 yards. Nobody with me is using MIL. I'm the only guy with a MIL scope and it's really freaking annoying. So MOA based on that argument......
@@joshuahunt1210 he is just trying to make his preference as something that's better only based on his preference, not based on facts. Even argument that one thing is popular is so dumb, we all know that many not so great things are popular only because people like to do what others like to do.
I am an old hunter too. Most of my shots have been under 200 yds. Several years ago, I really looked hard at learning the Mil system. He is spot on about the idiocy of trying to do conversions. I use a lot of metric at work and have for years. Once you learn to think metric instead of converting, a whole new world opens up. So did I switch to Mils? No. I have too much glass set up for MOA, my distantices are too close to matter, and I found scopes with BDCs. A good scope with BDC solves a lot for the average shooter. Kind of like going from a manual transmission to an automatic. Not much thrill, but it can be smooth.
Only 300?
As a new shooter, I went directly to a mil scope. I’ve always hated fractions, but I could always work with decimals. I also convert yards to meters to make the math much easier. I can calculate the distance of a mil at any range in about 2 seconds, and I can ascertain the range in about 5 to 10 seconds if I know the size of the target.
Maybe I’m still a noob, but the minimal math for MOA seems easier to me. The mils example got skipped in the video and it went straight to hold offs. Maybe I’m missing something.
@@jtmcfarland3512 math is totally not required at all. Not today! Sniper school yup but all you need is a balistics app. I use strelok pro, set it up properly input everything accurately. Weapon, load used, temp of ammo, weather conditions and direction to target. I have it figure my spin drift and correolus effect as well. I killed the spelling I know.
Once set up u tube it if need be. It's a very simple act of ranging a target with a quality range finder buy once cry once here. Don't buy a Walmart Bushnell really look into a good one. I use a nikon black its not the most expensive but ive ranged things with it you can't hit with a gun!
Next look for a scope with a good balance of optical clarity, dead on turret system, the features you personally like, and ruggedness and price.
This is a huge babbitt hole I know! But everything dont have to be a smitt/bender pm2. Though that's absolutely in the top tier and if you have only one rifle then that's a righteous choice. $3600+
But some others will do just fine in the $500-1000 range
Like the Athlon midas tac ffp mil radian 6-24x50
The Athlon Ares ETR ffp mil rad 4-27x56
The Athlon Cronus btr ffp mil rad
The Arken sh4 6-24x50 mil rad ffp
I shy away from vortex some guys like em but anything above will out perform everything they have up to the razor and the last two Athlon scopes will out perform it at half the cost. I like to spend as wisely as I can.
Use good ammo take notes how things perform each outing log weather conditions as well. You'll get a feel for how it does and you get a feel for when to clean for copper buy looking at your targets.
@@jtmcfarland3512 I believe his main point was that new shooters have a perception that MOA is better than MIL because they believe you'll be correcting based on estimated distance, converting distance, to angle and correcting off of that. In reality, you'll just be using your reticle to tell you the angular correction to dial or just holding off rather than dialing. That said, he didn't explicitly say this, and I was confused as well.
@@michaelhill6451 The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil.
1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t.
2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient.
3) You have to do more math - You don’t.
The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA.
For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
You haven’t proved mil is faster than moa. Make a video that clearly demonstrates that. Your example with the reticle placement looked to be a tie to me.
When ever someone says that a well established system doesn't work well (sucks), generally they don't understand it. I use MOA, SMOA, and MILs across multiple platforms without difficulty. I'm also a US Army, sniper school graduate; a long-distance shooter, and a hunter. The various systems all work well.
I use, teach both, and understand them both well. So try again. MIL is demonstrably faster, easier to see using holdoffs, and more efficient.
Cool, you’re a US Sniper graduate but how long ago? Go see what snipers are using now. Go see what Special Operations are using now. You won’t find an MOA scope in the house. Go see what Todd Hodnett is teaching to SOCOM snipers.
I agree with your first sentence. I don’t think you do know about the advancements in shooting. We’ve come a long way from MOA turrets and basic MIL reticles.
If you shoot at one target at one distance and time isn’t a factor, sure MOA works fine. If you need to engage multiple targets, at multiple distances, under a time constraint than there’s only one choice. MIL
You know why?
Because MOA SUCKS!
While I am adding a shit talking tone in there. It’s all in a good spirit. We can disagree and it still be all good. I genuinely thank you for your service.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Exactly. They all work just fine. Neither is faster really.
@@paramounttactical moa is finner than mil and it is as fast as mil. Turning the dial is the same, no difference. You are simply wrong with your statement. You can have preferences but no matter how much you want, personal preferences don't mean that is better or worse.
Good video. My friends and I always have this same argument. AAANNNNNNDDDDDDDD, I still shoot with MOA. Lol. One funny thing is when we are all shooting and I make a good wind call, when someone ask what my hold was and I reply 1 3/4 MOA, they hate it. But they do it to me to.
To me, it is six on one, half a dozen on the other. You can use the reticle to hold over on both of them. You can estimate range with both reticles. You can use the reticle to correct your miss.
And there are certainly some times when the one inch = one MOA is very handy. You may not always know the size of your target, but there are times when you will know.
All valid and true points. 👊🇺🇸
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I was ready to be converted to mils, but the argument really mainly showed you can easily use either reticle to correct and hold off. I liked the argument that there are fewer rotations with mil, you can get all the way to 1000 with one revolution. Not sure that the finer scale is a problem, almost seems like an advantage. It seems like it would be more difficult to use a mil reticle with fewer hash marks if you’re trying to hit a small target and it not really close to one of the dots on the tree. I guess if its super small and precise you’d just dial for it and if you’re going for speed and approximate holds that a coarser scale would be faster and less confusing/counting?
You understand you can get a mil reticle that has stadia lines every 2/10ths (Horus and many others)? The finer MOA scale doesn’t make it more precise, just more difficult to see and find the right hold. The same goes for dialing. 6.25 MOA would require 25 clicks the same in MILS would be 1.8 MILS or 18 clicks. Which of those is simpler?
Very few people are going to be counting individual clicks, everyone should be reading their turrets and moving accordingly, so says a simple minded redneck no matter the units used
@@dannydivine7699 I don’t disagree with that but to dial 28 MOA which is equivalent to 8 Mils how many revolutions does that require? It’s not even one rev on a mil turret.
@@paramounttactical okay now I'm tracking. My SWAT buddy went to FBI sniper school and rolled his eyes when I showed him my MIL scope. He said it's more precise at distances father than I'll shoot this rifle (18" SPR)
@@SaneAsylum uhhh no. The MOA crowd keeps moving the goal post and Im addressing those arguments. Fact is MOA users believe and have a fundamental misunderstanding that you can move individual impacts .25 MOA or 1/8th. If you believe that you and you’re not shooting .25 MOA groups you don’t have a basic understand of Long Range Fundamentals.
1/10 Mil is too fine for 99.5% of all shooting applications as well but is more practical and useful than .25 MOA.
If speed, ease, and efficiency don’t matter, then which one you use doesn’t matter. BUT… 90% of people are arguing that MOA is better based solely on incorrect information and misconceptions. Too busy arguing to listen. But hey… you do you boo.
Great explanation. Like you discussed, I was introduced to rifles by my roommate in college. Growing up hunting, using MOA, he convinced me that’s the way to go. 5 MOA scopes deep, I have no qualms switching to MIL after heeding your advice. I swore there was too much math with MIL scopes. Myth debunked. Appreciate it.
Doesn't really matter which system you use if your target is at a known distance. MIL has mild advantages for ranging and holdovers, and MOA a small advantage for precise dialing and typically have cleaner reticles. There's no reason you can't be proficient at using both, but I am tending to agree that MIL is probably all you need. It's just hard not to be allured into the simplicity of "1 MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards" when we mostly shoot targets at 100 yard increments.
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil.
1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t.
2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient.
3) You have to do more math - You don’t.
The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA.
For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
The fact you think MOA reticles are cleaner is baffling...makes no sense whatsoever. They're identical nearly and MIL is actually less cluttered with much smaller numbers usually under 10. MOA has a lot more numbers cluttering it. And precise dialing, they both do the same.
@@PkwyDrive13 Not what I meant, exactly. There are more simple duplex scope options with MOA reticles/turrets than with MIL. The clutter from numbers and hashes depends more on the reticle design than MOA vs MIL.
It's debatable whether it matters, but it's simply a fact that 1/4 MOA adjustments are finer than 1/10 MIL.
at 100 yards you could get by with a tasco that adjust in increments of tacos
@@paramounttactical,
We're cut from different cloths... But both passionate about shooting, but YOU'RE WRONG about metric system and MILS, because MILS is based off of the METRIC system, 1 MIL at 100 Meters = 10 centimeters... I'm an MOA guy, use both, but the math in my brain works better in inches, a friend who grew up in Europe likes MIL, because his mind still initially measures in meters/centimeters... As far as dialing goes, with GOOD marked turrets, dialing 80 clicks or 8 MILS, vs 112 clicks or 28 MOA, don't really make that much difference to me, and using the reticle for a holdover is really pretty much same for me... I respect your opinion, and experience, but you're slightly misled thinking MILS isn't associated with the metric system...💯 And as a guy who used math all the time to dose drugs, and keep people alive, I don't mind doing calculations, and am pretty precise with them, which also pushes me towards a slightly more precise measurements. Good video, and explanation despite some slightly misguided info... 👍
When choosing a scope, the biggest things I look for: ensure the reticle and turrets match. MOA reticle, needs MOA turrets. MIL turrets need MIL reticle. I'm personally an MOA guy. It requires me to learn to read the wind. I cannot just rely on another shooter's wind call, as well as see the corrections and impacts.
Serious downsides to MOA include significantly less scope and reticle selection. I prefer a christmas tree style reticle specifically the IOR MP8-Extreme reticle.
The scope I'm buying has a mildot reticle with MOA turrets which makes sense. I can calculate distance using mildots just by the height of the object in relation to the mildots on the reticle. With MOA turrets, 4 quarter turns is a mil which is faster than a Mil turret in adjustments.
@@MrCryptler69 1 mil is 3.43 MOA. So there’s a significant amount more math involved in swapping between the two measurement styles. Distance can also be calculated using MOA. If you’re going to get a Mil scope get Mil turrets
Other than providing a long-winded explanation for why competitive precision rifle shooters use Mils (short answer: it's because that's what everyone else is using so it's easier to speak the same language), you didn't explain why MOA actually sucks vs. MIL. The short answer is that there isn't really a gnat's ass worth of difference between the two other than MOA scopes generally have slightly finer amounts of elevation and windage adjustment. They're both just an angle of measurement. What does matter, as highlighted by your comparison of reticles, is that some reticles have a marked advantage over others when it comes to rapidly measuring a miss and making a corrected follow up shot. A crappy Mil-based reticle could underperform against a superb MOA-based reticle, and vice-versa.
Under no time limits and shooting a single target I don’t disagree with you. Doesn’t matter which you use, but it becomes self evident which is easier and one would say “better” the moment you have people shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges regardless if you’re dialing or holding. The difference in mistakes or the likelihood of making a mistake and miss due to incorrect holds or incorrect dials is very obvious.
It’s significantly easier to remember, find, and hold 6.8 , 5.2, and 8.2 than it is 23.75, 18.25, and 28.75. The same goes for dialing.
I mean if you never do anything to test practical ease of use and just shoot sitting on a bench shooting one target at a time, of course from your perception there’s no advantage of one over the other. It’s like saying there’s no difference in performance of a Ford Mustang and a Ferrari based on you’ve only driven them both at 35mph in a subdivision.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttactical It isn't necessarily easier or harder to remember 2/10th vs. .25 increments and the difference in time it takes to spin a turret is a moot point. Same goes for holdovers assuming you're working with a decent reticle. Heck, Leupold's Mark 5 HD rifle scopes (whose Mil-based reticles are graduated in .25 Mils with 2/10th dials) have won a massive number of PRS matches and are being used by a huge percentage of the top PRS Shooters? Remembering .25 holds doesn't seem to be a problem for them. Again, they're both just an angle of measurement and both are easy to use assuming one has the right reticle for the job. I've used both for PRS and hunting. Some people make a really big deal out of MIL vs. MOA but it's literally not a big deal at all to those in the know. They're just angular units of measurement. Ultimately it just comes down to speaking the same language as your fellow shooters. Speaking of shooting under time limits and "my perception"...maybe you and some of your cadre would benefit from coming out and shooting some national 2-day PRS matches and see how you stack up? ;)
@@allene.5306 that’s a strange argument given something like 90+% of PRS shooters use MIL and there’s more MIL shooters and less MOA shooters every year. That’s not without reason. I know both systems well and can use both systems but all things being equal MIL is significantly easier and less confusing. That’s not opinion, that’s unbiased observation.
If you disagree with that, and you obviously do, that’s ok. Life is boring without the mundane to argue about.
Thanks, Gary
He's probably a kid looking things up on Google. @paramounttactical
@@allene.5306 sir, you are wasting your time. This "expert" knows everything the best and he isn't willing to look facts and understand them. He listed only his preferences
As a civilian shooter? All I know is MOA and Kentucky Windage. I sight my rifle into 100 yards using three shot groups and adjusting the scope onto bullseye using my choice bullet weight that I am going to hunt with. Once zero’d to 100 yards? I am done. I memorize my bullet drop of my cartridge and bullet weight and if the animal is 300 yards away? I will hold over as a guesstimate based on the size of the animal. If I am in wind? I will hold accordingly based on the size of the animal. Deer are this tall and this wide so I will hold here. This is how my father taught me how to do it. That’s how his father taught him how to do it. And it’s tough to walk away from something so old and tried. But I welcome it. Thank you for this video!
Agreed that's the fast way to engage targets . He's talking about a rifle that you make individual adjustments for each shot though. Very different application. But 300 yards or less your application is much quicker and plenty accurate
The, "I got a bunch of cheap, used MOA scopes so I stick with it." example made me chuckle. As soon as you said it, I immediately thought, "You got them used for cheap because nobody wants them!" and, sure enough, that's what you went on to say. LOL
Which ever one you run just practice with it and become proficient. For me both are as easy as the other. When shooting with a spotter running a mil optic I run a mil scope. Planned for and works. Moa, like you stated, is a finer adjustment thus more accurate when accuracy is important. When your objective is to ring a gong at any distance either optic works the same. It's just a reference mark. Longer range shots the first one is dialed for. Follow up shots, cats out of the bag, have to be referenced with the reticle unless speed doesn't matter. I feel that you hit one solid point as in the fact of how much more an moa reticle is cluttered compared to mil. Lots of ticks to get the same results with fewer. Though less accurate. It is also true that many hunters stick with moa. Go with what you know. I remember the days of moa turrets and mil reticle. What b.s. was that anyways? Just simply machining a mil turret, or etching a moa reticle would have been so easy.
When shooting for groups, load development, I always use moa. When hunting I use moa. Ranging with the reticle on known sized game is very easy and adds a benefit on moving prey.
If I'm shooting steel or paper at longer ranges by myself I'll stay with moa. If I'm with a spotter and on steel it's always mil. There does not need to be any translator involved in our conversations. No conversions. This is also a true point you have made. Overall good info and Thanks for taking the time to put this out here for us all to digest. I'll sub now and ring the notification gong. Don't ring bells!
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil.
1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t.
2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient.
3) You have to do more math - You don’t.
The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA.
For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice.
MOA is not “more accurate” bc you’re optic doesn’t determine accuracy or the precision in which you can make impact adjustments. I cover that in depth in Part II.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttactical hey!... I'll watch it!! Thanks for replying to my reply!!
@@paramounttactical it's easier to learn for idiots. European here and still moa will do just as good if one knows what he is doing. Is there are difference? Yes. Is there enough difference to make a difference? No, at least not to people who aren't dumb.
@@Fivegunner Cool. Maybe you should ask every top level PRS shooter why they wouldn't even consider using MIL. You're not dumb, you're just ignorant and don't have the experience shooting both to know better.
I like how you explained how they're the same as far as use case goes but then said the less accurate system was better
Sounds like you heard what you wanted. And MOA is not more “precise”. You need to watch Part II. Does your gun shoot .25 MOA at distance? People are mired in a complete lack of understanding fundamental LR technical facts and concepts. The fact that you cannot reliably move an individual impact with greater fidelity than your group size at any distance is Long Range 101. So by having .25 MOA on your optic and believing it is more “precise”, is like having 200mph on the speedometer of your stock Honda civic and believing it’s faster than a Corvette with 175mph on the speedometer.
Watch part II. If you have additional questions or arguments, I’d be happy to discuss those with you. We may never agree, but that’s ok.
Thanks,
Gary
Your video convinced me to buy all future scopes in MOA 😂. I think the only benefit would be if others were using MILs but nobody I shoot/hunt with shoot MILs.
Cool, you do you. At least it helped you with something. You might want to watch Part II though.
I will dude! I love your content and stoked I found your channel. Keep up the good work!
I'll be looking for a good deal on one of those 'as new' MOA scopes being sold by a new convert to MIL...
So they both do the same thing? But M.O.A is cheaper?
@thedude5258 that’s like saying red dots and iron sights do the same thing but iron sights are cheaper.
Outside of the military I've been an MOA guy mostly because I havnt had proper instruction of Mil. This was probably one of the best examples I've seen thus far so thank you for the explanation i think i will be exploring the mil world a little more now!
Tremor 3 is only in mil too. Of course you need to have the self discipline to be able to handle the busiest reticle on the market, but built in wind holds, moving target holds, and so much more once you learn how to use it. It's amazing.
I’ve got the tremor 3 on my mark 5hd 7-35 and it is the most amazing scope ever
@@sdlillystone For windage holds you need to figure out which makes to use for specific wind speeds based on muzzle velocity. You have a relatively large margin for error until you start getting to pretty large ranges, so the speed holds are useful at pretty much any range where they would be meaningful. You aren't likely going to be trying to take one mile shots at targets moving twenty mph.
Great video and information. I got into long distance shooting 15 years ago. The place I compete is multiple targets, multiple distances and changes firing locations on unstable platforms in 2 minutes ex: two targets to hit twice each target at 348 yards, do it again at 505 yards, do it again at 708 yards, redeploy, do it again. All under 2 minutes. Shooting off tires, rope in back of a van, dirt mounds, sewer pipes, you get the idea. And this is where Mil is superior. On the left of the rifle a paper with the elevation dope. One can dial, but most do hold overs using the radical. And going from dialing 1.8 to hold over 1.7 to achieve the (3.5), then 4.4 hold over to achieve the (6.2) is easier to remember than double digits. One only has to memorize two numbers, 1.7 & 4.4. Secondary as the person in the video states, hold over for the new aiming point. I am one of those lucky people who have great spacial interpretation. So I never dial anything past the first setting of the first target. Some of the people I compete with especially use hold over for windage. I have learned my rifle and found I can dial in 0.2 Mils windage for anything past 500 yards. So I do dial that in if over 500 yards, In one completion I was very lucky that a Army Sniper competing noticed and gave me extra instructions that really helped me, especially not over zooming in, but making sure all the targets were easy to see at a certain setting. Moist of the competitors were military. So yes technically if one was only doing one shot, MOA might be argued as more precise, which really isn't true one one learns their platform. But engaging multiple targets at multiple distance, especially with a bolt gun, Mils is the only way to go. I have recently bought a Arken 5 x 25 x 56 with a Christmas tree for hold over. Still getting used to it. Up to then I used a SWFA 3x15x42 first focal plane. I love their radical once you understand it. Most of the people were using 6.5 Creedmoor. The other advantage of a Mil is ranging, both by radical and The Mildot Master. When I use my Strelok, 1000 yards for me is around 11.8. It is as simple as counting from 0 to 10. So hunting, benchers shooting MOA, sure. But I don't think it would work well in real life time limiting multi target situation.
One thing I will add. If someone is telling me to move 2.7 moa, ill have to multiply that by 4 to know how many click I need to do. On the other hand .8 mils (roughly 2.7moa) is 8 click.
Last time a did was literally last saturday lol. My point is the math are much faster in mil than moa, if im at 675m from the target one .1 mil is exactly 6.75 cm. Its just so quick and simple. @@AB.284
Thank you for the tutorial... I am going to a Precision Weapons course and this is helping me understand more
Other than for sharing data I agree but no matter which radical you choose they are a mechanical. Range your target use your turret to dial than any and all follow-up shots use the radicals. When time is crucial.
Then note in your dope book what the proper hold is for future references at known distance and known environmental factors.
Dope book is another topic I’m about to cover. I don’t necessarily disagree but hold offs/reticle if used properly are generally more precise than mechanical turrets. It’s a longer discussion, but reticles are easy to get precise even in cheap optics. Mechanical turrets that are accurate are much more difficult and expensive so reticles essentially always track true but a lot of turrets do not. I hold almost everything and don’t worry about dialing 90% of the time. Doing do also forces you to practice hold offs constantly so you get faster and more proficient. The main argument to dial initial DOPE is that holdoffs are easier to get wrong (shooter error) but it is more accurate. So if you practice holding everything, you can train out that tendency toward error and end up being faster and more accurate. There’s additional nuance arguments for and against both but he rally speaking the reticle is always more accurate than your mechanical turrets.
I started shooting with MOA only because the people I know that shoot used it. So I’ve used it ever since. But I am definitely open to learning MIL. Will start after September course
Just found your channel. I am wondering if you cover any .22LR long-range shooting? I would like to start shooting rimfire long-range. If you do talk about rimfire, have you done any videos for good rifles to start with and a scope to go with it? I am a long time Bulleyes shooter looking to switch to long-range rimfire because it seems that Bullseye as I have known it is fading away.
Thanks.
We're getting ready to get hard and heavy into rimfire. Might be a bit before we start producing content for it but standby.
Thanks for this video.
I'm a new competition shooter. I just participated in my first competition, which was a Civilian Marksmanship Program EIC rifle competition.
The max range was 600 yards. Since I didn't expect to do good, I used my M16A4 clone with a Trijicon ACOG for fun. I ended up scoring a 378/500.
But I'm looking at getting a real competition scope now and have been wondering about mils vs moa. Nearly all scopes available in my area at the big sporting goods stores are mils scopes.
So thank you!
As a former sniper team leader, Green Beret, LR instructor and a student of LR for over 20yrs,I couldn’t disagree with you more.
Fact is for engaging multiple targets at multiple distances, a decent level PRS shooter would smoke all military shooters in almost every practical shooting scenarios. When I got out, that was a hard pill to swallow. This is why SOCOM is abandoning this silly “Service Rifle” nonsense and going outside the military for much better long range instruction and overall mindset. Sure if “service rifle” is your jam, cool. But if you want to actually be proficient and efficient in practical, real works shooting scenarios, then your advice doesn’t hold water.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I recently bought a new scope which I paid decent money for and being an moa guy, I had to make the decision if I wanted to stick to that language or learn mils instead. I ended up going with mils because my shooting partner uses mils and I am so glad I switched. Speaking and working in tenths was much easer than I expected and I will never go back to moa. Also like you mentioned, if you use your reticle correctly and measure your misses you don't need to re-learn mils.. it's a non-issue
I couldn’t have explained it any better. Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Thanks for the great explanation. I lucked out and was told by a few good shooters to just start with Mils. But wanted an explanation as to why (never just trust what you are told). And this video really helped to confirm what I was told.
I have scopes in both mil and moa, I'm not wedded to either. You showed that one can use the measurements in the scope reticle the same way with either system. The only thing that makes mil superior is that the number you come up with is smaller. So mil is superior to moa because it is less precise. That makes sense for long range shooting. For those of us who's sport is 22lr shot between 20 and 200 yards wouldn't the lack of precision in adjustment be a detriment?
Do competitive 22lr shooters in your area not use mils? Id say that the vast majority in mine are all using mils. The big TH-camrs who shoot 22 competitively mostly all seem to use mils as well. 🤷♂️
I’m a new long range shooter , you did a great job explaining this.
I’m glad you got value out of it! Welcome to the long range and Paramount Fam!
-Gary
My first long range scope is the Arken EP5-5X25 in mil. I couldn't be happier and just felt like it was the right choice.
That's what I'm looking at buying now do you still like it?
@@justinfee819 ,
I know about a dozen guys with Arkens, who shoot long range and all are pleased with them... Many 1000 yard impacts among those guys and myself!!!
Thanks for convincing me to move over to Rumble to keep enjoying these videos
As an old Field Artillery guy, east has and always will be 1600 mils LOL, I never had a compass in "degrees", so now MILS feels like home.....
Well, you are the King of Battle so you can choose as you please. Thanks for your service!
👊🇺🇸
-Gary
shooting 8-25 miles LOL
There are a contingent of MOA shooters you forget: f class guys use MOA since their distances are fixed/known. They also like the finer adjustments.
MOA also works out for capped scopes with simple recticles (ie not dialing like 3-9 hunting scopes).
Otherwise yes mills all the way finally got our last MOA holdout to switch at our prs 22 Match.
F Class shooters is the most specialized, smallest minority of shooters. Probably safe to say they’re less than 1% of shooters out there. Even some of them do use mil, but your point is valid.
@@WhoDoe my two favorite are the Tremor3 and the MIL-XT. I have a new Zero Compromise with their MPCT 3 reticle which I really like the design but haven’t used it yet so not ready to fully endorse but in concept I like it.
They probably also don’t calculate with the 1 inch at 100 yards misconception because they would lose the match (1.047 at 100 yards in reality )
During my time in the army ( 45 years ago) I only ever used scopes with MOA adjustment. So when I entered back into civilian life all my scopes were MOA. Until I got my hands on a reasonably priced scope with FFP and MOA, what a difference.
Excellent. Well explained. I started with a standard mildot and it has always made sense.
I liked the vid. You were also right on the money when you talked about why a lot of people - myself included - went to MOA rather than MIL for my first bigger scope. It was what I was already kind of familiar with. The more I delve into this subject, the more I see that I should buy MIL scopes from this point forward.
Mil just isn't nearly as much thinking. It's especially good of you switch to meters for your ranging ect, because then you can easily figure out that measurement on target in mils x 1000 = distance to target in whatever units you are using. You can do this in feet and inches too, but it's not as easy. Still easier than using MOA and feet=inches though.
Man I’m glad I watched this video. The visuals you used for missing helped it make w
Like you said, moa is much more fine than mil. When you're shooting at #8 limestone at a thousand yards, 1/4 moa still isn't fine enough. Wich is why some shooters use 1/8 moa. I would never sacrifice a chance to be more precise. Just so everyone knows, .1 mil is equal to .36 inches, 1/4 moa is equal to .25 inches, 1/8 moa is equal to .125 inches.
Lol. You have a gun or a shooter that can shoot with the fidelity of 1/8 MOA at 1000 yards? Does that gun and shooter shoot .12 groups at 100? No. But you think you can move a bullet impact with that level precision at 1000 yards while dealing with spin drift, winds, up and down drafts, other environmental differences of that distance, and coriolis effect? I don't think you really understand what you’re saying. A rifle system consists of the rifle, the optic, ammunition, and the shooter and there’s not a single component in that system that can shoot with the fidelity of 1/8 MOA and to get that fidelity you would have to have every single one of those components to shoot with that level of accuracy.
1/10 of mil = .35 MOA (.34 to be exact) which is more than precise enough.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttacticalaim small miss small 😂
Well, I have a video of me shooting .22 MOA on my masterpiece arms video on Rumble.
Lmao, I’ve been to civilian long range courses too. Rifles Only among others.
Can you shoot a .25 MOA group at 300? Can you shoot a 1.25” group at 500? Can you shoot a 2.5” group at 1000? The answer is not only NO, but it’s not even close. So why on earth do you think you could move a single round in a specified direction 2.5” if your group is most like 15-20” at 1000?
The fact is you don’t even understand what I’m saying bc you don’t have the technical knowledge to even know what you’re arguing about.
Gary, thanks for the information. I recently took your excellent long range shooting class. Your instruction is clear, practical, and extremely helpful. Only one suggestion: You talk to fast in the videos! Slow down, just a little. Thanks.
Lol, I’ll work on that Dave.
I’d love to hear this guy try and convince people that kph is more effective than mph cuz that’s essentially what he’s doing… like others in the comments, I do not have his duration or level of experience (thank you for your service!) but he destroys his own argument in the video when he says “you don’t have to do the math with mils, you just use the reticle, which is what you should be doing with MOA anyway.” It just sucks feeling like I’m being sold to with no true benefit.. he just wants people to do things his way. And I do agree that a mil reticle with an MOA dialing system is the most obnoxious mind bomb conceivable.
I’m not “selling” anything. If MOA works for you and you don’t shoot in a manner that you see a need to change… don’t. I knew this video would generate as many haters ascribing some nefarious agenda to me simply bc we have a difference of opinion. But, I thought it was important to make and publish either way. This video is for those looking for answers, not for people happy with their current system. I admittedly don’t think I did the best job explaining everything in this video. Sometimes you have to flush these things out. Watch part II where I attempt to clarify some things. If you have questions after that, I’d be happy to spend as much time as needed to discuss. We may not ever come to a point of agreement, but that’s ok too. We’re all shooters and passionate about shooting, LR, and 2A… so we’re all friends even if we disagree on minor or technical points.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks Part II - MOA Misconceptions and Myths
th-cam.com/video/-ZpYFSqukhs/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for explaining the wheeler equipment and how to use it. Feels great! Its no longer a mystery. William
as a former carpenter and slow learner, I just find the fractions in my head with MOA relate to me easier. Plus my money is already invested ...and time learning this stuff. I have a half dozen of friends that were military and the opinions between the two seem to be split.
As a carpenter I agree. I know that 1/8 is .125 or that 1/16 is .0625. That being said I'm not a pro long range shooter. My longest shot was at 600 yds and that was with an old 243 rem m788. I know what I can do i could care less what everyone else does.
Outside of the long rang competition world it really doesn’t matter. Use what you are most comfortable with and can afford.
Soooo glad I purchased a couple MIL scopes! I wasn’t sure what to purchase so I watched a couple videos and purchased MIL. This video just helps me feel ever better about my decision.
I didn't get a whole lot of time with either but I'd been introduced more to MILs while in the corps. I went with that in the first place for that reason. I'm not a christmas tree reticle guy, but the explanation of the typical use makes absolute sense. Adjusting the turrets is not a fast process so quick follow up shots are going to be dependent on the reticle. I've got some stuff to think about.
That’s what we’re here for, to tickle people’s brains.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I agree and I believe that the type of reticle matters more than MOA vs MIL
As a German metric guy the whole thing is a no brainer anyway.
When I first came to shooting I didn’t know MIL existed, and all of
This MOA stuff did my head in.
FFP + MIL for da win.
Metric myth is what kept learning mil. Now I'm going to learn. Gonna sign up on rumble.
That's a good way to put it. "The Metric Myth" lol. Welcome to light.
If reticles had the same hash marks for multiples of MOA, there'd be no advantages I can see. The impact is still the same distance off and you still have to look at those tiny little lines. The only advantage I can see to using MILS is that more people use it so getting spotting information may be easier if you're in MILS.
None of that stuff you said matters to me as much as my pretty blue knob on my Huskemaw scope. 😄
1 MRAD=
1/1000 of any unit of distance or size measurement. Very universal
Thank you for a great video
Top man
There are somedays that I feel like I can't count past 10 so MRAD is great 🤣
it's just a different form of measurement i have two scopes one in moa,and one in mils like both of them.
It is a different measurement but there are some measurements more suited for specific jobs. You could measure a football field in inches or feet but it’s faster and more efficient to use yards.. and just as precise.
There’s a reason not one single top tier PRS shooter uses MOA.
There’s a reason 90% of all PRS shooters use MIL (the other 10% or so are new and will end up switching).
There’s a reason why thousands of shooters well versed in MOA and invested in MOA optics end up making the switch every day. There’s a reason optics sell in MIL 4:1 with mils market share increasing every year. This isn’t out of popularity, it’s purely performance based.
Mil is a different measurement but it’s not equal to MOA when it comes to shooting multiple targets at multiple distance for time.
The only place where MOA is the standard are the disciplines that remove all reality from shooting. Disciplines/sports where you shoot a single target at a single distance on a manicured range paved with wind flags. 🤷♂️
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Maybe I should just admit Im a caveman with a .308 and never shoot over 200 yards.
😂 we can be friends Bill.
My 308 is no fun under 450 yards because it never misses. Your rifle is capable of so much more. Go out and push those limits bud
U.S. Military forces use MIL-based scopes for certain weapon sets like snipers, machine guns, and mortars, largely because they're capable of quickly measuring targets and compensating for changes in distance.
I still use both because I have them. I’m my opinion there is no difference. If I can dial 1 mil I can dial 3.5 MOA. Same thing with a hold you’re using a reticle, the numbers are just numbers. I didn’t hear any arguments that actually make one better
Numbers are just numbers and if all you ever do is shoot one target with unlimited amount of time to setup, I don’t disagree with you. However, the differences and/or advantages of MIL be one self evident when time constraints or multiple targets at multiple distances are involved.
5.2, 6.8, and 8.1 are much easier to find on a reticle or even dial compared to
18.25, 23.75, and 28.25. This is especially true when under stress.
Thanks for watching.
-Gary
@@paramounttactical I see the point you’re trying to make but if you put the time behind your scope one is no easier than the other. The truth is most people don’t put in the time to know their equipment. But that’s just my .02
@@jerryhorton2899 I don’t disagree with that statement. Thanks for watching and commenting!
-Gary
This is the most concise and helpful explanation of MIL of all the videos I’ve watched. Thanks very much!
Thanks for the intel. It's worth noting that you are one of the few content creators that has explained why MILs are better to MOA from a practical application. Would love to see when it is best to use SFP vs FFP or visa versa based off the application.
I think SFP vs FFP is obviously related but a separate issue. That said, I also think that FFP is far better and I think that’s generally accepted now. In the past (10 or so years ago) I think people looked for arguments not to spend the money on FFP but now that you can get FFP in very affordable optics, the argument for SFP has faded into the background.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Personal opinion: If you have a variable power scope with a reticle that has any sort of measurements then the only answer is FFP because all those measurements in the reticle are wrong unless you have the scope set at exactly the one magnification (usually maximum). SFP makes good sense if you have a reticle with no measurements -- such as a plain crosshair or post & crosshair etc.
That being said, you have to consider how usable the reticle is for the conditions and the magnification you expect to be using. Not all reticles are practical for all situations. Scope makers are starting to understand that the reticle needs to match the use, but they still respond to what the market wants to buy (where choices are often made from a single picture of the reticle against a plain white background). One of the fancy christmas tree reticles may be good for long distance target shooting, but completely useless for hunting deer in the woods at under 100 yards.
It really depends on the application you are using your rifle for. For instance, for benchrest competition shooting where you are only shooting one single target multiple times at one distance, using a very fine/thin reticle that is always the same size regardless of magnification (SFP) is much better than a FFP. Usually in that type of discipline, you dial your optic in on test shots to get it set perfectly and then shoot for score. Once it is dialed, you never change anything until you get to your next target. A reticle that changes size will grow large enough that when shooting a close target for pin-hole accuracy, the reticle itself is larger than the hole you are making and it blocks out your point of aim. The same can be said for a hunting optic where you know you will never take a shot over 200 yards. Having a reticle that is always in the same place, and always the same size makes shooting your prey from 20 yards to 200 yards simple and fast. With the right zero, you never need to adjust elevation anyways, so a simple duplex type reticle on a SFP optic could be preferred. For target shooting at multiple distances that will vary constantly, FFP for sure!
Thank You For the Excellent Education. Knowledge is Power.
Good video just feel like you should have explained what MOA and MiL are so people know why youre super sold on MIL. Exercise first arguments second lol. Good video tho. Thanks for the content!
I am a novice shooter for long range. The first example with the math going on made sense to me why MOA could suck. For the hold overs i honestly don’t understand why it matters even after watching. Seems like a 6 of 1 half dozen of the other situation.
Yeah, I don't disagree. I played around with how to go about it a lot. I think its a toss up. Most people you can sell on a concept easier and faster than getting technical first. I'll be posting some follow up videos on this topic to help further clarify. Thanks for watching.
-Gary
@@14usair Because if I tell you to hold 23. 25 vs 6.6, (or dial) the 23.25 will take you twice as long to find. Also because it's a smaller scale, both the numbers in the optic and graduations (on both reticle and turret) are much smaller and harder to find quickly and use with precision.
@@paramounttactical ah okay got it. So a situation where you’re working with a spotter and not able to kinda call your shots yourself. I see. Im just thinking like… i see my splash i adjust myself. I really haven’t ever got to work with a spotter at all and had to work off their calls as im unable to call my own shots. Making more sense.
Got one moa scope I absolutely love using. It's on my lighter weight 300prc hunting rifle, it's a gen 1 vortex pst 2nd FP, perfect for that application. 6.5 Bergara approach, and heavy rifle 308, 300prc Bergara HMRs all use mil scopes. Arken and Vortex respectfully
One point in favor of Mils you left out is an engineering advantage. The most common tactical turret is a 100 spline turret: In other words you get 100 clicks per rotation. In an MOA turret 100 clicks yields you 25 MOA (in .25 MOA adjusting scope). In a 100 spline MIL based scope you get 10 Mils of adjustment per rotation (or 34.38 MOA).
Using the example of an 8 Mil up adjustment in the video to hit 1,000 yards you would need less than one turn of the dial. For an MOA adjusting scope you would need 27.5 MOA of up adjustment putting you on the 2nd turn of the dial.
So you get way more elevation per turn with a Mils based scope than with a MOA based scope, meaning you less like to get lost on what turn you are when dialing.
100%
Dude. Thank you so much. Buying my first scope and this is exactly what I needed. Not sure it could be explained any clearer even for total noobs. Mil version all the way. Greatly appreciated!!
I agree that Mil scopes are what most everyone in competition uses. I was really looking for a compelling argument of why Mil is so much better than MOA but unfortunately, you did a poor job at expressing to me. All I really got out of the video was this reticle is so much easier to use because it's a mil reticle but you just using lines of measurement. Maybe I missed something.
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil.
1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t.
2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient.
3) You have to do more math - You don’t.
The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA.
For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
As a new shooter, seeing your hold over examples, the MOA reticle to me was easier to visualise or “hold over”. Nothing to do with MOA vs MIL debate, but the reticle was just better on the MOA reticle and was by far easier to “reverse” where the shot hit.
Honestly, we should just use metric when we're shooting. Things should be ranged in meters. Imperial is familiar, but it's so cumbersome in most practical applications.
Agreed
It's slowly happening over time.
Just found your channel and.... Thank you for your service!!
Thanks for watching!
Very convicing. I have been shooting precision rifle for several years and have used MOA scopes, but at some point will phase them out for MIL and will look forward to it learning.
Funny. I always sucked at math through school. I think it just had to do with interest. "What will I ever use this for?!" Especially Trig and milliradians. I guess things surprise us in life. Wanted to learn long range and realized this was the math I needed to know. Picked it up immediately and understood Mils over MOA.
Another outstanding video. Keep up the good work. If you don't mind me asking, what is the material you have in your background your rifles mounted on? I will never clean my gun like I used to after watching your video. You definitely have it dialed in
Love the video. For what I do and for what my goals are, I do use precisely calculated firing solutions because I want to hit the target with the first round, it doesnt always workout but that is what I strive to achieve. I don't want to have to make a follow up shot. So for my purposes, it doesn't matter whether I am using mils or moa, and I do use both depending on which rifle I'm shooting. I have separate sets of data and charts specific to each rifle and specific ammunition being used. This is also how I'm teaching. Because you know things tend to move once they realize they are being shot at.
If the first shot results in a miss then it's easy to use the reticle to make a follow up shot regardless of being mil scale or moa scale. I will agree with one thing though, practically moa is too fine of a scale for long range and extreme long range. I remember dialing 69.7 (69 3/4) moa for a 1800 yard shot thinking it would be easy to get lost in the minutes.
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil.
1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t.
2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient.
3) You have to do more math - You don’t.
The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA.
For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttactical from a practical/tactical stand point why not teach the concept of point blank range zeros and how vital zone radius pertains to pbr. I also think the concept of danger space is also valuable for those running dmr setups or those that may be engaging targets beyond 1000 yards.
Using at pbr zero would be especially effective in a combat scenario from 0-400 yards.
For example with my AR-10 6.5 Creedmoor running a 144gr Lapua fmj my point blank zero for a target with a vital zone radius of 5" is 268 yards. If I were to employ that as my zero, and not adjust at all, I would be able to keep every round in a 5" radius from 0-315 yards. And I wouldn't have to use any holdover. I just would have to be conscious of the fact that at closer ranges my impacts could be up to 5" high and at the max pbr of 315 yards my impacts would be 5" low. No guess work necessary, no math, no holdover. Just a point and shoot practical zero. Something that woodsman and hunters have been doing for a long time.
@RecreationalSniper we do teach that. But that’s not what this video is about. We cant cover all things LR related in one video.
I don’t teach people WHAT to do but teach many different methods and HOW to do many different things so they can figure out what works best for them.
For some a point blank zero makes sense, for others, not so much. There’s also speed drop, creedmoor hack and many other options. Giving people options is what it’s about.
@@paramounttactical having options and knowing how to employ those options is the best way to go.
Spot on mate cheers from north Queensland.
Thk u 4 being so precise on explaining da difference n now I belive I can learn alot faster on how 2 use my scope align it so I can b a better shooter.
Thank you, I enjoy the content on the channel. It seems for this part 1 in this MOA vs. MIL series using your comment of “Oompa Loompa” seems to describe there is now significant advantage or disadvantage when using the reticle for compensating, i agree. For the information provided in the first part of this series, the preferred method for compensating would be to use the reticle over dialing, I agree. That being the case, a good quality reticle with graduated stadia marks “Oompa Loompa” will do, agree. This all works if impact is identified, correct? Using range and windage to compensate or dial for the initial (first shot) holdover and windage adjustment. Subsequent follow up shot using the “Oompa Loompa” marks to compensate.
I look forward to the next parts of this MOA vs. MRAD/MIL series.
Very informative and spot on. I love how folks love to argue for the sake of arguing. The ability to keep an open mind is all but gone for most folks. I am convinced you could tell people a mouthful of sugar is better than a mouthful of shit, and some would still argue. Keep the videos coming.
This was really helpful! thanks.
(please add a 709 lut please)
After reading Ryan Cleckner’s book and watching his series on Warrior Poet Society, I made the switch to Mils. And I like it 😊 ⚔️❤️🇺🇸
I was sold on no math, subscribed and going to rumble 😊
😂 my fellow jelly brain. Welcome to the fam!
-Gary
Thank you for all your content. Starting my 12 year old off with a ruger precision .22 rifle and a vortex diamond back 4-16x44 ffp in MRad. Dude can shoot very well. Would you recomend a diffrent optic or will this work well to move to a larger caliber latter? Thanks Gary
Yeah, I would recommend something with a 50+ objective lens and a 34mm tube. I’ve done a review on the Arken EP5. It’s what I have on my son’s rifle and for $500 it’s hard to beat. It’s a really good optic for the money.
I started with MOA like you said cause I thought it was easier. I switched to mil and love that I can figure my gun # to make wind holds easier.
I know people that use both. Charlie Milton uses moa. Im sure you know him if your in the long range community. I learned from him. Mil is great but personally i perfer moa. Most is just preference. I agree the way things are going is mils.I know how to use both. But im hard headed prefer moa its what im comfortable with makes sense to me. Love your videos keep up the good work..
Sent this video to my cousin bc he asked why I use mils. He is now selling his moa scope
Thank you for telling me about Rumble! I didn't know it existed till today!
Thank you Gary for the great information. Think you’re making me a believer in MIL.
Great. Definitely check out Part II!
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Just like EVERY other discussion in guns and optics. The answer to which is better is always “It Depends!”
You’re right, it does. If you don’t require efficiency, or if you’re an F Class or bench rest shooter, use MOA. For every other situation, MIL is demonstrable better.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I know this video is 8 months old but I just wanted to say I started off using mildot in the early 2000s.
I use both mrad and MOA today but I use mrad for my longer range rifle and MOA for my AR platform.
I prefer mrad and most of the people I shoot with I try to talk them into it as well because when you're shooting with friends or in my case sometimes it's my job it's nice if everyone's on the same page for their holdovers
The video may be old but truth is timeless.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
One of the best I’ve ever seen on this topic. Guess I have a couple of scopes for sale😊
At one time I had one of those early Leupold scopes with a mildot reticle and MOA adjustments. I wasn’t doing much long range shooting in those days, but as soon as scopes with mil reticles and mil adjustments became available that’s what I switched to. I haven’t used MOA except with some of my other real old scopes since, and they just have simple uncalibrated reticles anyway. As I put it to people who are interested in my opinion, I find it much easier to think in base 10 (mils) rather than base 4 (1/4 of MOA which is how MOA scopes’ adjustments are usually calibrated). I therefore agree with you completely even without having your level of experience.
I will say, though, that some of the top tier scopes that were originally offered only with milling reticles and adjustments are more commonly being offered in MOA versions these days as well. I wonder if that could slow the more common acceptance of mils by higher level certain shooters, and perhaps even reverse it to a degree. I just discovered your channel, so thanks.
John, welcome to the Paramount Family!
Make sure to join us on this channel and/or Rumble live on Wednesdays for our Live Dangerous Liberty Podcast. It’s a lot of fun. Go check out all our other content. I think you’ll enjoy it.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
You made a great argument on why I'll just keep my MOA reticle. You're going to use them the same way for hold offs. Isn't 1/10Mil about .35Moa? So the reticle would move less with each click on an MOA scope then on a Mil scope. Then that means I can't make as fine of an adjustment with a Mil scope. I believe that whatever you can shoot and understand best is fine. Neither is better then the other.
Cool… you do you boo.
The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil.
1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t.
2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient.
3) You have to do more math - You don’t.
The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA.
For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice.
As for .36 vs .25 adjustments, you can’t adjust impacts with more fidelity than your group size at any distance.
.25 MOA adjustments are pointless. I cover that in detail in part II.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttactical First video I've ever seen of yours and it was very informantive. I'll watch part 2 with interest. I'm strictly a hunter and that's all I'll ever be.
Thank you brother. Following your channel after this excellent tutorial.
I really like your videos and your approach based on your experience. This is another example of how you have been trained and successfully apply your training. Having said that there is absolutely no physical difference in using MOA or Mils, the math is exactly the same and it yields exactly the same results. It is just up to what you are used to work with. As a professional that devoted large part of his professional life on optical systems alignment I can tell you that as a physicist I probably will always use milliradians. However, as I shooter I probably will always use MOAs.
I appreciated what you said about Rumble and agree. Prob is I'm deaf. Rumble does not have a cc(closed caption) that you can click. Evidently it's possible to do it, but facilitation not easy. I looked across a range of vids on rumble, and I'm flat screwed. Is that the only other place you post? Thanks
Yeah man, for you, I think TH-cam is going to have the best accommodations. I appreciate the support bro!
-Gary
Great video. MOA is fine for police engagement distances which national average is under 100 yards. For military engagements, or competition ranges, MIL is superior.
@@GenXmadMike67 I don’t disagree with that at all.
Ive been bitten by the long range bug. Unfortunately I ended up with the worst, Mil reticle and MOA adjustments. What a horrible idea that design was. So I mostly ignore the reticle and use a range finder for making adjustments. I like what you've shown here though. I will definitely keep it in mind for future scope acquisitions.
best case scenario (short of getting another scope) is to zero it with turrets then leave them alone. tape them over or something useful. Then use the hashmarks as holdoffs for fast shooting. imho ymmv and all that.
Two solutions. Adjust magnification (assuming it's a second focal plane scope) to match the hash marks of the reticle to your MOA clicks, and mark that position on your magnification ring. Otherwise, just remember that one mildot = 13.76 quarter MOA clicks, or approximately 14 clicks.
Kinda related question - today, when communicating with a spotter, when you stop going by eye and then go to glass and when target is confirmed and told to adjust parallax and mil target, do you still give a mil reading to make sure you are both looking at the same target (in the past it was for ranging) or do you skip that step and just receive your elevation?
No, it’s easier to confirm target through other means by either markings that describe the target or distinguishing features around the target. Once target is confirmed, go into your spotter/shooter dialogue.
I’ve always used holdovers with my moa scopes and it works for my application. Inside of 100 yards I like the precision of moa over mil. I’m also just shooting rimfire (.22lr)
There’s definitely a better argument for MOA with rimfire compared to longer ranges.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttacticaloh gosh no MOA is worse for 22 games when you have huge drops. Dialing 14.4 versus dialing 51.75
@@3of11 I don’t understand why it’s harder to dial 5 revs and 7 clicks than it is to dial 1 rev and 40 clicks. I use both and don’t see a clear advantage to either. MOA has a less cluttered turret and MIL has a less cluttered reticle
@jerryhorton2899 cluttered vs uncluttered depends on the reticle design. A MOA reticle to have the equivalent of 10 MIL needs at least 34 stadia lines. That seems MORE cluttered to me.
They do both work but after training people for many years and assessing which is better/easier over time and a good sampling of people, the simplicity of MIL becomes pretty obvious.
Whether you’re having a student hold or dial mistakes are easier with MOA. Holding or dialing 4.5 MILS is easier than 15.75 MOA.
I mean if you never push yourself to engage targets under a time constraint or attempt to shoot multiple targets a various distances than you can’t know “which is better”. Anyone can take an infinite amount of time to setup for and engage one target. If that’s what you do, you’re right. Neither has an advantage.
just discovered this channel. binge watching every video.
Glad you found us! Welcome to the Paramount Fam! Join us on Wednesdays at 7pm for our live podcast.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Great video. Thanks for putting in the time and effort in trying to help us. I'm in the category of thinking that MOA is easier to understand (mostly cause I don't know any better). I'm asking for help on my situation. I'll be primarily hunting prairie dogs at no more than 300 yards with my air rifle and I'm not real big on dialing. If you still recommend I get MIL instead of MOA then that is the direction I will take and I get it figured out. If it doesn't matter for what I'm doing then I'll whatever.
Thanks again
No, I think especially if you plan on using holdoffs, you should use MILS.
I go a little more in depth on the topic in part II.
MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks Part II - MOA Misconceptions and Myths
th-cam.com/video/-ZpYFSqukhs/w-d-xo.html
Yeah I watched with interest, generally prepared to be convinced. But after listening to your explanation, it just translated to "I learned to shoot long range with mil and therefore that is best". I like the finer adjustments with moa, down to 1/8 moa clicks with some of my scopes. And every instance you showed using the reticle for holding could be done equally well with a moa optic. Maybe I'm just old and it's because I started shooting distance in the 80s and moa is what I know. But I am not afraid to change if you can show me a better or more precise way, but I'm still convinced after this that moa is more precise and can't see where it will cause me to miss targets, short of a spotter calling adjustments in mil when I have no idea where my last shot landed. Know your dope and roll what you learn on. Mil isn't wrong, I just have far more experience with moa and I find the math to be easy.
Well for the record that’s what everyone said about Glock, red dots, or any other innovative improvement in the industry before they’re willing to evolve.
All that said, this video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil.
1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t.
2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient.
3) You have to do more math - You don’t.
As for the holdoff demonstration I said it could be used for but it was for people thinking they should estimate misses in inches and then convert to MOA.
The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those arguments in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA.
For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
@@paramounttactical very "smart"comparison... Apples and oranges
@@Fivegunner I it’s not. Mil optics are able to engage multiple targets much quicker than MOA. That’s a fact. So, it couldn’t be more applicable.
I’m sorry you don’t have the experience and knowledge to understand the analogy. It’s ok. Keep watching, we’ll get you caught up. Maybe…
For hunting, I prefer to stick with MOA simply because I don't intend to shoot game animals out much past 300 yards. When I bought a scope specifically for a long range rifle, I bought a MIL with a FFP Xmas tree reticle. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around MIL, but I plan on taking a long range training class at some point anyway.
What caliber is your rifle that you bought the scope for?
I definitely see the benefit of going to a mil system for long range. I will also probably switch if I get to the 1000 yard shooting beyond occasional fun. As of now I barely play at 500~600 yard once in a while. Usually just aiming at a rock to find the smallest I can hit.
Besides giving my ability to shoot is not exactly the best I still feel my inferior equipment is Superior compared to the one using it.
It probably doesn't help that my first experience with mil was not good. I was much younger but the stigma is still there.