Do you shoot MOA or MIL? Does your reticle match your turrets?

I've been a dedicated iron sight shooter all my life. So on the occasions my sights have been incremented in either it's been MOA. I've just got my first scoped rifle and it's MOA turrets and reticle. I do want to learn mil though.

MOA and yes

>>34673705
>>34673761
Is mil more common/popular? I feel like everyone on this board references MOA when talking about their groups. I assumed MIL would be easier because everything is divided by 10

>>34673616
Just switched to MIL, getting used to it. Takes a bit more math, but I like that I can apply it to other units of measure

>>34674133
WHY did you switch?

MIL is far more organized and rounded, and uses the metric system, unlike the clusterfuck that is MOA/imperial system

>>34674261
But for America would moa be better? I guess what I'm trying to get at here is: do the majority of rifle shooters in the USA use mil or moa?

>>34674302
To add on to this, what about the military?

I shoot MOA with MOA turrets.

Way easier to range things if you are in the US and do your thinking in inches. Standard reference sizes are more relatable and thus easier to remember (a man's torso is 16" wide, a typical stop sign is 30", a standard exterior is 36", etc).

Mils seem much easier / faster to use in a team environment. I would probably process "come up three mils" a lot faster than "come up ten and one-third minutes".

>>34674427
Whoops, phoneposting... meant a standard exterior DOOR.

>>34673890
I think it's getting that way.

>>34673616
I like moa because imperial measurements are more relatable day to day than mil. Also 1/4 moa is a smaller angle of adjustment than 1/10 mil.

Base 60 (moa) is superior to base 10 (mil), but that's a argument for another day.

>>34673616
MIL/MIL

>>34674599
>Base 60 (moa) is superior to base 10 (mil)
That's really debatable, depending on the context and the scale of what you're doing.

>>34674302
>>34674315
Learn the metric system and MIL or you will suffer.

>>34674599
>Base 60 (moa) is superior to base 10 (mil), but that's a argument for another day.
>base 60
who the fuck do you think you are some kind of fucking babylonian?

File: Minute-of-Angle-1-5th-Test.jpg (159KB, 1339x586px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1339x586px

1 MIL is 10cm at 100M
1 MIL is 20cm at 200M
etc
This pleases my autism more

>>34674853
Man of culture right here

>>34674853
Mil all the way, in a riflescope, for calculation reasons. (Long range Shooting)
in case of a Military binocular, moa, because that goes well with a compass thats using Moas and again makes calculations easy. For example if you want the exact bearing of an object.

>>34673616
I only have mil scopes, but I learned on moa.

I figure if youre shooting moa, just use iphy instead because using moa but rounding is just bad news once you start shooting past 500yds.
but for those that know the imperial system it can be much quicker since its what they know.

MIL with MOA turret because I didn't know shit when I bought the scope. Fortunately, I always have my TI-84 problem solver handy.

>>34676049
Military Binos are in Mils as well as a Mil Compass has Mils. Beware there are actual multiple Mil systems but you never or very rarely see anything but 6400mil.

Mil for shooting "tactical" style stuff is superior especially with a spotter or needing to give directions to someone. It is easier to understand for the new shooter when they can just use increments of 10.

Some good math and reading here on the subject of Mils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliradian

>>34676639
post formulas and how to for ti83+

>>34674662
>>34674681
It's all about the prime factors my dudes. I know it sounds ridiculous because everyone is used to base ten, but when you have to make quick divisions by integers, it works out better.

>>34673616
Mil and mil

I would prefer MOA, but all my expensive ass classes mostly require mil

>>34676680
6400 mils to a circle is known as nato mils and usually for artillery afaik

mils used in scopes is the actual method of 1/1000 of a radian which comes out to 6283 milliradians in 360 degrees.

>>34677278
also afaik there have been only 2 scope companies that made scopes with the 1/6400 milrad system.

1 was the Leupold m3a (according to Lowlight)
2 was March, until they found out that the nato mil system was not the industry standard used for milrad clicks.

Also for those saying/thinking the milrad system is metric.

-------

A Brief Background

Before we get started down this road, I need to go over a few numbers related to using a Mil adjusted scope. Now, over the years there has been some confusion in how to term a Mil adjusted scope. For the record, it is not a “Metric” scope or calibrated in meters, nor does it require conversion to yards. By definition a Radian is, “the angle subtended at the center of a circle by an arc that is equal in length to the radius of the circle.” So, a Milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian. When applied to a circle the number we use is 6283.2, and while it has been taught and discussed at length that the number is 6400, that is not correct for a riflescope. Our scopes are calibrated using 6283 and only one scope on the market was ever built using the wrong number, that is the Leupold M3A, who’s reticle is based off the 6400 number… don’t let that fool you, the number we use is the true number of 6283, just because someone did it another way, or has taught 6400, doesn’t mean they are right either.

>>34673616
I'm a weird fuck who likes his elv in Mil and his windage in SMOA, I can math it easier for some reason... -shrug- Then again if my brain did Cm of drift Mil would likely be easier to hunderstand... KPH Wind and such...

-will have to look into this-

>>34674671
This, fucking imperial and it's bullshit fractions. What a waste of fucking time. Simpler is better