MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks And Here's Why. Part I 

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.

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'm an old hunter, you didn't convince me. But then my shots are almost all well under 300 yards

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

Simpler is not always better. Being able to adjust with 8 clicks instead of 24 is simpler, but you loose precision. 1 mil @ 1000y is 36". If each click is .1 MIL that is 3.6" per click. 1 MOA @ 1000y is 10.4" if each click is 1/4 MOA that is 2.6" and if each click is 1/8" that is 1.3". MOA is more precise. It is your call, do you want to be simple or precise?

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!

Thank you for the tutorial... I am going to a Precision Weapons course and this is helping me understand more

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.

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.

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.

I agree. MLA is only been around for about 20 or 30 years right? Cuz all I ever used was Mill in the 80s

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

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!

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

Thank you brother. Following your channel after this excellent tutorial.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Excellent description. I have to agree to a point. But you were trained one way, all inside the box. MOA is a great and very easy system. Especially due to the fact that there are 1000 times more people utilizing their scopes for actual hunting vs long range competition shooting. 9 out of 10 times that someone will shoot a large game animal it's within 200 yds. So to say MOA should be done away with???? Mils are, by far, great for long range and special circumstances. But MOA is much simpler for the basic user to use to kill that deer. My dads Sako .243 he bought in 1957 with a 60 year old Bushnell scope is still putting meat in the freezer. So think outside the box.

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.

You made two good points: 1) Scopes that mix MOA and MIL are bad. 2) Speaking the same language with fellow shooters is very important. Long range shooters speak Mils and hunters speak inches (imperial). Know your environment 😀 The example only proved the two methods are similar and both work. It did not prove the point that one is better. I will give you old eye credit that fewer and wider hashmarks is better; however, that is a reticle design issue and not scale dependent.

Metric myth is what kept learning mil. Now I'm going to learn. Gonna sign up on rumble.

You kind of made a moot point when you use your reticle to measure and make adjustments. While I agree that Mil is easier to understand because you're using smaller values, in the end, it doesn't really matter when you're using the reticle to measure.

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.

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.

Maybe I should just admit Im a caveman with a .308 and never shoot over 200 yards.

Thank You For the Excellent Education. Knowledge is Power.

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.

Excellent. Well explained. I started with a standard mildot and it has always made sense.

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.....

Thanks for spreading your wisdom!

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.

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

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!

Hi. It's me. I'm the guy that wanted a budget precision rifle, did some research, and found a good deal and a very nice Leupold scope. It works great. But I quickly realized that having a mildot reticle but MOA adjustments is confusing. I also wish I had gotten a FFP scope. But I don't get to shoot it very often so even though i've had it for years, I'm still just getting into it. But that also means i'm not so deep into it that i'm not set in my ways. Anyone interested in a slightly used Leupold Mk4? lol

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.

There are somedays that I feel like I can't count past 10 so MRAD is great 🤣

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.

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.

Oh, come on people , why would we listen to this guy? He's just one of the highest qualified people on the planet. Seriously, I wish I had switched over to Mills a long time ago. I can shoot and I can hit with both systems, but mill is just quicker. It's more efficient. And I like the way he's got it explained.

None of that stuff you said matters to me as much as my pretty blue knob on my Huskemaw scope. 😄

I’ve been MOA because no one has dumbed down MIL like this before that I have watched. Going to go down the MIL rapid hole now.

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.

1 MRAD= 1/1000 of any unit of distance or size measurement. Very universal Thank you for a great video Top man

This is the most concise and helpful explanation of MIL of all the videos I’ve watched. Thanks very much!

I just got into Long Range shooting in Rimfire. My package is a Ruger Precision with a Arken 6-24x50mm in a 34mm tube. My target is 300yds or less. I’m at 11 minutes into the video and you just started talking about why Mil.

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 love this...starting to listen to this ...imperial vs metric....10mm vs 25+mm ...going downrange...the smaller the defiation the better ..so Mils makes more sence to me...!!

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 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..

I live in America, I’m good at fractions, I grew up on MOA, I think I’ll live.

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.

Thank you for explaining the wheeler equipment and how to use it. Feels great! Its no longer a mystery. William

Being that I was a US Army tanker, and fired at extremely long range, I love mils. The only problem is finding a mil scope that has a mil reticle and turrets that doesn’t require a bank loan the get it.

Are some calibers better suited to MOA? 5.56 specifically. It's not really a "long range" caliber.

Im with you mils is the way to go but the world and American champion in fclass uses moa just saying. Awesome videos BTW

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.

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.

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.

MIL may be good for speeder adjustments, but when you're getting out passed 800yards, MOA is by leaps and bounds far more exacting; at a grand the difference between the two could either get you on steel or make you lose your only shot at filling the freezer, and I'd rather have as exacting an adjustment as possible.

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 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.

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.

Great presentation. If US public ranges set up targets at 50m, 100m, etc. this debate would be over.

I don't see the advantage. Grew up with MOA and that is my preference.

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.

MOA for F-class and benchrest.....Mils for everyone else..PRS, hunters, LE, military, etc.

You mention you don't care for the reticles you are showing. What reticles do you like?

I think is just a matter of preference! I have both and I don’t really see much difference between the two!

Ok, so in the example of MOA vs MIL reticles... Both used a holdover based on first shot impact and using whatever the number was with that method works for a more precise 2nd shot. So honestly, the holdover method doesn't require dialing so why would it matter mils or moa? I can see less dialing for mils but if it's faster to use the optic and a holdover for the 2nd shot then it seems like they're practically the same, though MOA is a more fine angular measurement. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

This is true for PRS, and if I'm honest I agree with you, it's generally a better system. However, the ultra precision guys are all still working in MOA, much to my irritation. Just a heads up to your audience.

Definitely using non of both, MRAD is so much easier, when you not have to use the stupid Imperial System. 1 click = 1cm at 100m...eaaaaaaasy also the measuring is way easier inside the scope...Not some 3/8 of an inch or some bs..it's simply easier to measure anything in the metric system because it's based on 10...not on feet, inch, iz, or foot pound of something..

This is the problem with absolute ideologies. This tutorial is also a massive simplification of a huge topic. You teach on the principle that everyone is a person that delivers the perfect shot every shot. Our and the rifle’s natural shot dispersion is not taken into consideration here. What if that first shot is the extreme right, left, top or bottom of one’s group. Moving (whether using MOA or MIL) the full measurement may result in a miss just as far in the opposite direction. This also needs to be discussed if you don’t want to be seen as over simplifying this topic.

I have both I do ok with them but yea i do prefer mil more

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

Thank you Gary for the great information. Think you’re making me a believer in MIL.

Don’t misunderstand, you’re absolutely seriously knowledgeable on long distance precision shooting. I just don’t believe your argument is strong enough. Dealing with 1”X/100 yards is easier than 3.6”X/100 yards. Respectfully

just got into F-class and FTR comp shooting here in the UK... everyone is using MOA, only my buddy and I are interested in using Mil scopes.

Get the right reticle, and it don't matter.

For long range work or on the clock mil is awesome. However for precision rimfire it is not precise for that game. You want moa in that case. Say your shooting a match head at 50 yards. If your off just above the target or left of the target. It’s small enough moving .1 mil will put you under or right of the target. Either way shooting mil you have use Kentucky windage. Now using moa it’s precise enough you can zero right in on your target to hit it, and you can hand your now zeroed rifle to someone else and without saying anything they can hit it as well. With mil you have to tell them where to hold. Assuming no wind of course. Both have their place, it depends on the game your playing. When using the reticle to make adjustments if you know your reticle mil or moa doesn’t matter. You hold what your reticle shows you. The biggest factor in which one you use is what is everyone else in your group using so you all speak the same language. Only time there is any math involved is when your group uses both.

I utilize mil. I went to small arms weapons expert course. I use plumbob but what you said makes sense. I have 2 weapons one a rem mod.700 sps taticle I put a standard rail with a Leopold scope on. I'm having problems mounting because the deviation of the rings which is frustrating. What rings would you recommend to get

You explained exactly why you should use MOA if you range in yards and mil if you range targets in meters. I’ll never sell my US Optics scope in MOA just to get one in mil if I range estimate with my reticle in yards. Or my nightforce, swfa’s, trijicon’s, etc.

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.

I use both, MOA and MIL, I like both, use what you need and like.