MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks Part II - MOA Misconceptions and Myths
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2023
- This is a follow up to the MOA Sucks video where I address comments and the many myths and misconceptions surrounding MOA being more "precise" and that "MIL and MOA are the equal but just different".
Most of the comments I received on the original video were based on misunderstanding of fundamental long range principles. This video is intended to help people understand the fundamentals better so they can make decisions based off of factual information.
For more information and other upcoming courses go to, paramounttactical.com/
Recommended Long Range Shooting Gear: paramounttactical.com/product...
Get discounts on most items on www.paramounttactical.com just for subscribing to our channel!
Paramount Tactical Subscriber Discount Code: liberty1776
Best Long Range Rifle under $2500 MPA PMR Pro II Full Review: rumble.com/v26rh26-definitive...
Thunder Beast Arms Mufflers :)www.paramounttactical.com/bra...
Fat Boy Tripods (The Best Shooting Tripods We've Tested)www.paramounttactical.com/bra...
The Best Bipods For Long Range paramounttactical.com/product...
Join our Free Newsletter for upcoming events, exclusive sales and more. paramounttactical.substack.com/
Contact Information: services@paramounttactical.com
Thanks, Gary
Follow us on Twitter: / paramounttactcl Facebook Page / paramounttactical
Instagram: Paramount_Tactical
Gary Melton is a former U.S. Army Special Forces Green Beret, Weapons Sergeant, and Sniper Team Leader with 4 combat tours. He has worked full time as a Unit Chief and Special Tactics Instructor at a federal agency, and is the owner and Lead Instructor for Paramount Tactical Solutions.
Paramount Tactical Solutions is staffed by Special Operations veterans and cadre that are required to have high level operational experience and to have worked full time as a tactical instructor for Federal Law Enforcement and/or the military.
Paramount specializes in training Military and LE units as well as civilians in firearms, tactics, security, and tactical medicine. Most of our courses are located 1.5hrs from Washington DC, near Winchester, VA.
We are mobile and can provide onsite training as well. 
Развлечения
![XO (Only If You Say Yes) - ENHYPEN エンハイプン 엔하이픈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240712](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wBT1bKKwPTo/mqdefault.jpg)
As a hunter using BDC for years, I can see the advantage of Mil for long range precision shooting. In an attempt to zero a 7 mm mag a few days ago, I was surprised how much my group opened up with each additional shot due to the barrel heating up. I inch groups were a myth after a shot or two. The group impact zone discussion was very helpful. Thanks
Hey man, I’m glad that helped you have deeper understanding of how the system works. I appreciate you watching. If you ever have questions post them on the channel or email. I try to answer as many as I can.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
1 Inch groups were a myth after a shot or two? I would also assume you're talking about a group or two? (Not shot) I would suggest that's a bad barrel.
Excellent series, and thank you. I appreciate because it is often not mentioned, #1 Shooter #2 Rifle #3 Ammunition.... how often do we blame other things for failure, but fail to look at who is at the controls. Mils makes much more sense now...well done
You just keep on explaining, young man. We all absorb information differently. If you explain it 12 different ways, eventually you will tell a member of your audience something that makes the explanation click. The best teacher is the one who understands this. If that didn't help, one of the next 11 ways I explain it will flip the switch.
Thanks again. Your explanation of the difference between the two is very helpful for me and easy to understand. Im hoping to be able to bring this information together at my next range day and ring some steele .
Great video. I think this was a better argument for MIL than the first video. I only have one MIL scope and its not on a long range application, so I don't have the experience with a MIL scope to say if it is better or not. All guns and scopes are awesome!
Dude! You did good. I think anyways. This video felt way more put together and a much better argument and i liked it and found it far more helpful than the last one. Im working on a new build now and ill put a mil optic on it. My first one ever. My best groups ever were with the DD delta 5 pro on a bench at 200yds. I shot back to back .2 MOA groups. Love that rifle. Over all though i really thought this was a much better video. You sold it better and you felt like you actually had put together your own thought process.
Excellent video! Thanks for all the great info
I see big geometry is paying you off to schill for mils even harder! lol. I enjoy these and hope they become a series. Personally, when I first started shooting with a scope I picked MILs while my buddy said to go for MOA and my reasoning was I was lazy and remembering 1-2 digits was less labor intensive than remembering up to 4 digits. He threw out the whole MOA is more precise counter too. Which for me was easy since at the time I wasn't good enough for it to matter so why should I care? Looking forward to a part 3 if it happens
I'll be taking my MIL checks from BIG MIL and laughing at those MOA losers that I tricked into switching all the way to the bank! Insert maniacal laughter....😂
Eh, I can see for certain military applications the precision MOA offers might have a use case, but otherwise I agree with the video. "Combat accuracy" is sufficient if the only goal is DM/AP roles, and as such MILs are far more valuable.
I have zero combat experience, but I am a firearms instructor, and in any encounter on a two way range, tenths of seconds could matter. Obviously you wouldn't (hopefully?) have a bolt gun in a self defense scenario, but if that's the situation, I'd rather have MIL glass.
@@Nikolai18A When I was in the military was moving away from MOA scopes for MIL. You always have stupid politics in buying shit ,but it's just not worth it to have because it might be better in a few cases that rarely happen. Especially now when most snipers aren't used like they used to be back in like Vietnam.
@@Nikolai18A that’s the thing. MOA isn’t more precise. It’s just slower. Mil is still a finer adjustment than rifles can manage. MOA guys just think because (due to a lack of technical knowledge) that bc their scope does something their gun can do it too. It can’t. You cannot reliably adjust impacts with greater fidelity than your group size at distance. Rifles can’t shoot .25 MOA at 500 yards. 99% of rifles are shooting around 1-1.5 MOA at 500 yards so thinking they can adjust an impact .25 MOA is fantasy. 1/10 of mil is about .36 MOA and is still a finer adjustment than rifle can manage.
@@paramounttactical I finished watching after commenting, which is assbackwards, but I wasn't expecting to be a victim of such a blatant error of perspective. I appreciate the breakdown; as an instructor, getting better and correcting errors is not just a priority, it's critical.
This video certainly clarifies the issues from part 1. Now I understand when you mentioned adjustment fidelity vs group size you meant for use in adjusting for follow up shots, not related to adjusting a group’s center. I gotta say, you covered all the bases in this one and I have to agree with everything you said. I’m looking forward to part 3 where maybe I can learn more detail about why mils is better for PRS style applications.
The only part I currently understand is it’s easier to remember a series of smaller numbers for dope on multiple targets. Hadn’t thought of that before since I’ve always glanced at my wrist between shots.
It’s also easier to see and ascribe a hold off based on the reticle to an impact/miss. When you have as many graduations as you do on an MOA reticle, it’s difficult to use. 2.2 is easier to see than 7.7 graduation squeezed into the sane area in a reticle.
Excellent explanation for your reply on the first video. This makes my case as to where moa is a more precise dialing mechanism. If and only if you have the ability to control the three variables you stated. I do load precision ammo, i do shoot very precise custom built heavy guns, and 75% of the days i can pull off .25" groups. That being said you are 100% correct as to the information shared in this entire video. So i guess in the grand scheme of things mil does make more sense for real life target interdiction. You Sir have made a valid argument for the masses!
Appreciate your time!!
Thank you for doing these videos. I have the benefit of not being set in my way and you explained it better than anyone has before.
I’m glad you’re getting value out of them.
Thanks,
Gary
definitely informative...I would eventually like to learn both systems
just found your channel, totally agree with you, was a long time MOA user, MOA is pretty much only for bench rest or known distance..I still use MOA for 22 BR...only because you need a lot of Magnification,, and generally cheaper cost,using a Burriss 8x40 MOA 1fp,,,but on every thing else its Mill...dialing for multiple distance is a pain..a lot more clicks..used to dial everything...now learning hold overs...also shoot 6.5..never new about the hack..will check it out..just got a Tikka Tac A1 to replace an entry level RPR that fell short (om Me) after 700 yds., shot the Tikka at range day,,was hitting 1000,,,but it was all set up and already ranged in, think they said ammo was Berger?..so no guessing on the shooter...saw a 16 yr old girl..first time shooter hit it also..now just need a scope for it, will check out your other for scope comparisons and reticles..im pickey on reticles..some just have way to much info
You did a great job explaining this. My hunting scopes, which I've had for many years, are second focal plane MOA scopes. All of my recent purchases are MIL for long range shooting. To be honest, I bought MIL scopes because that's what everyone else was doing. Now, I know my choice of MIL was the correct one. Thank you! You make great videos.
Thank you sir!
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
MOA 1&2 were awesome explanations. Waiting on 3rd video.
I'm the type of shooter he's talking about. I recently got into long range. Chose Mil based on recommendations from Gary for a new shooter and glad I did. I was hitting over 1000 yards at his class with ease and everywhere in between. I feel like there is a lot of room for easy growth and for me to learn with Mils. I was holding 8 mils elevation for 1027 yards and the guy next to me at the class was holding 30 MOA. Saved alot of wear on my wrist not having to turn my turret 3 complete revolutions. Lol. For me I think it's like a lot of stuff, personal preference. But for me being a handgun guy and never shooting past 50 yards until I got my rifle it was easy to learn the concepts and get on target. Gary didn't push anyone toward either or care which his students had because he respected their preference and just taught them accordingly. Thanks for all you do for the Shooting community Gary. It also seems most competitive long range shooters use Mils. Has to be a reason for that.
Thanks Brent! Enjoyed having you out and getting to meet you. Hope to see you again soon!
-Gary
Can’t wait for the course. Going to learn so much. I don’t understand why people are so resistant in learning something new. I’ve shot MOA since I started but I am excited to learn something new and from the looks of it better. Not to mention people arguing with someone with Gary’s experience. 9 out of 10 people only shoot their grandpas old 270 with a 10x duplex reticle scope and think they know what the hell they are talking about. They sight it in at 100yds and never touch it again
I am just here for the comments 🍿 👀
I own and use both. I appreciate, very much, your video series on this subject. I don’t compete, I hunt and also prep for self defense. I understand how to make MOA adjustments, based on the drop of the bullet, to hit a target at distance. For some reason I’m drawing a blank on how to do the same thing with MIL. I understand how to use the my MIL scope to estimate range but not how to make the adjustments for the shot. I went back and watched Part 1 again, I think in figuring it out. Thanks
Great video! This clears up the first one. I like how you use the impact zone to throw out precision. In most cases this is true since most shooters are 1moa or worse. Thanks for talking about F-class and bringing the MOA argument to light.
Thank you for watching! We all enjoy a gun nerd argument from time to time as long as it’s kept respectful and light. I appreciate your ability to do that. I hope you subscribed and I hope to see you in the comments often and in the comments of our live podcast every Wednesday!
Sincerely,
Gary
Just about all of my riffles have MOA scopes until I found your video, now I have 2 scopes with mills adjustments wow! I should have gone with mills sooner oh well, learning curve. It took me a long time to really grasp MOA, mills took me a few trips to the range, going mills from now on. I have them on my center fire and rimfire competition riffles. For me mills are easier to make adjustments, and every time I am right on target. MOA takes me longer to fine tune it. I use both have no choice but mills for me moving forward, thank you sir for pointing me in the right direction.
I wanted to start shooting at distances instead of of just plinking at the local 25 yard range, so I purchased a 22lr precision rifle. What led me to using MILs was a video of the Athlon Optics spotting scope using the ARES G2 22x RANGING RETICLE EYEPIECE (measurements are in MILs) on the Social Regressive RUclips channel. I though it is a great advantage to be given instructions on corrections in MILs to you can make precise adjustments on your Turrets or Reticle in MILs. My previous experience is when I was adjusting a red dot and was told that I was off by some many inches and then I needed to adjust my Turrets that were in MOA. I had to calculate the distance then figure out how many MOA clicks I need to compensate for the offset in inches. It was just a best guess to dial in the zero and keep adjusting the MOA Turret until I hit the mark. At the end I lost count of the adjustments I made. Using a MIL scope and having someone call my shots with another MIL scope made dialing in my zero on the 22lr rifle a breeze.
Amazing Content, Thank you
Thanks and thanks for watching!
-Gary
I held on to MOA for as long as I could but Gary is right…overall Mil is a superior measurement.
Excellent video!
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
good video, better than the first one. just using the right tool for the job, my favorite part lol. some expert shooters may choose moa but i agree that mil will fit and suit a lot of other shooters. i like both and i even own both. sorry for being so harsh. have you ever seen a bass fishing tournament on tv before? see how many rods they have on their decks? lol. all for different situations. again great video and look forward to more
Awesome video thanks
Freaking love your moxy man! Keep it going.😂
After watching the entire 40+ minutes of part 1 and 2. Your issue with MOA is that the numbers are harder to remember?
Turret adjustments moving your entire group is well understood by most shooters and is the same in both MOA and MRAD scopes.
MOA=1.25” per click while MRAD=1.8” per click at 500 yards.
Per your demonstration, the group would be even farther off if you tried to make the same adjustment in mils.
There’s a slew of issues against MOA for practical shooting purposes and clearly by the comments most people don’t understand that you can’t move individual impacts with more fidelity than your group size. You’re right, you would move your at least 1 MOA OR 5” group 1.8” or 1.25” but your group size would still be a minimum of 5”, pretending 1.25” is better or “more precise” is just nonsense. During practical use, people don’t attempt or think about adjusting their group, they are making adjustments based on individual impacts unless you’re zeroing.
The other many advantages of Mil over MOA are:
Yes, easier to see and remember. You can downplay that if you want but it’s actually a huge advantage.
Easier/faster to dial.
Easier to adjust impacts using reticle.
Can wind call using gun#/mph gun - can’t with MOA
Can use Speed Drop - cant with MOA
All of those are compelling arguments. If you don’t want to listen and you’re happy using MOA, continue to use it.
Sure, each of those points by themselves aren’t huge, but just seeing hold offs could easily be 5-10% faster using MIL. Considering what people will do to gain 5% performance increase, that’s by itself is not insignificant. Given the preponderance of the accumulative advantages I’ve just listed (I can think of more) it’s pretty clear that Mil is a much better choice than MOA.
You’ve attempted to diminish the advantage of what I laid and I get that a lot from MOA users but have yet to hear single argument as to why MOA is better than mil, other than the silly, and false assertion that “MOA is more precise”. Can you provide any others? Or can you only assert that it’s just as good?
You can’t move individual impacts but you also shouldn’t try to.
You’d want to move the group to improve the percentage of shots hitting the target.
At 1000 yards the finer adjustments are going to matter how much that group moves.
Maybe you’re missing half your shots to the left. A coarse adjustment could mean you swap to those to missing 2/3 of your shots to the right instead.
No one should be making adjustments on a single shot at real long distances.
Above example is exaggerated to make the point.
Here’s less so version. You’re missing 22% of your shots at 1600. One click (1/4 moa) should bring you to 100% on the unrealistic 16” perfect group. Mil one click (0.1 mil) will have you missing 11% to the other side.
It’s almost like you didn’t watch any of it, based on that comment alone.
@@out_of_headspace almost doth butter no biscuits and math doesn’t lie.
@@paramounttactical Yes, the groups size will still be 5 inches, but why would I not want to more precisely put the center of that 5 inch group in the center of the target? Both are really close. But that little bit of extra group centering might mean one more impact out on the edge. Yea the difference is small, but small or not. It is more precise. I mean if your adjustments were splitting the exact center of a 500 yard target, you'd be 3/4 of an inch off with Mil and 9/10'ths with MOA. That's exaggerated more substantially if someone just happens to be trying 1,000 yards or more. And MOA is not in any way more complicated to understand.... Probably easier for new shooters. I personally use both and use them both well. I really don't see why you're on here saying one sucks
I have just gotten into MIL after much research and this channels influence specifically. I've Been shooting MOA for 30+yrs but never shot precision until this year. My real issue is that I am an instructor for an institution that ONLY teaches MOA(the inches, clicks, etc. method). We don't teach precision shooting, just marksmanship fundamentals and all that jazz. Primarily all new shooters and 99% of all the students I see have MOA hunting scopes(plain cross hairs no frills) and they are SFP. There is no real value in MILS for them from my standpoint as most will never shoot beyond 25 to 100m and often it's gonna be a few times a year to hunt. I have grown to love MILS but changing the entire industry is gonna be a long uphill battle :) I am looking forward to more in this series and thank you for all that you do!
awesome explanation, also all depends in first place to the shooter not the tool
That’s not completely true. Of course the skill of the shooter matters but some tools are better than others.
Would we say that red dots on pistols have no advantage over iron sights? There’s a reason they are a separate category of competition.
There’s also a reason that every single high level shooter in PRS and NRL, without exception are using MIL.
Mil is easier, faster, and more efficient.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I watched these videos to really help me gain an understanding of the benefits and I do see that there are a lot of benefits to mil over moa. I currently run an moa on my 22lr that I keep within 100 yards and for that, I will probably stick to moa unless I have a change of heart when I put together a target rifle for 500 yards+ which I will be going for mil and probably 6.5 Creedmore. If I have a change of heart completely, I probably will swap to mil entirely but I do like that moa has finer adjustments and since I dont take my 22lr past 100 yards, I like that I have finer adjustments but I will be going mil for the longer ranges due to the adjustments being easier to make and remember on the fly over moa. I feel like the only place for moa could be on a 22lr that stays within 100 yards because if you test ammo to get those sub quarter groups at 100 yards, it is nicer to have those finer adjustments but as I said, this could very well be about the only place for moa and even some will still prefer mil. I've never used let alone even looked through a mil scope before but I'm really excited to get a rifle setup for mil and really learn the system and be able to reap the benefits from it over what I've been using since I started shooting as a kid to now roughly 11 years later.
Awesome video
I use both, but MIL is definitely the easier system for anybody that grew up with the metric system. Many oldtimers though, that grew up with SAE numbers in their heads, find the metric system confusing even if it is much simpler and you do not have to deal with all these fractions, nominators and denominators. Also there is no more or less precise system in practical terms. The barrel of any particular gun shoots the same and does not care about MIL or MOA and especially at long range where many factors come into play, the millimeters in difference per click are actually negligible. You are absolutely right on with your argumentation.
I do like the Mil vs MOA.
However I’ll take a minute adjustment as a long range shooter over someone who “THINKS” they understand mil.
I do understand the superiority of MIL though.
Hi Gary, What mil reticle do you prefer? Thanks for doing this series of videos, very informative.
I use the Horus Tremor3 but there’s many others I like and would use as well like the Mil-XT. This is personal preference but I like an open crosshair with a dot in the middle. If you don’t want a Christmas tree reticle something like the NF Mil C is nice bc it has the 2/10ths stadia lines alternating on either side of the reticle. If you plan on holding, pull up a reticle and call out some holds and see if you can find them easily on the reticle. If you mainly dial elevation make sure you have a crosshair you like and windage stadias that make sense to you.
Hope that helps. Join us tonight on the podcast. We’ll have Erik Cortina on. Going to be a good show.
Thanks, Gary
Glad I started with MIL!
The one argument that can’t be contested is unless you have experience with both you’re likely not making an unbiased decision. And I’m an MOA shooter. I need to give the mils system a try. Thanks for the content!
100%
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I started shooting in mils. As a retired Artillery guy thats pretty much the only language i knew so i figured it should apply to a scope to.. and it does. Had one MOA scope but ended up selling it for another MIL scope.
I really appreciate these videos. Do you think you'll ever make a video of the creedmoor hack in the field?
Yes.
Very good stuff!!
Excelent vid...... Folks tend to Not to consider what you're sharing. Myself included until now. Thanks
I've shot MOA my entire life and I'm over 50. There's a difference between the title of the video and what you're actually articulating which unnecessarily complicates and confuses the debate but that's the nature hyperbolic verbiage and I feel badly that you feel the need to play the game, especially on a platform that's so ethically compromised. You might ask yourself what your ultimate goals are with regards to this style of posting. Is it to attract more views? For what? In any case, that's your business. I started buying and shooting MIL exclusive systems about 14-15 years ago and yes, it's great. Since then I've only purchased a couple of MOA scopes because there was no MIL option... as in the case of a MOA BDC for example. My first introduction to MIL was with MIL reticles and MOA turrets and everything was converted which was insanity but the field was still evolving. After using an understanding a MIL MIL setup, there are indeed many advantages for people who are seeking the type of shooting where MIL's are clearly beneficial but it's not always clear, depending on what you're doing. The recent popularity of MIL isn't only due those benefits and there's a case of the machine feeding itself to a certain extent. The precision shooting community trends together and if you want to be "in the group" both in an acceptance kind of way AND a practical way with regards to spotters, shot calling, lingo, instruction, then yes, it's best to go with a MIL set up. But, my guess is that MOA isn't going away anytime soon and for a huge percentage of the non-precision shooting population, a MIL set-up isn't going to assist or make more intuitive, the basic process of sighting in a rifle or hunting with it. Almost no hunters (unless they come from the precision or long range field) are dialing turrets, even while hunting guided in Montana, Idaho, Alaska or my desert southwest. The PH wants them to have a 100, 200 or 300yd zero and will tell the hunter where to hold the crosshairs when making the shot. Obviously there are exceptions but this is how it usually works. Most of my young hunting career, I knew where to hold, based on the ballistic tables and the actual trajectory of my set-up and it wouldn't have mattered if I understood this concept in MOA or MIL. As you stated yourself, a lot of people watching this video are here because they're "new shooters" perhaps about to buy their first scope at the Sportman's Warehouse, to go on their first mule deer hunt. It seems that you would have them believe that if they get a MOA optic, they're at some kind of inherent disadvantage. Well, it's simply not the case for these folks and I'm pretty sure you know that. While a certain language and system can be easier to understand, it doesn't mean that the people who understand an alternate have a sucky system as long as it's capable of accomplishing what they need to accomplish. Now we have a class of idiots constantly telling me how superior the metric system is compared to the British imperial system or SAE sizing.... well only if you didn't grow up using it. If you grew up rebuilding engines with your old man and grandpa, the outdated standard is a fluid to you as the new one for most applications. I just think there's an over emphasis here mixed with some intellectual dishonestly. You use a the grabby title, then say the video is for "new shooters" when ultimately it's probably for the shooter of moderate experience who may be thinking about expanding their shooting knowledge, delving into the area of long range, or investing in the level of equipment that new shooters just aren't ready to make. Could I be missing something, should I have gone to find part 1 of this video first? Possibly. I'm just somehow doubtful that it isn't more of the same dogma applied to the wrong crowd.
Its funny I actually had my mind made up on MOA for my first scope and didnt want to watch this video because I didnt want to feel conflicted and thought MOA would just be easier because I know inches. Now that ive watched both parts of these videos, im so thankful that I did! I'll definitely be going mil. I always thought all your adjustments and stuff had to be converted into measurments and I didnt want to learn metric system. You would think its common sense that you just use mils as the unit of measurment and let your reticle give you the data but I never thought of it that way until now! Thanks again.
Tyler, YOU are exactly who I made these videos for. I have found time and time again new shooters e d up choosing MOA based on total misconception. A large majority of shooters that have been shooting long range for a while and most long range instructors know what I’ve said in these two videos (MOA Sucks). But for the sake of going along to get along the conversation with new shooters always starts with sone derivative of “well MOA and MIL are kinda the same but different and you can choose either…”. They’re not the same and there are major advantages with MIL.
I’m glad you made yourself watch the videos and I’m glad you chose MIL as a result. You’ll be glad you did. Join us live on Wednesdays at 7pm for our Dangerous Liberty Podcast.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Also IMHO a solid compliment to MILS VS MOA is FFP. Most if not all MIL scopes along with the shooter use FFP. It enhances everything in the efforts of Mutiple targets and solution at an instant. At the same time you find most MOA scopes are SFP. Because not all but most are shooting fixed scenarios. Just my 2 cents
I'm a MOA shooter that's what i have always used. I under stand MIL and can use it. I agree with your argument for MIL be easier to understand from a new shooter. In your examples if you are a doing the same thing with both systems and for a new shooter MIL is less confusing, but for us old farts that grew up with MOA I can shoot at distance with it just fine. I shoot out at distance for fun, if I did something like PRS i would be investing in a MIL scope. The only argument for MOA I can give is when zeroing I can get my POI closer to my POA but does that .11 of a inch really matter. BTW I really enjoyed Liberty Podcast with Erik Cortina.
Than you and I are literally making the same arguments! Lol. I want people that are already using, used to, and invested in MOA to keep using it. You’ll never hear me make the argument that the difference is so big that you should switch or get rid of good MOA optics for MIL optics. I’m simply arguing there is some advantage of MIL over in MOA in most situations.
Thanks for watching! I really enjoyed getting to talk with Erik as well and I’m glad you were right there with us!
-Gary
😆 why do some people think it has to be one way or the other.
It’s not .11”, the worst case for a 1/4 moa per click scope is a poi that is 1/8th moa away from poa. For .1mil per click it would be .05 mil poa/poi. So it isn’t .1 mil - 1/4 moa, it’s (.1 mil - 1/4 moa) / 2.
If granularity matters to you then you are shooting f class or bench rest and your scope should be a high magnification second focal plane 1/8moa per click turret. If you want to be a special snowflake you can find one in .05 mil per click.
@raining1975 .1 mil at a 100 yards is .36 of a inch. 1/4 moa is .25 of a moa . Leaving a .11 difference between moa vs mil at a 100 yards. All I was saying most people can't shoot the difference between moa vs mil. I know o can't.
@cwstephens765 you are correct. On top of that even a person that shoots 1/2 MOA group or smaller, if you shoot 5 different groups with the same rifle, same ammo, the SD of center of those 5 different groups will be greater than .1.
If you shoot a 20rd group suddenly your “.25 MOA” is now over 1MOA so the idea that there’s ANY practical difference or you can even utilize .25 MOA adjustments even at 100yds much less at 500 or 1000yds is pure pretense and indicates a complete lack of understanding of precision. This is a long range 101 fact that you won’t hear learning long range on RUclips or from your buddy at the range: You cannot adjust individual impacts with greater fidelity than your group size at any distance.
Thanks for watching.
-Gary
I shoot NRL22 with MOA and center fire matches in MIL. I have no issues switching between the two... I would pick MIL for a clearer scope optic and single digit to remembers for holds.
I use both depending on what I can afford at the time however one is not better than the other just different
Would love to see a series helping newer Shooter’s swap over from moa to mil and understand it
What grain bullet at what speed does the cm hack work? On my 24 inch shooting 140 elf’s it’s almost 1 mil off
You're wrong....bc....I have an MOA scope 😋
I agree w you, if I shot PRS I'd 100% switch to Mil and my next scope with be Mil regardless.
And it’s completely good and usable! Just something to think about when you upgrade. 👊🇺🇸
-Gary
@@paramounttactical I was being serious I agree with what you said. For 1 shot under no time pressure it is preference but Mil is easier under pressure shooting multiple targets
the last half of the video is my entire argument for mils.a lot of people get too caught up in the "precision" part of precision shooting, if you're not a .5MOA shooter than it doesn't do you any good to have a 1/8 MOA optic.mils are granular enough for marine snipers, I'm pretty sure its granular enough for you. you're right, its easier on the brain to find 2.6 than it is to find 16.25
I cover that in more detail and prove that 1/4 MOA for literally any firearm is just pretense in part III.
MOA Sucks Part III - MOA Is NOT More Precise
ruclips.net/video/rjejjt8nZSQ/видео.html
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Thank you for this video! I'm a longtime MOA shooter with rather extensive experience in long-range hunting applications. Your 2-part series regarding MOA vs. MIL is quite convincing but I still have a lingering question. In a live situation, when the shooter does not witness trace and/or splash on a missed shot but the spotter does, what is the communication back to the shooter for correction? In the field, the spotter is going to quickly provide the vertical or horizontal distance the shot was off in feet or inches. In those instances, dialing MOA is quick but MILs does not seem to be. Is it best practice to use the spotter's guess, we'll say 3 ft left, to then measure an estimated 3ft left through the reticle to get the MIL correction or, in this case, would the shooter perform a feet to Mils conversion? In hunting, normally we just move the reticle 3ft left and squeeze but assuming we are going for more "accuracy" by dialing in lieu of a holdoff?
Thanks and thanks for watching.
A spotter describing anything in feet or inches is incorrect, even if common practice. This is taught regardless of use of MOA or MILS. Inches/feet cannot be accurately estimated at distance and what a spotter thinks looks like 2’, the shooter may see at 18”. So that method is incorrect due to being extremely imprecise. Ideally the spotter will have a the same type (MOA or MIL) of reticle as the shooter and the corrections should decided based on that. If spotter has a reticle corrections should be relayed as “3 MOA/MIL up, 2 MOA/MIL left”
If spotter doesn’t have a reticle, corrections can be relayed based on target size, e.g. “1/2 target size up, 1 target width left”.
Spotter should have a spotting scope with a reticle though. Then corrections are exact. They are not inches or feet estimations at distance tat you then have to convert to MOA, you’re using a very precise measuring tool to give exact corrections.
Hope that helps.
-Gary
Thanks for your response and I think your rationale is very fair regarding the inaccuracy of estimating inches/feet when at range. Interestingly, once I start to consider how I actually use the scope, the more I realize I tend to already hold/favor/measure through my scope and rarely rely on ft/inches as the actual correction. Perhaps I will try MILS on my current build and see how I like it. Thanks for the well-thought-out content.@@paramounttactical
Hey, you did good
For what I do MOA works for me. Lol. If I change shooting formats and need to learn MIL I’m sure I’m smart enough to learn it. But I’m old and shot MOA all my life and I dont wanna try and sale all my scopes and buy new ones.
Counter point: they make 0.05 mil dialing scopes (0.18 MOA) if you somehow need finer than 0.1 mil click adjustments.
Interesting. Who makes those? I’ve never seen that.
@paramounttactical An interesting debate!!! One thing that isn't really a big issue but something that just popped in my vacant mind.......whether using Mils or MOA the groups are all referred to or measured as MOA eg I have a half moa rifle or I shot a MOA at X yards. I know some will measure in MILS but the common reference is still in MOA, perhaps this is going to slowly catch up and in the future all groups etc will be referred in MILS. So even if going to the other side and using MILS many still refer to MOA in an element of measure :)
It’s true. 🤷♂️ I say we ban MOA from everyone’s vocabulary. 😂
@@paramounttactical 🤣
@@charlesludwig9173 well first off, that’s not true. During my entire time in the military, the only people even using the term MOA were us snipers and I never heard someone use it to describe a target size. As a matter of fact we MIL’D targets to determine distance and MOA wasn’t used in that at all. The only thing we used MOA was really to describe a group size or gun accuracy. We dumped the idiotic MOA turrets on our optics as quickly as possible. Around 2005 most units were buying all mil optics for the sniper sections.
Even if that was true (it’s not) my response would be “so?”
What’s that have to with using it as a targeting system? Because it’s used and usefully so in some applications doesn’t mean it’s the best choice for others. If it’s used to describe a target size are you so rigid in your thinking that you believe it makes it superior in all instances? It’s a silly argument on its face.
Why do people feel the need to defend their choice of using MOA like their life depends on it? I was using MOA and was presented the facts of both and saw Mils as an advantage and switched, I can use equally if i need to but don't get offended because someone does not like what you are using it's a choice. These same arguments can be made about everything you do in life. Oh and you just got another subscriber, Thank You Sir...
Well said. Apparently shooting is a religion and mil and MOA are just a couple of many denominations.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
Great vid & explanation.
I think something else which should be cleared up is the misunderstanding that Milliradians is somehow not a metric system.
I've seen many written accounts by otherwise knowledgeable shooters & even marksmanship instructors on sites like Snipers Hide that are of the false belief that the Milliradian system is not metric.
" The true definition of a milliradian is based on a unit circle with a radius of one and an arc divided into 1,000 mrad per radian, hence 2,000 π or approximately 6,283.185 milliradians in one turn, and rifle scope adjustments and reticles are calibrated to this definition"
As many are aware, the Milliradian system as we have it now was developed by Charles-Marc Dapples (1837-1920), a Swiss engineer and professor at the University of Lausanne.
As can be clearly seen from the true definition of a milliradian mentioned above, Dapples intention was to metricise angular units to create a decimal based angular system. This is ofcourse obvious from the fact that the angular unit of radian was divided by 1000 & not a full 360 degree turn divided by 6,283.185. In short, Milliradians were intentional but, the full circle figure of 6,283.185 being purely incidental.
Yes Mil is metric. I’ve never heard anyone argue the point that MIL isn’t metric.
Even though you dont own a stick shift, learn how to drive one. The ability to drive it unexpectedly and under pressure will serve you well. But definitely focus training in mil
I believe it all starts from history and marketing. Everyone used to be told that 1 MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards. Not true, but what was told. Optic availability was MOA. I never heard of MIL until I went to basic back in 91. And the gun magazines are trying to push products, and manufacturers expressed their rifles accuracy in MOA. So that's what everyone always heard of. MIL was alien, and people are naturally uncomfortable embracing the unknown.
Yeah, I think it’s just what was used. I don’t believe there was any real agenda behind it and of course the use of anything metric back in the day was uncommon and foreign to Americans. Europeans get almost everything wrong but as they say, even a blind 🐿️ … 😂
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I'll pick a technical nit. Radians, and smaller divisions thereof like milliradians, aren't strictly tied to the metric system. @@paramounttactical
Add mils to the use of the metric system and you can figure out ranges in places where there isn't a cardboard sign with the range in nice black, block letters! The math is soooooo much faster and easier to do and remember!
Long time F-class guy here shopping for a mil scope for PRS. Good job explaining things.
Welcome to the channel. I’d highly recommend the Zeiss LRP S3 or S5. Both are unbelievable values even at full price but right now they’re 25% off until the end of the year. We’re Zeiss, NF, and Zero Compromise dealers and the Zeiss S3 and S5 at 25% off are pretty hard to beat.
www.paramounttactical.com/brand/zeiss/
@couespursuit7350 Yes typically. Either will work just fine, but a second focal plane with 1/8" moa adjustment is the gold standard for f-class.
@codyway7424 it might be the gold standard, or the norm but if you watch part III or the full Hornady podcast #50 that I include portions of in the video, it’s safe to say that just statistically 1/4 MOA much less 1/8 MOA can be utilized.
The attribution for success is wrongly placed.
Those guys winning with 1/8 MOA would still be winning with 1/10 mil optics. Sure, it’d be hard to convince them to change anything but there again, I think Hornady’s findings on shot dispersion and sample sizes proves that.
@@paramounttactical Go to the f-class nationals website and look at the equipment list of each competitor. 99% will be using a 1/8 moa second fp scope and yellow box bullets.
Go to cortina's podcast with the Hornady guy where he talks about accuracy testing in their underground tunnel. Cortina tells him flat out that what they are getting is not good enough for f-class. Too much dispersion
@@couespursuit7350 I never said they should change. I never said anyone should switch. For what F Class and BR shooters do, they wouldn’t get any of the benefits of mil. They shoot at one target at one distance, no variability, no time constraints… doesn’t matter what they use. As a matter of fact I’ve said many times that given how most people shoot they would not get any benefit out of mil. It’s easier to learn but for most it doesn’t matter which one they use bc they’re not getting the benefits of either.
This whole series started as a video for new shooters trying to decide which to use. It was never intended to argue with current MOA users… but what evs.😂
I can definitely make that argument but I just don’t care. I do care when people believe something that’s not true and that seems to be a lot of MOA users.
Mil is faster, easier, more efficient. If you want to be able to shoot multiple targets at multiple distance with speed, efficiency, and precision, mil is definitely the best option. Most people don’t do that and don’t aspire to do that so it doesn’t matter which system they use.
But, in every shooting discipline where speed, efficiency, ease of use under stress is required, all the top level shooters use mil.
If you like MOA. Keep using MOA. Just understand what it does and does not do.
You can’t use gun number, which makes wind easy, with MOA. It’s harder/more confusing using holdovers with MOA. You can’t use Speed Drop with MOA. And that’s just a few advantages of MIL. MOA has no practical precision advantages. you can’t shoot smaller groups with it. You can’t get a more precise zero with it.
Instead of arguing with me you should get some formal training. You’re presenting all the same arguments I always hear from people that have learned everything on RUclips. They know just enough to make an argument but not enough to understand what they’re really saying. 🤷♂️
Essentially, the MIL system provides advantage if you are shooting under the aspects of war or gaming, where "time" under fire or stop watch is present and the simplicity of the MIL system does provide for quicker use.
Outside of that, in a recreational setting where "time" pressure is NOT an aspect of shooting that must be considered, and target size is also not an aspect that must be considered "on the fly" and measured within the scope, either MIL or MOA will provide equal results on target.
As a big game hunter (60+ years) that has always used the MOA system to 600 yards max., and have also worked in LE as a cert. swat sniper where I used both MOA and MIL to 1,000 yards, I could see how MILs might offer advantages, but in the civilian world, that would be rare even today for the majority of LE 99.9% of the time. Adding to that, that the majority of sniper work in the civilian LE world is between 25 and 150 yards. (although I was faced with a 425 yard sniper problem during one incident)
I think that you've made the case for MIL in the world of competitive gaming sports like prs and such or fighting war where "time" is introduced intentionally or by happenstance.
I can appreciate what you're attempting to do here, but I think you should drop the personal bias towards the MIL system and simply provide the FACTS as they stand upon their own merit with both systems and let your audience members make up their own minds regarding which system is the right one for them!
I have no person bias of one or the other. That’s an assumption and an incorrect one on your part. I’ve been shooting and teaching long range professionally for 20 years. I teach civilians, LE, and MIL and teach both MIL and MOA. I train a hundred + students a year and every course we have firing lines of both MOA and MIL shooters. It’s just simple observation that in every facet of real world shooting and in every point of performance, MIL out performs MOA.
There’s some very basic performance criteria that you can break down for every shooting discipline. It doesn’t matter if it’s handgun, carbine, or long gun.
On top of target acquisition and target transition, long range has additional performance criteria that include wind adjustment.
I’m not sure that LE Sniper Operations is even a good point to bring up given that in general LE Sniper programs tend to be years behind on both military and civilian sectors on equipment, TTPs, technology and for most departments training is atrocious. Generally speaking LE sniper knowledge and training is outdated by 10-15yrs due to bureaucracy and being resistance to change.
Time is always a factor and regardless if you’re hunting, an LE Sniper, military sniper, or recreational shooting, even if you don’t need to perform under stress you should train as such and be able to. So you should always choose and train with the most efficient system.
These are the same type of arguments used that have impeded advancements in equipment, training, and operations throughout history.
It’s what kept guys from switching from 1911s to Glocks, iron sights versus red dots in rifles in the military, red dots on pistols, shotguns to ARs, it has kept mil and LE from advancing or moving to new tactics even when the enemy has adapted to old or when we see the tactics aren’t effective.
It’s stagnant, short sighted, stuck in a paradigm thinking.
Fact is that MIL can do everything MOA can and then so much more. It’s easier, faster and more efficient. When you remove reality, MOA works fine shooting one target, at one distance without time constraint but as soon as introduce multiple targets at multiple distances for time, it falls apart and is quickly abandoned by everyone for MIL. Sure, not everyone needs to be fast or efficient but they should always train that way and strive to be the best, most efficient shooter possible.
I think my responses in text are dry and to the point and likely sound more assholish than intended. I enjoy these discussions/debates. Take everything I said as in a friendly tone and with respect. It’s a challenge to have these discussions via text as all of that is lost in translation.
I appreciate you taking the time to write a thoughtful and respectful response.
Thanks for watching, thank you for your service, and I hope to see you in the comments often.
-Gary
@@paramounttactical Your stating for the record that you have no "personal" bias here, yet continue to display a clear opinion/preference/bias for MIL :)...
You keep putting emphasis on the element of "time" in one's shooting. I agree that there is a place for it, but it should not be the focal point to center all of one's shooting around in my opinion. You also mention the aspect of "time" in hunting, and how being fast is important there! That's a subjective outlook my friend and may have more to do with a Man's age than actual reality! Personally, I don't mind at all when the bear or deer that I'm hunting "wins"...
My specialty as an Instructor was gunfighting with handguns. I taught aspects of quick, fast and how to cheat time. But, I always placed the heavy emphasis on tactics and environmental awareness. Civilians want to avoid gunfights and killing, but if we have to get the job done, it will get done.
I have no dog in the MOA vs MIL controversy. Because as with all aspects of the martial art of the shooting skills, it will ALWAYS come down to the MAN BEHIND THE GUN that makes the difference.
I don't think you come off as anything but a passionate and well mannered professional, who has strong opinions about the topics of his areas of expertise. Deep down, you know that MOA will sweep across Europe if they ever figure out what a big pain in the ass their "traffic circles" are! :)
@@rt66rc86 ok, semantics… I do have a “bias” but it’s based off of objective analysis and observations. It’s like do I have a “bias” of a semiautomatic handgun over a revolver? Sure. But that’s not based on just some subjective preference. It’s performance based.
You can take time constraints or speed out of the discussion completely.
Mil is easier to learn, easier to holdoff, we haven’t even begun the wind discussion. Mil for wind is HUGELY easier.
Take speed out of the discussion. On every objective performance criteria MIL is better. Period.
I have no dog in MIL vs MOA either but I am here to help people not make the mistake of choosing MOA based on a lack of knowledge, antiquated methods of use, or misconceptions.
Objectively, MIL is better and that is why we see thousands of shooters that are heavily invested in MOA optics, are very proficient using MOA switch to MIL (in spite of financial loss as well as time lost) every year.
And no… it’s not just “the man behind the gun” that’s just silly. The same man behind the gun will perform better using MIL than MOA. That’s why so many men behind guns switch.
Will the man behind the gun shoot just as fast and accurately with a red dot as with iron sites. No.
@@paramounttactical Are you boiling this alleged advantage down to how fast a shooter can dial a turret or find a windage shot in the tree and make a correction? All for the sake of "speed"? If so, "fair enough", however since we know that shooting is a Martial Art and that as such, each and every aspect of study concerning a particular discipline, is ALL based on "performance" and should understand quite thoroughly that "speed" is only one aspect that compiles your "Performance Based Training Method".
Have you or anyone else put a man from each school of thought, MIL and MOA and with equal skill sets and expertise/experience, both equipped with same rifle, caliber and scope. The only difference being one uses MIL the other uses MOA. Have them compete under "time pressure" under a variety of field conditions? To see if real tangible in use, in the field under simulated real world conditions differences between the two systems actually does in fact exist, or is all of this alleged preference for MIL more subjective and individually based, due to marketing hype and excitement? I should think that you would or have since you state that your bias (more correctly, "opinion") is based off of "Objective analysis and observations"...
I have seen no such examples from any source, only been expected to "take someone's word for it, based on their this and that". Or desire to please someone. Until such tests have been concluded by an independent source, there has been no "Objective Analysis" conducted that provides trustworthy results. Opinions and Observations from "schools" or "Instructors" with built in favorites are NOT considered to be trusted sources from a scientific outlook.
I would further muse that a majority of those who have been convinced that MIL is superior, are those looking to, or are currently into prs/nrl type of shooting games where MIL is preferred. Or first time "long range" shooters that are heavily influenced by instructors that favor MIL going into it... After all, Those who own the schools also must be "Good Salesman".
Now that you've removed "speed" from the criteria, you replace that with what I think you have been really saying all along, that MIL is perhaps more "CONVENIENT" to use over MOA for some people! And that sense of "convenience" is biased towards the "speed" aspects of a training concept! I'm fine with MIL being perceived as more convenient than MOA and in certain situations being a shade quicker in actual use. But keeping in mind that both are merely a system of measurement intended to provide predictable outcomes where one is preferred over the other and nothing more.
Since you cast the age old "At the end of the day, it's the man behind the gun that matters" into the "Silly Bin", I can only wonder then, why you would contradict yourself by later stating: "Will the man behind the gun shoot just as fast and accurately with a red dot as with iron sites. No". :) LOL!
"Opinion" remains "opinion" regardless how hard one may try to force it into the FACT category.
@@rt66rc86 it’s about ease of use and efficiency. You’re kind of stuck on speed and at the same time writing it off as if speed isn’t a legitimate measure of performance.
If you have two similar systems and one is faster, it becomes clear which is better. Mil is faster to learn, faster to acquire targets, faster to find holds, faster to dial .. now replace “faster” with easier. Mil is easier and due to that fact, it’s why PRS and NRL top competitors use mil without exception. Almost all of which, or many started with MOA.
I would say the differences in MIL vs MOA are very akin to red dots vs iron sights. A good shooter than can shoot well with iron sights will shoot faster, and more accurately with a red dot. That’s just a fact because it’s a better aiming system.
I literally watch MOA shooters struggle on every aspect of shooting, especially on our level 2 courses where we have students hold everything and stop dialing. Guys with MOA holdoff reticles have more misses and take longer to find their holds on a target. It’s just an obvious and observable fact.
That’s goes for dialing too. Almost every class an MOA guy jumps on a MIL guy’s gun and performs much better. No learning curve.
Neither I, nor any of our instructors delivers our curriculum in a way that lends a bias toward mil or MOA. We teach both and have students show up with both but even students notice it.
All things being equal mil will be easier to use, easier to hold, easier to dial, easier to adjust for wind. It just is. Is there a HUGE performance and ease of use increase in any single area? Probably not, but all those areas add up very quickly and become significant enough that MOA guys at courses start asking to use other students’ rifles to check out. We encourage students to check out each other’s setups, optics… plus guys always love show and tell.
So over a long career of shooting and teaching it’s very obvious to me. I’ll do more videos eventually illustrating those differences. Just like this video, some will find the info very compelling and some won’t and they use MOA until they die. It’s ok. The video will help those that need the help and be ignored by others and argued by others. Just the way it is. Doesn’t mean what I’m saying isn’t fact, it just means most don’t have the experience or understanding to regard it as such.
Most people don’t shoot in a way that requires efficiency so it won’t matter for them. But some it will, and some will like having the capability whether it’s ever required or not.
So it is a fact that MIL is superior but making people understand it when they don’t have the experience training people, living, eating, breathing the science of long range, developing curriculum etc.. it is a challenge.
I mean it would be easy to set up a course of fire and have a 50 MOA shooters and 50 MIL shooters shoot it and then repeat that test a few times. I’m quite certain MIL guys would overwhelming come out on top every time but that’s difficult to pull off in any scientific meaningful way. And even if we did conduct such and experiment with every scientific standard in place, the results would still be contested by MOA die hard.
So I’m relegated to sharing my experiences, and opinion on an observable fact, point to the clear and overwhelming data that shows MOA Is going the way of the dinosaurs even though it owned 95%+ of the American market 20yrs ago, and point to the sports that shoot rifles that use them in the most practical and realistic sense like PRS and NRL, DDM competitions… etc, where only a small and usually very new minority shoot MOA.
🤷♂️
Thanks
Gary
Something that I didn’t catch. From what I have seen in different reticles from different manufacturers; Mil reticles have finer wind and elevation subtension when compared to MOA. I would agree it’s a touch easier to remember the mil holdover numbers when compared to moa. I have learned on MOA, I just got a new rifle and want to learn MIL and see what I like better for different circumstances. I am not going to go as far to say that one is better than another, but rather that there are better use cases for either graduation of measurement. It’s just the difference between degrees and radians. Base 10 vs base 60.
I'll just get a Burris Eliminator and let it figure it out for me, lol.
I agree with you that Mil is faster in tactical situations and when you need to put rounds down range quick. And yes you are only as precise as your group which is where the perception of MOA being more accurate comes into play. The reason being if the whole group adjustment is smaller per move that puts more shots that can potentially end up on the X. So being able to move your group .25 or .125 over .36 means at distance your grouping moves closer or further away from the X less so in theory instead of it being a 10" move per inch at a grand it would be 5 because your adjustment of the group is finer. Even though while serving I used mills for quick acquisition of target and rounds down range i still prefer MOA in competition just because of the finer adjustments per shot group.
Even here in Europe, beginners tend to MOA, because "it's more precise" and SFP Scopes with hold over marks, because it's finer. I did the same mistake as a beginner, just read a review in a gun magazine and bought a 1600€ Meopta scope with MOA clicks, SFP and MIL reticle, couldn't be worse🤣. in the meantime I own a Kahles K624i for long range, but I like the Meopta too. So I made me metric (1/10 mils) aluminium scale rings some time ago, a klick is still 1/4 moa, but I dont use it in the dark or blind, so thats fine.
Sold even more! lol Still glad i didn't buy a scope yet. ( see comment on last video)
I can say from experience in the military and now that im out mil is honestly easier to understand and use. I know it sounds backwards. But keep an open mind. If everything went to poo the military and you as a shooter are using same commonality. Moa is good but mil so much easier to teach my 12 and 15 yr olds.
I understand what you are saying about 1/8 moa adjustment when the gun shoots 1moa groups. I'd throw mine in the garbage if it shot 1 moa at best. It better shoot sub .25 moa or bugholes at 100yards. That's where I see the 1/8 moa adjustment as an advantage. otherwise I agree with you that the 1/8 moa adjustment is worthless.
I'm sold on mil, however how do you determine the size of the target at certain distances? Watched a video with a formula (I prefer your method in Part 1 video btw) and it's dependent on knowing the size of the target to get your range. The target is a human torso so do you use a general average size and just use that?
Yes. On “average” a human torso is 19-20” wide at the shoulders and 40” from belt to top of head.
But, hardly anyone used a mil relation formula for ranging. Laser range finders are so prevalent. It’s a good skill to have but it takes quite a bit of practice to get proficient with it.
Thanks, Gary
What do you think of Leupold scopes? Looking at the Mk5hd 3.6-18
I think they’re great. That’s why we’re a Leupold Dealer. Shoot us an email services@paramounttactical.com and I can give you a quote or we can discuss what your goals are and if you’d like I can give you some suggestions.
Thanks, Gary
@@paramounttactical thanks, I will!
For me, (this example can be scaled to any distance) if I hit 7” low on a target at 500 yards, it is much easier and quicker to do the math and adjust knowing 1 moa = 5 inches vs 0.1 mil = 1.79 inches
In a hunting situation while time and first shot accuracy is of the essence, If I see an elk at 365 yards, Id much prefer to think ok my gun shoots 2” low at 300 so I should dial or hold 0.75-1 moa high. This for me would be much more confusing knowing 0.1 mil is 0.36” at 100 yards vs 1/4 moa = 0.25” at 100. MOA is quicker and easier to scale up without a calculator.
If you’re doing math while shooting, you’re doing it wrong. It’s slow, extremely inaccurate.
1st you can’t accurately judge what 6” is at distance (and it’s usually more complicated than the simplistic example, like 17” at 600yds) and if you’re doing math while shooting long range you’re doing it wrong.
God put reticles in optics for a reason. You use the reticle as a very precise adjustment tool. If I see a miss in my reticle at 1.3 mils off target at ANY distance, I adjust 1.3 mils.
The MOA equivalent is 4.5. Now you might say, that’s not a big deal or big difference but having 4.5 small graduations squeezed into a reticle in the same space 1.3 for the alternative is very difficult to see and process quickly.
To be efficient and precise, you should be using the reticle. MOA reticles are 3.5 times slower and confusing bc the graduations are too fine for the work at hand. It’s like using calipers to measure lumber.
Your example is exactly why shooters that are shooting multiple, small targets, at multiple distances for time use MIL.
You can’t gauge inches accurately at distance and you can’t convert odd numbers to a MOA value quickly. This is also why the military and especially SOF units have completely abandoned MOA. If you like MOA, are invested in it, and it does what you need it to do, cool. Keep on keeping on! 🫡
But when it comes to speed, ease of use, and efficiency, MIL is demonstrably superior.
It takes guys one day on the range to see it.
Thanks for watching! Even if we continue to disagree, all shooters are my homies! I still got love for you in spite of your MOA inadequacies. 😂 but seriously, it’s all good if we disagree.
-Gary
@@paramounttactical Fair enough, I understand what you’re saying IF you are always using your reticle to measure your last hit or if you are always using ballistics and calculators to dial however what would your response be if you ONLY knew the distance of the target, your gun is zeroed at 200 and you have an idea of your bullet drop in inches at 100 yard increments. In fast paced scenarios with no spotter and limited information MOA is better! Again if I see an elk at 365 I wont be taking a shot to see where my impact is in order to use my reticle to measure and I also wont be pulling out a ballistic calculator. Most hunters also do not have chronographs to build dope charts. This is in response to your statement that Mil is superior for everyone including the average hunter.
Hunter here. Only ever used MOA so it’s hard to take the leap to switch, but you make a strong case. One question I have that I didn’t hear you answer, say I’m using a mil scope and I take a shot at a deer 500 yards out. Got a solid rest and I’m sure I made a good shot. But I didn’t see impact and my dad (who also only knows moa) says “shot was over his back three inches and three to the right. How do you make a quick adjustment on that?
Hi Gary. I started out with MOA, but because I started shooting long range more often, I have converted to Mils since that is the common language for PRS. And I'm glad I did because I understand instructional videos much better. I do still use MOA on my hunting scopes because of the ability to be more precise (I think this is what people mean when they say it is more accurate), which is probably the whole argument in this video. When I heard you dispute this at the beginning of the video, I must admit that I disagreed, but I definitely wanted to hear you out and try to understand your reasoning. After watching the video, I have to say that I still think MOA clicks are more precise than Mils. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am able to get 1/2" MOA group with 5 shots that is centered 1/4" off of bullseye, how would a 1 click from an MOA scope not bring the group closer to center more than 1 click from a Mil scope? Obviously shooter ability and distance after a certain amount of yards will affect this, but theoretically, and all things being equal, the CENTER of the shot group is what you are trying to move to correlate to the target center. I'm not always a sub MOA shooter, but on good days I can cover up five shots from my 6.5 with a dime. This actually helps when I need to adjust and one Mil click would be too much correction compared to 1 MOA click. I won't be getting a call from Eric Cortina anytime soon, but there have been times where I'm thankful for Vortex's turret system that allows corrections to be made between the click marks when sighting in (this allows me to get an even tighter adjustment than even a 1/4 MOA can offer, much les a 1/10 of a Mil) because sometimes I need corrections that precise. I just can't see how a 1/4 MOA isn't a more accurate adjustment than a 1/10 Mil. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. I am normally very receptive to new information, even if I may initially disagree, especially when someone with your experience, background, and knowledge explain what I may be missing. I look forward to hearing your response and possibly learning something new. But I have thought about this from every angle and I have to stick to my guns on this one, lol. BUT, if you do help me understand your argument and convince me that you're right, I will explain that you were the one who set me straight whenever I'm making a scope sell or discussing MOA vs Mils with someone. Have a good one, my friend and I look forward to hearing more from you regarding this issue.
Good discussion and I appreciate the thoughtful debate.
All hypothetical situations from one side of an opinion always point to the desired outcome.
I get questions like yours regarding MOA adjustment and weirdly they always have an MOA specific solution.
So here’s a hypothetical for you that is just as likely to happen. If your group is .36” left or right of dead center then which system would be better?
If you shot 10 groups would all 10 have the same “center”?
Finer adjustment in a scope does not make the system more precise. .11” difference in adjustment on systems that don’t actually shoot .25 at a 100yds much less at 500 or 1000yds is kind of fanciful.
If you shoot 10 zeroing groups with your MOA optic and on the same gun shoot 10 zeroing groups on your mil optic do you really believe you’d be able to tell the difference?
If you zeroed a rifle that shot exactly .25 MOA groups with MOA and it took exactly .25 MOA to get to center and then you shot another zero target with the same adjustment do you believe the groups would all be still perfectly centered or do you think some would be left, right, up, or down .11”?
Now shoot three 5rd groups on your MOA optic at 500yds and three 5rd groups at 500yds with the mil optic (never mind doing this at 1000yds). Do you really believe that you’d see a difference or have a tighter or more “centered” group on the MOA optic groups?
At 1000yds the difference in adjustment is 1.1”, do you think you can even see 1.1” at 1000yds? Do you think you could hold a gun so still that the reticle doesn’t move as you prepare to shoot, or during the firing process that it doesn’t move 1.1” when shooting at a target 1000yds away?
If I asked you, should a scope have 1/100 MOA adjustments? You’d likely say that’s too fine for the level of precision you’d get out of that system, and that is my point.
1/10 of mil is more than enough precision for 99.5% of all rifles and definitely all shooters.
Your precision is based on rifle, optic, ammo, shooter.
99.5% of all shooters can’t hold .25 MOA even if their rifle/ammo/optic could.
Do you really believe that if a guy with an MOA optic shooting a sub MOA target at whatever distance will have more hits on that target than the same level of shooter with a MIL optic?
If that was the case every PRS shooter would be using MOA.
Ultimately I think .25 MOA adjustments are pretentious or just fantasy precision. It provides no performance improvement whatsoever. 1/10 of mil is a finer adjustment than needed on a rifle system.
Regarding F Class shooters and bench rest shooters, it’s not using MOA that allows them the precision they achieve. I actually believe it has nothing to do with MOA. It has a lot more to do with using $1500 rifle rests, they throw barrels out if they shoot over 1/3 MOA, they have extremely consistent ammo, they use very specialized rifles… all of which I believe contributes more to their accuracy than the use of MOA or even 1/8 MOA.
And yet when people use F Class as an argument for using MOA they conveniently leave out all the other components that allow them to achieve such precise groups.
But, let’s say the finer optical adjustments do help them (and benchrest shooters too) then that fine of an adjustment ONLY applies to them because of all the other contributing factors that allows them to utilize those finer adjustments.
Looking forward to your reply.
Thanks,
Gary
@@paramounttactical Thanks for the quick and thorough reply, Gary. I'll address a couple of the questions you asked separately because I figured I should have an answer to back up the things I didn't agree with 100% in the video. Plus, these are some of the answers that I would counter with if I was trying to prove the point that you are, so I tried to think about what questions I would ask if I were trying to disprove my own ideas.
Q:If you shoot 10 zeroing groups with your MOA optic and on the same gun shoot 10 zeroing groups on your mil optic do you really believe you’d be able to tell the difference?
Now shoot three 5rd groups on MOA at 500 and three 5rd groups at 500 with mil (never mind doing this at 1000yds). Do you really believe that you’d see a difference or have a tighter or more “centered” group on the MOA optic groups?
A: I'm not saying the MOA group will be more accurate, I'm saying that your adjustment increments are more precise.
Q :If you zeroed a rifle that shot exactly .25 MOA groups with MOA and it took exactly .25 MOA to get to center and then you shot another zero target with the same adjustment do you believe the groups would all be still perfectly centered or do you think some would be left, right, up, or down .11”?
A: No I don't, but as a long range shooter, I'm going to check my zero every time I shoot. As you know, PRS competitors do this several times a day during the match. But if I did everything right and adjusted accordingly after my initial shots, then yes (theoretically) they should be perfectly centered.
The rest of my answers are basically a different version of the last Q&A's. As to your other points, you are absolutely right. Most of us can't shoot well enough to be able to tell the difference between the two, and in long range shooting, Mils is more than accurate enough for it to do what we need.
I guess the whole point regardless of all of the distances, group sizes, and other random scenarios is that basically, MOA does have more precise adjustment per click the Mils do (each click is a finer degree of correction). Does it translate to a significant improvement in accuracy? No, I don't think it does. At the end of the day, we are both in the same camp...Mils.
I appreciate the time you obviously took to not only answer, but describe in detail your answers. I'm sure that you're tired of responding to these questions at this point, but I think you've helped a lot of shooters answer a lot of questions by making this video. Thanks again, Gary and I hope you have a Merry Christmas. Take care and I look forward to more of your content.
@@tommybingham1235 nah, I don’t mind responding at all as long as someone approaches this topic like you did.
A lot of these questions help me flush out some better answers to questions or a better way to articulate a point to a broad audience with vastly different levels of understanding of ballistics and experience. So I actually appreciate the questions and I do try to respond to all that warrant a response.
Here’s what I will say. I don’t believe the difference between .25 MOA and 1/10th of mil has any perceivable or measurable effect on either shot placement ability or group size.
If that’s true (and I obviously believe so) then what’s the point of .25 MOA?
If I can’t see or even measure a 1 MOA size group to be more centered on a target at 300, 400 and beyond using an MOA optic vs a Mil, then what practical use is it? If the finer mechanical adjustments don’t actually translate to finer, measurable group adjustments much less individual shot adjustments then why use it?
My overall argument is mil is easier to learn, faster, just as precise, and more efficient than MOA. Never mind the many other benefits regarding wind adjustment hacks like gun number, use of Speed Drop on the kestrel, Creedmoor hack… etc
Some or much of my argument against MOA is admittedly abstract.
It’s based on performance observations over the years of sitting back and spotting for shooting lines that’s have both MOA and MIL shooters.
I believe my points to be facts but admittedly they are hard to prove. If my points are, Mil is just as precise as MOA, but easier to learn, easier to hold, faster, and more efficient. But… How do I quantify or categorically PROVE that in a video?
I plan on shooting more videos on this subject but I am receptive to any testing ideas that could prove one way or the other.
I’ve been shooting and teaching long range professionally a long time. I’ve watched countless MOA shooters struggle with holdoffs compared to their mil peers. I probably have at a minimum 1 MOA shooter switch to MIL per course as they watch new MIL shooters outperform them even though the MOA guy has more experience. I’ve had MOA guys shoot a course of fire using a MOA holdoff reticle like the MOAR, then ask their buddy if they can shoot his MIL reticle and using that guys gun and DOPE run the same course of fire SIGNIFICANTLY faster because he finds and uses the correct hold faster. That exact scenario happens quite often.
And I can assure you we teach our curriculum and courses with ZERO bias toward mil or moa. We have shooters show up with both types of optics and I’m not there to crap on their gear. We’re there to make them better regardless of the system they use.
So I knew going in this was going to be a controversial topic and I’d get a lot of haters in the comments. I just thought it was right thing to do for new shooters. I know that MIL is far superior to MOA and yet for a long time I spouted the diplomatic but dishonest line of “oh MIL and MOA are essentially equal but different”.
I’ve already had hundreds of people thank me because they were about to buy an MOA optic based on misconceptions. With the first video, that was my target audience; new shooters that didn’t know better. But, I’ve also had hundreds of people say these videos made them realize that MIL is the way to go and made the switch from MOA to MIL. Many of which have messaged, emailed me or commented that they can tell a real difference in their own shooting performance. Strangely, not once have I had someone say they switched from MIL to MOA.
Thanks for a great discussion. Make sure you stick around and keep me honest. I hope to see you in the comments often. Tomorrow/today lol (Wednesday) make sure you join our live podcast at 7pm ET here on RUclips. We’ll be giving away thousands of dollars worth of gear. It’ll be a good time.
Thanks,
Gary
@@paramounttactical Hi Gary. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get home from work in time to catch the podcast, but hopefully I can catch the next one.
Anyhoo, I agree with everything you said in your last comment and I definitely understand your reasoning when presenting the content the way you do. I've sold firearms and firearms accessories (that was supposed to be read in a Hank Hill voice) for several years and I'll be the first one to say, 2A guys can be jerks. You are in a unique position where your comments could cost you a customer and getting into an emotional debate could cost you even more followers. Sometimes that's hard not to do when you have a newer shooter arguing with you and showing no class, making it personal, and it's easy to find yourself arguing a point that is unwinnable, especially when you know you're right.
With that being said, please don't think your argument fell on deaf ears. Even though I still use MOA for my hunting scopes (I can do the math in my head much quicker simply because I just have to multiply/divide by 4 and the max distance this equation will be used within is no more than 400 yards), I agree that Mils is the superior of the two. And the more I shoot Mils, the more I'm seriously considering replacing MOA for Mils on my hunting scope.
There were one or two points that you did change my mind about and I believe I will be a better shooter because of it. First of all, your argument regarding the miniscule amount of difference in correction between the two makes a lot of since. Basically, the juice isn't worth the squeeze...and to me, that's the main argument that people use when pimping out MOA. Second, most shooters can't shoot well enough to know that the size of their group is attributed to MOA/Mil adjustments. And just to be clear, I did agree that Mils were superior from the get go, there were just a couple of details that I felt needed discussing. And I appreciate the fact that you did so and didn't become frustrated while doing it.
Gary, I must say that I have been SUPER impressed with the amount of time and effort that you spent explaining your point, giving examples, and relating them to how it affects our style of shooting. I don't know of many, if any, RUclipsrs that would put that much time into trying to better just one member of their audience. And you did it three times...within minutes of me posting my comments. Impressive.
I've followed you for a while and I was always quick to watch any video you posted regarding scope mounting, rifle setup, or LR product evaluation. Many of them I have watched dozens of times. I did this because you covered my style of shooting and the type of gunsmithing that I actually enjoyed doing on my own rifle. But because of our discussion and the pure detail that you brought to the table when explaining your point, I feel the need to go back and watch some of your older content simply to see what else I may learn that maybe I didn't pick up on before.
Thanks again for all of your time and knowledge, Gary. I really have learned a great deal since I first watched the video yesterday. Plus the fact that you answered so many of the comments from other viewers, especially in the detail and depth that you do, is really impressive. I look forward to learning more from your videos and I hope you continue to be successful with Paramount Tactical and it's online content. You're doing a bang up job! Take care!
@@tommybingham1235 thanks brother. I really appreciate that.
-Gary
Using both, I like mil better because it just seemed easier to learn overall
As does just about anyone that tries Mil with an open mind. 🍻 to good shooting!
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I've always said tenths is easier on the brain if you have to add or subtract than quarters
I use MOA, and if I was in battle, I would learn MIL. MOA is just easier for me. If I hit the right edge of the 10 inch plate at 500, 1 min left. I know instantly that's 5 inches...I don't know how to do that at all when it comes to MIL haha.
Either way they're the same as far as accuracy. The shooter is the error and the wind sucks balls. Thanks Gary.
.1 MIL @.36 inches is right at the diameter of a 9mm bullet.
Correct… at 100 yards. 3.6” @ 1000yds
Here's a neat little trick i found out from snipers hide about Mils and MPH of your gun.
So you take your G1 BC say it's .540 That is a 5mph gun. a G1 bc of .4xx would be a 4mph gun. A .6xx G1 would be a 6 mph gun. obviously round accordingly. .580 would be a 6 mph and a .530 would be a 5mph. That means that a "5 mph gun" in a 5 mph wind you are going to need 1/10 mill per 100 yards out to about 700-800 yards. So at 600 yards in a 5mph wind you need 6 clicks if it's a full value wind. Then you just sort out the rest. 3/4 value 4-5 clicks, 15 mph wind at 400 yard 4 clicks x 3 = 12 clicks at full value, 9 click at 3/4 value, or 6 clicks if the wind is 1/2 value. it's super simple and it works at mid range and closer
Yes sir. That’s your “gun number”. Just another of MANY things you can do with mil that you can’t do with MOA.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
"I was brought to life in the International System of Units, so feet and inches are like speaking Chinese to me. That's why I always see measurements on TV in terms of the size of a soccer stadium or three Ford trucks. The metric system works in a way that makes calculations very simple. Now, my question is, do you offer courses in the metric system? Because 100 yards mean nothing to me."
Just use metric fur everything. It’s easier. No real need to learn imperial. Meters are about 10% longer than yards so that ones easy.,
Wow, someone sure does have a gripe about MOA....easy man, here have a snickers
Your comment is hyperbolic given the fact I just calmly and logically presented the facts. Pretty ridiculous actually.
🔥
So if my rifle is zeroed at 200 and I want to go to 400 should I calculate mil/moa for the 200 yrd difference or calculate for 400?
You’d collect or determine your 400yd data/DOPE based on a 200yd zero. Why are you zeroing at 200yds?
@@paramounttactical I’ve always zeroed at 200 because I don’t have to hold much from 0-300 for big game. It’s always worked well for me. As you can probably tell I’m just starting long range this year so bear with me. My question is , if I’m using moa and zeroed at 200, to go to 400 would I calculate for 2 inches or 4?
@@apologizetomymule8214 depends on the caliber. You would calculate the difference from 200 to 400.
@@paramounttactical 👍🏻 thanks
You can't beat physics. Whether you measure in MILs, MOA or marshmallows, the bullet still drops the same amount at the same distance. Knowing how to hold to hit your target is what you really need to know. I didn't hear any discussion on what probably matters most, ranging an unknown distance target. What's the advantage of one or the other in that case?
Additionally, the worst case scenario is that a needed adjustment falls in the middle between clicks. If the needed adjustment went either way, then the next click up or down would actually be closer to point of aim.
So the actual difference isn't between .25 MOA (.26" ) and .1 MIL (.36" ), which would be 0.1"... The difference, even in the math, woud be half of that.
At 1000yds a single .25 MOA click would be 2.6" and a single 0.1MIL would be 3.6". Half of that difference is a mere 0.5" finer adjustment at 1000yds. So...not worth even mentioning.
His visual for the 5” gong at 500yrd is inaccurate. I’m new to shooting and I know that… dialing 2 clicks in the correct direction would move the reticle to the left.. which, when the crosshairs are Re centered on the target, would pull the impacts to the right, which means all his consecutive examples would be in the 5” gong…. He’s leading people to believe that you can’t move the gun to change the objective image…🤦🏼♂️ it’s so frustrating
I’m “leading people to believe” 😂 I showed a visual representation of the impact zone. It’s so funny how so many people without any formal training or basic technical knowledge know so much. It’s not that your ignorant, it’s you know so much that isn’t true.
I'm not seeing any questions on hunting. I know the average size of a deer, elk, coyote, or what ever other animal I'm hunting. I know it in inches. In hunting i only get one shot. I need that shot to hit and kill, not wound. I've recently put a Mil scope on my new hunting rifle. I'm struggling. How do you range using the size of the animal and dope properly? 500 yards in hunting but the mil adjustments don't match my known animal size? What am i missing?
This is a great question. You would use a mil relation formula and you could easily build a range card with this. The formula is inches x 27.77 / mils = yards
So let’s determine a “constant” on an animal. For humans the avg adult male is ~ 20” wide at the shoulders (x 27.77 = 555.4) and 40” from belt to top of head (= 1110.8) or head width of 10” (= 277.7). So those are 3 constants that we could use.
Let’s use the shoulder constant of 20” for an example.
20” x 27.77= 555.4 so I know if a person is 1 mil wide at shoulders they’re 555yds. 2 mils = 277yds
I’d start my range card at the farthest I could or would be willing to shoot/max range. Here’s what my range card would look like if I determined my max range was 555 yds .
1 mil = 555
1.2 mil = 462
1.4 mil = 396
1.6 mil = 347
1.8 mil = 308
…etc
Hopefully that answers your questions and makes sense.
Thanks for watching!
-Gary
I've shot moa my whole entire for the most part but I ordered two identical Scopes one MRAD and one moa but when you're arguing your that your adjustments are determined by your group size and placement I agree unless you keep extremely tight groups regardless you're arguing the point of other people that they both do the same purpose as far as accuracy. Now I do have a rifle that will shoot same exact whole for precision for the most part out to 100 yd I am preferring my moa do two finer adjustments.. I literally put ten rounds in the same old at 100 yards that held the same 30 caliber projectile without falling through the the hole is .77
I just finished watching your second video.. I must say that when I get a load worked up for the rifle that I am shooting, I CAN watch the bullet move on paper with each click of the turrent. But, thats all after finding the best load that I can work up for the rifle for which I am shooting at that time. I am never satisfied with a load or a gun if it can't consistently shoot a 1 hole group at 100 yards. I have never shot at 1000 yards so I can't speak to that distance. I have shot moa out to several distances though. I am very anal when it comes to having a clean barrel to start all my group shots with. I have several rifles that will shoot moa groups out to 300-500 yards. My father was a sniper for the Marines in Vietnam, and he is the one that taught me how to shoot.. He is 75 now and he can still shot a one hole group consistently with his 300 Win mag. You make a good argument for mils though and I do have a scope set up for that and may try to use it more and see where it takes me.. Keep up the good videos and thanks for everything..
Good stuff brother. I don’t doubt any of that. The rifle I use now, with box ammo, I get .22 MOA out of it. My argument is the practicality of .25 MOA adjustments pretty much ends at 100yds (you and anyone else even getting .25 MOA at 100 is very rare). The overarching point is that for the vast majority of shooters there are many clear advantages of mil over MOA.
Thanks for watching and welcome to the Paramount family!
-Gary
That Creedmoor hack - is that based on a 100 yard zero?
Yes
Grab your Kestral/ BA
the rate of degradation of precision over distance is an exponent. acceleration is exponential until it hits terminal velocity. gravity will make something accelerate at 9.8 meters per second, every second. wind will do the same thing, to a lesser extent. also, the bullet isn't moving at a constant rate, it's decelerating, going through transsonic speeds and becoming unstable. bullets aren't lasers.
Add moving targets to it and MIL is the only standard. No way to shoot MOA single no spotter when engaging a moving target.
Could you explain why the current world record 7,774 yard, 4.4 mile shot was done usung MOA instead of MILS?
@@jorgi86 because they didn’t have a mil optic on it. Could have just as easily been done with a mil optic on it. 🤷♂️
Watch Part III.
Long Range 101: You cannot adjust individual impacts with greater fidelity than your group size at any distance.
"Do you shoot .125" groups?" Yes. With my standard hunting rifles. I build F-Class guns and Benchrest rifles. I built my 6.5lb hunting 308 to the same standards. Took a deer at 250yards exactly where I aimed standing off hand with it last season and I nailed a deer at 375yards last season in the precise location I put my reticle with my custom built 7.25lb 7PRC. Sounds like people just need to build better rifles and get some trigger time in. You still have not provided a good argument but I truly wish you would. All my hunting rifles save my 223 groundhog rifle wears an MOA scope and I'd sell my MIL scope in a heartbeat to get a similar one in MOA.
No you don’t shoot .125 groups. Your sample sizes are too small. I cover this in Part III in depth and have clips from
Hornady podcast #50 where their ballistician explains this. I encourage you to watch both.
Thanks,
Gary
@@paramounttactical I apologize. I meant to say 1/4" or .250" groups. That's with my benchrest and varmint rifles using 10-20" strings. My big game rifles use 5 shot strings. I'll listen to the Hornady podcast you referenced but I'm sorry, your explanation as to the superiority of MIL vs MOA didn't teach much for the hunter/varminter/benchrest shooter. Maybe MIL is better for Military, Military Posers, and Maybe PRS(?) but I'm unconvinced as to it's superiority for hunting/varmint/benchrest purposes based on your videos. Can't say I'll watch the third video. No offense, but the first two just seemed like rants with the predominant position being "Get MIL because everybody is moving to MIL" Which may be the case in your situation and some other people's position, but is simply not the case in the circles I walk. I have a MIL scope on my varmint rifle and it's a real annoyance when I'm working with a spotter.
@@joshuahunt1210 you do you. I really couldn’t care less. 🤷♂️
@@paramounttactical I just finished listening to Hornady episode 50 and it was very well done with some great information. Thank you for pointing me in that direction and now I understand what you mean by "You don't shoot .125" groups." FYI, when you make a statement like that without explaining "during a 20 round string with a pencil barreled hunting rifle" you just sound like a know-it-all jerk. I spent over an hour watching your Part 1 and Part 2 videos (over an hour because I watched a couple sections twice). You should care what your viewership thinks. The statement "I really couldn't care less" further pushes the narrative that you're just a dick, even if you aren't really one in person. If I saw you in a coffeeshop I'm sure both of us would still be kind to one another.
With the explanation made in the Hornady podcast it makes really good sense. No, I don't shoot .125" groups, or even .250 groups when I'm shooting 20 rounds in a single string with my hunting rifle. My 6PPC benchrest rifle may be another story but that's a different world than what you address. The Hornady podcast did say for those of us shooting hunting rifles, we should find our average group by shooting 3 round groups, 7 times, on the same POI, then use that 21 round group to determine our true accuracy in that loading with that rifle. I've never done something like that but I'm very excited to give it a shot and see what my results are. Just one more reason to go shoot something.
@@joshuahunt1210 that’s odd because “people should build better rifles” sounds an awful lot like a know it all jerk too but I understand tone is lost in the comments. I’m not a know it all or a jerk but I am frank in the comments due to time and an attempt to respond to the thousands of comments I get. I spend a lot of time and effort trying to provide a competent, experienced, and trustworthy voice in this space. I’m not going to make everyone happy despite my best efforts and it is what is. 🤷♂️
Thanks for watching.
-Gary
DIE HARD MOA GUY HERE. IM HERE TO RAISE YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE!
I disagree with MIL and it's founded in my personal very small limited shooting career. I use MOA and while it was easily explained with the inch at 100 yards 1 moa (yeah yeah 1.047*) That's where I started but I decided to STAY because all of my shooting and desired future shooting won't require the advantages of MIL. If I'm never gonna get on a race track, why buy a Ferrari. I'll just drive my riced out Honda Civic with a loud muffler. I drive it around town just as well as any other car and that makes me HAPPY.
Accuracy. (Assuming 2Mil=7 MOA)
20clicks X.1 is 2MIL, 28 clicks x .25 is 7. There is a smaller refinement in MOA over MIL. That's a fact. More Accuracy yes. Does that "accuracy" translate to group size? NO. Depends on the shooters abilities. It's like this. If you are a wood worker a tape measure with 1/2 inch marks wouldn't be that good. 1/4 are better and 1/16ths are better still. In the fine world of machining more numbers behind the zero are desired. If you're building an engine and 0.250 +/- .003 is the tolerance, a measure with 10ths won't work. Now your ability to machine a part to any specification depends on your ability as a machinist(shooter).
Easier correction: Either is good. Know your reticle. If you forget your dope or don't practice to find it quickly then that's on the shooter. A reticle could be marked in GARYS. If you don't know how to hold 2 GARYS for wind and .5 GARYS for drop then MOA, MIL, or GARY won't help you. (Btw A GARY is 1 inch @ 100 yards)
Math is math. Go with the familiar. For example we count in base 10. We have ten mathematical digits 0-9. The same maths can be done in dozenal base 12. However, most people can't even count to 100 on the dozenal system. If you suck at math, you suck at math. The Advantage is dependent on their equation. Some numbers work evenly, some numbers suck.
The TWO solid things I can agree with. 1) it's faster to dial to extreme distances. 5:7 ratio.
2) The community of shooters.
There is whats popular. As an American, you could count in dozenal, use centimeters, KPH,Celsius, have an Android and use MOA. Or you could. Count in 10, use inches & feet, MPH, Ferenheit Have an iPhone And use MIL. RUclips (toxic anti 2A) is available for both phone platforms. MPH/KPH are both found on the dash. Tape measures have two sides, and lastly. Trajectory don't give a damn about MIL or MOA when it's pushed by wind or pulled by gravity. Im a mechanic and have SAE and Metric in my tool box. when the Jack leg tech I work with can't fix a thing (make an impact) it's because he doesn't know how to use the tools he's given.
That being said. DAY 1. NEW SHOOTER. MIL is better than MOA Simply because there is more support. Cuz if you're at the airport and need a charge and your are an Android user. Good luck. I just make sure my shyt is charged. Great vid. But let's be honest. When they say it's 17 degrees C out side. You don't know if you're gonna need a hat or a hoodie. Everyone can relate to that. Lolz
Whew… a lot there.
I’m just going to to address the one.
Finer adjustments do not mean more accuracy. The two are not the same.
With the same rifle using mil or MOA you can shoot the exact same groups. You can adjust that group just as precisely. I get the question, “well Gary what if my group is exactly .25 MOA left/right/updown?” Well, what if your group is exactly .36” left/right/up/down?
There is nothing “more precise” about it. If there’s anyplace MIL and MOA are equal it is in “precision”. That’s long range 101 basic fundamentals. It’s only guys that weren’t formally trained that propagate that myth.
If MOA works for you, great. Don’t change but you cannot move individual impacts with greater precision than your group size at any distance.
The disciplines where MOA is used is disciplines that remove all reality or practicality from shooting. MOA is used where you shoot one target at one distance without a time constraint on a manicured range paved with wind flags.
You introduce multiple targets at multiple distances and throw in a shot clock and everyone moves to mil.
It’s faster, easier, just as precise, and much more efficient.
I’m sure we still disagree but that’s ok!
Thanks for watching and your thoughtful comment!
Hope to see you in the comments often!
👊🇺🇸
-Gary
@@paramounttactical Lolz. That's why this channel is so awesome! I think I didn't explain my understanding of accuracy correctly. No. We are in 100% agreement on that. Some bozo says he switched to MIL and now he shoots tighter groups, I just say "ok dude" and keep it moving. I'm an MOA guy and even I recommend new shooters going with MIL. It's just unfortunate that SOME of the "MIL IS SUPERIOR" voices are causing MOA guys to doubt, take a loss on their optic collection, and switch when the type of shooting they do won't see the advantages. If I ever get the itch to get off rimfire and go deep I'll be first inline to your online store and you can personally feed me a bowl of that savory "I told you so" soup! Lolz. 😂 Shoot straight and God bless! #paramounttacticalforthewin
I'm someone with ZERO experience behind a scope, so please pardon any idiotic things I might say. I think the issue is that your first video really did not make the argument well. It would have been better if it was JUST an introduction and you made no argument, saving that for video 2. I'm very accustomed to thinking in inches and fractions, I did not see ANY advantage in the first video other than fewer clicks.
I see your point now. It's not exactly that the numbers are lower, it's that there are fewer numbers. Yes, that's kind of saying the same things two ways, but it places the emphasis on different aspects. Because there are FEWER numbers, there are less opportunities for you to mix them up. ALSO, the numbers are more different. Like you said, 23, 26 and 28 are easier to mess up under stress than something in the single digits. The lower numbers are visually more different and more differentiated in our minds. Also, just fewer clicks, so faster dope to get close, even if it's less granular. I will look into range estimation on both systems but I'm basically convinced to go MIL.
Fair assessment. 👍
@@paramounttactical From watching some videos on ranging, it seems obvious that using metric for ranging results in much simpler math. Simple is better. Do you personally think in centimeter and meters when shooting, or do you use mils with inches and yards? Sorry for the question, I'm sure you're busy.
@@justinkase1360 I used meters/cm for ranging in the military. I do think there’s some obvious benefits. But because I’ve been training civilians that are more conditioned to use imperial, I mostly use imperial now and yards for distances.
Honestly when it comes to ranging an LRF is the way to go. It’s faster and more precise. Mil relation/range estimation is an important skill to have but LRFs are so cheap now along with the fact that range estimation is just that, a fairly imprecise estimation, LRFs make more sense.
@@paramounttactical Alright, thank you.
I believe this argument is valid for competitive shooters or engaging multiple targets quickly. HOWEVER, for hunters shooting at longer distances who take their time in ranging and setting up, I firmly stand by "different but equal". I shoot both MOA and MIL and have made shots on animals at distances that would be considered "unethical". Corrections for misses are done by using the reticle and making a correction based on the point of impact. Whether the number on the corrected sub-tension is labeled in MOA or MILS makes no difference at all. Also, I don't see the idea that dialing 1.08 MOA is any easier than .31 MILS. (Is dialing three "clicks REALLY easier than dialing four?) The logic of one number being "easier" than another makes no sense to me. I do appreciate the work you have done, and really like your videos. I guess the difference is in the name, "Paramount TACTICAL" not "Paramount Hunting"
I agree with you. I don’t think the differences in dialing is a compelling argument especially when there’s so much more to the advantages in mil vs MOA. It is demonstrably easier to dial mil but it’s not enough to really matter.
As for the rest, I’m sorry, they’re just not equal when it comes to any practical shooting application and this includes hunting. It’s not even close.
I watch too many students with MOA optics get left in the dust in speed and precision while shooting with their peers (many times they’re shooting with less skilled and experienced shooters ) during our long range courses. MOA is too fine and it confuses the brain. 1/10 of mil is more precision than any rifle can utilize. 1/4 MOA is just a waste and when you have 3.5 as many units that are divided by 4 it is very confusing for the avg shooter whether they realize it or not.
I cover that in part III and recommend you watch.
ruclips.net/video/rjejjt8nZSQ/видео.htmlsi=_8AQ0-YjmnCfOu07
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had excellent, very experienced shooters using MOA struggling with practical shooting exercises and then move them to a MIL rifle, feed them the data, and they drastically improve even if it’s the first time they did any shooting on a mil optic.
Professionally or at a high level there’s 1 type of shooter that uses MIL and 1 that uses MOA.
People that shoot at one target, at one distance with no time constraints on a manicured range paved with wind flags use MOA (F Class and BR).
All top level PRS and NRL (both of which simulate practical/hunting conditions) that shoot multiple targets at multiple distances use MIL.
NRL is specifically designed around hunting. All top NRL shooters, without a single exception use MIL.
Once you understand the wind call advantages, and all other practical advantages that you clearly don’t know about, you’d find your statement about MOA being better for hunting ridiculous.
Thanks for watching.
-Gary
@@paramounttactical I have read what I wrote a couple of times, and I don't see anywhere where I said; "MOA is "BETTER" for hunting. Because that would be ridiculous... Your passion is compelling, but too much factual information to show that because they are both tools that you should learn how to use, one is not superior to the other... but, you do what works for you.
@gabrielruiz3214 if MIL is not superior then why does every single professional shooter that shoots a practical shooting sport use it when they could use either one? Simple, because It’s demonstrably faster, easier, more efficient, and just as precise.
Go shoot an NRL match or PRS match, both of which have real world hunting applications, or just go to one and ask around.
It’s pretty easy to gauge performance of anything. You put it under time, variability, and stress. When you do that mil comes out ahead every single time. Gun # for wind calls makes wind easy. You can only do it with mil. Speed drop makes distance/elevation easy. You can only do with mil.
Honestly, and this is no disrespect, the problem here is you’re arguing from ignorance. You really don’t know what you don’t know.
@@paramounttactical "You can only do it with mil" ? "distance/elevation... you can only do it with mil?" Wow... Again, your passion, exceeds the factual situation... but, I'll keep doing what I (and EVERYONE else I know) does... use them interchangeably... no matter the rhetoric .90 MOA is equal to .26 mils... and if the numbers make it difficult for you to dial... then maybe ranging, setting up, making a wind call and making a good trigger press is best left to those who can do it.
@@gabrielruiz3214 it’s not passion. It’s knowledge and experience. 🤷♂️you don’t even know how to use your gun number for wind. 🤷♂️ you don’t know what speed drop is.🤷♂️your ignorance and assumptions exceed the factual situation.