I understand the idea that MIL is better than MOA, especially from former military that has used it all over the world, and I agree, for most of the world, MIL would be better, since it is based on the metric system and easily multiplied or divided by 10. Here are the issues, though. First, it doesn't matter if you get more "MIL" adjustment than "MOA" adjustment. The actual distance you are going to be able to adjust the same scope in different formats is the same. It is just using a different nomenclature, and in reality, you get a finer adjustment out of MOA than MIL, .25 vs .36, respectively. Second, in this country, the vast majority of people THINK in inches, not decimeters. When you say, "You're an inch left, everyone knows that you are 4 clicks out, because each MOA is approximately 1" at 100 yards. That doesn't noticeably change until you get out to 1000 yards. Now you get to MILs. Same scenario, and how many MILs in 1 inch. Well, 1 MIL at 100 yards is approximately 3.6 inches. 1/10 would be .36 inches. So now you have 3 clicks, or 1.08. now extrapolate that out to 200 or 300 yards, and the math starts to gets progressively more complicated, when with MOA, you are dividing inches (what you think in) by quarter of inches, which is much easier and faster to do. Just my .02.

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

I, by no means have your level of experience, but to me the 2 are equivalent. The one argument I agree with is the sharing data portion if you're around others who are using mils. Your analogy of dialing 8 mils vs. 24 moa, you are basically dialing ~80 clicks for both so I don't see an advantage for either. It, more than anything, else comes down to personal preference or what you have experience with. Coming from your military background and a desire to only have to deal with one in your classes, I can see that you would prefer mils because that's what you have the most experience with.

Good video. My friends and I always have this same argument. AAANNNNNNDDDDDDDD, I still shoot with MOA. Lol. One funny thing is when we are all shooting and I make a good wind call, when someone ask what my hold was and I reply 1 3/4 MOA, they hate it. But they do it to me to. To me, it is six on one, half a dozen on the other. You can use the reticle to hold over on both of them. You can estimate range with both reticles. You can use the reticle to correct your miss. And there are certainly some times when the one inch = one MOA is very handy. You may not always know the size of your target, but there are times when you will know.

As a new shooter, I went directly to a mil scope. I’ve always hated fractions, but I could always work with decimals. I also convert yards to meters to make the math much easier. I can calculate the distance of a mil at any range in about 2 seconds, and I can ascertain the range in about 5 to 10 seconds if I know the size of the target.

Your video convinced me to buy all future scopes in MOA 😂. I think the only benefit would be if others were using MILs but nobody I shoot/hunt with shoot MILs.

Your videos are very helpful, and insightful.

Another outstanding video. Keep up the good work. If you don't mind me asking, what is the material you have in your background your rifles mounted on? I will never clean my gun like I used to after watching your video. You definitely have it dialed in

I liked the vid. You were also right on the money when you talked about why a lot of people - myself included - went to MOA rather than MIL for my first bigger scope. It was what I was already kind of familiar with. The more I delve into this subject, the more I see that I should buy MIL scopes from this point forward.

I was ready to be converted to mils, but the argument really mainly showed you can easily use either reticle to correct and hold off. I liked the argument that there are fewer rotations with mil, you can get all the way to 1000 with one revolution. Not sure that the finer scale is a problem, almost seems like an advantage. It seems like it would be more difficult to use a mil reticle with fewer hash marks if you’re trying to hit a small target and it not really close to one of the dots on the tree. I guess if its super small and precise you’d just dial for it and if you’re going for speed and approximate holds that a coarser scale would be faster and less confusing/counting?

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

Thank you, I enjoy the content on the channel. It seems for this part 1 in this MOA vs. MIL series using your comment of “Oompa Loompa” seems to describe there is now significant advantage or disadvantage when using the reticle for compensating, i agree. For the information provided in the first part of this series, the preferred method for compensating would be to use the reticle over dialing, I agree. That being the case, a good quality reticle with graduated stadia marks “Oompa Loompa” will do, agree. This all works if impact is identified, correct? Using range and windage to compensate or dial for the initial (first shot) holdover and windage adjustment. Subsequent follow up shot using the “Oompa Loompa” marks to compensate. I look forward to the next parts of this MOA vs. MRAD/MIL series.

Doesn't really matter which system you use if your target is at a known distance. MIL has mild advantages for ranging and holdovers, and MOA a small advantage for precise dialing and typically have cleaner reticles. There's no reason you can't be proficient at using both, but I am tending to agree that MIL is probably all you need. It's just hard not to be allured into the simplicity of "1 MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards" when we mostly shoot targets at 100 yard increments.

Great explanation. Like you discussed, I was introduced to rifles by my roommate in college. Growing up hunting, using MOA, he convinced me that’s the way to go. 5 MOA scopes deep, I have no qualms switching to MIL after heeding your advice. I swore there was too much math with MIL scopes. Myth debunked. Appreciate it.

Just found your channel and.... Thank you for your service!!

Thanks for great video, I’m defiantly moving to Mill. Would you recommend tract toric 4-25x50 scope ?

Just found your channel. I am wondering if you cover any .22LR long-range shooting? I would like to start shooting rimfire long-range. If you do talk about rimfire, have you done any videos for good rifles to start with and a scope to go with it? I am a long time Bulleyes shooter looking to switch to long-range rimfire because it seems that Bullseye as I have known it is fading away. Thanks.

Which ever one you run just practice with it and become proficient. For me both are as easy as the other. When shooting with a spotter running a mil optic I run a mil scope. Planned for and works. Moa, like you stated, is a finer adjustment thus more accurate when accuracy is important. When your objective is to ring a gong at any distance either optic works the same. It's just a reference mark. Longer range shots the first one is dialed for. Follow up shots, cats out of the bag, have to be referenced with the reticle unless speed doesn't matter. I feel that you hit one solid point as in the fact of how much more an moa reticle is cluttered compared to mil. Lots of ticks to get the same results with fewer. Though less accurate. It is also true that many hunters stick with moa. Go with what you know. I remember the days of moa turrets and mil reticle. What b.s. was that anyways? Just simply machining a mil turret, or etching a moa reticle would have been so easy. When shooting for groups, load development, I always use moa. When hunting I use moa. Ranging with the reticle on known sized game is very easy and adds a benefit on moving prey. If I'm shooting steel or paper at longer ranges by myself I'll stay with moa. If I'm with a spotter and on steel it's always mil. There does not need to be any translator involved in our conversations. No conversions. This is also a true point you have made. Overall good info and Thanks for taking the time to put this out here for us all to digest. I'll sub now and ring the notification gong. Don't ring bells!

Thank you for all your content. Starting my 12 year old off with a ruger precision .22 rifle and a vortex diamond back 4-16x44 ffp in MRad. Dude can shoot very well. Would you recomend a diffrent optic or will this work well to move to a larger caliber latter? Thanks Gary

Thanks for this video. I'm a new competition shooter. I just participated in my first competition, which was a Civilian Marksmanship Program EIC rifle competition. The max range was 600 yards. Since I didn't expect to do good, I used my M16A4 clone with a Trijicon ACOG for fun. I ended up scoring a 378/500. But I'm looking at getting a real competition scope now and have been wondering about mils vs moa. Nearly all scopes available in my area at the big sporting goods stores are mils scopes. So thank you!

Honestly, we should just use metric when we're shooting. Things should be ranged in meters. Imperial is familiar, but it's so cumbersome in most practical applications.

When choosing a scope, the biggest things I look for: ensure the reticle and turrets match. MOA reticle, needs MOA turrets. MIL turrets need MIL reticle. I'm personally an MOA guy. It requires me to learn to read the wind. I cannot just rely on another shooter's wind call, as well as see the corrections and impacts. Serious downsides to MOA include significantly less scope and reticle selection. I prefer a christmas tree style reticle specifically the IOR MP8-Extreme reticle.

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

Love the video. For what I do and for what my goals are, I do use precisely calculated firing solutions because I want to hit the target with the first round, it doesnt always workout but that is what I strive to achieve. I don't want to have to make a follow up shot. So for my purposes, it doesn't matter whether I am using mils or moa, and I do use both depending on which rifle I'm shooting. I have separate sets of data and charts specific to each rifle and specific ammunition being used. This is also how I'm teaching. Because you know things tend to move once they realize they are being shot at. If the first shot results in a miss then it's easy to use the reticle to make a follow up shot regardless of being mil scale or moa scale. I will agree with one thing though, practically moa is too fine of a scale for long range and extreme long range. I remember dialing 69.7 (69 3/4) moa for a 1800 yard shot thinking it would be easy to get lost in the minutes.

I didn't get a whole lot of time with either but I'd been introduced more to MILs while in the corps. I went with that in the first place for that reason. I'm not a christmas tree reticle guy, but the explanation of the typical use makes absolute sense. Adjusting the turrets is not a fast process so quick follow up shots are going to be dependent on the reticle. I've got some stuff to think about.

Other than providing a long-winded explanation for why competitive precision rifle shooters use Mils (short answer: it's because that's what everyone else is using so it's easier to speak the same language), you didn't explain why MOA actually sucks vs. MIL. The short answer is that there isn't really a gnat's ass worth of difference between the two other than MOA scopes generally have slightly finer amounts of elevation and windage adjustment. They're both just an angle of measurement. What does matter, as highlighted by your comparison of reticles, is that some reticles have a marked advantage over others when it comes to rapidly measuring a miss and making a corrected follow up shot. A crappy Mil-based reticle could underperform against a superb MOA-based reticle, and vice-versa.

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

When ever someone says that a well established system doesn't work well (sucks), generally they don't understand it. I use MOA, SMOA, and MILs across multiple platforms without difficulty. I'm also a US Army, sniper school graduate; a long-distance shooter, and a hunter. The various systems all work well.

Other than for sharing data I agree but no matter which radical you choose they are a mechanical. Range your target use your turret to dial than any and all follow-up shots use the radicals. When time is crucial. Then note in your dope book what the proper hold is for future references at known distance and known environmental factors.

My first long range scope is the Arken EP5-5X25 in mil. I couldn't be happier and just felt like it was the right choice.

I like how you explained how they're the same as far as use case goes but then said the less accurate system was better

Mils it is my brother. Has been, for FDC guys, for a long time. We always understood the math better than the grunts. Then you take into account us #AATW sky soldiers, 60 and 82mm 11 Charlies and ... it's a no-brainer. Lol but seriously I went through the 82nd Sniper course in the late 70s with a M21 and a Mk III in MOA, and even then, cadre were telling us MIL was the way to go over 300 meters. Then they made an 11C3P out of me and I never forgot the advantages. You're exactly right young man. Subscribed, bell rang, commented, liked, upvoted, shared .... may the algorithm gods smile favorably upon your channel.

I have scopes in both mil and moa, I'm not wedded to either. You showed that one can use the measurements in the scope reticle the same way with either system. The only thing that makes mil superior is that the number you come up with is smaller. So mil is superior to moa because it is less precise. That makes sense for long range shooting. For those of us who's sport is 22lr shot between 20 and 200 yards wouldn't the lack of precision in adjustment be a detriment?

Tremor 3 is only in mil too. Of course you need to have the self discipline to be able to handle the busiest reticle on the market, but built in wind holds, moving target holds, and so much more once you learn how to use it. It's amazing.

At one time I had one of those early Leupold scopes with a mildot reticle and MOA adjustments. I wasn’t doing much long range shooting in those days, but as soon as scopes with mil reticles and mil adjustments became available that’s what I switched to. I haven’t used MOA except with some of my other real old scopes since, and they just have simple uncalibrated reticles anyway. As I put it to people who are interested in my opinion, I find it much easier to think in base 10 (mils) rather than base 4 (1/4 of MOA which is how MOA scopes’ adjustments are usually calibrated). I therefore agree with you completely even without having your level of experience. I will say, though, that some of the top tier scopes that were originally offered only with milling reticles and adjustments are more commonly being offered in MOA versions these days as well. I wonder if that could slow the more common acceptance of mils by higher level certain shooters, and perhaps even reverse it to a degree. I just discovered your channel, so thanks.

Great video and information. I got into long distance shooting 15 years ago. The place I compete is multiple targets, multiple distances and changes firing locations on unstable platforms in 2 minutes ex: two targets to hit twice each target at 348 yards, do it again at 505 yards, do it again at 708 yards, redeploy, do it again. All under 2 minutes. Shooting off tires, rope in back of a van, dirt mounds, sewer pipes, you get the idea. And this is where Mil is superior. On the left of the rifle a paper with the elevation dope. One can dial, but most do hold overs using the radical. And going from dialing 1.8 to hold over 1.7 to achieve the (3.5), then 4.4 hold over to achieve the (6.2) is easier to remember than double digits. One only has to memorize two numbers, 1.7 & 4.4. Secondary as the person in the video states, hold over for the new aiming point. I am one of those lucky people who have great spacial interpretation. So I never dial anything past the first setting of the first target. Some of the people I compete with especially use hold over for windage. I have learned my rifle and found I can dial in 0.2 Mils windage for anything past 500 yards. So I do dial that in if over 500 yards, In one completion I was very lucky that a Army Sniper competing noticed and gave me extra instructions that really helped me, especially not over zooming in, but making sure all the targets were easy to see at a certain setting. Moist of the competitors were military. So yes technically if one was only doing one shot, MOA might be argued as more precise, which really isn't true one one learns their platform. But engaging multiple targets at multiple distance, especially with a bolt gun, Mils is the only way to go. I have recently bought a Arken 5 x 25 x 56 with a Christmas tree for hold over. Still getting used to it. Up to then I used a SWFA 3x15x42 first focal plane. I love their radical once you understand it. Most of the people were using 6.5 Creedmoor. The other advantage of a Mil is ranging, both by radical and The Mildot Master. When I use my Strelok, 1000 yards for me is around 11.8. It is as simple as counting from 0 to 10. So hunting, benchers shooting MOA, sure. But I don't think it would work well in real life time limiting multi target situation.

I recently bought a new scope which I paid decent money for and being an moa guy, I had to make the decision if I wanted to stick to that language or learn mils instead. I ended up going with mils because my shooting partner uses mils and I am so glad I switched. Speaking and working in tenths was much easer than I expected and I will never go back to moa. Also like you mentioned, if you use your reticle correctly and measure your misses you don't need to re-learn mils.. it's a non-issue

Like you said, moa is much more fine than mil. When you're shooting at #8 limestone at a thousand yards, 1/4 moa still isn't fine enough. Wich is why some shooters use 1/8 moa. I would never sacrifice a chance to be more precise. Just so everyone knows, .1 mil is equal to .36 inches, 1/4 moa is equal to .25 inches, 1/8 moa is equal to .125 inches.

I definitely see the benefit of going to a mil system for long range. I will also probably switch if I get to the 1000 yard shooting beyond occasional fun. As of now I barely play at 500~600 yard once in a while. Usually just aiming at a rock to find the smallest I can hit. Besides giving my ability to shoot is not exactly the best I still feel my inferior equipment is Superior compared to the one using it. It probably doesn't help that my first experience with mil was not good. I was much younger but the stigma is still there.

I started with MOA like you said cause I thought it was easier. I switched to mil and love that I can figure my gun # to make wind holds easier.

I started shooting with MOA only because the people I know that shoot used it. So I’ve used it ever since. But I am definitely open to learning MIL. Will start after September course

One thing I will add. If someone is telling me to move 2.7 moa, ill have to multiply that by 4 to know how many click I need to do. On the other hand .8 mils (roughly 2.7moa) is 8 click.

Great video!

Kinda related question - today, when communicating with a spotter, when you stop going by eye and then go to glass and when target is confirmed and told to adjust parallax and mil target, do you still give a mil reading to make sure you are both looking at the same target (in the past it was for ranging) or do you skip that step and just receive your elevation?

There are a contingent of MOA shooters you forget: f class guys use MOA since their distances are fixed/known. They also like the finer adjustments. MOA also works out for capped scopes with simple recticles (ie not dialing like 3-9 hunting scopes). Otherwise yes mills all the way finally got our last MOA holdout to switch at our prs 22 Match.

As an old Field Artillery guy, east has and always will be 1600 mils LOL, I never had a compass in "degrees", so now MILS feels like home.....

Great vid thanks, I was leaning towards a mil scope anyway this confirms it .. thanks so much, looking at primary arms mil dot scope

Well lm back and saving up for my first scope so I was wondering if buying a scope in mill using a break barel pellet gun would be a good choice I'm planning on getting a arken scope my budget says this is a very high end scope what do you think

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

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

This was really helpful! thanks. (please add a 709 lut please)

Very helpful !

As a civilian shooter? All I know is MOA and Kentucky Windage. I sight my rifle into 100 yards using three shot groups and adjusting the scope onto bullseye using my choice bullet weight that I am going to hunt with. Once zero’d to 100 yards? I am done. I memorize my bullet drop of my cartridge and bullet weight and if the animal is 300 yards away? I will hold over as a guesstimate based on the size of the animal. If I am in wind? I will hold accordingly based on the size of the animal. Deer are this tall and this wide so I will hold here. This is how my father taught me how to do it. That’s how his father taught him how to do it. And it’s tough to walk away from something so old and tried. But I welcome it. Thank you for this video!

as a former carpenter and slow learner, I just find the fractions in my head with MOA relate to me easier. Plus my money is already invested ...and time learning this stuff. I have a half dozen of friends that were military and the opinions between the two seem to be split.

I know this video is 8 months old but I just wanted to say I started off using mildot in the early 2000s. I use both mrad and MOA today but I use mrad for my longer range rifle and MOA for my AR platform. I prefer mrad and most of the people I shoot with I try to talk them into it as well because when you're shooting with friends or in my case sometimes it's my job it's nice if everyone's on the same page for their holdovers

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

During my time in the army ( 45 years ago) I only ever used scopes with MOA adjustment. So when I entered back into civilian life all my scopes were MOA. Until I got my hands on a reasonably priced scope with FFP and MOA, what a difference.

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

So basically if you are not dialing,but using hold off, as long as the graduations on the reticle are consistant, MIL, MOA, it doesn't matter, they both work the same. Thanks, I'll stay with my MOA scopes

As former Military, I'm used to using Mils. The ONLY reason I have a MOA scope on my 6.5 Creedmoor, is because the rifle came as a 'package deal' (rifle, scope, bipod), for a great price. I've been wanting to change it over to Mil scope, but due to health issues, that purchase is currently on the back burner.

Good video just feel like you should have explained what MOA and MiL are so people know why youre super sold on MIL. Exercise first arguments second lol. Good video tho. Thanks for the content!

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

U.S. Military forces use MIL-based scopes for certain weapon sets like snipers, machine guns, and mortars, largely because they're capable of quickly measuring targets and compensating for changes in distance.

Outside of the military I've been an MOA guy mostly because I havnt had proper instruction of Mil. This was probably one of the best examples I've seen thus far so thank you for the explanation i think i will be exploring the mil world a little more now!

I agree that Mil scopes are what most everyone in competition uses. I was really looking for a compelling argument of why Mil is so much better than MOA but unfortunately, you did a poor job at expressing to me. All I really got out of the video was this reticle is so much easier to use because it's a mil reticle but you just using lines of measurement. Maybe I missed something.

Thanks for the intel. It's worth noting that you are one of the few content creators that has explained why MILs are better to MOA from a practical application. Would love to see when it is best to use SFP vs FFP or visa versa based off the application.

Thank you for this video. After watching it , I got a better understanding of the benefit of Mil over MOA. Just a small observation of the caption portion of the video. At one point you said "new shooter" however, the caption converted "new " to display "neuter". Is that a different level of shooting experience??????

Great video. Thanks for putting in the time and effort in trying to help us. I'm in the category of thinking that MOA is easier to understand (mostly cause I don't know any better). I'm asking for help on my situation. I'll be primarily hunting prairie dogs at no more than 300 yards with my air rifle and I'm not real big on dialing. If you still recommend I get MIL instead of MOA then that is the direction I will take and I get it figured out. If it doesn't matter for what I'm doing then I'll whatever. Thanks again

One point in favor of Mils you left out is an engineering advantage. The most common tactical turret is a 100 spline turret: In other words you get 100 clicks per rotation. In an MOA turret 100 clicks yields you 25 MOA (in .25 MOA adjusting scope). In a 100 spline MIL based scope you get 10 Mils of adjustment per rotation (or 34.38 MOA). Using the example of an 8 Mil up adjustment in the video to hit 1,000 yards you would need less than one turn of the dial. For an MOA adjusting scope you would need 27.5 MOA of up adjustment putting you on the 2nd turn of the dial. So you get way more elevation per turn with a Mils based scope than with a MOA based scope, meaning you less like to get lost on what turn you are when dialing.

I still use both because I have them. I’m my opinion there is no difference. If I can dial 1 mil I can dial 3.5 MOA. Same thing with a hold you’re using a reticle, the numbers are just numbers. I didn’t hear any arguments that actually make one better

I’m a new long range shooter , you did a great job explaining this.

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

Just bought an MOA ffp scope. Going to use that for now while I start improving my shooting technique. Ill look into MIL when i start to get my skills improved and am ready to take a next step.

Thank You For the Excellent Education. Knowledge is Power.

Thk u 4 being so precise on explaining da difference n now I belive I can learn alot faster on how 2 use my scope align it so I can b a better shooter.

I’ve always used holdovers with my moa scopes and it works for my application. Inside of 100 yards I like the precision of moa over mil. I’m also just shooting rimfire (.22lr)

Great video. Mika are certainly far super in the aspect of ranging, determine holds for leads, dialing for a precise engagement. I’m glad your making a case for Mil. I have been doing the same for about 12+ years.

When I went to school my instructor was a Vietnam era sniper, great guy. I learned on my MKIV TMR, which has moa turrets. The ret is still used the same for milling (target inches x 27.77/mils). My turret was 1 moa elevation per click....minute of man. So depending upon conditions I may run 30-31 moa at 1000yds in the summer, 26" Hart,.....so about 8.6 mils. I'm running mil/mil scopes now and of course a Vectronix. It's easier for spotter and shooter to have a matching system. btw 1 moa=1.047", target/moax100=yds.......it all works. Target size estimation is the toughest part when using a ranging reticle.

Great Video!!!! I will buy a mil based scope as my next scope. I find metric systems easier and faster because everything is divisible by 10 so I understand almost every point your video has except the moa turret with mildradian reticle issue. How can you tell if the riflescope is a mil reticle if it has a moa turret. That is the source of confusion for me. I thought a mil turret meant mil reticle, and I also thought moa turret also meant a moa reticle. Here is my current scenario, I was planning to get Swarovski Z8 3.5 to 28 (as my next Christmas gift to me) with the optional adjustable rings ballistic turret for fast dailing when hunting, but I wanted to use its reticle in the same way you explained if there is no time to dial. Is this Z8 Swarovski a mil turret with mil reticle riflescope, or moa on mil riflescope? The current configuration for me is a Tikka T3x Roughtech 300 Win Mag with an EC tuner brake and also with some minor mods from components sourced from mountain tactical. I plan to get an mdt or similar chasis next year or light weight carbon fiber thumbhole stock shaped similar to sako S20, but the new riflescope will be my next purchase before the new chasis. My old setup was a very old rem 700 (from 1977 with very smooth action) and leupold 3 by 9 mildot that combination was bought used about many years ago. I made a choice to buy a new Tikka T3x over the Bergara B14. Both had very smooth actions and excellent factory triggers, the Bergara B14 reminded of the smoothness of my old remington 700. But the 75 degree bolt throw was what eventualy won me over for cold hunting days wearing gloves. That was my recent birthday gift to me to be my final rifle for driving up into the mountains with some short distance hiking to hunting areas. Sort of hybrid hunting and range rifle to 1000 meters when build is complete. I know this is alot of extra information but maybe it is useful to know.

Im looking at purchasing a 1-6x24 lpvo with a mildot reticle. can i use a 50/200 zero on this type of scope?

I went MOA for my first scope because it was more intuitive as a new shooter working at standard yardages. In the end, both are simply scales. Mil is 1:1000, MOA is 1:3438. They both work, and MOA has the unique advantage of being inch-intuitive if you’re doing math. But I think I’ll move to Mil and relearn when I up my magnification on my next scope.

Dude! I felt like I listened to a MasterClass for free. Learned so much. Going to try and tune in to your podcast tonight (April 3rd). Thanks again! And if I ever make a movie with Vikings I will have you and your lovely wife as co-stars lol!

Gary, even for an old salt who used MOA exclusively in navigation, Your explanation regarding the simplicity of using MRAD is just logical. Thanks. Caveat: if we ever design a rifle that can shoot the distance of a time zone, you’ll have to eat your words 😂😂😂 BZ 👍🏼

Thanks for the great explanation. I lucked out and was told by a few good shooters to just start with Mils. But wanted an explanation as to why (never just trust what you are told). And this video really helped to confirm what I was told.

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

Gary, thanks for the information. I recently took your excellent long range shooting class. Your instruction is clear, practical, and extremely helpful. Only one suggestion: You talk to fast in the videos! Slow down, just a little. Thanks.

Thank you for this video. I’m about to buy my first rifle scope. Probably get Trijicon Credo in Mrad. Thx! Plus, I noticed when shopping for a scope between Mrad and MOA, all of the Mrad scopes were sold out.

Very convicing. I have been shooting precision rifle for several years and have used MOA scopes, but at some point will phase them out for MIL and will look forward to it learning.

As a new shooter, seeing your hold over examples, the MOA reticle to me was easier to visualise or “hold over”. Nothing to do with MOA vs MIL debate, but the reticle was just better on the MOA reticle and was by far easier to “reverse” where the shot hit.

How do you feel about low power optics using MILS at intermediate ranges? I’m still seeing the MOA and even BDC guys banging steel in sub 600 yard target transitions a LOT faster than those running MIL optics on 5.56 and 7.62 AR’s. Do you think that’s the low magnification or just the familiarity?

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

As a German metric guy the whole thing is a no brainer anyway. When I first came to shooting I didn’t know MIL existed, and all of This MOA stuff did my head in. FFP + MIL for da win.

Thank you I didn't know what one too buy I didn't understand how too even use so now I will definitely buy a million scope question what do you think of an arken scope are they good

I appreciated what you said about Rumble and agree. Prob is I'm deaf. Rumble does not have a cc(closed caption) that you can click. Evidently it's possible to do it, but facilitation not easy. I looked across a range of vids on rumble, and I'm flat screwed. Is that the only other place you post? Thanks

Ive been bitten by the long range bug. Unfortunately I ended up with the worst, Mil reticle and MOA adjustments. What a horrible idea that design was. So I mostly ignore the reticle and use a range finder for making adjustments. I like what you've shown here though. I will definitely keep it in mind for future scope acquisitions.

I'm a hunter moa is wat I see myself and others use with the great accuracy of modern calibers inside of 600 to 700 yards its easy and accurate based off of dopes and holes once u know ur rifle. Sure mils with modern rifles beyond 700 yes older caliber rifles yes mils definitely. If my dope is spot on noted every time I'll stay every well adjusted with moa. The accuracy difference shooting perfect hand loads or match grade loads makes all the difference in accuracy too just wonna note the differences

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

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

Funny. I always sucked at math through school. I think it just had to do with interest. "What will I ever use this for?!" Especially Trig and milliradians. I guess things surprise us in life. Wanted to learn long range and realized this was the math I needed to know. Picked it up immediately and understood Mils over MOA.

Spot on mate cheers from north Queensland.