My scopes are all MOA and I generally think of distances in yards. I am looking into buying a high powered scope and dip my toes in long range shooting. It seems in that world everything is in meters and MIL scopes. I am contemplating switching over to MIL. If I am using a rangefinder I can set it to meters. If I am estimating it likely makes no difference as I don’t think anyone can estimate distances accurately enough to where meters and yards couldn’t be used interchangeably.

All MIL is great, All MOA is great. Some of each is looking to make a mental calculating error. Just my $.02

measuring in meters and yards doesn't have anything to do with using mils or moa...... as you can range both with both. my advice is to get a mil dot scope that adjusts in 1/4 moa so you have the best of both worlds then you'll be able to estimate range in Yeters...........

When I first started long range, I bought a MOA SFP scope. 2nd scope was a MIL FFP 3rd was a high dollar MIL FFP HD with zero stop. I really wished I had listened to everyone on here and bought a high dollar MIL FFP HD scope from the get go. I'd have saved a bunch of money in the long run.

I use mil scopes as intended but do not use meters. The advantage of mil is in corrections for range and windage. It’s simply easier to live in .10s than .25 moa. As long as the reticle and turrets match then your fine.

Agree. I started with MIL since it was simple and never looked back.

So when you are thinking about your impacts on targets are you thinking mils? Right now I think in inches.

So if I am at 100 yards and I hit three inches low and two inches right I need to go up 3 MOA (12 clicks) and left 2 MOA(8 clicks).

In mils each click(1/10) at 100 yards is .36 inches. So I would break out the calculator and determine I need to go 8.3333 clicks up and
5.5555 clicks left. Doesn’t seem easier at all.

Now instead if my target was at 100 meters and I measured my point of impact in centimeters then It would be 1 click per centimeter and that is easy.

I get that mils and MOA are both angular measurements and they can work with any distance units. It just seems to me that the advantage of mils is lost when you measure distances in yards and inches.

I guess an alternative would be instead of referring to points of impact in inches or centimeters refer to them in angular terms?

PRS shooters that need to adjust their scope often prefer mils, F Class shooters that don’t need the quicker adjustment prefer MOA for better precision. Either one works just fine for banging steel at distance, As gr8fuldoug said, pick one to keep confusion out of the equation.

Also, estimating between yards and meters at distance makes a very large difference:
1000 meters = 1093.6 yards. With my rifle that’s 25.8 MOA vs. 31.2 or a difference of 54 inches, (I’m sure someone will correct me if my math is off).

You are forgetting that you have a mil based measuring stick right on the reticle. Use your Reticle to measure how many mils you are off target and make the adjustment. Doesn't matter if you are 100 yards 200 yards 300 yards or 143.76 yards away. You don't even need to calculate anything

Almost forgot…..FFP like unclebubba said! If you go with second focal plane and are ‘holding’ your elevation vs. dialing you will eventually miss when you have to zoom out for any reason (like fighting mirage). You will, inevitably, forget that you have to adjust your hold…been there more than once.

STOP IT!!!

Zeroing, you see .8 Mil low and .6 Mil right, dial the scope up .8 Mil and left .6 Mil

Don't listen to clicks. It doesn't matter what they are worth, dial the numbers.

At 427 yards, at 832 yards, at 1033 yards, you splash a round and it's .3 Mil low, dial up .3 Mil

Your wind hold missed by .4 Mil left, hold .4 Mil right.

And my laser and my calculators work in yards. I use meters never.

If I were starting over, I'd go all Mil because the math, holds and ranging are easier. If you are really good at it, you see a Mule deer, you know how big he is, how much space he takes up on your reticle, know the range, make the hold and kill him, all with your scope. I don't want to learn a new way, so I have to range the animal if he's not in a zone I've already ranged, dial my scope and kill him. Those few seconds likely cost me a good muley this year. I have at least eliminated one one step by moving to range finding bino's.

Decide what will work best for you, and commit to it. If you decide to go with Mil's, save yourself some time and get some training. See above.

I guess I have concerns on being able to see where it hit through the scope. I don’t have the best eyesight. I have a range at my house and even at just 100 yards I can’t confidently see my points of impact on paper through the scope. When sighting in I fire three shots, walk down to the target and measure, adjust, repeat. It isn’t efficient but is easier for me than squinting and trying to see the bullet holes.

I certainly understand conceptually what you talking about but that assumes you can see the bullet holes clearly

Thanks. Clearly you are just referring to impacts in their angular deviation. That certainly seems like the most efficient and best way to do it but being able to see the impacts through the scope is critical for it to work. I ordered a high powered scope this morning so hopefully I will be able to see them. I think a lot of my issues seeing aren’t so much the magnification but my astigmatism.

I gladly see the optometrist annually to keep my vision tuned up. Been corrected for 23 years. I wear contacts, and have an astigmatism that they correct.

High quality glass trumps really high magnification. Having both is terrific, and it is fairly expensive. But, cheap chit ain't cool, and cool chit ain't cheap.

I need to see the optometrist more often. I can pass the eye test to get my drivers license without glasses but I can see so much better with glasses. I just started wearing them a couple years ago. I don’t like wearing them when shooting but probably should.

The scope I ordered this morning is a NF ATACR 7-35 FFP MIL-XT

Outstanding scope! Hopefully you got F-1, which is First Focal Plane

I have that one as well as the 5-25X ATACR. Mine are with Mil-C reticle.

Im really hoping based on the "yeters" comment that this is sarcastic/a joke, but because there are a lot of people on here newer to shooting (not you specifically, but other people who will read this) who might take it seriously, Im going to reply as though it is

This is the worst advice on this thread. There is a reason mismatched scopes have been going the way of the Dodo bird- If you miss, then you use your reticle to estimate your correction in mils, then go to dial your correction in...MOA? Why would you want to add an additional conversion into the equation?

MILS and MOA both have their place. I prefer mils because as someone above said, MILS is based on .1 increments instead of .26175 increments, so I find it faster to use. It took some time to adjust to shooting that way because. I was raised using MOA, but it was worth the short-term hassle in my opinion. Now every scope I own is MILS except one Swarovski, and virtually all of them are FFP

With this scope, you'll be able to see the bullet holes in your target. Good purchase.

Remember if you keep smoking the green stuff issues will develop..........

I think my assessment was spot on…. Although I should have insisted on the OP getting a 2nd focal plane scope.

No dipping the toes into the pool here, a full dive right in.

My $0.02: it don't really matter mil or moa because they are just 2 unit of angular measurement. Seems you are clear now that measuring and thinking about angular offsets is better because it automatically accounts for / makes irrelevant the distance. I think matched reticle to dials is absolutely the most important thing aside from glass quality. These days I'd rather take a hgh quality 3-9x duplex than a smae priced scope with fancy reticles and such. Any other features after can be over come with thought but the extra features also make it shooting in real time easier. Since apparently is budget is no problem, looks like you got one with ALL the features.

Finally, the f-class guys I have hung out with tend to prefer specifically 1/8 (0.125) moa adjustment scopes because they like the finer adjustment angular interval (0.1 mil = 0.172 moa). This one I understand but still prefer mil overall. Personally thinking in terms of decimals vs quarter/eighth is a benefit I like the most.

So .125 and .250 are not decimals? Personally I don't have a preference as both work just fine.

You will have no problem seeing the 100 yard impacts, now. NF scopes are true with their adjustments. And you got the top flight one. I have that one in a MIL C and absolutely LOVE it! Also a big fan of the NX8 line.

I was a MOA guy my whole life until Jason built my custom rifle for me and we were discussing glass. For what I wanted, the ATACR line was the clear winner. Buy once, cry once, enjoy forever.

But I had a hard time adjusting to the idea of working MIL in my brain, but the more I read and learned, it seemed like it would work out fine for me. I made the plunge and got the MIL-C, FFP. and never looked back.

The idea of a built in ruler (like Fireman mentioned above) for me was a complete game changer. Having a scope that dialed, reliably, was an even bigger game changer! I now prefer reticles with .2 hash marks. Aside from the ATACR and NX8, I have some Nikon F1000 scopes with .2 hash marks that have proven very reliable. I've been behind 4 different ones now and all have dialed true. And they can be found at a good discount, sometimes.

Since that time, I have replaced every single MOA scope for my rifles. MAINLY because I had bought budget scopes back in the day and finally decided that reliability (repeatability) is the most important factor. Glass, second. I had cheap scopes that were not reliable and didn't have good glass. I sold off some guns and scopes and decided better quality was wiser (for me) than quantity (of mediocre grade), and I stepped up my shooting game, a lot.

Decided to just stick with MILs on new purchases. I can grab a rifle in MOA and be fine using it (if it is reliable in adjustments). I've found what I like best and that happens to be FFP MIL.

All that to say, enjoy and let us know what you think of it as you start to get comfortable with it! Interested to hear your feedback! All the best!

You sure about that? I think .1 mil = .36 of an inch...it's not as granular of a measurement as 1/4 moa is in and by your number it would be more granular. The beauty of mil is you can go the math in your head without fractions (like metric and that is why I screw with JG about it being metric, IT ISN'T and I know that but I will continue to mess with him...it's just what we do)...1 MIL at 100y = 3.6" so a .1 mil should be .36.

To the OP...I know you've already ordered your scope (fine scope, no doubt) but in my opinion when in Rome you do as the Romans do...if your circle of friends/buddies use MIL then do that so you all speak the same language...if they talk MOA then do that. Most folks still talk inches which is much easier to convert inches to MOA than it is inches to MIL. My 2 cents worth even less than that.