Thread: Mil/Mil vs MOA/MOA

FFP scopes don't all have heavy reticles. That's why you do lots of research to get the scope that suits what you want to do with it. That, plus experience will aid in your decision making. No scope will cover all the bases !

The FFP scopes have these days become way more widespread for the various LR scenarios because the reticle hash marks subtend the SAME distance at the target at all magnification powers. So 1 MOA hash marks on the scopes horizontal bar will stay at 1 MOA spacing at all magnifications which is perfect for quick holdovers and POI spotting at whatever range you are shooting at.
The SFP scope will only subtend a true MOA or MIL distance at the target at ONE magnification power, normally the highest power.
So for LR shooting the likes of the NF 5.5-22 scope can be perfect, even though it's SFP, as the reticle hash marks become true at 22 power and 22 power is a great magnification for a broad range of LR shooting.
My current favourite LR scope is a FFP March which has a fine reticle ( because it's designed for shooters who will use the scope on the higher powers ) so I can crank it up to 40 power if necessary. But a FFP scope with a fine reticle is near useless at close range in darker conditions because it becomes bloody hard to see the reticle.
Horses for courses ......

Originally Posted by Mauser308

Fall or rise will do that, the bullet thinks it's travelling a much shorter path and doesn't listen to the laws of gravity. There's a correction chart for it.

The biggest difference is not mil/moa, it's FFP or SFP. FFP generally are always in mil, SFP are generally found in MOA. For smaller targets at longer ranges, FFP is crap as the increased size of the graticle can block out your target if you zoom-zoom it. Had a very expensive optic for a loaner that did that, stupid idea. On the other hand, SFP stays the same size (but does throw the measuring ability out) so you can range, set, check with the scope set to the right power, zoom and shoot on SFP. Try that on FFP, range, set, can't see the f*&ken thing, back down, back down, gawd thats small...

FFP is a good idea if you happen to only be shooting at man-sized targets on a two-way range, but there can be limits to practicality in the real world.

You obviously havnt used many FFP scopes. Some have heavy target obscuring reticles, but there are loads out there with reticles to overcome that.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

Fall or rise will do that, the bullet thinks it's travelling a much shorter path and doesn't listen to the laws of gravity. There's a correction chart for it.

The biggest difference is not mil/moa, it's FFP or SFP. FFP generally are always in mil, SFP are generally found in MOA. For smaller targets at longer ranges, FFP is crap as the increased size of the graticle can block out your target if you zoom-zoom it. Had a very expensive optic for a loaner that did that, stupid idea. On the other hand, SFP stays the same size (but does throw the measuring ability out) so you can range, set, check with the scope set to the right power, zoom and shoot on SFP. Try that on FFP, range, set, can't see the f*&ken thing, back down, back down, gawd thats small...

FFP is a good idea if you happen to only be shooting at man-sized targets on a two-way range, but there can be limits to practicality in the real world.

Shooting up and down hills changes the amount of elevation required, but its not enough at 50m for him to miss his target. Depending on if shooting up or down hill, the corrected distance would be like 45 to 55meters so probably less than a 1/4" variance in point of impact due to shooting up or down hill at that distance.

Iv got a sweet little widget on my long range rig called an angle co-sign indicator. Its doesnt tell an angle, it tells an angle co-sign. Which means it takes less steps to manually work out the corrected distance to target as you don't need to get your Pythagoras on. Its just distance to target x angle cosign (eg 500m x 0.98 = corrected distance of 490m).

Also I dont quite agree with the FFP covering lots of the target assuming the reticle is properly setup to work with the scopes magnification range. For example my tremor3 reticle has a center dot of 0.05mil, which will cover 5mm at 100m or 5cm at 1000m. I would wager that a SFP scopes reticle/dot/line thickness or whatever will cover more than 5cm at 1000m.

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

For a sfp scope does the ballistic compensator markings on the reticle change with the magnification? Seems to me to be different depending on the magnification

yes, on a sfp scope the ballistic compensator markings on the reticle change with the magnification. They are only accurate at one power - usually max power.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

Yeah, used a few & own two now but find they have limits when compared to SFP. I don't find Mil/Mil has any real actual real world useability advantages over MOA, in terms of targets aren't known sizes so you can't use the graticle for range finding, ballistic calc does the click calcs so I don't really do that in my head, windage is not a major issue as I don't take shots that are that dodgy anyway. The downsides of mil/mil/FFP vs MOA/SFP are coarseness of adjustment (at range 1/4MOA gives roughly 1/2 the adjustment per click, useful on smaller targets) and the zoom issue with the reticle. With modern 5x power scopes, the range of size change of the reticle is quite impressive... Nice fine reticle for long range and not covering the target means you can't see the bloody thing at low power against a dark background or target or at the limits of daylight. A heavy reticle is def. not as accurate for grouping as the lines are bigger than the group potential when zoomed. Note to self, swap my FFP scope that has the heavy ret out for a NF NSX.

As an all-around short/long/light/dark scope design the SFP is ahead in terms of useable limits. Back in the day the first variable magnification scopes (basically as I understand it military contract prototype and similar) were FFP, soon changed to SFP for versatility and it's only a relatively new thing going to graduated reticles and FFP.

But, if you intend to use the scope in a certain type of shooting only FFP might be perfect...

I guess this is one point of view. I hold a very different opinion on FFP vs SFP and Mil vs MOA.

All but 1 of my scopes are FFP Mil/Mil, the SFP MOA scope that I do have is a good scope (Leupold VX5 3-15) but my preference for anything where dialling and longer ranges are involved is FFP Mil. That's why the VX5 is on my 17hmr...

I get lost with MOA unless I can see my shot and measure the adjustment in my reticle. If I know the range I'm shooting, I know precisely what each click in a mil adjust scope equates to as its 1/1000th of the distance in metres (so 478m = 4.78cm per click etc)

I have no issue with the reticle obscuring the target in a FFP scope either. I currently have three different brands of scopes/reticles and all are great (Kahles SKMR3, March FML-1 and Athlon APLR3) and haven't had problems with the various others that I have owned.

I think the actual answer is that you need to make an effort to try as many options as you can first hand as everyone's eyes/brains are different, so what one person understands or finds perfect won't necessarily suit you

Originally Posted by The Claw

I guess this is one point of view. I hold a very different opinion on FFP vs SFP and Mil vs MOA.

All but 1 of my scopes are FFP Mil/Mil, the SFP MOA scope that I do have is a good scope (Leupold VX5 3-15) but my preference for anything where dialling and longer ranges are involved is FFP Mil. That's why the VX5 is on my 17hmr...

I get lost with MOA unless I can see my shot and measure the adjustment in my reticle. If I know the range I'm shooting, I know precisely what each click in a mil adjust scope equates to as its 1/1000th of the distance in metres (so 478m = 4.78cm per click etc)

I have no issue with the reticle obscuring the target in a FFP scope either. I currently have three different brands of scopes/reticles and all are great (Kahles SKMR3, March FML-1 and Athlon APLR3) and haven't had problems with the various others that I have owned.

I think the actual answer is that you need to make an effort to try as many options as you can first hand as everyone's eyes/brains are different, so what one person understands or finds perfect won't necessarily suit you

I’ve been using your old premier on a hunting rifle for years in all conditions and have yet to experience any issues regarding the reticle and it’s visibility.

Yes it is all opinions and preferences.. my experience went from a SFP MOA scope to a FFP mil scope... I will never go back.

Originally Posted by MSL

I’ve been using your old premier on a hunting rifle for years in all conditions and have yet to experience any issues regarding the reticle and it’s visibility.

I still regret selling that to you... Swap for the VX5 I have on my 17hmr?

MOA MOA for me, but doesn’t really matter which really as both are just angles. As other say, it’s easy to overthink this, but you can just think in clicks and have a drop chart taped to your stock. I don’t like busy reticles and measuring adjustments using mil dots isn’t my thing.

Originally Posted by Spitfire

Don’t forget that drop charts are only as good as the info used to produce them. Differences in temp, pressure, altitude, azimuth and even spin drift all have to be accounted for, esp at long range. Some of those factors make very little difference but they all add up. That’s why I’m not a fan of CDS type reticles too. I don’t see the point of having a good quality dialling scope and then limiting accuracy to the set parameters dictated by the dialling system.

I did a test in the US on temp effects with my .300 Win Mag. Can’t remember exact temps now, but they were about -2C and +24C. At 500 yards there was a 19 inch difference in drop with the same loads. Admittedly that’s a big temp range but it makes the point about the limitations of fixed inputs.

This is a very good point.

The drop charts I use are created only after I have validated the drops at 300m and 500m usually, 250m and 350m for the .223. But when I do the charts will bias the outcome. I'm usually pretty good at remembering to set the climate and altitude.

Last week one cold morning I started missing at 540m after going well for the two hours prior at ~250-450m. Why? It wasn't that cold, but it could be up to 14-16°C cooler than when I did the drop chart. That's over 6" at 540m. I will recreate these charts with a median temperature for winter and summer. BTW despite their limitations, when its all on and you need to dial different ranges in quickly, a drop table is bloody helpful, better than cocking around with the phone.

Sig Sauer 2400ABS

Originally Posted by Flyblown

MOA MOA for me, but doesn’t really matter which really as both are just angles. As other say, it’s easy to overthink this, but you can just think in clicks and have a drop chart taped to your stock. I don’t like busy reticles and measuring adjustments using mil dots isn’t my thing.


This is a very good point.

The drop charts I use are created only after I have validated the drops at 300m and 500m usually, 250m and 350m for the .223. But when I do the charts will bias the outcome. I'm usually pretty good at remembering to set the climate and altitude.

Last week one cold morning I started missing at 540m after going well for the two hours prior at ~250-450m. Why? It wasn't that cold, but it could be up to 14-16°C cooler than when I did the drop chart. That's over 6" at 540m. I will recreate these charts with a median temperature for winter and summer. BTW despite their limitations, when its all on and you need to dial different ranges in quickly, a drop table is bloody helpful, better than cocking around with the phone.

The other very real possibility is the temp change has put your load out of the "node". Especially if you were on the edge of it in the first place.

Originally Posted by LRP

The other very real possibility is the temp change has put your load out of the "node". Especially if you were on the edge of it in the first place.

That is why people have more accuracy and precision than they need.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Flyblown

MOA MOA for me, but doesn’t really matter which really as both are just angles. As other say, it’s easy to overthink this, but you can just think in clicks and have a drop chart taped to your stock. I don’t like busy reticles and measuring adjustments using mil dots isn’t my thing.


This is a very good point.

The drop charts I use are created only after I have validated the drops at 300m and 500m usually, 250m and 350m for the .223. But when I do the charts will bias the outcome. I'm usually pretty good at remembering to set the climate and altitude.

Last week one cold morning I started missing at 540m after going well for the two hours prior at ~250-450m. Why? It wasn't that cold, but it could be up to 14-16°C cooler than when I did the drop chart. That's over 6" at 540m. I will recreate these charts with a median temperature for winter and summer. BTW despite their limitations, when its all on and you need to dial different ranges in quickly, a drop table is bloody helpful, better than cocking around with the phone.

Just make a set of cards for density altitude zones. Mine are color coded and laminated on a key ring.

Mil/Mil with cards for density altitude will do me.

I can concentrate on wind doping. The rest is trivial by comparison.


Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

Yes your dead right there Tussock dialing is the easy part, wind is much harder to account for.