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

[@minjin0259]

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.

[@jussimakarussi]

Well achtuallyyy 8-) Neither is metric or imperial based, they just line up very closely to those scales. MOA is exactly what the name implies, one full revolution is 360°, take 1° and further divide it into 60 pieces to get 1MOA. Mills are just based off a different unit for angular measurement called radians, where 2pi (~6.28) represents one whole revolution. As the name implies you then divide the radian by 1000 to get a mrad.

[@jussimakarussi]

@@sdlillystone Just because the radian is the SI-unit of angular measurement I wouldn't classify it as metric. Radians work well with trigonometrical functions, but is not something you use in everyday life situations. Newtons are obviously metric since the base units behind a newton are seconds, meters and kilograms and used in everyday situations. Would you call seconds a metric unit of time, since it also is the SI-standard? Granted there isn't a competing unit for time, but you get the point.

[@jussimakarussi]

@@sdlillystone Bro, I'm 90% sure you're trolling at this point, but in case you're not: what has angular velocity to do with anything here? SI is used for scientific and engineering purposes and I guess, especially in the US, SI = metric. For me metric means commonly used units in countries in which distance is measured in meters. Notice however, we do not measure angles in Radians or temperature in Kelvins, just because they are the scientific standard, we use 360° standard and Celsius.

[@jussimakarussi]

@@sdlillystone That's what I've said from the very start...the DEFINITION isn't metric OR imperial, BUT they do match the different units of measurement very accurately. 1cm at 100m is not the definition, it is an accurate enough approximation for laymen to better grasp the concept of mrad, just the same way 1 inch at 100 yards works for MOA.

[@jussimakarussi]

@@sdlillystone Probably a typo, but it's 0.1mrad for 1cm @100m

[@jimjohnson8864]

Maths graduate here. Minute Of Arc is a circle divided into 360 degrees then 60 minutes per degree. One radian is the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. So 360 degrees equals 2x Pi radians. Radians is not metric or imperial it is a ratio. Both are measure of angles. The only advantage radians has is in geometry and has no advantage in shooting. The argument that MilliRadians requires less rotation of the dial is wrong.. One rotation of the dial is about the same angle change in MOA and MRad the same as 300mm is about the same as 12 inches. The reason that for practical purposes MOA and MRad are the same iris is that we cannot resolve any greater accuracy with the human eye. A scope working one Second of Arc per click is 4 thou of an inch at 100 yards. MicroRad would be similarly useless in shooting. If you reload you will know that you can measure case length in mm or inches and achieve the same result that is the correct case length. Personally I can change between mm and inches, MOA and MRad easily because I use both. The analogy is that they are two languages that describe the same thing. If you learn to speak English, German is difficult until you learn.

[@davjamrid]

Mic drop

[@paramounttactical]

😂 it’s not a mic drop and given I teach both MOA and MIL and use both regularly it’s not an issue of being able to resolve the math as you both on this thread would like to pretend. For an equation to correct you have to include all the relevant calculations needed to get the right answer. Neither of you are accounting for dispersion, the SD of your group size or group placement as it relates to POA. It’s a mathematical fact that you, any shooter, or any rifle cannot utilize the level of precision that 1/10 mil provides much less 1/4 or 1/8 MOA. Hornady has proven that with their statistical analysis of group sizes. And I cover it at length in this video. You believe in pretend precision and believe the fallacy of “if my optic says it can move impacts x amount then it can”. It’s like believing my F350 can go 200mph says because it says so on the speedometer. You can say cute things in the comments that make you feel smart but as the math relates to ballistics you’re both just wrong. Using the same rifles you have, if you put a mil optic on them you would see zero difference in group sizes or group/shot placement. That’s a fact and it’s all covered in this video here. MOA Sucks Part III - MOA Is NOT More Precise kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJvIm52qbdONibM

[@davjamrid]

@@paramounttactical I never said it changes group size. Nor did I say it changes SD. But, when I am zeroing a rifle, it does allow me to be as centered as absolutely possible. As I said in a second comment, if you're shooting bullseye (High Power, F-Class, Smallbore, etc.) it absolutely matters. If I'm shooting PRS, I have less time and gross numbers matter. I've held off target with a mil-dot reticle at over 600 yards. It's doable and isn't difficult. is it optimal? No. What it really all comes down to is the individual. What is the purpose? Define that and you define the scope. The optimal combination is defined by purpose. I like the guys from Hornady and listen often so I know of what you speak. I've actually had them on my podcast. I disagree with them on barrel life. I know for a fact (with real world experience) that a 308 caliber rifle can get 10-12k rounds through it and still shoot moa accuracy. That's another topic altogether. You made me chuckle when you said nothing personal and, yet, you take things personal.

[@paramounttactical]

“It does allow me to be centered as possible”😂 No it allows you feel centered as possible. A) you have no idea if your group is centered or not. Unless you’re shooting a minimum 20-30rds to zero there’s no way of knowing. B) There’s .10” different between mil and MOA. The SD of the center of 5, 5 round groups would have a greater variance than .10” Like most MOA guys, you’re in a precision fantasy world. It makes you FEEL more accurate but you’re not and every bit of data proves it. Have fun with that.

[@chriscrawford2197]

Why do gun manufacturers guarantee their guns in MOA and not in MILS??

[@rabbahhagri1493]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

But you're not just dialing. You're very often having to use a reticle and when your ballistic solution is 26.3 that's hard to find on such a fine and small scale. I see it in practice all the time. Even dialing, finding 22.25 with all those numbers squeezed onto a turret you are going to be WAAAAY slower dialing that. Sure, a MIL turret is graduated in the 1/10th of mil but it's easy to dial fast to the much larger print number like 8 and then fine tune it to a 1/10. MUCH easier to do that. I don't mind teaching both at all and this video isn't about me not wanting to teach MOA, it's about constantly seeing MOA shooters struggle needlessly because they are stuck to a demonstrably inferior system. It's also about the fact that a large majority of people that start shooting MOA end up shooting MIL eventually for all the reasons I laid out. So it's to save people the wasted time and frustration and start with the better option first. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@rabbahhagri1493]

@@paramounttactical In a tactical situation it is more likely that one would hold rather than dial, but as with most things, practice makes perfect. When dialing, I get to the whole numbers quickly, as you mentioned, then have from 1-4 minor adjustment clicks to get to the decimal portion of the solution. My next trip to the range I will exercise some of the points you raised to see how impacted I feel with an eye to dealing with the granularity of the MOA optics. Again, I have nothing like your level of experience, but I do feel I can manage well with moa. I would very much like to get training with far more experienced shooters such as yourself, just $$$ and location......

[@paramounttactical]

@@rabbahhagri1493 and we’re not disagreeing brother. MOA in fact does work. My argument is after have used both quite a bit, MIL is easier to learn, less confusing, and faster in practical application. I’m going to follow this video up with a video demonstrating actually shooting and filmed through the optic. I think that will illustrate the points better. Outside of this topic, if you ever have LR questions, hit me up here or our email is on our website. It’s all about helping each other and getting people out to shoot! 👊🇺🇸 Gary

[@neilb1619]

@userJohnSmith in a base 10 world, MIL and metric makes way more sense...

[@jefflayton5889]

Both have there place, mil=speed, moa=precision. You get finer adjustments with moa. On the clock however mil is faster. It depends on what your planning on doing with the gun. Getting rid of moa would kill precision rimfire.

[@lokisullivan469]

A MOA is just a circle divided into 360 degrees and each degree divided into 60 minutes each. That total 21,600 divisions. When you click 1/4 MOA, that is 86,400 clicks in a full circle. MRAD is divided into 6283.4 divisions. When you click 1/10 of a MIL, that is 62,834 clicks. 86,400 clicks is a finer scale than 62,834 clicks over the same distance. MOA is a finer scale. Math doesn’t lie!

[@rangergreen3995]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

I use, teach both, and understand them both well. So try again. MIL is demonstrably faster, easier to see using holdoffs, and more efficient. Cool, you’re a US Sniper graduate but how long ago? Go see what snipers are using now. Go see what Special Operations are using now. You won’t find an MOA scope in the house. Go see what Todd Hodnett is teaching to SOCOM snipers. I agree with your first sentence. I don’t think you do know about the advancements in shooting. We’ve come a long way from MOA turrets and basic MIL reticles. If you shoot at one target at one distance and time isn’t a factor, sure MOA works fine. If you need to engage multiple targets, at multiple distances, under a time constraint than there’s only one choice. MIL You know why? Because MOA SUCKS! While I am adding a shit talking tone in there. It’s all in a good spirit. We can disagree and it still be all good. I genuinely thank you for your service. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@ellipsis9573]

​@paramounttactical you a being a douche and saying moa sucks, is not an argument. You actually provide no valid argument and now i only see you as an idiot. I will no longer support or watch your channel.

[@joshbrown284]

​@@Fivegunner Wait how can you say turning the dial is the same no difference? If you've got a quarter MOA adjustment versus a 10th mil adjustment and your dialing for say a thousand yards and you need 28 minutes or 8 mils eight times 10 is 80 28 x 4 is 112 that's 32 clicks less It's demonstrably faster

[@joshbrown284]

​@@Fivegunner and just to clarify I use MOA I have no problem with MOA because the type of shooting that I do I have a known distance I set the target out there I'm not under any time constraints I just go do long distance shooting for my own enjoyment by myself I have no dog in this fight because MOA works for what I do but mil is absolutely faster, and when he says that it's more efficient and whatever other nomenclature he uses it's true you're using smaller numbers the scale of your reticle is less cluttered like everything that he's saying is true we can have our preference and stick with MOA because we don't need to switch to mil but for what he's talking about Mil is absolutely a better system. All of the an MOA equals this much at this distance and a mil equals this much at this distance is absolutely irrelevant. I think what he's getting at without being able to put it in layman's terms is that they're all just scales When you look through your reticle if you're seeing inches or fractions of meters you're looking through it incorrectly it's just a scale and you adjust using that scale anyone thinking of it beyond that is doing it wrong I think is what he's trying to say

[@paramounttactical]

@elipse Bye. I’m sorry I hurt you in the MOA feels. 😭 I literally spent the first 3 minutes of this video saying MOA sucks is partly in jest. Are you an actual dude that actually said “you’re being a douche saying MOA SUCKS”? Like when you said that you didn’t feel like you gave up your last remaining manhood? For you to actually get your feelings hurt over “MOA SUCKS” you need to stop eating soy products and go get yourself on Testosterone Replacement Therapy like yesterday. I think you’re in the throws of menopause.

[@gotyobackbro5781]

Thank you for the amazing video. I love the details this channel provides. I am sincerely grateful.

[@PileofBrass]

I'm a long-term shooter, 65 now ,but started at 18. I've always used MOA and all my scopes were MOA until about 4 years ago when I went and observed a PRS match. Everyone was using MIL. If I was a hunter, shooting under 300 yards, it wouldn't really matter much to me since my MPBR would likely be close enough to take care of any adjustment issues. Kentucky Windage took up the slack. Since taking up Prairie Dog hunting and developed an interest in long range targets, I decided to slowly switch to MILs. It does seem to simplify my adjustments. Now, all my scopes are in MILs.

[@ELRas53]

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

[@paramounttactical]

First and foremost, the provocative thumbnail aside, this video was formatted for people searching for “MIL or MOA” and to address the misconceptions that prevent some new shooters from starting on MIL, e.g., 1) You have to know metric system, 2) there’s more math, 3) it’s harder. This videos is not structured or intended to argue for established MOA shooters to switch. I can and I do to some extent in Part II. All that said this video and even Part II has revealed that a LOT of MOA shooters are using MOA based on misconceptions due to a complete lack of understanding of basic long range fundamentals and technical knowledge. MIL is easier and more efficient but most people for what they do would see no difference given how they shoot or what they do regarding long range. Also if people are happy with MOA and see no need to change, they shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t “prefer” MOA based on incorrect info and many do. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@joshuahunt1210]

@@paramounttactical Well..... you spent 9 minutes trying to tell us we have to use Mil because "everybody uses MIL." However, in the hunter's circle very rarely do people use MIL, even when hunting at 600 yards. Nobody with me is using MIL. I'm the only guy with a MIL scope and it's really freaking annoying. So MOA based on that argument......

[@JR-N-TX]

I am an old hunter too. Most of my shots have been under 200 yds. Several years ago, I really looked hard at learning the Mil system. He is spot on about the idiocy of trying to do conversions. I use a lot of metric at work and have for years. Once you learn to think metric instead of converting, a whole new world opens up. So did I switch to Mils? No. I have too much glass set up for MOA, my distantices are too close to matter, and I found scopes with BDCs. A good scope with BDC solves a lot for the average shooter. Kind of like going from a manual transmission to an automatic. Not much thrill, but it can be smooth.

[@bighairyfeet]

Only 300?

[@johannlangner289]

That's my point as well. I won't shoot past 250,so what is the point

[@sohcahtoa33]

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.

[@jtmcfarland3512]

Maybe I’m still a noob, but the minimal math for MOA seems easier to me. The mils example got skipped in the video and it went straight to hold offs. Maybe I’m missing something.

[@erikmckaygunsmithing6470]

@@jtmcfarland3512 math is totally not required at all. Not today! Sniper school yup but all you need is a balistics app. I use strelok pro, set it up properly input everything accurately. Weapon, load used, temp of ammo, weather conditions and direction to target. I have it figure my spin drift and correolus effect as well. I killed the spelling I know. Once set up u tube it if need be. It's a very simple act of ranging a target with a quality range finder buy once cry once here. Don't buy a Walmart Bushnell really look into a good one. I use a nikon black its not the most expensive but ive ranged things with it you can't hit with a gun! Next look for a scope with a good balance of optical clarity, dead on turret system, the features you personally like, and ruggedness and price. This is a huge babbitt hole I know! But everything dont have to be a smitt/bender pm2. Though that's absolutely in the top tier and if you have only one rifle then that's a righteous choice. $3600+ But some others will do just fine in the $500-1000 range Like the Athlon midas tac ffp mil radian 6-24x50 The Athlon Ares ETR ffp mil rad 4-27x56 The Athlon Cronus btr ffp mil rad The Arken sh4 6-24x50 mil rad ffp I shy away from vortex some guys like em but anything above will out perform everything they have up to the razor and the last two Athlon scopes will out perform it at half the cost. I like to spend as wisely as I can. Use good ammo take notes how things perform each outing log weather conditions as well. You'll get a feel for how it does and you get a feel for when to clean for copper buy looking at your targets.

[@michaelhill6451]

@@jtmcfarland3512 I believe his main point was that new shooters have a perception that MOA is better than MIL because they believe you'll be correcting based on estimated distance, converting distance, to angle and correcting off of that. In reality, you'll just be using your reticle to tell you the angular correction to dial or just holding off rather than dialing. That said, he didn't explicitly say this, and I was confused as well.

[@paramounttactical]

@@michaelhill6451 The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@brianrunyon6831]

You haven’t proved mil is faster than moa. Make a video that clearly demonstrates that. Your example with the reticle placement looked to be a tie to me.

[@allene.5306]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

Under no time limits and shooting a single target I don’t disagree with you. Doesn’t matter which you use, but it becomes self evident which is easier and one would say “better” the moment you have people shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges regardless if you’re dialing or holding. The difference in mistakes or the likelihood of making a mistake and miss due to incorrect holds or incorrect dials is very obvious. It’s significantly easier to remember, find, and hold 6.8 , 5.2, and 8.2 than it is 23.75, 18.25, and 28.75. The same goes for dialing. I mean if you never do anything to test practical ease of use and just shoot sitting on a bench shooting one target at a time, of course from your perception there’s no advantage of one over the other. It’s like saying there’s no difference in performance of a Ford Mustang and a Ferrari based on you’ve only driven them both at 35mph in a subdivision. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@allene.5306]

@@paramounttactical It isn't necessarily easier or harder to remember 2/10th vs. .25 increments and the difference in time it takes to spin a turret is a moot point. Same goes for holdovers assuming you're working with a decent reticle. Heck, Leupold's Mark 5 HD rifle scopes (whose Mil-based reticles are graduated in .25 Mils with 2/10th dials) have won a massive number of PRS matches and are being used by a huge percentage of the top PRS Shooters? Remembering .25 holds doesn't seem to be a problem for them. Again, they're both just an angle of measurement and both are easy to use assuming one has the right reticle for the job. I've used both for PRS and hunting. Some people make a really big deal out of MIL vs. MOA but it's literally not a big deal at all to those in the know. They're just angular units of measurement. Ultimately it just comes down to speaking the same language as your fellow shooters. Speaking of shooting under time limits and "my perception"...maybe you and some of your cadre would benefit from coming out and shooting some national 2-day PRS matches and see how you stack up? ;)

[@paramounttactical]

@@allene.5306 that’s a strange argument given something like 90+% of PRS shooters use MIL and there’s more MIL shooters and less MOA shooters every year. That’s not without reason. I know both systems well and can use both systems but all things being equal MIL is significantly easier and less confusing. That’s not opinion, that’s unbiased observation. If you disagree with that, and you obviously do, that’s ok. Life is boring without the mundane to argue about. Thanks, Gary

[@markchapman2585]

He's probably a kid looking things up on Google. ​@paramounttactical

[@jpaul1232h]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

Cool, you do you. At least it helped you with something. You might want to watch Part II though.

[@jpaul1232h]

I will dude! I love your content and stoked I found your channel. Keep up the good work!

[@TomDes-qj9kp]

I'll be looking for a good deal on one of those 'as new' MOA scopes being sold by a new convert to MIL...

[@thedude5258]

So they both do the same thing? But M.O.A is cheaper?

[@paramounttactical]

@thedude5258 that’s like saying red dots and iron sights do the same thing but iron sights are cheaper.

[@geeccc5674]

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?

[@paramounttactical]

You understand you can get a mil reticle that has stadia lines every 2/10ths (Horus and many others)? The finer MOA scale doesn’t make it more precise, just more difficult to see and find the right hold. The same goes for dialing. 6.25 MOA would require 25 clicks the same in MILS would be 1.8 MILS or 18 clicks. Which of those is simpler?

[@dannydivine7699]

Very few people are going to be counting individual clicks, everyone should be reading their turrets and moving accordingly, so says a simple minded redneck no matter the units used

[@paramounttactical]

@@dannydivine7699 I don’t disagree with that but to dial 28 MOA which is equivalent to 8 Mils how many revolutions does that require? It’s not even one rev on a mil turret.

[@tstrongarm77]

@@paramounttactical okay now I'm tracking. My SWAT buddy went to FBI sniper school and rolled his eyes when I showed him my MIL scope. He said it's more precise at distances father than I'll shoot this rifle (18" SPR)

[@paramounttactical]

@@SaneAsylum uhhh no. The MOA crowd keeps moving the goal post and Im addressing those arguments. Fact is MOA users believe and have a fundamental misunderstanding that you can move individual impacts .25 MOA or 1/8th. If you believe that you and you’re not shooting .25 MOA groups you don’t have a basic understand of Long Range Fundamentals. 1/10 Mil is too fine for 99.5% of all shooting applications as well but is more practical and useful than .25 MOA. If speed, ease, and efficiency don’t matter, then which one you use doesn’t matter. BUT… 90% of people are arguing that MOA is better based solely on incorrect information and misconceptions. Too busy arguing to listen. But hey… you do you boo.

[@gettyt8775]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

All valid and true points. 👊🇺🇸 Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@bigcountry022885]

I always told my soldiers that MOA stands for math is off again. Lol

[@MatrixCoreteam]

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?

[@baileymoto]

Do competitive 22lr shooters in your area not use mils? Id say that the vast majority in mine are all using mils. The big KZbinrs who shoot 22 competitively mostly all seem to use mils as well. 🤷‍♂️

[@milo555100]

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

[@frankmcdonnell2060]

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.

[@OswaltSamuel]

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.

[@MrJesussinep]

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.

[@MrJesussinep]

Last time a did was literally last saturday lol. My point is the math are much faster in mil than moa, if im at 675m from the target one .1 mil is exactly 6.75 cm. Its just so quick and simple. @@AB.284

[@johnshipley9755]

it's just a different form of measurement i have two scopes one in moa,and one in mils like both of them.

[@paramounttactical]

It is a different measurement but there are some measurements more suited for specific jobs. You could measure a football field in inches or feet but it’s faster and more efficient to use yards.. and just as precise. There’s a reason not one single top tier PRS shooter uses MOA. There’s a reason 90% of all PRS shooters use MIL (the other 10% or so are new and will end up switching). There’s a reason why thousands of shooters well versed in MOA and invested in MOA optics end up making the switch every day. There’s a reason optics sell in MIL 4:1 with mils market share increasing every year. This isn’t out of popularity, it’s purely performance based. Mil is a different measurement but it’s not equal to MOA when it comes to shooting multiple targets at multiple distance for time. The only place where MOA is the standard are the disciplines that remove all reality from shooting. Disciplines/sports where you shoot a single target at a single distance on a manicured range paved with wind flags. 🤷‍♂️ Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@wizzle0979]

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.

[@MrCryptler69]

The scope I'm buying has a mildot reticle with MOA turrets which makes sense. I can calculate distance using mildots just by the height of the object in relation to the mildots on the reticle. With MOA turrets, 4 quarter turns is a mil which is faster than a Mil turret in adjustments.

[@wizzle0979]

@@MrCryptler69 1 mil is 3.43 MOA. So there’s a significant amount more math involved in swapping between the two measurement styles. Distance can also be calculated using MOA. If you’re going to get a Mil scope get Mil turrets

[@piotrkedzierski6886]

Thanks for convincing me to move over to Rumble to keep enjoying these videos

[@chaseyourdreams4104]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

Dope book is another topic I’m about to cover. I don’t necessarily disagree but hold offs/reticle if used properly are generally more precise than mechanical turrets. It’s a longer discussion, but reticles are easy to get precise even in cheap optics. Mechanical turrets that are accurate are much more difficult and expensive so reticles essentially always track true but a lot of turrets do not. I hold almost everything and don’t worry about dialing 90% of the time. Doing do also forces you to practice hold offs constantly so you get faster and more proficient. The main argument to dial initial DOPE is that holdoffs are easier to get wrong (shooter error) but it is more accurate. So if you practice holding everything, you can train out that tendency toward error and end up being faster and more accurate. There’s additional nuance arguments for and against both but he rally speaking the reticle is always more accurate than your mechanical turrets.

[@gregwhit4032]

Man I’m glad I watched this video. The visuals you used for missing helped it make w

[@benjaminbrown1179]

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!

[@paramounttactical]

The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. MOA is not “more accurate” bc you’re optic doesn’t determine accuracy or the precision in which you can make impact adjustments. I cover that in depth in Part II. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@benjaminbrown1179]

@@paramounttactical hey!... I'll watch it!! Thanks for replying to my reply!!

[@paramounttactical]

@@Fivegunner Cool. Maybe you should ask every top level PRS shooter why they wouldn't even consider using MIL. You're not dumb, you're just ignorant and don't have the experience shooting both to know better.

[@chrisperry4143]

Thanks for spreading your wisdom!

[@spartanxlv]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@PkwyDrive13]

The fact you think MOA reticles are cleaner is baffling...makes no sense whatsoever. They're identical nearly and MIL is actually less cluttered with much smaller numbers usually under 10. MOA has a lot more numbers cluttering it. And precise dialing, they both do the same.

[@spartanxlv]

​@@PkwyDrive13 Not what I meant, exactly. There are more simple duplex scope options with MOA reticles/turrets than with MIL. The clutter from numbers and hashes depends more on the reticle design than MOA vs MIL. It's debatable whether it matters, but it's simply a fact that 1/4 MOA adjustments are finer than 1/10 MIL.

[@RockinRack]

at 100 yards you could get by with a tasco that adjust in increments of tacos

[@dougmorehouse7035]

​@@paramounttactical, We're cut from different cloths... But both passionate about shooting, but YOU'RE WRONG about metric system and MILS, because MILS is based off of the METRIC system, 1 MIL at 100 Meters = 10 centimeters... I'm an MOA guy, use both, but the math in my brain works better in inches, a friend who grew up in Europe likes MIL, because his mind still initially measures in meters/centimeters... As far as dialing goes, with GOOD marked turrets, dialing 80 clicks or 8 MILS, vs 112 clicks or 28 MOA, don't really make that much difference to me, and using the reticle for a holdover is really pretty much same for me... I respect your opinion, and experience, but you're slightly misled thinking MILS isn't associated with the metric system...💯 And as a guy who used math all the time to dose drugs, and keep people alive, I don't mind doing calculations, and am pretty precise with them, which also pushes me towards a slightly more precise measurements. Good video, and explanation despite some slightly misguided info... 👍

[@MatthewSleeper]

Soooo glad I purchased a couple MIL scopes! I wasn’t sure what to purchase so I watched a couple videos and purchased MIL. This video just helps me feel ever better about my decision.

[@wyatttincher292]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

Lol. You have a gun or a shooter that can shoot with the fidelity of 1/8 MOA at 1000 yards? Does that gun and shooter shoot .12 groups at 100? No. But you think you can move a bullet impact with that level precision at 1000 yards while dealing with spin drift, winds, up and down drafts, other environmental differences of that distance, and coriolis effect? I don't think you really understand what you’re saying. A rifle system consists of the rifle, the optic, ammunition, and the shooter and there’s not a single component in that system that can shoot with the fidelity of 1/8 MOA and to get that fidelity you would have to have every single one of those components to shoot with that level of accuracy. 1/10 of mil = .35 MOA (.34 to be exact) which is more than precise enough. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@TheTmshuman]

@@paramounttacticalaim small miss small 😂

[@paramounttactical]

Well, I have a video of me shooting .22 MOA on my masterpiece arms video on Rumble. Lmao, I’ve been to civilian long range courses too. Rifles Only among others. Can you shoot a .25 MOA group at 300? Can you shoot a 1.25” group at 500? Can you shoot a 2.5” group at 1000? The answer is not only NO, but it’s not even close. So why on earth do you think you could move a single round in a specified direction 2.5” if your group is most like 15-20” at 1000? The fact is you don’t even understand what I’m saying bc you don’t have the technical knowledge to even know what you’re arguing about.

[@erichironsson8592]

.1 mil at 100m is 1cm. Use the unit of measurement that maths with the mils, and it is literally easier.

[@paramounttactical]

Mil maths with every unit of measurement. @1000 yards it’s 1 yard. 1000 inches it’s 1 inch.

[@tidelaw195]

Dude. Thank you so much. Buying my first scope and this is exactly what I needed. Not sure it could be explained any clearer even for total noobs. Mil version all the way. Greatly appreciated!!

[@mountainadventures7346]

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!

[@1badombre82]

Agreed that's the fast way to engage targets . He's talking about a rifle that you make individual adjustments for each shot though. Very different application. But 300 yards or less your application is much quicker and plenty accurate

[@chrisRIOT_official]

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

[@davidsalsedo]

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

[@gordongekko4752]

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.

[@William-Bill-Munny]

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

[@paramounttactical]

😂 we can be friends Bill.

[@1badombre82]

My 308 is no fun under 450 yards because it never misses. Your rifle is capable of so much more. Go out and push those limits bud

[@alexuswilliams5426]

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

[@johnpikar4823]

I’d love to hear this guy try and convince people that kph is more effective than mph cuz that’s essentially what he’s doing… like others in the comments, I do not have his duration or level of experience (thank you for your service!) but he destroys his own argument in the video when he says “you don’t have to do the math with mils, you just use the reticle, which is what you should be doing with MOA anyway.” It just sucks feeling like I’m being sold to with no true benefit.. he just wants people to do things his way. And I do agree that a mil reticle with an MOA dialing system is the most obnoxious mind bomb conceivable.

[@paramounttactical]

I’m not “selling” anything. If MOA works for you and you don’t shoot in a manner that you see a need to change… don’t. I knew this video would generate as many haters ascribing some nefarious agenda to me simply bc we have a difference of opinion. But, I thought it was important to make and publish either way. This video is for those looking for answers, not for people happy with their current system. I admittedly don’t think I did the best job explaining everything in this video. Sometimes you have to flush these things out. Watch part II where I attempt to clarify some things. If you have questions after that, I’d be happy to spend as much time as needed to discuss. We may not ever come to a point of agreement, but that’s ok too. We’re all shooters and passionate about shooting, LR, and 2A… so we’re all friends even if we disagree on minor or technical points. Thanks for watching! -Gary MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks Part II - MOA Misconceptions and Myths kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4vTinmJptqentU

[@CoachKalu]

I have both MIL and MOA scopes. I tend mostly toward MOA because I think in inches & find it quicker and easier (for me) to make accurate adjustments with MOA. It's just more familiar to me. 400 yds is the longest shot I have ever had to make. If I had the need to shoot long range, then I would be more inclined to learn the Mil-Rad system.

[@christopherstephens2699]

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.

[@codymitchell5397]

I’ve got the tremor 3 on my mark 5hd 7-35 and it is the most amazing scope ever

[@christopherstephens2699]

@@sdlillystone For windage holds you need to figure out which makes to use for specific wind speeds based on muzzle velocity. You have a relatively large margin for error until you start getting to pretty large ranges, so the speed holds are useful at pretty much any range where they would be meaningful. You aren't likely going to be trying to take one mile shots at targets moving twenty mph.

[@dlpogge]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

Lol, I’ll work on that Dave.

[@johnmiller3006]

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.

[@justinfee819]

That's what I'm looking at buying now do you still like it?

[@dougmorehouse7035]

@@justinfee819 , I know about a dozen guys with Arkens, who shoot long range and all are pleased with them... Many 1000 yard impacts among those guys and myself!!!

[@tyler9881]

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

[@paramounttactical]

Sounds like you heard what you wanted. And MOA is not more “precise”. You need to watch Part II. Does your gun shoot .25 MOA at distance? People are mired in a complete lack of understanding fundamental LR technical facts and concepts. The fact that you cannot reliably move an individual impact with greater fidelity than your group size at any distance is Long Range 101. So by having .25 MOA on your optic and believing it is more “precise”, is like having 200mph on the speedometer of your stock Honda civic and believing it’s faster than a Corvette with 175mph on the speedometer. Watch part II. If you have additional questions or arguments, I’d be happy to discuss those with you. We may never agree, but that’s ok. Thanks, Gary

[@tktnidjet]

I think your practical example actually disproved your premise. It seems like your real argument is just that not having an established concept of the unit conversion will just force you as a shooter to make intuitive changes based on position on the reticle rather than overthinking it and trying to work through complex calculations under high pressure situations. But if you’re using MOA and have all your loads and optics set up for MOA, and you make your adjustments based on placement within your reticle instead of having to do all the crappy math that comes with “Freedom Units” (I’m American, and a patriot, but I HATE imperial!), then you’ll get the same result. Just pick a reticle that isn’t as finely segmented as the one you demonstrated if you're worried it's too busy. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@jakemathews552]

This is the best "why are you booing me, I'm right" Gun world take. Yet simultaneously respectful controversial take. (Not MIL over MOA, just the way his position is phrased). Good content, good me thinking.

[@paramounttactical]

@@jakemathews552 title is meant to be provocative but the content shouldn’t be.

[@alfredhughes8765]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

We're getting ready to get hard and heavy into rimfire. Might be a bit before we start producing content for it but standby.

[@MarkHaase-vg6is]

Moa is easier to estimate distance, at least for me. Guesstimate an assumed target dimension big deer 16"deep chest, big elk 30-32" deep chest, mult by 100, divide by moa read, = approx dist. Super simple and generally close enough for out to 4-500yds.

[@3of11]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

F Class shooters is the most specialized, smallest minority of shooters. Probably safe to say they’re less than 1% of shooters out there. Even some of them do use mil, but your point is valid.

[@paramounttactical]

@@WhoDoe my two favorite are the Tremor3 and the MIL-XT. I have a new Zero Compromise with their MPCT 3 reticle which I really like the design but haven’t used it yet so not ready to fully endorse but in concept I like it.

[@Johnsormani]

They probably also don’t calculate with the 1 inch at 100 yards misconception because they would lose the match (1.047 at 100 yards in reality )

[@pd2865]

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.

[@jasonsponsler21]

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

[@calvin0897]

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

[@paramounttactical]

I’m glad you got value out of it! Welcome to the long range and Paramount Fam! -Gary

[@RemedyTalon]

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

[@paramounttactical]

I couldn’t have explained it any better. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@LtKillerSAS]

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

[@paramounttactical]

I talk about F Class and Benchrest in Part II. I encourage you to watch that. Those are the exception, mainly because everyone in those disciplines useit so it may make sense. The other reason is that between the front rests used in F Class, reloading regimen, and the accuracy being achieved, F CLASS and BR can potentially utilize 1/4 MOA adjustments. You guys are throwing away barrels shooting over .5 MOA and utilize specialized equipment that make MOA more relevant than the average shooter. That said, they do make optics sign .05 Mil adjustments as well. MIL or MOA? MOA Sucks Part II - MOA Misconceptions and Myths kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4vTinmJptqentU Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@codyway7424]

Our F-class scopes use 1/8 moa clicks. Really helps at 1000.

[@stevenkhan4344]

Not a SME at all. But, I always been more of a MRad guy from the beginning. I don’t know why anyone would use MOA. More clicks and calculations aren’t my jam!I also set up my weapons for tactical applications. my weapons are lighter and usually suppressed. Not 18 lb bolt guns with big block of metal for a bipod and 0.5 lb trigger. Use hold off mostly. But if I want a cold bore shot I like to dial in. Easy to get back to original zero w a zero stop too. In addition, range estimation knowing the size of the target (ie door frame, chest width etc) is much easier to calculate w MR. Your video is on point for me. Thanks

[@TheLordNugget]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

That’s what we’re here for, to tickle people’s brains. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@jamessimpson3232]

I agree and I believe that the type of reticle matters more than MOA vs MIL

[@yahusrevus]

The, "I got a bunch of cheap, used MOA scopes so I stick with it." example made me chuckle. As soon as you said it, I immediately thought, "You got them used for cheap because nobody wants them!" and, sure enough, that's what you went on to say. LOL

[@patrickgleason6610]

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.

[@Patrick-857]

Mil just isn't nearly as much thinking. It's especially good of you switch to meters for your ranging ect, because then you can easily figure out that measurement on target in mils x 1000 = distance to target in whatever units you are using. You can do this in feet and inches too, but it's not as easy. Still easier than using MOA and feet=inches though.

[@brettellis1837]

Spot on mate cheers from north Queensland.

[@michaelficarro2591]

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.....

[@paramounttactical]

Well, you are the King of Battle so you can choose as you please. Thanks for your service! 👊🇺🇸 -Gary

[@terrific804]

shooting 8-25 miles LOL

[@user-gz5ip4hw3i]

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

[@mark929rr5]

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.

[@mattdg1981]

As a carpenter I agree. I know that 1/8 is .125 or that 1/16 is .0625. That being said I'm not a pro long range shooter. My longest shot was at 600 yds and that was with an old 243 rem m788. I know what I can do i could care less what everyone else does.

[@charlesmckinley29]

Outside of the long rang competition world it really doesn’t matter. Use what you are most comfortable with and can afford.

[@a10sim]

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

[@resolute123]

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

[@paramounttactical]

That's a good way to put it. "The Metric Myth" lol. Welcome to light.

[@ProudDadVet]

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

[@paramounttactical]

Thanks for watching!

[@14usair]

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!

[@14usair]

I am a novice shooter for long range. The first example with the math going on made sense to me why MOA could suck. For the hold overs i honestly don’t understand why it matters even after watching. Seems like a 6 of 1 half dozen of the other situation.

[@paramounttactical]

Yeah, I don't disagree. I played around with how to go about it a lot. I think its a toss up. Most people you can sell on a concept easier and faster than getting technical first. I'll be posting some follow up videos on this topic to help further clarify. Thanks for watching. -Gary

[@paramounttactical]

@@14usair Because if I tell you to hold 23. 25 vs 6.6, (or dial) the 23.25 will take you twice as long to find. Also because it's a smaller scale, both the numbers in the optic and graduations (on both reticle and turret) are much smaller and harder to find quickly and use with precision.

[@14usair]

@@paramounttactical ah okay got it. So a situation where you’re working with a spotter and not able to kinda call your shots yourself. I see. Im just thinking like… i see my splash i adjust myself. I really haven’t ever got to work with a spotter at all and had to work off their calls as im unable to call my own shots. Making more sense.

[@77thNYSV]

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!

[@paramounttactical]

As a former sniper team leader, Green Beret, LR instructor and a student of LR for over 20yrs,I couldn’t disagree with you more. Fact is for engaging multiple targets at multiple distances, a decent level PRS shooter would smoke all military shooters in almost every practical shooting scenarios. When I got out, that was a hard pill to swallow. This is why SOCOM is abandoning this silly “Service Rifle” nonsense and going outside the military for much better long range instruction and overall mindset. Sure if “service rifle” is your jam, cool. But if you want to actually be proficient and efficient in practical, real works shooting scenarios, then your advice doesn’t hold water. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@jerryhorton2899]

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

[@paramounttactical]

Numbers are just numbers and if all you ever do is shoot one target with unlimited amount of time to setup, I don’t disagree with you. However, the differences and/or advantages of MIL be one self evident when time constraints or multiple targets at multiple distances are involved. 5.2, 6.8, and 8.1 are much easier to find on a reticle or even dial compared to 18.25, 23.75, and 28.25. This is especially true when under stress. Thanks for watching. -Gary

[@jerryhorton2899]

@@paramounttactical I see the point you’re trying to make but if you put the time behind your scope one is no easier than the other. The truth is most people don’t put in the time to know their equipment. But that’s just my .02

[@paramounttactical]

@@jerryhorton2899 I don’t disagree with that statement. Thanks for watching and commenting! -Gary

[@billbbobby2889]

Thank You For the Excellent Education. Knowledge is Power.

[@jeffersonsmith6109]

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

[@dbeardsley0]

Got one moa scope I absolutely love using. It's on my lighter weight 300prc hunting rifle, it's a gen 1 vortex pst 2nd FP, perfect for that application. 6.5 Bergara approach, and heavy rifle 308, 300prc Bergara HMRs all use mil scopes. Arken and Vortex respectfully

[@geordiegeorge9041]

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.

[@GenXmadMike67]

Great video. MOA is fine for police engagement distances which national average is under 100 yards. For military engagements, or competition ranges, MIL is superior.

[@paramounttactical]

@@GenXmadMike67 I don’t disagree with that at all.

[@Quality_Guru]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

I think SFP vs FFP is obviously related but a separate issue. That said, I also think that FFP is far better and I think that’s generally accepted now. In the past (10 or so years ago) I think people looked for arguments not to spend the money on FFP but now that you can get FFP in very affordable optics, the argument for SFP has faded into the background. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@tomcurrie1053]

Personal opinion: If you have a variable power scope with a reticle that has any sort of measurements then the only answer is FFP because all those measurements in the reticle are wrong unless you have the scope set at exactly the one magnification (usually maximum). SFP makes good sense if you have a reticle with no measurements -- such as a plain crosshair or post & crosshair etc. That being said, you have to consider how usable the reticle is for the conditions and the magnification you expect to be using. Not all reticles are practical for all situations. Scope makers are starting to understand that the reticle needs to match the use, but they still respond to what the market wants to buy (where choices are often made from a single picture of the reticle against a plain white background). One of the fancy christmas tree reticles may be good for long distance target shooting, but completely useless for hunting deer in the woods at under 100 yards.

[@gamelord1000]

It really depends on the application you are using your rifle for. For instance, for benchrest competition shooting where you are only shooting one single target multiple times at one distance, using a very fine/thin reticle that is always the same size regardless of magnification (SFP) is much better than a FFP. Usually in that type of discipline, you dial your optic in on test shots to get it set perfectly and then shoot for score. Once it is dialed, you never change anything until you get to your next target. A reticle that changes size will grow large enough that when shooting a close target for pin-hole accuracy, the reticle itself is larger than the hole you are making and it blocks out your point of aim. The same can be said for a hunting optic where you know you will never take a shot over 200 yards. Having a reticle that is always in the same place, and always the same size makes shooting your prey from 20 yards to 200 yards simple and fast. With the right zero, you never need to adjust elevation anyways, so a simple duplex type reticle on a SFP optic could be preferred. For target shooting at multiple distances that will vary constantly, FFP for sure!

[@keithross4511]

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

[@paramounttactical]

Great. Definitely check out Part II! Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@jdrollason]

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

[@mspoc11]

I know people that use both. Charlie Milton uses moa. Im sure you know him if your in the long range community. I learned from him. Mil is great but personally i perfer moa. Most is just preference. I agree the way things are going is mils.I know how to use both. But im hard headed prefer moa its what im comfortable with makes sense to me. Love your videos keep up the good work..

[@bigal9808]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@BornAgain77757]

Excellent video: Switched over to mrad scopes years ago, Owned one moa scope over the years, Mil optics-Perfect combination along with my 6MM CM, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 PRC ..'I'm Well on my way, looking to purchase 7mm PRC and/or possibly 300 PRC. Ofcourse in addition-300 Norma mag, Most accurate, Efficient, Hard hitting, ELD, High BC long range cartridges on this planet!

[@paramounttactical]

Check this out The Ultimate Long Range Rifle? - MPA Custom Rifle kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3Kxpnd5iq2Vnas We’re an MPA dealer and would love to get you setup for ELR.

[@BornAgain77757]

I Failed to mention at least one thing, This Masterpiece Arms is really reasonably priced!

[@paramounttactical]

@@BornAgain77757 they are an unbelievable value for what you get. If they were $1000 more than they are they’d still be a great value. People don’t realize this. You’re literally getting a custom, hand built rifle with unbelievable quality control cheaper than many mass produced rifles. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@BornAgain77757]

@paramounttactical Absolutely, Atleast With no doubt. Excellent Value !

[@BornAgain77757]

Also failed to mention by purchasing such a rifle, one has such opinions of multiple barrel choices, say one, two, three or more, "One rifle/multiple calibers, substantial savings 1k-2k plus everytime one barrel is added, familiarity of lower, etc !

[@evanshall]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

Agreed

[@OneWhoWas]

It's slowly happening over time.

[@db-xp6zw]

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!

[@TreborUSCG]

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.

[@paramounttactical]

100%

[@brucepreston3927]

I have and use both mil and moa optics...For me personally I can use either one at about the same speed, but I have spent alot of time behind each one of them...I do think for a new shooter it is probably better to stick with mil out of the gate...Like you said, most people are switching to mil, so you might as well just get on board with it while you are learning...If for some reason you are dead set on MOA I do think you can become just as proficient with it as mil, but it may take a bit more practice...

[@DR-zj4od]

Let us hope President Trump can get us back to Free Speech.

[@helsfury]

It's the same thing if you're using the reticle hold off. Which you should be doing instead of dialing things in.

[@hiflyinhawaiin]

You made a great argument on why I'll just keep my MOA reticle. You're going to use them the same way for hold offs. Isn't 1/10Mil about .35Moa? So the reticle would move less with each click on an MOA scope then on a Mil scope. Then that means I can't make as fine of an adjustment with a Mil scope. I believe that whatever you can shoot and understand best is fine. Neither is better then the other.

[@paramounttactical]

Cool… you do you boo. The video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those argument in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. As for .36 vs .25 adjustments, you can’t adjust impacts with more fidelity than your group size at any distance. .25 MOA adjustments are pointless. I cover that in detail in part II. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@hiflyinhawaiin]

@@paramounttactical First video I've ever seen of yours and it was very informantive. I'll watch part 2 with interest. I'm strictly a hunter and that's all I'll ever be.

[@cristianocapasso5870]

I really like your videos and your approach based on your experience. This is another example of how you have been trained and successfully apply your training. Having said that there is absolutely no physical difference in using MOA or Mils, the math is exactly the same and it yields exactly the same results. It is just up to what you are used to work with. As a professional that devoted large part of his professional life on optical systems alignment I can tell you that as a physicist I probably will always use milliradians. However, as I shooter I probably will always use MOAs.

[@num1punkdrummer]

Hit the nail on the head in the beginning of the video, asserting new shooters buy MOA due to limited understanding and apparent ease of use when being explained. I would still consider myself a novice long range shooter, no competition shooting, no real world application) but have now had some time behind my platform. My issue comes from your explanation of the real world situation. You do the calculation with MOA, assuming target sizes and converting to clicks, then simply use the optic for a hold over, then when you go to the MIL optic you skip the entire portion of calculation and only show the hold over method, which with both systems is much easier. It’s a bit of misrepresentation of the two systems if you don’t approach the problem the same with both. At a known distance and unknown size target, it’s just as complicated to calculate the amount of MILS to dial without holding over as it is with MOA. In fact, I’d argue it’s more complicated if you’re an American trying to equate MIL values using yards and not meters.

[@paramounttactical]

The intent there was to quickly demonstrate for a new shooter that the practical use of a Mil optic is just as easy as an MOA. Mil in reality is easier, faster, and more efficient but I kept the scope of this video fairly narrow due to the intended audience being new shooters searching “mil vs MOA”. So getting far into the weeds with more technical aspects doesn’t make sense. These are guys just trying to figure out which scope to buy and which system to go with. Clickbait, provocative thumbnail aside, this video was intended to address the 3 most common misconceptions I hear from new shooters that are hesitant to go with mil. 1) you have to learn the metric system. -You don’t. 2) Mil is harder - it’s not 3) Mil requires more math - it doesn’t and I’m never doing math on the range. Even your reply (this isn’t even a criticism, or talking shit, just observation) is filled with assumptions. If you’re looking down range and saying, oh, I missed by 18” at 600 yards now I need to do a calculation to determine the clicks I need to get on target…. You’re doing it wrong. There’s so much misconception and bad practices floating around regarding long range and then perceived fact because of a lack of formal training and long range fundamental technical knowledge. YT is full of folks that learned all their long range from guys on KZbin that learned all their long range from guys on KZbin. The responses from this video have been illuminating and I plan on turning it into a series covering and addressing many of these comments/misconceptions. I already have Part II up (I encourage you to watch) and plan on at least 3 more. People have spent too much timeon videos trying to learn black belt level LR and have completely skipped the fundamentals so it’s not that they’re ignorant, they just know so much that isn’t so. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@num1punkdrummer]

@@paramounttactical thank you for the response. I will absolutely check out your new and upcoming videos. I am, unfortunately one of those guys. No formal training, I learned most of what I know from the Sniper 101 series by @TiborasaurusRex. Incredibly useful information and gave me the information to take confident cold bore shots on targets over 1,000 yards. I used that example because that’s the one you used in your video. No shit talking from me either, your opinion carries much more weight than mine. I just found it a tad misleading you only demonstrated holding over on the MIL optic and didn’t show the complexity IF you calc’d the mil correction without using your optic, you did for MOA, I argue you should for MIL as well. I believe both systems have the ability to work extremely well, we just all need to decide on one, that way whoever we meet and shoot with, communication isn’t an issue. Thanks for the content! Excited to see more of it. Sidebar; interested in a Vortex Gen II 4.5-27 w/ an MOA reticle? 😂😂

[@paramounttactical]

@@num1punkdrummer Understood. No misleading intended. If you're using your reticle correctly.. as in using it to measure adjusted impacts, there's no need to do any calculations at all for either MOA or MIL. The example was given on the MOA bc that's how people explain or used to use MOA. ie, "I missed by about 12" at 600 so I need to adjust by 2 MOA". That's the wrong way to do it for either system but that simple explanation sounds like a good argument for an American to go to MOA. I miss should be calculated by the reticle. If I miss and I my reticle says I missed by 6 MOA I use it to adjust 6 MOA. If using mil and I see I missed by 3 mils, I adjust 3 mils. There should be no guestimation of miss by inches then convert that to moa or mils. That was my point. That example is one of the primary examples used to argue that MOA is better for Americans and it's a convincing argument to a new shooter. I was illustrating that's not how misses should be corrected to begin with so there is no advantage of moa in that regard. For the mil example, there was no calculation required, I measure the miss with the reticle, and moved the reticle that amount for a follow up impact. Thanks, Gary

[@num1punkdrummer]

@@paramounttactical I totally understand the point you are trying to make. Completely agree you shouldn’t be making adjustments based on distance missed on a target. Using the reticle to gauge your miss and using a hold is much faster, no disagreement there at all. Honestly, no disagreement period, haha. As a guy who’s used MOA, and looking to add several more premium high magnification optics to my arsenal, and thinking of switching to MIL, I do have a few questions. Appreciate all the time you’ve given already, and maybe you make this a separate video as I’m sure others have this thought. I know the argument is you don’t need to learn the metric system to use MIL, but it lends itself to centimeters so nicely, do you use meters and centimeters on your initial calculation for target acquisition, or do you use yards and inches? As in, I understand working in follow up shots you use the reticle to gauge your miss, but often times in real world situations you only have the first shot, and that’s the most important one. When you’re ranging your target for a successful first shot, are you using meters or ranging in yards and converting? Thanks again! Very interested in the application of MIL optics moving forward.

[@southernblueblood5402]

I was sold on no math, subscribed and going to rumble 😊

[@paramounttactical]

😂 my fellow jelly brain. Welcome to the fam! -Gary

[@anthonyhuntsinger3215]

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.

[@djcaptkirk]

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

[@mariusolivier7439]

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

[@codyvickers967]

Yeah I watched with interest, generally prepared to be convinced. But after listening to your explanation, it just translated to "I learned to shoot long range with mil and therefore that is best". I like the finer adjustments with moa, down to 1/8 moa clicks with some of my scopes. And every instance you showed using the reticle for holding could be done equally well with a moa optic. Maybe I'm just old and it's because I started shooting distance in the 80s and moa is what I know. But I am not afraid to change if you can show me a better or more precise way, but I'm still convinced after this that moa is more precise and can't see where it will cause me to miss targets, short of a spotter calling adjustments in mil when I have no idea where my last shot landed. Know your dope and roll what you learn on. Mil isn't wrong, I just have far more experience with moa and I find the math to be easy.

[@paramounttactical]

Well for the record that’s what everyone said about Glock, red dots, or any other innovative improvement in the industry before they’re willing to evolve. All that said, this video was made and formatted (click bait/provocative title aside) for primarily new shooters searching “mil or MOA” and structured to address the 3 primary comments/misconceptions people have that make them hesitant to go with Mil. 1) You have to learn metric system - you don’t. 2) Mil is harder to learn - it’s easier, faster, and more efficient. 3) You have to do more math - You don’t. As for the holdoff demonstration I said it could be used for but it was for people thinking they should estimate misses in inches and then convert to MOA. The video intent and structure wasn’t to argue with current MOA users or convince people to switch. I can easily make those arguments in numerous ways and I do start to touch on that side of it in Part II which I encourage you to watch. I also plan to make multiple more videos to highlight the many advantages Mil has over MOA. For practical shooting MIL is again faster, easier, more efficient. But, if you’re happy with MOA, have no desire to switch, shoot F Class or Benchrest, you shouldn’t switch. Fact is most people don’t shoot in a manner that requires efficiency, they don’t shoot multiple targets at multiple ranges or put themselves in time constraint scenarios so it doesn’t matter which you use. But, for the vast majority of shooters, people that either do shoot that way or would like to be able to engage multiple targets at multiple distances with efficiency, there’s an overwhelming number of ways MIL is a far superior choice. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@paramounttactical]

@@Fivegunner I it’s not. Mil optics are able to engage multiple targets much quicker than MOA. That’s a fact. So, it couldn’t be more applicable. I’m sorry you don’t have the experience and knowledge to understand the analogy. It’s ok. Keep watching, we’ll get you caught up. Maybe…

[@MazzaJ]

Thank you for telling me about Rumble! I didn't know it existed till today!

[@alexmook6786]

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.

[@samueljohn7746]

I listened to someone explaining MOA and MIL and I almost bought MOA scope if I didn't see this. Their example made it sound like 1/4 MOA was 4 clicks vs 1/10 mil 20 clicks making 1/4 MOA more efficient and quicker in the field. What are your thoughts. I still don't get it not know enough about MOA or MIL but I'm gonna take your word for it and just get my first scope in MIL. Thanks.

[@paramounttactical]

@@samueljohn7746 get mil. It’s so much easier and more efficient. You’ll be glad you did. -Gary

[@RonsChann]

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!

[@paramounttactical]

It wasn’t for free. You have to Like, Subscribe, and pledge an unborn son to me… now I made it weird. You know what, just watch all the videos and tune into the podcast and we’ll call it even. Thangs for watching! -Gary

[@RonsChann]

Going to do better than that tbh. Going to try and buy something off your site eventually. Before I found your channel I bought a Masterpiece Arms MPA BA PMR off Gunbroker in 6GT and a Christensen MPR in 6MM Creedmoor so I am broke. But I will need something sooner or later. By the way, you sure you were in the Army? I was in there 7 years and you sound much more intelligent than my teachers lol! @@paramounttactical

[@RonsChann]

I replied but it did not go through maybe. Perhaps youtube struck a blow for freedom.... er censorship. Thanks again sir. @@paramounttactical

[@paramounttactical]

@@RonsChann 👊🇺🇸🫡

[@magman687]

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

[@paramounttactical]

The video may be old but truth is timeless. Thanks for watching! -Gary

[@jamesspiker6261]

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

[@paramounttactical]

Here’s my scope mounting video with instructions in part 2 how to VERIFY whether or not your scope is mounted perfectly. As for rings, I don’t recommend them. I recommend a 1 piece mount. A one piece mount removes a lot of variables. If your setup for some reason requires rings, buy good ones. If you’re buying MDT, Seekins Precision or something like that and they’re $200+ rings, you really shouldn’t have a problem.

[@maribelmartinez6413]

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.

[@Nathanpettit22]

Great video!

[@jamesmatters8605]

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