Why the love for MOA?

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

The thread started by Jason from US Optics got me thinking. I had never realy been concerned with MOA or MILS until I got into this Longrange hunting thing. Also never been the best math student. But I find doing everything in MILS makes life much more simple.

So I guess I'm wondering why everyone is so pro MOA? Its MIL/MIL for me and I would just like to here some thoughts on why you like MOA better?

Jon

 

[SBruce]

IMO, MOA is the simpler of the two.

I've used them both also, Mil originally then bought my first NF scope in the mid 90's. The NF had moa, and it's much quicker/simpler to use in the field for ranging/measuring target size than the mil scopes were. The math is much more intuitive, especially when reverting to shooter moa or IPHY. Reverting to IPHY is really quick and easy to do in my head............not super precise, but reticle ranging has never been super precise anyway, at least not on game animals. We need to know their exact size for it to be really accurate.

1/4 moa is more precise than 1/10 mil, and it's easier to visually break down a separation between dots/hashes into 1/4's then it is to break in down to 1/10's.........at least it is for me.

MOA reticles are "busier", which some dont like, but that's the only downside I can think of.

 

[Loner]

I have a better question, why the love for mil? Without charts, calculators or mildot
masters it's unusable for me. Shooters moa I can do in my head if I have to. Even
true moa it's just a matter of knocking 5% off at the end of the equation. I use both and
have charts made up so I'm not all that stuck on iphy I just prefer it. As well I do a small
amount of surveying and degrees, minutes and seconds are familiar to me.

 

[SBruce]

I have a better question, why the love for mil? Without charts, calculators or mildot
masters it's unusable for me. Shooters moa I can do in my head if I have to. Even
true moa it's just a matter of knocking 5% off at the end of the equation. I use both and
have charts made up so I'm not all that stuck on iphy I just prefer it. As well I do a small
amount of surveying and degrees, minutes and seconds are familiar to me.

+1

I deal with degrees and levels of degrees all day at work too. IPHY is so easy and quick.........night and day compared to mils.

Example: Assuming a big Muley buck is 20" back to belly, and he covers 4 minutes in the scope........20/4 = 5, or 500 yds. Then minus the 5% and he is 475 yds away. Very simple, very intuitive and very quick. He's really 477 yds away, but 475 does the trick.

Try to range various size targets (small hunting size targets) with a mil dot scope and in your head.........not nearly as easy.

 

[LouBoyd]

If you want long range accuracy spend your time learning to dope wind, not worrying over MILs vs MOA. A ballistic calculator can handle either system with no error.

My advice is to pick either system (usually the one you're most familiar with) and stick with it for all of your firearms. You may be able to tell a MIL from an MOA reticle visually, but it's difficult to tell 1/10 MIL from 1/4 MOA target knobs by feel. Not realizing which you're using will guarantee misses.

I've used 1/4 MOA target knobs with MIL-Dot reticles for about 30 years. The Baush & Lomb 4000 10x40 mil-dot was the first I used and is still a good scope. I have many other scopes with MOA knobs, so I really don't want a scope with MIL knobs. It woud be very confusing.
That's why I prefer MOA target knobs.

I've recently started using Horus mil-grid reticles which eliminates the need for twiddling target knobs and counting clicks. My favorite is the H37 which gives two degrees of of drop capability. It's a much faster system than using target knobs but gives the same precision with less chance of making errors. The only problem is that no one (including Horus) has made a scope which allows the reticle to be used to it's full capability.. For that the eyepiece needs a vertical offset adjustment which no manufacturer has offered.

 

[Camshaft]

If my target is far enough away that he needs to be ranged, Im not going to be using a reticle anyways, I use them purely for wind holds. I dont care which way, mil, or moa. Whatever is cheaper to manufacture, and saves me money!

 

[Loner]

I had to pass on two nice antelope in my life due to snow and cold. The electronic range
finder was worthless in both incidences. I couldn't tell by eye if the animals were 300 or
500 yards. Call me slow but after the second time I learned how to use my scopes.

 

[newmexkid]

+1

I deal with degrees and levels of degrees all day at work too. IPHY is so easy and quick.........night and day compared to mils.

Example: Assuming a big Muley buck is 20" back to belly, and he covers 4 minutes in the scope........20/4 = 5, or 500 yds. Then minus the 5% and he is 475 yds away. Very simple, very intuitive and very quick. He's really 477 yds away, but 475 does the trick.

Try to range various size targets (small hunting size targets) with a mil dot scope and in your head.........not nearly as easy.

How would your math work for a coyote or a PD? I like the way you simplified it.

 

[Boss Hoss]

Edited

 

[Loner]

Keep it simple, it's in Iphy or shooters moa.

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

.
I've recently started using Horus mil-grid reticles which eliminates the need for twiddling target knobs and counting clicks. .

I have 2 of these scopes its a mil based system

 

[bigngreen]

I learned to make calls in MOA and I like the finer resolution on the knobs. Stickn' with what I know works, if it ain't broke don't fix it

 

[mike33]

I learned moa and donrt even care to try mil. I tried reading on it and cant get interested. I just thought of mil as ancient and dificult needing to do to much math. just because the military does it dont make it right.

 

[SBruce]

How would your math work for a coyote or a PD? I like the way you simplified it.

Well, before we had rangefinders that worked past 400 yds, I used that same math on coyotes. Fact is, hunting coyotes was the reason I started using graduated reticles. First, I wanted to know the distance or approximate distance, and second I wanted to know where to hold without taking the time and additional movement of dialing knobs.

Nowdays, everyone's got a rangefinder and they work way further than reticle ranging is accurate.........But, they don't work if the battery goes dead or if the snow is coming down heavy or if it's thick foggy.........conditions that are entirely possible when calling coyotes.

Most of the mature coyotes I've measured are about 9" back to belly. Prarie dogs vary alot, especially in the summer when the pups are out, but mature prarie dogs are about 4" wide at the base when standing and somewhere around 12" tall. Animals in different parts of the country may be different sizes though.

Target Size / MOA covered in scope = Distance
Distance X MOA covered in scope = Size of Target...............If we know the distance, the target size can be determined.

Again, this is shooters moa, not true moa. A 5% factor needs to be subtracted/added for true moa. But from 300 out to 500 yds, maybe 600 yds on bigger game, when the rangefinder can't be used...........the reticle will still work so long as we're steady. An aproximate range is better than no range at all. Before we had reliable rangefinders, my coyote hit percentage (beyond 300 yds) went up alot due to using the reticle. Now if someone would just come out with an IPHY reticle and IPHY adjustments; that would just be too simple.