Why the love for MOA?

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by ICANHITHIMMAN, Aug 26, 2011.

  1. ICANHITHIMMAN

    ICANHITHIMMAN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,380
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    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
     
  2. SBruce

    SBruce Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,786
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    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.
     

  3. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    599
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    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.
     
  4. SBruce

    SBruce Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,786
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    +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.
     
  5. LouBoyd

    LouBoyd Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    770
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    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.
     
  6. Camshaft

    Camshaft Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    554
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    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!
     
  7. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    599
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    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.
     
  8. newmexkid

    newmexkid Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    601
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    How would your math work for a coyote or a PD? I like the way you simplified it.
     
  9. Boss Hoss

    Boss Hoss Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,843
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Edited
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
  10. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    599
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    [​IMG]


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

    ICANHITHIMMAN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,380
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    I have 2 of these scopes its a mil based system
     
  12. bigngreen

    bigngreen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,840
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    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 :D
     
  13. mike33

    mike33 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    898
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    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.
     
  14. SBruce

    SBruce Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,786
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011