Do you hunt with MOA or MRAD scope , and why ?

[Deleted member 48126]

MOA because I was raised in America and not Europe!

MOA is from the Middle East.

 

[azarcher10x]

Doesn't really have a lot to do with Europe. The MIL system was commonly used by the military. Back in in the day, soldiers were trained on MILs mainly for distance estimation. If you're comfortable with mils, shoot mils. MOA has been the standard in the western civilian world as long as I can remember, since it more closely relates to inches. (1.05" @ 100 yds.) Once again, if you're comfortable with MOA, shoot MOA!

 

[mwkelso]

At 1000 yards the MOA vs 1/4" difference amounts to less than 1/2 an inch. There is twice the error between mills VS MOA at 1000 than between MOA VS 1/4".

Actually, moa 1/4 click is a finer adjustment than a 1/10 mil. 1/4 MOA is .2625 @ 100 yards. 1/10 MIL is .360 @ 100 yards. Just shoot what you're comfortable with. Personally, I prefer MOA in a FFP scope for hunting.

Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it.

 

[Greyfox]

I have used both with good success, but the difference that pushes me to MOA for hunting is the reticle scaling for windage holds. For hunting, I dial for the longer shots and use the reticle for wind holds. The MOA windage(and elevation) scales are generally 1/3 that of the MIL scales. For my typical wind corrections if 1-5MOA, the resolution is easier to acquire compared to using only the (bunched up)1.5 MILS of a 10 MIL scale. Conversely, for PRS/Tactical competition, the more condensed elevation scale in the MIL reticle lends itself better to the fast work required with targets of varied distances.

 

[User4302021]

resolution is easier to acquire compared to using only the (bunched up)1.5 MILS of a 10 MIL scale. Conversely, for PRS/Tactical competition, the more condensed elevation scale in the MIL reticle lends itself better to the fast work required with targets of varied distances.

I can't stand the .2mil wind ticks on most new mil reticles. Too busy for me. I find the .5 mil markings of the TMR much faster and just as accurate.

 

[JimmyCP]

Lol here we go again. Black truck or Blue truck, which one rides better?

 

[gcamp54]

I use MOA because that is what I started with many years ago. I would probably go with Mil/Mil if I were starting today.

 

[T3ninja]

How often do you go without a RF to take advantage of a ffp or avoid the one setting on a sfp? Seems we mostly use them now days.

I always have a range finder, unless I forgot it of course. Knowing the distance is one thing but having to have a scope set on "16" (example) power for my windage lines to be correct is silly to me. I RARELY shoot in the field on high magnification. I feel like a bigger field of view, and the ability to spot a hit/miss while still having wind holds is incredibly valuable. (Talking FFP VS SFP)

 

[Litehiker]

MRAD (Bushnell Elite LRTS 4.5 - 18 x 44, G3 illuminated reticle)
That's because I compete with a MILRAD scope and know the way it works.
Eric B.

 

[17Tactical]

For past few years Mil/Mil is what I use (NXS 5.5-22x56). Really like the new MIL-R.
We shoot some various distances out to 1200 yards on the farm we have access to and we do some yardage estimation with the reticle. The MIL-R reticle works good for me.

 

[dsculley]

It really doesn't matter. You print your dope chart in the system you are using. x.x mils at whatever yardage, or x.xx moa. You just dial the turret to the proper setting. Wind in x.x mils or x.xx moa. Again, you estimate wind and either dial the turret or hold off the given amount. If you are using an electronic aid, it will tell you in the system you are using how much to dial/hold off.

I have used both, I don't really see an advantage in either system. FYI, 0.1 mil is a more coarse adjustment than 0.25 moa (0.36" at 100 yds vs 0.25"). My primary scope is now in mils simply because they did not have the moa version in stock when I ordered it. I have taken it to 1,100 yds on steel targes with no issues, out to 500 yds on white tail deer with no issues.

If you are using either one for yardage estimation, good luck. Rarely do you know the exact size of the target you are ranging, which makes yardage estimation a very rough estimate.

 

[Starlite]

I use MOA as that's what I've always used and prefer. I've used scope of each flavor but since I hunt/shoot using a range finder and ballistic app. it just doesn't matter. I can adapt if need be.

I agree. That's the great thing about the new range finders and ballistic app's today. I'll give a great example of how they can perfectly mesh together a shooter and perhaps a spotter who grew up using two different systems. My Sig sauer 3000 BDX binoculars/rangefinder can be set to either MRAD or MOA (user preference) and if you also have the compatible scope it can be set the opposite. Or if your using a kestrel 5700 with a Garmin 701......again with the SS 3000BDX the information that ends up on your wrist can be either MRAD or MOA Binocular/rangefinder.
If the spotter is better at judging distance in MOA for follow up shots but the shooter is looking thru a MRAD scope then there will definitely be communication problems. However if everyone is in the same system then it really doesn't matter.
As a lone shooter I'll never take a long range shot again without the assistance of my Sig sauer system it's been dead on no matter the bullet, scope, SFP/FFP or MOA/MRAD I've used

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I think and see in moa. Whenever we get a mil scope in on a customer rifle I am lost. Totally reliant on the ballistic app. I know it shouldn't be that difficult. Guess I am just an old dog. I was thinking last summer about putting a mil scope on my rifle and forcing myself to learn. It would only be good if my shooting partner does too. I'll just stick with the moa. I second most of the thoughts on ffp vs sfp. I use both, but ffp makes much more sense. Low power is for short range and the reticle is just a cross hair at that point. Upper powers it is very usable at any power.

 

[FEENIX]

Both! With apps, it makes it easier to transition to and from.