jotrot
Well-Known Member
looking for feed back on the ones who went to mills for hunting small game and big game.
thanks for your time,
joel
thanks for your time,
joel
moa or mills for hunting
- Thread starter jotrot
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
ShtrRdy
Well-Known Member
Both mils and moa are a measure of an angle. They both do the same thing. I'm mostly a mil guy but I can see the point of many people using moa. An moa is very close to 1 inch at 100 yds.
gohring3006
Well-Known Member
I have used both... I like Mils better. Which ever one you choose, get the turrets to match.. I use the mil hash or dot reticle to see how far my shot is off and quickly adjust the mil turrets and be on target....
I'm currently working on spotting my own vapor trail with a low power setting on my scope. It's tough, I was able to spot my trail about 50% of the time yesterday.... The low power Mil hash adjustment only works on a Front focal plane scope if a variable power scope is used..
I'm currently working on spotting my own vapor trail with a low power setting on my scope. It's tough, I was able to spot my trail about 50% of the time yesterday.... The low power Mil hash adjustment only works on a Front focal plane scope if a variable power scope is used..
jotrot
Well-Known Member
thanks, I use moa now and have for long time.
I went to another site and found the info that I was looking for and there are a few things I like about using mils.
thanks, joel
I went to another site and found the info that I was looking for and there are a few things I like about using mils.
thanks, joel
Wind Gypsy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 158
Like others said, it doesn't matter as long as your reticle and turrets are on the same page.
I like mils a little better for a couple small reasons - the #'s are easier to communicate and think in and it makes for cleaner reticles (usually). That said, I should try to get all my scopes to mils rather than half and half just to aid in thinking in one consistent unit.
I like mils a little better for a couple small reasons - the #'s are easier to communicate and think in and it makes for cleaner reticles (usually). That said, I should try to get all my scopes to mils rather than half and half just to aid in thinking in one consistent unit.
I went back and forth on this too with my new NF NXS. The best explanation I found somewhere was if you usually think in yards and feet MOA will be more natural and if you think in meters the MIL will be more natural. I'm a yards guy so I stuck with MOA.
I'm not saying any of that is true for everyone I'm just saying it made sense to me in that context. I'm #1 a hunter and just trying to add intermediate to long range precision hunting to my hunts. There are some folks here that are #1 precision shooters who have hunting to enhance that and that's okay too.
~Robert
I'm not saying any of that is true for everyone I'm just saying it made sense to me in that context. I'm #1 a hunter and just trying to add intermediate to long range precision hunting to my hunts. There are some folks here that are #1 precision shooters who have hunting to enhance that and that's okay too.
~Robert
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
It's more a personal choice mostly, I prefer MOA as I can communicate and function much better in MOA than Mils. MOA is a finer value so you can dial closer to a degree. Mils make absolutely no sense in my brain, I can look at something and think in MOA but mils is just a horror show for me. I do have mil optics but I can only function basing everything of the reticle and turret, I find it easier to hit my dial point faster with MOA with only four points vs ten. It's little points than make either one work better for one guy or another.
engineer40
Well-Known Member
It really does blow my mind that so many scopes are still sold with a reticle that doesn't match the turrets. Usually seems like this is MOA turrets with a Mil reticle. I read a decent explanation once on why someone might want that setup and it did make sense for that isolated case. I can't remember what it was now though.
I tell any of my friends that are getting into longer range shooting, just go with a Mil/Mil scope and you'll never regret it. I know I haven't. Pretty much all of mine have been converted to Mil/Mil now.
I like to bet them I can zero a new scope in 2-3 shots.
I'm sure most on this site know how to do that by using the reticle. However most of the general public have no idea how you could do that.
It appears on this forum, MOA is quite popular. On some other forums, Mil is the more popular choice.
It "seems" to me that the industry is moving more towards Mil. But that is 100% just my opinion and may not be true at all.
I use Mil on ranges that are marked with yards (not meters) quite often. It's just an angle of measure. No difference that I can think of.
Hope this helps.
I tell any of my friends that are getting into longer range shooting, just go with a Mil/Mil scope and you'll never regret it. I know I haven't. Pretty much all of mine have been converted to Mil/Mil now.
I like to bet them I can zero a new scope in 2-3 shots.
I'm sure most on this site know how to do that by using the reticle. However most of the general public have no idea how you could do that.It appears on this forum, MOA is quite popular. On some other forums, Mil is the more popular choice.
It "seems" to me that the industry is moving more towards Mil. But that is 100% just my opinion and may not be true at all.
I use Mil on ranges that are marked with yards (not meters) quite often. It's just an angle of measure. No difference that I can think of.
Hope this helps.
gohring3006
Well-Known Member
I agree, I put in a certain yardage in my app, and it will tell me #.# Mils and I dial it, and hit... Metric and yards has nothing to do with it for me, but... Like everyone has stated, it's different for everyone, and the important thing is knowing a preferred method is key.... If a person is taught with MOA, it's senseless to switch unless you're like me and quickly get bored, and want to keep it a learning experience... Having said that, once I switched to Mils, I will never go back..It really does blow my mind that so many scopes are still sold with a reticle that doesn't match the turrets. Usually seems like this is MOA turrets with a Mil reticle. I read a decent explanation once on why someone might want that setup and it did make sense for that isolated case. I can't remember what it was now though.
I tell any of my friends that are getting into longer range shooting, just go with a Mil/Mil scope and you'll never regret it. I know I haven't. Pretty much all of mine have been converted to Mil/Mil now.
I like to bet them I can zero a new scope in 2-3 shots.
It appears on this forum, MOA is quite popular. On some other forums, Mil is the more popular choice.
It "seems" to me that the industry is moving more towards Mil. But that is 100% just my opinion and may not be true at all.
I use Mil on ranges that are marked with yards (not meters) quite often. It's just an angle of measure. No difference that I can think of.
Hope this helps.
jotrot
Well-Known Member
thanks guys you have been great, I do have 2 high end scopes in moa that im tired of bouncing around to other rifles, im thinking of getting swfa ss 3-15x42 and giving mils a try since it is reasonably priced.
thanks, joel
thanks, joel
Ive used Mil for more than ten years now and its a bit courser.I like that it is easy for me to memorize my main drops in mil because of the tenths 7.2 gets me to 1000 and Im still on first revolution on my scope.Like to use spotters with mils and just call the mil adjust .My sons in Marines and we roll the same and been spotting for each other for years,thats your best asset for mil or moa is good spotter.Im also ffp
br45zy
Member
A MIL/MIL scope will work just fine for hunting.
Both MOA and MILRAD are angular measurements and you really don't need to think in yards or meters to be effective with either one. You need to think of your shooting solutions and shot corrections in MIL or MOA. Most shooters that are getting started in long range are fine with calculating shooting solutions in MIL or MOA using a rangefinder, some type of weather meter for atmospheric data and an app on their phone. The problems show up when they try to call shot correction in inches or (rarely) in centimeters (and the fact that they probably don't know their true muzzle velocity and aren't getting accurate atmospheric data).
One MIL subtends 3.6" at one hundred yards and one meter at 100 meters. 0.1 MIL subtends 0.36" at one hundred yards and 1cm at 100 meters.
One MOA subtends 1.047" at 100 yards and 1.145" at 100 meters. 0.25 MOA subtends 0.262" at 100 yards and 0.286" at 100 meters.
Some may argue that MOA allow for a finer and more precise shot solutions (which it does) and others argue that MIL is faster to dial and requires fewer clicks than MOA for a given distance (which it does). The truth is that these differences really don't matter outside of benchrest competition. The easiest choice is to use the same system that your shooting friends use so that everyone is speaking the same language and not having to do conversions in your head when your spotter calls you shot correction in the opposite system that you're using.
The best advice I can give is to always have the turret and reticle match and make sure the reticle has fine enough subtensions to allow an accurate wind hold (assuming you plan to dial elevation and hold wind). A MIL reticle can be a little harder to use if it is only subtended every 1.0 MIL than a reticle that is subtended every 1.0 MOA. On the other hand a reticle that is too noisy can be even harder to use quickly if you find yourself having to count dots/ticks/lines/dashes to get the correct hold.
I own both and use both and can say that if you think and speak in MOA or MIL they will both put your bullet on target.
I'm glad you didn't ask about FFP or SFP reticles.
Both MOA and MILRAD are angular measurements and you really don't need to think in yards or meters to be effective with either one. You need to think of your shooting solutions and shot corrections in MIL or MOA. Most shooters that are getting started in long range are fine with calculating shooting solutions in MIL or MOA using a rangefinder, some type of weather meter for atmospheric data and an app on their phone. The problems show up when they try to call shot correction in inches or (rarely) in centimeters (and the fact that they probably don't know their true muzzle velocity and aren't getting accurate atmospheric data).
One MIL subtends 3.6" at one hundred yards and one meter at 100 meters. 0.1 MIL subtends 0.36" at one hundred yards and 1cm at 100 meters.
One MOA subtends 1.047" at 100 yards and 1.145" at 100 meters. 0.25 MOA subtends 0.262" at 100 yards and 0.286" at 100 meters.
Some may argue that MOA allow for a finer and more precise shot solutions (which it does) and others argue that MIL is faster to dial and requires fewer clicks than MOA for a given distance (which it does). The truth is that these differences really don't matter outside of benchrest competition. The easiest choice is to use the same system that your shooting friends use so that everyone is speaking the same language and not having to do conversions in your head when your spotter calls you shot correction in the opposite system that you're using.
The best advice I can give is to always have the turret and reticle match and make sure the reticle has fine enough subtensions to allow an accurate wind hold (assuming you plan to dial elevation and hold wind). A MIL reticle can be a little harder to use if it is only subtended every 1.0 MIL than a reticle that is subtended every 1.0 MOA. On the other hand a reticle that is too noisy can be even harder to use quickly if you find yourself having to count dots/ticks/lines/dashes to get the correct hold.
I own both and use both and can say that if you think and speak in MOA or MIL they will both put your bullet on target.
I'm glad you didn't ask about FFP or SFP reticles.
