MOA to MIL - did you switch?

[dfanonymous]

I didn't say spotting your shot isn't optimal, I say if I can see where I hit YES that is optimal. but I am saying that seeing said miss is of dramatically less value when hunting. ie animal runs off, or there are conditions which prevent seeing where the shot landed, which is likely hunting in the mountains or in the high desert sage brush. of course ideally I want to see the miss, but seeing a miss isn't as likely in the field hunting, the shooting positions you are likely shooting in also making recoil of the shot more difficult to deal with. you are likely also shooting a rifle with more power.

seeing a miss is more likely and of way way more value in a tactical/range setting, because in those situations you always get as many shots as you wish to take. the misses are easier to see at a gun range that has had many shots go into the target berm behind the target.

as for ranging, I use a swaro EL range at all times while hunting. instant range value at almost all times. the shots fall into 2 catagaries, point and shoot, ie less than 300 yards. or steady rest (most likely prone rested) and dial. at which time I crank scope to max power.

Personally I don't care what you do but I think the definition of "tactical" is skewed.
Prs is competition. It's not tactical. ERL like ko2m is not tactical, it's competition. They use similar techniques ( of following their shots)

Tactical is setting up a OP, OBs, or phaselines, helo insertions off the Y, and many other little things that no one heard of. Tactical shooting is being prepared to be hunted back when hunting humans. It's not a linear subject.

But it really has nothing to do with the flat range and how one holds or their technique to follow through and spot their shots and get ready to make follow up shots. Using a reticle for what it was designed for I don't believe makes a shooter "tactical."

 

[milo-2]

Let's see...
All my paper targets are in inches.
My steel targets are in inches.
My ammo drops on the box are in yards.
My rangefinder is in yards.
Benchmarks for my rifles accuracy are in MOA, as in 1/2 MOA, 1/4 MOA, etc.
At 100 yards, 1 MOA very closely equates to 1 inch.
At 500 yards 1 MOA is in all shooting practicality 5 inches.
And at 1000 yards 1 MOA is again in all practicality 10 inches.
So I am smarter to use Mils?

Lol, I struggled with this same logic, other than I have yet to buy a box of ammo with drops on it.

 

[skipglo]

Ok, I understand the basics of both systems.

But what I'm really interested in is for those who have made the switch. Were you happy? Regret your choice? Stick with it or go back? Why?

Love Mil.....far less dialing gets you on quicker...shot Moa for forty years before I switched them all

 

[User4302021]

As I see it, one shouldn't really be using math with either system when in the field. Well unless you are using the reticle for ranging, but that is very rare when hunting. If I was able to spot my miss, I just measure with the reticle and correct by hold off with the reticle or dialing the correction, doesn't matter what the system is at that point.

I do realize that Mils are easier to convey between the shooter and spotter. As in, it is easier say and understand something like "5.2 Mils" vs "17.75 MOA". But I think that is about it. Which, I think is one of the big draws for PRS guys. Other than that the differences aren't worth fighting about.

I do a lot of my longrange practice on distant canyon wall and rock faces. It is super easy for me to measure my groups through a MOA reticle and equate that with how well my rife and me are shooting, so I use an MOA reticle.

The math comes in the wind doping. I don't use a 10mph reference chart or a kestrel, or any other kind of program. I use a simple method to figure my wind that uses some small math, but it is very quick, and I don't have to memorize anything.

Furthermore, I can have multiple students with radically different cartridges on the same firing line and make accurate wind calls for all while alternating between them. I haven't made a wind chart in years, and I shoot cartridges as diverse as 204 Ruger, 223, 308, 30-06, 300win, and 338AX.

When I make a mistake it is because there was some wind I didn't see, or a direction change I didn't pick up on, not because the math was wrong.

 

[flylo]

I just 6 Athlon Ares 4.5-27x50 Mil BTR FFPwith the Christmas tree redicle For $400-$424 ea.Best scopes I've owned. Some complained thhe clicks we're not loud & firm. Found out they had very heavy grease in the turrets so 5 min & a Q tip & they're as firm & load as any & super great glass! You can see the reticles below. Love 'em!!

 

[User4302021]

its funny you make that assumption, I have 2 NXS 3.5-15's with MOAR reticles. I just bought a ziess v4 with MOA 2 reticle, I also have a huskemaw 3-12 The closet thing to generic is mil dot, I have a nightforce compact and a nikon in mil dot. I use all these scopes for holding off for wind. I use the latter 2 for holding off for elevation too. My long range hunting is mainly coyotes in the winter. some big game but big game is more boring to me because there are only a few more bucket list animals I want to shoot and those are tuff tags to draw. every scope I use has on a regular basis has some sort of holding reticle. I hunt public land, high deserts, mountains etc. Load development is my only use for a gun range.

that is why misses me so little to me. I get one shot most of the time, like I said sometimes the animal gets confused on where the shot was from. then I get more than one, but the animal always moves, well almost always

So now you have crawfished on all your original assertions.

mil just makes people feel cool, because the military uses it along with the seal team 6 wannabees that shoot 20# rifles, 40mm main tube scopes that weigh over 4 pounds, off fake barricades. it really doesn't matter they are both units of measurement. if you miss and you live in america you are going to say in your head, I missed by 3 inches or I missed by 8 inches. the mil guys say use the reticle as a ruler blah blah blah. umm ok good luck with that when the gun goes off under recoil, LOL. don't let anyone make you feel guilty about using MOA. if I was from another country that used the metric system. then yeah mil is what I would choose. but being an american and thinking in inches. its MOA as my first choice. yeah I can use mil's too but prefer MOA

You say that MILS just makes people feel cool like wannabe's, but you say using MOA is about being an American. An equally assenine assertion if both are just angular units of measurement to be used at will.

You put down those who use the reticle as a ruler if they spot thier shots, then admit that you can't spot your own shots. Then you admit that you actually DO use the reticle as a ruler for holdovers, and even for wind on the first shot. You just don't have very good luck with getting a second shot it seems.

You equate MILS to metric and MOA to inches and yards, inspite of the obvious fact that either is equally adaptable to either system. Given the sheer numbers of shooters in the US, more people use MILS with yards than with metric world wide.

You seem to love 1/4's, 1/8's, 3/4's and 1/2's, but can't seem to fathom why anyone would ever want anything divisible by 1's and 10's.

 

[Barrelnut]

The math comes in the wind doping. I don't use a 10mph reference chart or a kestrel, or any other kind of program. I use a simple method to figure my wind that uses some small math, but it is very quick, and I don't have to memorize anything.

Furthermore, I can have multiple students with radically different cartridges on the same firing line and make accurate wind calls for all while alternating between them. I haven't made a wind chart in years, and I shoot cartridges as diverse as 204 Ruger, 223, 308, 30-06, 300win, and 338AX.

When I make a mistake it is because there was some wind I didn't see, or a direction change I didn't pick up on, not because the math was wrong.

Glad I'm not a student.

 

[Deleted member 48126]

Why do people equate Mils to metric? I assume they think Mils means millimeter?


edit: figured it out. MILLI....disregard

 

[Barrelnut]

You'd be amazed at the number of people who think it has to do with mil-spec or military.

 

[flylo]

It's Mil-Radian & has nothing to do with metric. Ignorance is Bliss & long winded.

 

[sturner]

I see MOAs and I'm old and hardheaded and stubborn so I spent a butt load on a kahles in MOA against my gun smith advice
But I still see MOA

 

[dfanonymous]

You'd be amazed at the number of people who think it has to do with mil-spec or military.

Apparently just cummings cowboy. I think the majority of frequent viewers on here understand that moa and mrad are non- linear in math. They do not follow metric or imperial, they are as asserted, angular in nature. Mrad can be used for at 1cm for 1/10 at 100 YARDS...it just lines up that way. It's coincidence. It's .9999 at 100 METERs. 3.6 inches at 100 yards, 36 inches at 1000. It makes no difference how you use it as long as that dog hunts.

 

[milo-2]

Glad I'm not a student.

The guy may be a little outspoken, but I have yet to see in any of his posts where his facts are not solid.

 

[sturner]

The guy may be a little outspoken, but I have yet to see in any of his posts where his facts are not solid.

Bet you money you would learn something in his class