Need Help Deciding on Aiming Methodology

[RockyMtnHigh]

Hello all,

This is my first post, and, admittedly, I am a complete novice. I live in Western Colorado, and I am looking to get into to long range shooting. By way of background, I've been a wing shooter and deer hunter my entire life.

In researching the subject, I'm realizing I have a lot of questions that I can't get definitive answers to. My first question is if you are a complete novice that hopes to practice a lot and work hard, what type of aiming methodology would it be best to start on if you hope to master it? In other words, MOA or Mil-Dot?

I know it is a subjective question, but, before I invest in a rifle and optics, I thought it would be best to have a plan of attack on how to train to and this seems like something I should figure out before proceeding to acquire dedicated equipment.

If it helps, I have a strong math background, and I have read up on both methodologies to a limited degree, so neither is intimidating, although I know what I really need is a lot of practice.

Thanks for your help.

 

[sp6x6]

It is not going to matter which system. Both work the same. I use mil and am minority , on poll on this site.Use search system here to look up stuff you want to know. Snipers hide has a good article. Using the mil based scope.Read all the shooting form tech tips here. Best is shoot at a club and find a mentor, and watch and learn. Lots of places have clubs and there are LR classes offered off this site.

 

[fr3db3ar]

Since the majority of scopes are MOA that is what I choose to use.

I prefer mil-dot for holdover and windage.

 

[grit]

I prefer MOA for a couple reasons.

I'm accustomed to thinking in inches. There is no hesitation, no translation when making corrections. 1 MOA is easy to keep track of at varying yardages. example, 1moa = 6 inches at 600, 10 inches at 1000. A mil is 36" at 1000 yards. Divide 36 by varying yardages and keep track of it instinctively?

Who wants to do math in multiples of 3.6? Lets say there's a buck at 800 yards and we want to know how wide he is. You measure his antlers at 3 minutes and multiply by 8" to get an aproximate width of 24" Now with the mil system. The buck is 3/4 of a mil. So, 36" X.8 X.75=?? Or, 3.6x8x.75=?? I could get out a calculator, but, I allready quit the mil and finished the MOA.

If you have a scope with a mil system and one with an moa system (turret and reticle), It will be the same to dial the correct elevation with the turret, measure a correction with the reticle, and make a corrected shot with reticle or turret. However, in pressured shooting situations I have found MOA much more instinctive to use and keep track of. No doubt, if you worked with mil enough it'd become automatic. I believe MOA the easier system.

 

[Broz]

I prefer MOA for a couple reasons.

I'm accustomed to thinking in inches. There is no hesitation, no translation when making corrections. 1 MOA is easy to keep track of at varying yardages. example, 1moa = 6 inches at 600, 10 inches at 1000. A mil is 36" at 1000 yards. Divide 36 by varying yardages and keep track of it instinctively?

Who wants to do math in multiples of 3.6? Lets say there's a buck at 800 yards and we want to know how wide he is. You measure his antlers at 3 minutes and multiply by 8" to get an aproximate width of 24" Now with the mil system. The buck is 3/4 of a mil. So, 36" X.8 X.75=?? Or, 3.6x8x.75=?? I could get out a calculator, but, I allready quit the mil and finished the MOA.

If you have a scope with a mil system and one with an moa system (turret and reticle), It will be the same to dial the correct elevation with the turret, measure a correction with the reticle, and make a corrected shot with reticle or turret. However, in pressured shooting situations I have found MOA much more instinctive to use and keep track of. No doubt, if you worked with mil enough it'd become automatic. I believe MOA the easier system.

I use MOA as well and Grit gives a very good answer. So a big +1

Jeff

 

[emn83]

While my current scope is Mil and I keep a pocket calculator with me for the math, My next scope, when I get my build done, will be in MOA, I just find it easier

 

[SBruce]

Another +1 for Grits' response.

I started using a mil reticle in the early 90's and found it wasn't all that easy to range coyotes or measure things at a distance with them (not game size things anyway). Not very intuitive or quick for me. I picked up a Nightforce in the mid 90's that had an moa reticle, and I've stayed with it ever since.

With todays' quality of laser rangefinders out there, it's not as critical and lots of people are getting by with the mil reticle and mil adjustment system quite well........I wont be one of them. MOA and IPHY has become so user friendly and ingrained in my mind that I personally just don't see mil as a better way.

Problem is that not as many scope makers offer moa reticles, but their numbers are growing.