# Spotters Calling Hits/Misses with MOA or MIL

Discussion in 'Long Range Hunting & Shooting' started by Scot E, Feb 18, 2011.

1. ### Scot EWell-Known Member

Messages:
1,316
Joined:
Mar 1, 2008
For those of you that use spotters to call shots, I would really like your input on this.

I have always been a lone shooter and and a MIL based fan, thinking that the MIL reticle/turret setup with 1/2 MIL hash marks and .1 adjustments is about the ideal combination for a long range rig. I just like everything it offers, i.e., uncluttered reticle, turret adjustment coarseness, and pretty easy math.

I think if a guy is spotting his own shots or if his spotter has a scope or spotting scope with the same MIL reticle then the MIL system is ideal.

However, I watched Shawn Carlock's videos this week and he brought up a point that got me thinking about the potential benefits of MOA if you have a spotter that doesn't have a matching reticle in his scope or doesn't have a reticle at all to use through the spotting scope. In this case it seems much easier and faster to estimate the miss in inches and quickly calculate the MOA adjustment needed without any ranging reticle. So for a 1200 yard target 1 MOA is approx 12 inches so if a guy misses by 12 inches he needs a 1 MOA correct, 18 inches is a 1.5 MOA correct, etc.

If a MIL reticle or turret was being used there would be considerably more work involved to estimate the miss in inches then calculate what the MIL adjustment would need to be. For speed of the followup shot isn't the MOA system quite a bit better in this example?

I guess the reason I am thinking about this is I have not shot with a spotter before but will be soon as I have a son that is going to be shooting and hunting with me and a newer shooting buddy that wants me to teach him long range shooting and I am just trying to figure out what is going to be best in this example.

Input appreciated.

2. ### rscott5028Well-Known Member

Messages:
2,608
Joined:
Apr 18, 2010
The principles are the same.

So, it comes down to personal preference based on your experience and the equipment you have on hand.

That said, most of us in the US are familiar/comfortable with inches although it doesn't hurt to learn the MIL system in order to be well rounded.

3. ### SBruceWell-Known Member

Messages:
1,786
Joined:
Oct 31, 2009
I've used both, and I found the MOA system to be easier for us to do the math quickly and relate to things in inches as well as moa if desired.

I think as time goes by, and more companies make moa reticles, people will begin to see just how easy and quick it is. Especially those of us in the US who think of things in inches and inches per hundred yards. (not exactly true moa, but close enough for most purposes, most of the time.)

My hunting partner and I were doing alot of shooting/spotting from 700 to 950 yds this past October, and a moa reticle isn't very cluttered at all at those distances.

4. ### sp6x6Well-Known Member

Messages:
3,085
Joined:
Dec 8, 2009
I favor mil and my now 16 yr. old son has a few seasons with me. I have tmr reticule and he has one of my older mildot. I have a leupold spotter and I can have either tmr or mildot installed,and will soon.We spot for each other when we can

5. ### sscoyoteWell-Known Member

Messages:
1,269
Joined:
Feb 26, 2003
Learn and teach it all. It's always nice to know the angular measurements anyway, especially when communicating with others.

We were out trying to zero a buddies gun on a tgt. last week. He had a leupold 6.5-20x VX-III on top of his rig with tgt. turrets and plex reticle. From using that optic in the past i knew what the plex post tips subtended at 20x (1.4 MOA). When my buddies kid shot he was trying to figure out how many 1/4 MOA clicks to adjust left to achieve his 200-yd. zero. I told him to just measure it in the reticle. He said 2x crosshair to plex post tip. I said that would be 2.8 MOA. So he just adjusted his turret 2.75, and he hit the tgt. he was shooting at (a rock). I use my reticles frequently as measuring devices.

Last edited: Feb 20, 2011
6. ### mthunter86Well-Known Member

Messages:
57
Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
For what its worth, i eliminate math troubles when callings shots in mills related to distance by using meters as my unit for distance. crossing metric and imperial measuring systems is where the problem always starts.

7. ### SBruceWell-Known Member

Messages:
1,786
Joined:
Oct 31, 2009
As I stated earlier, I've used both. I learned mil before I learned moa.

I truely believe moa or IPHY is a better system, especially when talking about small amounts. We judge a miss or a wind drift or even some holdovers in inches naturally (at least most of us do). It just comes natural to refer to things in inches and therefore converting to shooters minute is easier................Even target size is referred to in inches (example: the X ring is 10" wide, that deer is 20" from back to belly, wind's gonna push us 5" left, gotta hold about 3" high at 300, ect,ect.) Who calls a miss by 1/3 mil unless they are trained to and have a mil reticle??? Besides, 1/3 mil is a pretty substantial miss IMO........it's nearly 10" at 800 yds.

Now if we're trained to think in cm and meters and mils and measure target size in yards.........that's another story.........Or, if the spotter also has a mil reticle they're looking through, then it doesn't make any difference. He calls a 1/2 mil miss to the left and the shooter then dials or holds a 1/2 mil right. Same scenario when they both have moa reticles.

Problem comes when they have different reticles or the spotter has no reticle.
Problems also come when the scope adjustments don't have the same units as the reticle. Imagine your spotter calling out a 1/3 mil correction and you the shooter having 1/4 min clicks (which I believe was kinda the original point of this post)........I can't convert 1/3 mil to 1.15 moa in my head in a couple seconds during the heat of the moment........how many can?? Same goes for calling a miss in minutes and the shooter having 1/10 mil clicks...............they need to be the same for lack of confusion and efficiency/speed.

1mil=3.44 moa, 1moa= .29mils..................these aren't easy numbers to juggle around in a hurry in my head. But, a 10" miss at 800 yds easily and quickly converts to 1 1/4 minute in my head. (not exactly, but very very close)

Sorry to be so long winded. It's obvious to me, but I seem to have trouble making it obvious to others. Hopefully that kinda answers your original question.?

Last edited: Feb 20, 2011
8. ### Scot EWell-Known Member

Messages:
1,316
Joined:
Mar 1, 2008
I agree with your points and that was pretty much what I was thinking and why I posted. I don't have issues with using MIL but in the original examples I gave, when there is a miss the miss will be seen in inches for most guys in the US. Converting inches to MOA correction in those examples are faster and less likely to have errors IMO than seeing the miss in inches then doing the math to factor to mils. Again, I get that either way can be done with practice, and I use both methods, just trying to figure out which is going to be easier for newer shooters that don't have matching reticles to the spotter or don't have a ranging reticle in their scope at all. I think in most cases MOA will be easier and have less chance of error.

Thanks for sharing.

9. ### SBruceWell-Known Member

Messages:
1,786
Joined:
Oct 31, 2009
You're very welcome,

I am glad that what I was trying to say made sense. Seems like most of the time when I talk mils and minutes (even to fellow local hunters) they usually give that "ok,......he's way out there" look.

10. ### Scot EWell-Known Member

Messages:
1,316
Joined:
Mar 1, 2008
Just got done reading your mule deer post. A couple really nice bucks! There are a lot of animals that get me fired up but a big mule deer buck is at the top!