Is there anyone who prefers MOA vs MIls for hunting purposes?

[mxgsfmdpx]

You can with a mil reticle scope.

The amount of folks with even "some" training on this are usually not within, let's say a 12" Mule deer vital zone once you start to close in on 300ish yards (yes the true "vital zone" is/can be larger). Shooting at rocks the size of an elk that stand still and stick out, with no pressure and no time limit, sure you'll get hits, maybe, with practice and a good known/reticle and gun/load. Or with somebody well trained with a good/known MIL reticle in a spotting scope is the real way to do this.

In my opinion (which doesn't even really matter haha) you have to be very high level and practice weekly, to be able to judge and then only use your reticle to come up with a range. Then you have to shoot into a vital zone in field conditions where elite guys who shoot in the mountains weekly are really only 1.75-2.5 MOA shooters as it is.

Say a guy and his rifle/scope setup is a 2 MOA "overall system" in the mountains under pressure (these are RARE despite what youtube tells you) and you've estimated through your reticle that a mule deer is 350 yards away. You already have 7" of "potential error" just in the shooter/gun, compounding with whatever error you've introduced with your "yardage" being slightly (or greatly) off. I guess what I'm saying is, it leads to a whole lot of misses in what I've seen.

I'm not at all saying this is "bad" to practice or put into use... But to say that average Joe is going to start using his MIL reticle in his rifle scope to come up with ranges and reliably kill? I'm sure you're already well aware that this is not realistic.

 

[CCoble]

It is for me. All my scopes are MOA, and I am too old (and retired) so I can't afford/don't wish to replace them with MIL scopes.

Making the switch after being established with one is the worst!

 

[eric1115]

If you can wrap your head around the quick math of MOA I think it is easier for most. The reason being, most of the time your hunting partner is going to give you a miss correction in inches. Something like you’re 8” low. So at 800 yards your quick and ROUGH correction would be 1MOA. Or at 400 yards the correction would be 2MOA. The math is not exact but the quick rule of thumb with MOA is 1” per 100 yards = 1 moa. Example - 100yards 1” is 1MOA. 400 yards 4” is 1MOA.

I personally think this is easier for most to understand in the hunting world.

I used to think this way too, but have changed my opinion. What is the advantage in your mind of converting the linear measurement to angular? Why not just estimate 8" on the target and hold there? To me the opportunity for error figuring out how many MOA 12" is at 460 yards outweighs whatever precision you might gain by knowing you need to hold 2.8 or whatever it is (I think I'm a little over but wanted to write whatever my best guess was with a few seconds processing time). I'd way rather estimate 12" and send another shot.

The other side of that coin, is that for most rifles at most ranges, a 0.1 mil per 10 yards range rule works really well. So if you get a solution and dial, then the animal goes 30 yards further away before presenting a shot, you can add .3 mil and shoot without having to recheck your solution. Even if you don't use quick drop that part of it is really useful.

Also quick wind is really really nice.

 

[eric1115]

Making the switch after being established with one is the worst!

Did you try to switch?

I dabbled with it a few years before switching (was still in the inches per hundred yard mindset) and felt the same way, but after learning about wind/gun numbers and quick drop I tried it again and holy cow was it better. Leave linear stuff linear and angular stuff angular, and watch all the pieces fall into place.

 

[CCoble]

I used to think this way too, but have changed my opinion. What is the advantage in your mind of converting the linear measurement to angular? Why not just estimate 8" on the target and hold there? To me the opportunity for error figuring out how many MOA 12" is at 460 yards outweighs whatever precision you might gain by knowing you need to hold 2.8 or whatever it is (I think I'm a little over but wanted to write whatever my best guess was with a few seconds processing time). I'd way rather estimate 12" and send another shot.

The other side of that coin, is that for most rifles at most ranges, a 0.1 mil per 10 yards range rule works really well. So if you get a solution and dial, then the animal goes 30 yards further away before presenting a shot, you can add .3 mil and shoot without having to recheck your solution. Even if you don't use quick drop that part of it is really useful.

Also quick wind is really really nice.

In my opinion it’s more for an accuracy thing. From what I have seen when giving corrections. People tend to either over or under judge their hold if they are trying to hold inches. So if I say come up 8” a lot of times they will come up 15” and now we are in the same boat we were the first time lol. Where as if you can quick dial 1MOA into the gun from what I have seen the follow up shot tends to hit home more often. But this is just what I have seen and experienced and is obviously not true for everyone.

I also personally shoot MILS for most of my competition rifles because I agree the wind is much simpler and I prefer to work in tenths in that world. But I still think most people understand moa easier for hunting.

 

[CCoble]

Did you try to switch?

I dabbled with it a few years before switching (was still in the inches per hundred yard mindset) and felt the same way, but after learning about wind/gun numbers and quick drop I tried it again and holy cow was it better. Leave linear stuff linear and angular stuff angular, and watch all the pieces fall into place.

Partially yes! I almost exclusively run mils for competition shooting. But I do still run moa for hunting and for NRL. Partially because I’m stubborn and partially because it just clicks for me haha.

 

[Jordan Smith]

You can with a mil reticle scope.

I don’t think I would call it very precise, but it can be done, yes.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Mil subdivisions on a military compass are 6400, so it is an approximation of 2 pi x 1000

US Army makes that approximation, but the USMC and all scope manufacturers that I’m aware of use true mrads.

 

[Kurts86]

But I still think most people understand moa easier for hunting.

It isn’t they understand MOA better it’s that it’s the only system they know. They don’t have a frame of reference using both.

 

[Jordan Smith]

If you can wrap your head around the quick math of MOA I think it is easier for most. The reason being, most of the time your hunting partner is going to give you a miss correction in inches. Something like you’re 8” low. So at 800 yards your quick and ROUGH correction would be 1MOA. Or at 400 yards the correction would be 2MOA. The math is not exact but the quick rule of thumb with MOA is 1” per 100 yards = 1 moa. Example - 100yards 1” is 1MOA. 400 yards 4” is 1MOA.

I personally think this is easier for most to understand in the hunting world.

Then help your hunting partners stop using the least precise system possible, and move towards a system with a common reference frame (corrections in proportions of the target, based on common reticle subtensions, etc.)

 

[CCoble]

Then help your hunting partners stop using the least precise system possible, and move towards a system with a common reference frame (corrections in proportions of the target, based on common reticle subtensions, etc.)

Completely agree! I was speaking more towards the average situation. I think it’s fairly safe to say 8/10 hunters are going to call a correction in estimated inches vs using something more precise. That usually comes with some other building blocks in the shooting world. IMO

 

[CCoble]

It isn’t they understand MOA better it’s that it’s the only system they know. They don’t have a frame of reference using both.

I can’t say I agree there. I feel that MILS is not as clean when going from inches to mils vs inches to moa. And when talking about hunting and corrections I would estimate that most people are going to say a correction in estimated inches of error. Not all! But that’s just my 2 cents.

 

[Kurts86]

I can’t say I agree there. I feel that MILS is not as clean when going from inches to mils vs inches to moa. And when talking about hunting and corrections I would estimate that most people are going to say a correction in estimated inches of error. Not all! But that’s just my 2 cents.

There is no need to convert to inches. Converting to inches is a non value added step. You just measure with your reticle and correct regardless of units.

 

[atmat]

People tend to either over or under judge their hold if they are trying to hold inches. So if I say come up 8” a lot of times they will come up 15” and now we are in the same boat we were the first time lol.

It’s not just the shooter, it’s also the spotter who is likely off. This is the primary pitfall of giving corrections in inches. No one should be “estimating” linear units from hundreds of yards away.

Heck, people can hardly even estimate length of something that’s in their hands very accurately.

 

[CCoble]

It’s not just the shooter, it’s also the spotter who is likely off. This is the primary pitfall of giving corrections in inches. No one should be “estimating” linear units from hundreds of yards away.

Heck, people can hardly even estimate length of something that’s in their hands very accurately.

I don’t disagree. But that doesn’t change the fact that it happens!

 

[longrangelead]

In my opinion it’s more for an accuracy thing. From what I have seen when giving corrections. People tend to either over or under judge their hold if they are trying to hold inches. So if I say come up 8” a lot of times they will come up 15” and now we are in the same boat we were the first time lol.

^^^^^^THIS RIGHT HERE!

People think they are adjusting in inches or MOA. However, my experience has been people's visual approximation of inches at distance varies person to person and gets worse as distance increases.
One shooter might call a correction of 8 inches and the shooter corrects 12 inches because neither is using a ruler or at best a SFP reticle is usually the situation.
NOBODY I have ever hunted with had a reticle in the spotter so estimations were purely subjective to their judgement relative to target size estimation. Animals vary in size enough to skew correction estimation PRECISION. sure it's close, but error stacking...

The spotter should give the correction ACCURATELY to the shooter so it's just dial and shoot, or hold more reticle and shoot.

The goal is as precise as possible right?

There are products out there to build a very efficient system, why not make the most of every situation?

 

[CCoble]

It’s not just the shooter, it’s also the spotter who is likely off. This is the primary pitfall of giving corrections in inches. No one should be “estimating” linear units from hundreds of yards away.

Heck, people can hardly even estimate length of something that’s in their hands very accurately.

I don’t disagree. But that doesn’t change the fact that it happens

There is no need to convert to inches. Converting to inches is a non value added step. You just measure with your reticle and correct regardless of units.

that is only correct if the shooter spots and see’s their miss. Most guys shooting a magnum caliber in a lightweight rifle do not stay on target to spot the shot. Again I am not discrediting what you are saying because you are absolutely correct. But unfortunately the average situation is a secondary person calling out a correction that is more often than not an estimation of inches. Hence the ease of conversion being a positive benefit.

 

[eric1115]

Heck, people can hardly even estimate length of something that’s in their hands very accurately.

Well when mm is the most appropriate unit of measurement I'm bound to be off by a few.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

It’s not just the shooter, it’s also the spotter who is likely off. This is the primary pitfall of giving corrections in inches. No one should be “estimating” linear units from hundreds of yards away.

Heck, people can hardly even estimate length of something that’s in their hands very accurately.

There's these videos I've seen on youtube of carpenters, random people, etc. and they are told to pull a certain amount of inches out of a tape measure. This is a tape measure right in front of their face, just without being able to see the numbers, facing the back of the tape and reaching out and pulling it up.

The amount of folks who get within an inch when told to "pull out 12" is slim to none. Even guys who cut lumber nominally every single day.

And we have guys on here suggesting that folks hold 5" higher or lower on camouflaged deer/elk hair at 500 yards. It's honestly, asinine haha. Now if someone said, hold half target high, or half target low, or hold on the top of spine, etc. while still not "precise" at all, is at least something potentially "attainable".

 

[atmat]

The amount of folks who get within an inch when told to "pull out 12" is slim to none.

Totally. I’ve had plenty of people guesstimate “oh it’s about X inches” on small household items and been shocked by how far off they are.

Most people can’t be within 10% of accuracy guesstimating how far 500 yards is… yet then somehow expect to be accurate down to the inch on individual items at 500 yards.

Its crazy.