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

[HuntHarder]

Same.. Range, dial and shoot. Mils or moa. Same, same.

 

[Iukamedic]

I don't think most people can shoot the 0.1" difference honestly. If you're a world-class benchrest shooter, go MOA.

Not exactly what I meant. There is probably more than .1 difference in my hold from on shot group till the next. How many mils is in 1/2 inch. You are either over or under. That is not significant at 100 yards. But the farther you get out the more it grows. You take into consideration wind, distance and elevation error and just plain ole human error and it grows any more. I’m not a world class bench shooter.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Not exactly what I meant. There is probably more than .1 difference in my hold from on shot group till the next. How many mils is in 1/2 inch. You are either over or under. That is not significant at 100 yards. But the farther you get out the more it grows. You take into consideration wind, distance and elevation error and just plain ole human error and it grows any more. I’m not a world class bench shooter.

If that mattered to any practical degree, I feel like 99% of the PRS guys wouldn't be using MILs. Or I guess if you're a person who cares about what the military does, them too.

 

[HuntHarder]

Not exactly what I meant. There is probably more than .1 difference in my hold from on shot group till the next. How many mils is in 1/2 inch. You are either over or under. That is not significant at 100 yards. But the farther you get out the more it grows. You take into consideration wind, distance and elevation error and just plain ole human error and it grows any more. I’m not a world class bench shooter.

I am a moa guy but I can assure you the .11" difference in a tenth of a mil vs. a 1/4 moa is not noticeable by 99.9% of people. It is not really a reason to shoot moa over mil.

 

[goalie]

As long as the reticle matches the turrets, it works.

I personally think mil and base 10 is easier, despite being old, but I understand people not wanting to switch if they have been using MOA since the 80's

 

[Formidilosus]

Some things have been said in this thread that opened my eyes to better understanding. I have both mil and moa scopes and can use either with dope. In my opinion Mil is a better small number dialing than moa but Moa is more precise. Moa seem easier for a more precise zero at 100 yards because of measurements in .25 inch vs .36 inches.

The largest possible difference in zero POI between .25 MOA and .1 mil adjustments is .055” at 100 yards. You are not adjusting your zero to that level.

 

[06 SB]

Either you're a world-class benchrest shooter or it's your brain.

It is definitely my brain.

 

[Iukamedic]

If that mattered to any practical degree, I feel like 99% of the PRS guys wouldn't be using MILs. Or I guess if you're a person who cares about what the military does, them too.

Prs use mils because the dialing is less and the continuity with other shooters. The same reason service rifle shooters like myself use Moa is the continuity between other shooters. Just thought it was a conversation forum. Sorry to ruffle feathers.

 

[eric1115]

Lots of reasons why some choose mils over moa. Your example is not one of them imo. A rounding error will be greater in mils than it will be in moa. If you round down vs. Up with mils in attached picture, you'd be off .09 mils. If you incorrectly rounded using Moa and went up instead of down, you'd be off .21 moa. .09 mils is roughly .31 moa. View attachment 921887

For me the conversion from decimal on a ballistic rangefinder to ¼ moa on a dial is not an issue of precision, but one of focus. To me, when the rangefinder spits out 5.63 moa, the 5.5 vs 5.75 error is a non-issue, but the decision to use one or the other takes more focus than going up from 2.45 to 2.5 or down from 2.44 to 2.4 mil.

That focus can absolutely be better used on other parts of my pre-shot routine.

I also find myself using quick drop a ton, even with a ballistic rangefinder especially when shooting different guns. I'll keep my long range rifle profile loaded, and just use quick drop with the .223 rather than switching profiles.

I don't even use the wind output from my rangefinder, just wind brackets. It's faster for me than waiting for the number in the viewfinder, and allows me to adjust my hold while in the scope as wind changes.

 

[HuntHarder]

For me the conversion from decimal on a ballistic rangefinder to ¼ moa on a dial is not an issue of precision, but one of focus. To me, when the rangefinder spits out 5.63 moa, the 5.5 vs 5.75 error is a non-issue, but the decision to use one or the other takes more focus than going up from 2.45 to 2.5 or down from 2.44 to 2.4 mil.

That focus can absolutely be better used on other parts of my pre-shot routine.

I also find myself using quick drop a ton, even with a ballistic rangefinder especially when shooting different guns. I'll keep my long range rifle profile loaded, and just use quick drop with the .223 rather than switching profiles.

I don't even use the wind output from my rangefinder, just wind brackets. It's faster for me than waiting for the number in the viewfinder, and allows me to adjust my hold while in the scope as wind changes.

My main point was rounding errors have the ability to be more costly with mils. Not that I truly think rounding errors are a big deal. As far as which way to round with moa. It really doesn't matter to 99% of hunters. Being off a 1/4 moa or .1 mil either way probably isn't going to make or break in a hunting scenario unless you are shooting an extremely long distance.

 

[The Harbor Master]

I've been following this thread and chimed in a couple times. It makes good sense to me, I've already swapped to a .mil scope. I can't wait to employ these concepts in the field.

This will be a slow process for me. As a self described "poor" that shoots factory ammo, every box of 20rds hits the wallet for $60. First thing first, the new scope needs to get a good 100yd zero and confirm with 10rds at least... Next I need true velocity data but $400 for a chronograph won't happen soon (unless anyone in the SW Idaho area would be willing to meet up so I can throw 3-5rds over theirs ).

Next I'll need to put that accurate chrono data and other load info into ballistic calculator (still trying to wrap my head around figuring out density altitude, no Kestrel or similar) and test that out to range... figure out my quick drop and practice that. Are guys testing their drops on paper at range, confirming with 10rd groups at 200, 300, 400, and on? I have an obsessive brain that needs to be sure via real world testing that everything works like the calculator says it will.

Not sure what I'm getting at, just thinking out loud. Appreciate all the info and discussion thus far.