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

[BLJ]

Indeed. Using MOA just slightly increases the probability of that happening.

Curious to know how MOA would increase the probability of a miss? Genuine question. Thanks.

 

[Wprinkle]

As a former MOA guy... it has been proven unequivocally at EVERY level Mils are faster and more efficient. Someone who has basic knowledge of Mils can take any rifle and any bullet and provide a shooting solution for drop and wind in sub 5ish seconds.. MOA shooters can't do that with their own KNOWN rifle and bullets.

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

How can you tell that something 500 yards away, through a zoomed in optic, is 5 inches low?

The answer is that you can’t accurately do that.

Perhaps you can't, but a proficient shooter and spotter can at 1000, of course they would not likely be in this debate.

 

[coyotekilla]

Well, I have moa scopes. That being said, mills is what the military uses, and its probably because its easier to teach, easier to use, more repeatable results, or just plain better.

Truthfully, wind plays so much more of a factor than distance. I cheat and have lrf in my hunting scopes, it does the hold over for me. Even using subsonic 22's in to the 200yd range.

 

[ChrisAU]

Anyone who says MOA is as easy as MIL simply hasn't used MIL enough to learn it. That said, if you have mastered MOA then go forth and be happy because both work. For me, and anyone I've ever brought into the shooting world, MIL is easier to master.

 

[atmat]

Perhaps you can't, but a proficient shooter and spotter can at 1000, of course they would not likely be in this debate.

Hahaha. You seriously think a proficient spotter can look 1000 yards away and be able to count inches?

That is insanity.

 

[Jhconnected]

Where using any angular system (MOA or MIL) breaks down for me is when the spotter/guide/rangefinder/etc thinks in linear units and not angular.

At that point you are speaking two different languages and stuff is likely to be lost in mathematical translation.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of hunters think in linear units and not angular.

This makes the BDC turret on the Revic scope attractive to me because you have a translator on your turret.

 

[xsn10s]

I have to agree mil is easier/ faster than moa. When you haven't used mil then intuitively it seems harder. Once you try it for an afternoon you instantly see how easy it is. But I am looking for a moa scope for varmint and long range predator hunting. The 1/4 moa scope adjusting increments are just smaller/ more fine in adjustment. Whether it is applicable or accounts for more actual hits remains to be seen. At least for me

 

[wind gypsy]

The shooter misses and the spotter yells out 5” low. To me I can instantly convert that in my head to 5 moa at 500 yards distance.

I can't say that I've ever shot a critter where mils made a difference over MOA but it is a more intuitive setup than MOA especially if one is using quick drop/wind brackets.

 

[Shortschaf]

I don't know anyone that has seriously tried both MIL and MOA and found MOA to be preferred.

Except benchrest shooters who want the finer click adjustments. Theyre big into the MOA'hs.

If someone thinks they have done this and preferred MOA, I am curious about the reason. (Indifference doesn't count as a reason IMO)

 

[wind gypsy]

I don't know anyone that has seriously tried both MIL and MOA and found MOA to be preferred.

Except benchrest shooters who want the finer click adjustments. Theyre big into the MOA'hs.

If someone thinks they have done this and preferred MOA, I am curious about the reason. (Indifference doesn't count as a reason IMO)

When folks primary interaction with scope adjustments is thinking about inches and x hundred yards, MOA makes sense to them.

 

[ni7ne]

It's a shame IPHY didn't take off. It has the same advantage of milliradians -- the tangent trig is rolled into the unit to allow you to do the trig math with only arithmetic. Base 3600 vs 1000.

 

[Jordan Smith]

It's a shame IPHY didn't take off. It has the same advantage of milliradians -- the tangent trig is rolled into the unit to allow you to do the trig math with only arithmetic. Base 3600 vs 1000.

Negative. The entire advantage is in the base-10 system used in mrad scopes.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Curious to know how MOA would increase the probability of a miss? Genuine question. Thanks.

Mental malfunction under stress and time pressure. I’ve seen it. It’s still possible with mrad, but given that mrad is more intuitive, it doesn’t happen as often.

 

[The Harbor Master]

I've only ever used MOA for hunting, and zeroed at 200 or 250yds. Using known hold overs this has worked pretty well out to 400ish yds. But I'm really interested in zeroing at 100 and trying to switch over to MIL, using the base 10 system and thinking linear makes a lot of sense to me. Its just a daunting thought, undoing 25ish years of thinking in MOA and holds to get into MIL, dialing, and quick drops

I am in the market for a scope to put on a RSS .223 trainer and will probably go MIL, so I can begin to learn the system. If I find it easier/better, I will almost certainly swap my "main" rifle's scope from an NXS in MOA to an NXS in MIL. I've been avoiding/procrastinating reading a lot of the great info from Form about MILS because change is scary. I think Im convinced to at least try.

 

[Lionheart]

I've only ever used MOA for hunting, and zeroed at 200 or 250yds. Using known hold overs this has worked pretty well out to 400ish yds. But I'm really interested in zeroing at 100 and trying to switch over to MIL, using the base 10 system and thinking linear makes a lot of sense to me. Its just a daunting thought, undoing 25ish years of thinking in MOA and holds to get into MIL, dialing, and quick drops

I am in the market for a scope to put on a RSS .223 trainer and will probably go MIL, so I can begin to learn the system. If I find it easier/better, I will almost certainly swap my "main" rifle's scope from an NXS in MOA to an NXS in MIL. I've been avoiding/procrastinating reading a lot of the great info from Form about MILS because change is scary. I think Im convinced to at least try.

Ditto. I have bought my first mil scope. SWFA 3-15 gen 2.
My first impression is that it’s too big to hunt with…but I’m gonna try it on my TIKKA .223. Give it a chance. But I’m also thinking I need a good ol lightweight 2 nd focal plane duplex with holdovers lol. Sight it in at 250 and if I need to hold over the back it’s too far.

 

[xsn10s]

I've only ever used MOA for hunting, and zeroed at 200 or 250yds. Using known hold overs this has worked pretty well out to 400ish yds. But I'm really interested in zeroing at 100 and trying to switch over to MIL, using the base 10 system and thinking linear makes a lot of sense to me. Its just a daunting thought, undoing 25ish years of thinking in MOA and holds to get into MIL, dialing, and quick drops

I am in the market for a scope to put on a RSS .223 trainer and will probably go MIL, so I can begin to learn the system. If I find it easier/better, I will almost certainly swap my "main" rifle's scope from an NXS in MOA to an NXS in MIL. I've been avoiding/procrastinating reading a lot of the great info from Form about MILS because change is scary. I think Im convinced to at least try.

I think you'll find it easier. I'd suggest don't think of converting from inches to mils. Rather just use a ballistic app to give you your drops. If correcting for misses the 10 based system makes it simple. "Adjust right two tenth, up 1 mil." or so on. If you have a spotter then if they have a mil reticle in their scope or binos that makes corrections easy. You could do the same with MOA based system but articulating corrections in 10 based system is easier than 1/4 moa. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I've only ever used MOA for hunting, and zeroed at 200 or 250yds. Using known hold overs this has worked pretty well out to 400ish yds. But I'm really interested in zeroing at 100 and trying to switch over to MIL, using the base 10 system and thinking linear makes a lot of sense to me. Its just a daunting thought, undoing 25ish years of thinking in MOA and holds to get into MIL, dialing, and quick drops

I am in the market for a scope to put on a RSS .223 trainer and will probably go MIL, so I can begin to learn the system. If I find it easier/better, I will almost certainly swap my "main" rifle's scope from an NXS in MOA to an NXS in MIL. I've been avoiding/procrastinating reading a lot of the great info from Form about MILS because change is scary. I think Im convinced to at least try.

It’s easy. Just forget about inches, zero at 100 and then dial for a reasonable PBR for quick shots out to 200-250. Dial more for anything past that.

As Yoda said, “you must unlearn what you have learned.” Clear your mind of clutter and embrace a simpler way.

 

[The Harbor Master]

It’s easy. Just forget about inches, zero at 100 and then dial for a reasonable PBR for quick shots out to 200-250. Dial more for anything past that.

As Yoda said, “you must unlearn what you have learned.” Clear your mind of clutter and embrace a simpler way.

This makes a lot of sense to my brain, hard to argue with changing.

 

[ni7ne]

Negative. The entire advantage is in the base-10 system used in mrad scopes.

An advantage, especially on the range, but with arbitrary target ranges, that advantage goes away.
But what mil/iphy have and moa does not is the ability to convert angular/absolute with only arithmetic and no scientific calculator.