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

[longrangelead]

I also think another important factor is we need more spotting scopes with ranging reticles in them. Then the spotter call problem is irrelevant.

and eye relief that makes the spotter useful

 

[BLJ]

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.

I read “switch to MILS and never miss”.

I started and still use MOA. The quick drop and wind brackets are a compelling argument for MILS. I’ll agree thats pretty simple.

Question for the MIL guys. Are you saying MILS is so easy that you’re not using a dope card of some kind?
Meaning that you range, remember, hold/dial and shoot?

 

[atmat]

…or it would be so obviously a better system nobody would buy a MOA scope, let along learn to shoot MOA well.

In general, hunters aren’t awesome shooters so it’s not that surprising folks don’t upgrade to a better system. They don’t even realize they themselves suck.

Heck, half the folks are still buying Leupold’s and Vortex’s and shooting less than a box of ammo per year.

Also, you’ve got a lot of old guys telling them to ignore the improvement and aim at handprints instead.

So, all in all, not that shocking. Markets and populations frequently don’t adjust to the better option.

 

[Formidilosus]

Question for the MIL guys. Are you saying MILS is so easy that you’re not using a dope card of some kind?
Meaning that you range, remember, hold/dial and shoot?

Depending on the combo- yes.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I read “switch to MILS and never miss”.

I started and still use MOA. The quick drop and wind brackets are a compelling argument for MILS. I’ll agree thats pretty simple.

Question for the MIL guys. Are you saying MILS is so easy that you’re not using a dope card of some kind?
Meaning that you range, remember, hold/dial and shoot?

Valid point - if I could get rid of my rangefinder and dope card I would probably go all in on mils.

 

[atmat]

I read “switch to MILS and never miss”.

I started and still use MOA. The quick drop and wind brackets are a compelling argument for MILS. I’ll agree thats pretty simple.

Question for the MIL guys. Are you saying MILS is so easy that you’re not using a dope card of some kind?
Meaning that you range, remember, hold/dial and shoot?

For hunting (which for me is <600 yards), I no longer carry a dope chart and traded in my ballistics RF binos for a non-ballistics model.

I quite literally only use a normal RF, quick drop, and wind brackets.

 

[mt terry d]

Meaning that you range, remember, hold/dial and shoot?

I cant remember a lot of numbers any more; especially under pressure.

I just have to remember to subtract 2.

I can do that.

 

[Jordan Smith]

This is a great way of explaining what I'm thinking... I'm "MRAD curious" and even if I don't like it I can do the "know your hold-over" method I'm already doing with MOA scopes anyways.

But I've found that to be "risky," albeit my own doing. Earlier this year, shooting a 450yd target by knowing which BDC line corresponded, made consistent hits. Did some other shooting, came back to the 450 target, and missed WAY high. Took me awhile to realize that I had dialed back from 10x power to 6x power, thus my BDC hold was no longer accurate with my SFP scope. Granted with an FFP this would've gone differently but if I had dialed for elevation it wouldn't have mattered... if Im thinking of it correctly. But SFP/FFP is a different thread's argument...

I watched a hunter sail a bullet over a cow elk at 492 yards because his SFP Zeiss Conquest 3-9x RZ600 scope was set on ~6x instead of 9x. The elk ran off before he could figure out what happened.

 

[BLJ]

Pretty convincing. Thanks guys

 

[Jordan Smith]

It’s fun watching the trend to use MILs more. You guys aren’t wrong, but it’s far from a clear cut choice, or it would be so obviously a better system nobody would buy a MOA scope, let along learn to shoot MOA well.

When Im out shooting rocks with a buddy and he starts knocking the snot out things leaving me in the dust I’ll gladly change. If it’s actually better we should be able to easily see it’s better. No?

Those that like to use the best, do. Those that are comfortable with old ways, don't bother switching, even though it's a better system with no real downsides (except for games like LRBR, where the availability of mrad scopes with turret increments smaller than 0.1 mrad are rarely available).

Shoot on the clock with the pressure of spectators, and you will start to see the advantages emerge.

 

[BLJ]

I will say that I’ve noticed one significant advantage to MOA over MIL scopes.
They are cheaper on the used market.

I’ve bought and sold a bunch of them so I’ve benefited and suffered.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

The benefits of mrad scopes and reticles go far beyond this relatively small RS crowd.

No no no… This is inconceivable.

 

[Jhconnected]

For hunting (which for me is <600 yards), I no longer carry a dope chart and traded in my ballistics RF binos for a non-ballistics model.

I quite literally only use a normal RF, quick drop, and wind brackets.

Teach me lol

 

[Jordan Smith]

Valid point - if I could get rid of my rangefinder and dope card I would probably go all in on mils.

You definitely still need the rangefinder.

I still have a DOPE card, too, for more precise solutions when I have time, but quick DOPE out to 600 meters can be memorized for most loads.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Question for the MIL guys. Are you saying MILS is so easy that you’re not using a dope card of some kind?
Meaning that you range, remember, hold/dial and shoot?

Depending on the gun/load, scope, shooting DA, etc. that’s correct.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

You definitely still need the rangefinder.

I still have a DOPE card, too, for more precise solutions when I have time, but quick DOPE out to 600 meters can be memorized for most loads.

Yeah, I guess I dont have an issue memorizing my drops in 50 yard increments out to 800 yards. I am a numbers guy, so this stuff has never been a big deal for me.

 

[doc holiday13]

Mainly shooter preference. Both work. Mil can be a little faster.

However if someone says i was 5" low at 500 i'm just going to aim differently. I won't be changing my scope dials. I'll just aim 12" higher on target

 

[Jordan Smith]

Yeah, I guess I dont have an issue memorizing my drops in 50 yard increments out to 800 yards. I am a numbers guy, so this stuff has never been a big deal for me.

50 yards is too coarse for me when you get out past about 500. I memorize 100 m increments and my DOPE card has 10 m increments.

 

[atmat]

Teach me lol

It’s all in this thread I posted earlier:

Thread 'How to use a mil/mil scope-reticle, turrets and proper usage'

Jul 1, 2023

I have gotten a bunch of requests to write up a "how to" for using mil reticle scoots. In this case the SWFA Milquad reticle. It is the 6x42mm SS with MQ reticle in the pictures, however the process and use is the same as long as you have a scope who's reticle matches the turret adjustments- mil/mil or MOA/MOA. Mil/mil has some advantages, but the system works regardless.



The set up-



Tikka T3 SL in 223
SWFA SS 6x42mm MQ
Pic base and rings
Blackhills 5.56mm 77gr SMKs


Also a Leupold Mark4 12-40x60mm spotter with H32 reticle. This is not...

• Formidilosus
• Replies: 77
• Forum: Optics

• 

 

[TaperPin]

In general, hunters aren’t awesome shooters so it’s not that surprising folks don’t upgrade to a better system. They don’t even realize they themselves suck.

Heck, half the folks are still buying Leupold’s and Vortex’s and shooting less than a box of ammo per year.

Also, you’ve got a lot of old guys telling them to ignore the improvement and aim at handprints instead.

So, all in all, not that shocking. Markets and populations frequently don’t adjust to the better option.

I’m always open to anything that makes shoot better, even reviewed a couple video/podcasts that describe the benefits, but the big assumption with MILs is the rifle is shooting a bullet going the speed of smell. Once a year I refresh my understanding of MILs and this year it’s today. I almost went cross eyed as the Guru in Colorado was describing the correction factors for flat shooting rifles. I would literally shoot a 223 Tikka to avoid having to sit through that again, it was so bad. To 600 yards there is no way all that extra complexity is saving me anything.

When the other “objective” fella talks about MOA like there is no useful repeating measurement and calls that a major disadvantage of MOA I look at my printouts and it’s pretty clear there is 2.5 MOA per 100 yards and .5 MOA every 20 yards for many of them out to 600. Either someone doesn’t know as much as they think they know, or it’s misleading his minions. I would argue the trajectory of a 7 mag fits MOA in an easier to remember way.

In the first few minutes of anything I’ve read or seen today, MIL supporters bring up the hassle of using 1/4” increments and I have yet to see any printout anywhere that is in fractions.