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

[Elite]

I know mils is the more popular option for longe range shooters and I understand alot of the benefits.

But I was thinking about a pure hunting situation when you have a spotter watching through a non reticle spotting scope while hunting and the shooter is shooting at a animal. 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.

Wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on that? Would like to switch over but getting hung up on that scenario


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[justin davis]

Yea moa makes perfect sense to me. And I think I can figure it out in my Head faster forsure. Think it’s just personal preference there is no right choice. Whatever works and makes sense the most for the individual

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

You just proved why mils is better.

 

[fisherman983]

Pretty sure that would be 1 moa low, not 5. And I prefer moa because its what I know and have. But I'm intrigued by mils. Just havnt switched or tried it yet.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[Jordan Smith]

You just proved why mils is better.

LOL, and THAT's why you don't convert angular units to linear ones, or vice versa, on the fly. You either hold MOA or mrad, as measured with a ruler (reticle), or you use a unit of measure that everyone can agree on, i.e., "come up 1/4 of the chest depth."

 

[SDHNTR]

I know mils is the more popular option for longe range shooters and I understand alot of the benefits.

But I was thinking about a pure hunting situation when you have a spotter watching through a non reticle spotting scope while hunting and the shooter is shooting at a animal. 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.

Wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on that? Would like to switch over but getting hung up on that scenario


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check your math buddy.

To your question tho, personally I don’t care. They both do the exact same thing in the end. I buy the one that comes in the scope with the reticle I like.

 

[ztc92]

For the scenario described, which we practiced multiple times at S2H university (though binos instead of a spotter), the best tip I learned is to pick an well defined object and use your scopes reticle to give the spotter a frame of reference for calling shots. As an example, maybe you could find a rock or stump that is roughly 1 mil wide and tall. Then your spotter can use this as a “ruler” to give you corrections based on your impacts.

I would highly recommend S2H university, I don’t think anyone has made it past day 2/5 without switching from MOA to Mils.

 

[Jebel]

Agreed - there’s no difference between them, at any range. Use the one you prefer and don’t use inches or centimeters or whatever. Tell your spotter to indicate how many MOA or Mils you’re low.

 

[The Guide]

I can work either format but I shoot with a lot of people who are new to dialing. Everyone thinks that they want/need a MOA scope until they are given the dope and try to dial it in a pressured scenario. The MOA elevation numbers are much higher than MIL elevation numbers. Under pressure, 3.2 MIL's is much easier for shooters to remember and retain than 12.75 MOA. The less thinking a person has to do under pressure, the more proficient they will be.

In my opinion, MOA scopes are fine for non dialing or BDC scopes that are set and forget. They make good scopes for people who have long times to make their shots when dialing but for me and my experiences, MIL scopes are better for when you have limited time to make the shot when presented (sub 45 seconds?) since there are smaller numbers to work with and less brain power is required when things are already coming off the rails.

I have too much invested in MOA scopes to just dump them all but all new scopes that I'm buying have been in MIL's because it just works better at distance in my experience.

Jay

 

[atmat]

The shooter misses and the spotter yells out 5” low.

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.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Agreed - there’s no difference between them, at any range. Use the one you prefer and don’t use inches or centimeters or whatever. Tell your spotter to indicate how many MOA or Mils you’re low.

Well, there are differences, mainly related to base-10 systems being more intuitive than 1/4-increment systems, but as long as everyone is speaking in the same angular units, life is much easier than trying to convert between angular and linear units.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I have too much invested in MOA scopes to just dump them all...

Jay

That's what I thought, too, when I made the switch about 10 years ago, but I'm here to tell you that you can do it, buddy. haha

 

[justinspicher]

I use MOA over mil for all of my shooting. If I miss it’s not because I use MOA, it’s because I did something wrong in my shooting sequence.

 

[Jordan Smith]

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.

Exactly. You have to pick something that both shooter and spotter can easily related to. "Come 1/2 target left," or "1/3 chest depth up," etc.

 

[Jordan Smith]

If I miss it’s not because I use MOA, it’s because I did something wrong in my shooting sequence.

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

 

[justinspicher]

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

Not really, it’s usually because I rushed for no real reason.

 

[Jebel]

Well, there are differences, mainly related to base-10 systems being more intuitive than 1/4-increment systems

Using MOA just slightly increases the probability of that happening.

Your preference is clear and that’s fine that you’ve found one, but there is no objective advantage that one has over the other.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Your preference is clear and that’s fine that you’ve found one, but there is no objective advantage that one has over the other.

That's where we disagree. I've spent a lot of years with both systems and a bunch of shooters, and there is a clear advantage, although MOA guys usually don't want to entertain that possibility.

 

[atmat]

Your preference is clear and that’s fine that you’ve found one, but there is no objective advantage that one has over the other.

There are objective advantages of mils over MOA; the reciprocal is not true.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

What kind of savant spotter knows you missed exactly “5 inches low” at 500 yards on an animal?