nagibson1
Lil-Rokslider
I am not some great hunter. However, I have never seen, heard, or met someone spotting for another hunter with a spotter with a grid to call follow ups.
I've read all of this and I still don't think I understand why Mil's is better for hunting. I got a SWFA this year, and am figuring it out- my mind is open.
However, my understanding is that both MOA and MIL are angular measurements. One is base 10; the other usually base 4. I've been American my whole life. As someone used to working in divisions of 4, I don't understand why 10's is better, or really, easier. I have never struggled to discern which wrench I needed on an outboard because some were base 4 and others base 10. And in scopes we don't have 9/16ths- we just have quarters. The English system is internalized for me.
The MIL argument sounds like saying: "Yes, English is your first language. But technically, German is simpler, more precise and easier, by some measure, for this kind of communication. Thus you should learn German to speak it for this application." Thus: Is MIL really easier, if you already speak MOA as a heart language?
I completely get how in competition shooting, or sniper combat with a dedicated spotter, or maybe even long range shooting (600+), the differences may present themselves substantially.
But outside of spotting accuracy with a grid based spotter, the only difference I can understand (assuming a dope card) is that at some point the finer adjustment of MIL allows you to shoot between MOA adjustments? Maybe at 700+ yrds or so? But is MOA is more clicks, doesn't that make it a finer measurement? Isn't that a plus in terms of fineness of adjustment?
Or is it that MIL is better because it is literally fewer clicks? So if you adjust without looking it's better? That seems odd since any MOA is a "turn to a number" and then up to 3 more clicks. How is up to 9 more clicks simpler? I won't have 3.42 on my dope card. I'll have rounded it to 3.50 before I print it.
Or another way: @ 400m for a 7.62x51 table MIL is 23 clicks and MOA is 31. Fair enough. But, if I turn to 7, then three clicks in MOA, the MIL guy turns to 2 and then 3 clicks. Isn't that virtually the same?
These other examples don't seem substantial. I can judge how to zero using MOA just fine. Usually one course adjustment and then one finer one. I can dial MOA off a dope card just like a MIL.
This feels like one of those situations where as you get better at something there has to be a change of KIND to your gear and fundamentals at some point. But below that threshold, the difference isn't significant- it might even be a detriment to the good of a developed established order. If you try to teach a 5th grade girl to hit/spike in volleyball you'll loose every game. If you don't teach them by 7th grade, they lose every game.
I think the main issue for me is I like the idea of understanding how the angle translated to POA at distances. I know that with MOA. It's angular, but I know it's 1in @100, 2@200, and so on. With MIL's I don't have that math in my mind, or a linear reference for it- and it inhibits me having an AHA moment conceptually. I'm doing it wrote- x yards is Y MILS for my load. I don't like not knowing the linear WHY.
For example, I'm going to shoot under 500yds this fall. Prob under 400. My spotter, if I have one, will be looking through ranging binos without grids. There will be no measurement. I will not be able to see my POI shooting my .270. Sooo... I'm not sure what will be different with my SWFA relative to the MOA Leupold balistic plex I used before. I'll have a dope card, and I'll try to use it accurately. I'm actually concerned MILs is going to mess me up because its still a foreign language.
I guess I just can't see a scenario in which I would shoot, entirely miss an animal, make an adjustment, and then make a clean kill. If I wounded the animal, I'm assuming that I'd repeat the shot rather than adjust, or adjust to an new POI as the animal moves. If I missed I'd assume I made a bad shot, or think something was wrong and not take a second shot, or recalculate. I wouldn't use visuals to determine my next action.
What don't I get?
I've read all of this and I still don't think I understand why Mil's is better for hunting. I got a SWFA this year, and am figuring it out- my mind is open.
However, my understanding is that both MOA and MIL are angular measurements. One is base 10; the other usually base 4. I've been American my whole life. As someone used to working in divisions of 4, I don't understand why 10's is better, or really, easier. I have never struggled to discern which wrench I needed on an outboard because some were base 4 and others base 10. And in scopes we don't have 9/16ths- we just have quarters. The English system is internalized for me.
The MIL argument sounds like saying: "Yes, English is your first language. But technically, German is simpler, more precise and easier, by some measure, for this kind of communication. Thus you should learn German to speak it for this application." Thus: Is MIL really easier, if you already speak MOA as a heart language?
I completely get how in competition shooting, or sniper combat with a dedicated spotter, or maybe even long range shooting (600+), the differences may present themselves substantially.
But outside of spotting accuracy with a grid based spotter, the only difference I can understand (assuming a dope card) is that at some point the finer adjustment of MIL allows you to shoot between MOA adjustments? Maybe at 700+ yrds or so? But is MOA is more clicks, doesn't that make it a finer measurement? Isn't that a plus in terms of fineness of adjustment?
Or is it that MIL is better because it is literally fewer clicks? So if you adjust without looking it's better? That seems odd since any MOA is a "turn to a number" and then up to 3 more clicks. How is up to 9 more clicks simpler? I won't have 3.42 on my dope card. I'll have rounded it to 3.50 before I print it.
Or another way: @ 400m for a 7.62x51 table MIL is 23 clicks and MOA is 31. Fair enough. But, if I turn to 7, then three clicks in MOA, the MIL guy turns to 2 and then 3 clicks. Isn't that virtually the same?
These other examples don't seem substantial. I can judge how to zero using MOA just fine. Usually one course adjustment and then one finer one. I can dial MOA off a dope card just like a MIL.
This feels like one of those situations where as you get better at something there has to be a change of KIND to your gear and fundamentals at some point. But below that threshold, the difference isn't significant- it might even be a detriment to the good of a developed established order. If you try to teach a 5th grade girl to hit/spike in volleyball you'll loose every game. If you don't teach them by 7th grade, they lose every game.
I think the main issue for me is I like the idea of understanding how the angle translated to POA at distances. I know that with MOA. It's angular, but I know it's 1in @100, 2@200, and so on. With MIL's I don't have that math in my mind, or a linear reference for it- and it inhibits me having an AHA moment conceptually. I'm doing it wrote- x yards is Y MILS for my load. I don't like not knowing the linear WHY.
For example, I'm going to shoot under 500yds this fall. Prob under 400. My spotter, if I have one, will be looking through ranging binos without grids. There will be no measurement. I will not be able to see my POI shooting my .270. Sooo... I'm not sure what will be different with my SWFA relative to the MOA Leupold balistic plex I used before. I'll have a dope card, and I'll try to use it accurately. I'm actually concerned MILs is going to mess me up because its still a foreign language.
I guess I just can't see a scenario in which I would shoot, entirely miss an animal, make an adjustment, and then make a clean kill. If I wounded the animal, I'm assuming that I'd repeat the shot rather than adjust, or adjust to an new POI as the animal moves. If I missed I'd assume I made a bad shot, or think something was wrong and not take a second shot, or recalculate. I wouldn't use visuals to determine my next action.
What don't I get?
