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

[nagibson1]

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?

 

[Jordan Smith]

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?

23 clicks = turn to 2 and then 3 clicks

31 clicks = turn to 7 and then 3 clicks

You don't see how one is more intuitive than the other?

 

[Shortschaf]

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?

"Gun mph" and MILs is like peanut butter and jelly

(Its way easier to do wind calls in my head)

 

[nagibson1]

23 clicks = turn to 2 and then 3 clicks

31 clicks = turn to 7 and then 3 clicks

You don't see how one is more intuitive than the other?

Sorry Jordan. I'm missing something. If that was say my 400 yd dope, my card would say "7.75" not "31"- 7.75 would turn out to be 31 clicks, but I would never think of it as that- it wouldn't be a mental step, right? I'd just look at my stock- 7.75, turn to seven and click three, and aim. So the base 10 intuitiveness is bypassed with a dope card isn't it?
I'm assuming the intuitiveness would come if I were doing a mental computation.

 

[nagibson1]

"Gun mph" and MILs is like peanut butter and jelly

(Its way easier to do wind calls in my head)

could you or someone make this a little more concrete? I'm not unconvinced, I bought a MIL scope for my main gun. I just don't understand.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Sorry Jordan. I'm missing something. If that was say my 400 yd dope, my card would say "7.75" not "31"- 7.75 would turn out to be 31 clicks, but I would never think of it as that- it wouldn't be a mental step, right? I'd just look at my stock- 7.75, turn to seven and click three, and aim. So the base 10 intuitiveness is bypassed with a dope card isn't it?
I'm assuming the intuitiveness would come if I were doing a mental computation.

Yes, 7.75 MOA would be a much better way to express it, but 0.3 = 3 clicks is still more intuitive than 0.75 = 3 clicks. It's the small things that add up to make a difference when adrenaline is up and time is short.

 

[justinspicher]

Even after reading this thread I’m still not convinced I’d like using mil over MOA.

It’s been typed in a few threads, do/use what works for you. Without training none of it really matters.

 

[BLJ]

do/use what works for you. Without training none of it really matters.

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Shortschaf]

could you or someone make this a little more concrete? I'm not unconvinced, I bought a MIL scope for my main gun. I just don't understand.

Formidilosus explaining wind brackets AKA "gun mph" in below quote:

Wind brackets

A wind bracket is a certain full value speed of wind in MPH that drifts the bullet .1 mil per 100 yards.

For example-

Wind holds for a 338 Lapua with 300gr Berger-

100- .1
200- .2
300- .3
400- .4
500- .5
600- .6
Etc.



Wind holds for a 223 with 77gr TMK-

100- .1
200- .2
300- .3
400- .4
500- .5
600- .6
Etc.


Those are the base number, and they do not change for any chambering. The difference is that the 223 drifts that much with a 4mph full value wind, the 338 drifts that much in an 8 mph full value wind. This allows one to have the exact same wind call/wind process with every chambering and rifle, the only difference is what wind speed causes the drift.


For normal chamberings with MV’s between 2,400’ish and 2,900’ish FPS, and BC’s between .3-.7 G1, the first number of your bullets G1 BC is the MPH that for that gun. You can round up or down.

For instance, a G1 BC of .612 with a MV of 2,750fps, has a wind bracket of 6 miles per hour. So a full value (straight right to left, or left to right wind) will drift this gun/bullet .1 mils per hundred yards.

Muzzle velocity and environment effects this a bit. For grappling_hook’s example he was faster than 2,900fps, and I guessed at the BC at .4 (it’s actually .409). I am also at 5,000ft density altitude- those two things combined, that is higher MV and higher DA, gives his example a 1mph advantage.


Brackets are not used for absolute precision because you’re not getting that with wind anyways, all the weather meter does is give you what it’s doing at the shooter, which you can learn to feel and judge without the meter… not that you shouldn’t use one. And brackets usually start wandering from the .1 mil per 100 yard path somewhere between 600-700. But, to ensure you have the correct MPH for your gun, take your app set it to 600 yards with your gun, set the wind direction to 90° then change the wind speed in MPH until at 600 yards it says you need .6 mil correction. That MPH is the bracket. That’s the basics.




The difference between brackets with mil and MOA isn’t just not needing the ballistic program, it’s the flow. The way the brain works, and the way it thinks about numbers. Yes, you can work a system for MOA, but it isn’t clean and it doesn’t come nearly as quickly as mils.

 

[longrangelead]

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?

spotter without a grid-measure the target with your reticle and give the spotter that info for reference.

shooting a 270, can't see hit...good case for less recoil.

mils being units of ten, charts/clicks line up with 10 yard solution increments.

you have to practice mils for it to be useful, ideally with the people you often hunt/shoot with.

mph gun:
input your data in a shooting app, adjust wind until you see drift is .1 Mil per 100 yards

My 6.5 Creed is a 6mph gun so at 6mph full value wind my hold is,
200yds- .2
350yds- 3.5
400yds- .4
550yds- 5.5
600yds- .6

at 3mph, it's half that.
at 12 mph, double it.

wind brackets and quick drop in Mils is WAY easier to do under stress in compressed time situations is the whole idea.

If your using a data card, phone app or calling your BFF and have all day for every shot, it doesn't matter what you use.

 

[nagibson1]

If your using a data card, phone app or calling your BFF and have all day for every shot, it doesn't matter what you use.

Is that an option? Calling your BFF?
What about a new MIL WKR sticker with a phone number on it! Now that would be worth money.

 

[wind gypsy]

could you or someone make this a little more concrete? I'm not unconvinced, I bought a MIL scope for my main gun. I just don't understand.

If you dont think base 10 is more intuitive than base 4, I dont think you'll understand.

Communication is slightly faster too. "Six point four" vs "fifteen point seven five". These are small things IMO but it's just nicer for communicating with others.

The wind brackets and being on the same scale when communicating with other dudes at matches is the biggest upside IMO. But talking in tenths vs quarters is nice too.

Edit to add: I think there is value to being standardized on one or the other. For the overwhelming majority of hunters on MOA, I dont think they'll shoot enough or learn enough to see a benefit from going to MILs.

 

[Firth]

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'm not a great hunter (or shooter) either.

Mostly I jumped on MILS because the arguments all made sense to me, and it seems like there were a lot more guys that switching to mils verses the other direction, and the most experienced guys also tended to strongly favor mils. I went straight to MILS without dabbling in MOA so I don't have any experience to compare against.

It would be interesting to hear your perspective after you went out and shot a couple hundred rounds at targets set up to simulate hunting situations with a timer.

I do think the mental math is a little easier with MILS. For my 6.5 Creed, I have a 20-yard dope sheet on it so if I ranged at 552, I'd be between 540 (3.4 mils) and 560 (3.6 mils). Pretty easy to break that down in my head and dial 3.5. For MOA it would be between 11.75 and 12.5. It's not hard to recognize it's 3 clicks, and 552 is a little past halfway to 560 and dial 12.25, but to me it seems to a take a bit more thought.

 

[lintond]

I made the switch to MILs because I drank the koolaid in last year or two.

My Neanderthal brain likes the smaller numbers. Dial 4.3 is just easier than 14.25.

I also really like the wind number. It’s just easy to remember on the fly.

I haven’t had a scenario where I’ve had to communicate shots with a hunting partner so no pro/con to report there.

At the end of the day do what works for you, practice with it, and you’ll do fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nagibson1]

For the overwhelming majority of hunters on MOA, I dont think they'll shoot enough or learn enough to see a benefit from going to MILs.

Agree. Esp when you figure in buying all new scopes, and the deals on MOA scopes created by the MIL transfers.

if I ranged at 552, I'd be between 540 (3.4 mils) and 560 (3.6 mils). Pretty easy to break that down in my head and dial 3.5. For MOA it would be between 11.75 and 12.5. It's not hard to recognize it's 3 clicks, and 552 is a little past halfway to 560 and dial 12.25, but to me it seems to a take a bit more thought.

Ok. This one got me. 3.4-3.6- no accessing of my deliberative mind. No "thought", just reaction. 11.75-12.5 triggered thought, and the slowdown and indecision that comes with it- I can feel the slowdown. Add adrenaline, yes, that is a simplicity difference.

My Neanderthal brain likes the smaller numbers. Dial 4.3 is just easier than 14.25.

I do notice that these differences seem more suggestive when you get further out. Mostly beyond 500 yds as the bullet drops more parabolically.

I really appreciate hearing form guys that I would consider on the extreme end of distance shooting. Like all hobbies, exactitude and efficiency often grows with exponential time investment. That is investment I don't have right now.
If I press hard, I'll go to the range 4 times a year for me behind my rifle beyond 100 yds. Most of my training time is taken up with pistol training to stay certified for a security team I help on, and showing kids how to shoot. Plus family and everything else. My priority has definitely been on conditioning when Elk season approaches.

Steve Messer (from the seal teams) said on Cliff Gray's pod:
37:48

"The general in charge of us asked our guy "What can you guys do?" And he said "500 yard cold kill shots." General said "Really, show me."
So that's what he did "show me the money" right and that's what drove that call and what we learned a really valuable lesson about that. Number one, is overestimating your capabilities. So then we put up a tote we call it a tote board in the team room with each guy's name and the day of the week. And if we went to the range that day, it was our first thing we did was make a 500 yard cold shot with a 300 win mag. And at that time we had some pretty accurate win mags and we had match grade ammo. I think we're shooting 190 grain lee match bullets and we determined that we could not guarantee that we could do a bowling pin kill shot every time at 500 yards after we watch the trend on the board the And here's the thing measurement eliminates argument for sure okay measurement eliminates argument so we said "Okay then it's got to be 400 yards." So we had a 400 yard burm we started doing our cold bore shots at 400 and we could not make it 100% reliable at 400 yards in all weather conditions so then we had we said "Okay we've got to go to 300." So we started and we we could do it at 300 yards and at that time we were among the best shooters in the world with the best equipment in the world the best ammunition in the world right and and so that taught us a valuable lesson about overstating the capability"

I realize a bowling pin is smaller than elk vitals.
I do not take from this that you all can't do better than these folks- esp since this was a while ago. But, I don't think I can at this juncture. That is probably never going to be my hunting strength. And hunting won't be a lifestyle for me for another decade at least.

I feel like if my goal is a 450yds limit, I don't get to shoot with my western hunt partners and they shoot MOA, I won't have a spotter, I don't see my point of impact, and I shoot a limited amount of (75-150) practice ammo annually: This may not be the highest value change for me at this life stage.

Besides. the ROKSCOPE isn't even out yet. I'm expecting a fire sale on obsolete MIL scopes next year, right?

 

[wind gypsy]

Agree. Esp when you figure in buying all new scopes, and the deals on MOA scopes created by the MIL transfers.

Ok. This one got me. 3.4-3.6- no accessing of my deliberative mind. No "thought", just reaction. 11.75-12.5 triggered thought, and the slowdown and indecision that comes with it- I can feel the slowdown. Add adrenaline, yes, that is a simplicity difference.

I do notice that these differences seem more suggestive when you get further out. Mostly beyond 500 yds as the bullet drops more parabolically.

I really appreciate hearing form guys that I would consider on the extreme end of distance shooting. Like all hobbies, exactitude and efficiency often grows with exponential time investment. That is investment I don't have right now.
If I press hard, I'll go to the range 4 times a year for me behind my rifle beyond 100 yds. Most of my training time is taken up with pistol training to stay certified for a security team I help on, and showing kids how to shoot. Plus family and everything else. My priority has definitely been on conditioning when Elk season approaches.

Steve Messer (from the seal teams) said on Cliff Gray's pod:
37:48

"The general in charge of us asked our guy "What can you guys do?" And he said "500 yard cold kill shots." General said "Really, show me."
So that's what he did "show me the money" right and that's what drove that call and what we learned a really valuable lesson about that. Number one, is overestimating your capabilities. So then we put up a tote we call it a tote board in the team room with each guy's name and the day of the week. And if we went to the range that day, it was our first thing we did was make a 500 yard cold shot with a 300 win mag. And at that time we had some pretty accurate win mags and we had match grade ammo. I think we're shooting 190 grain lee match bullets and we determined that we could not guarantee that we could do a bowling pin kill shot every time at 500 yards after we watch the trend on the board the And here's the thing measurement eliminates argument for sure okay measurement eliminates argument so we said "Okay then it's got to be 400 yards." So we had a 400 yard burm we started doing our cold bore shots at 400 and we could not make it 100% reliable at 400 yards in all weather conditions so then we had we said "Okay we've got to go to 300." So we started and we we could do it at 300 yards and at that time we were among the best shooters in the world with the best equipment in the world the best ammunition in the world right and and so that taught us a valuable lesson about overstating the capability"

I realize a bowling pin is smaller than elk vitals.
I do not take from this that you all can't do better than these folks- esp since this was a while ago. But, I don't think I can at this juncture. That is probably never going to be my hunting strength. And hunting won't be a lifestyle for me for another decade at least.

I feel like if my goal is a 450yds limit, I don't get to shoot with my western hunt partners and they shoot MOA, I won't have a spotter, I don't see my point of impact, and I shoot a limited amount of (75-150) practice ammo annually: This may not be the highest value change for me at this life stage.

Besides. the ROKSCOPE isn't even out yet. I'm expecting a fire sale on obsolete MIL scopes next year, right?

I think you buttoned that up nicely.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Ok. This one got me. 3.4-3.6- no accessing of my deliberative mind. No "thought", just reaction. 11.75-12.5 triggered thought, and the slowdown and indecision that comes with it- I can feel the slowdown. Add adrenaline, yes, that is a simplicity difference.

Now you're getting it.