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

[Jordan Smith]

I use moa on everything. To me it’s much simpler.

IME, only those who haven’t given mrad a fair chance prefer MOA. Those that have, stick with mrad and recognize its advantages.

 

[06 SB]

Not everyone. I actually started with mils but just did not like the less precise graduations. It seemed I always was a .1 mil off. When using MOA, I do not notice this as much. It could be just my weird math brain though.

 

[The Guide]

Not everyone. I actually started with mils but just did not like the less precise graduations. It seemed I always was a .1 mil off. When using MOA, I do not notice this as much. It could be just my weird math brain though.

I think with Mils it is even more important to have a good zero from a large shot group and using the actual median middle for your zero point. Far too many people find it hard to accept that on their zero there will be shots above, below, and to each side of their zero point so the zero gets put a little higher than it should be.

Jay

 

[JohnJohnson]

Not everyone. I actually started with mils but just did not like the less precise graduations. It seemed I always was a .1 mil off. When using MOA, I do not notice this as much. It could be just my weird math brain though.

Either you're a world-class benchrest shooter or it's your brain.

 

[Brock63]

Used MIL in military but all of my scopes from a kid through adulthood have been MOA for hunting. Thats all we had. MIL is easier to learn as is base 10...especially for calculations and using reticle to range known/average sized objects. It is important that if using a spotter or ballistics calculator, range finder, etc...that everything is set to same system.
For hunting situations...not sure there is an advantage using MIL over MOA. If you are a hunter and have your range finder ballistics calculator, and scope reticle/adjustments all in MOA.....I find it hard to believe you are at disadvantage in any way as it is just a form of measurement. I am lazy and cheap and dont want to change all my scopes over to MIL and even buying new scopes for new rifles...I keep it all MOA as that is what my 30-06, 7mm RemMag and 300 WinMag were set up with in highschool, college and early years of military in 80s. So I just choose to keep it all consistent... I dont use a spotter to call out impacts or to help walk bullets on target...is just me determining distance. Wind is a much bigger factor in my opinion and the hardest to learn to judge....and feel more time shooting and learning to judge wind is a bigger advantage than whether using MOA or MIL.

 

[Harvey_NW]

IME, only those who haven’t given mrad a fair chance prefer MOA. Those that have, stick with mrad and recognize its advantages.

When you have a ballistic solver in hand and only rely on solutions to shoot past practical distances, there is no advantage.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Used MIL in military but all of my scopes from a kid through adulthood have been MOA for hunting. Thats all we had. MIL is easier to learn as is base 10...especially for calculations and using reticle to range known/average sized objects. It is important that if using a spotter or ballistics calculator, range finder, etc...that everything is set to same system.
For hunting situations...not sure there is an advantage using MIL over MOA. If you are a hunter and have your range finder ballistics calculator, and scope reticle/adjustments all in MOA.....I find it hard to believe you are at disadvantage in any way as it is just a form of measurement. I am lazy and cheap and dont want to change all my scopes over to MIL and even buying new scopes for new rifles...I keep it all MOA as that is what my 30-06, 7mm RemMag and 300 WinMag were set up with in highschool, college and early years of military in 80s. So I just choose to keep it all consistent... I dont use a spotter to call out impacts or to help walk bullets on target...is just me determining distance. Wind is a much bigger factor in my opinion and the hardest to learn to judge....and feel more time shooting and learning to judge wind is a bigger advantage than whether using MOA or MIL.

I get it guys. I was in the same boat. I spent years hunting and shooting at distance with MOA scopes, a ballistic solver (anybody remember Exbal on a Palm Pilot?), and a state-of-the-art rangefinder (crap by today's standards). When I started experimenting with MIL with an open mind, the advantages were clear. I reluctantly switched my entire MOA fleet over to MIL, over time.

There's no question that judging wind is a higher-value topic than deciding between MIL and MOA, but we're discussing the minutia here. "It's just a form of measurement" is a bit of an oversimplification, and not all metrological systems are created equal, from a utility and pragmatism perspective.

When you have a ballistic solver in hand and only rely on solutions to shoot past practical distances, there is no advantage.

There is, even if some don't want to admit it to themselves (or they haven't worked with MIL systems enough to appreciate the small advantages over MOA). BTDT, and we've discussed it here previously.

 

[Brock63]

I get it guys. I was in the same boat. I spent years hunting and shooting at distance with MOA scopes, a ballistic solver (anybody remember Exbal on a Palm Pilot?), and a state-of-the-art rangefinder (crap by today's standards). When I started experimenting with MIL with an open mind, the advantages were clear. I reluctantly switched my entire MOA fleet over to MIL, over time.

There's no question that judging wind is a higher-value topic than deciding between MIL and MOA, but we're discussing the minutia here. "It's just a form of measurement" is a bit of an oversimplification, and not all metrological systems are created equal, from a utility and pragmatism perspective.

There is, even if some don't want to admit it to themselves (or they haven't worked with MIL systems enough to appreciate the small advantages over MOA). BTDT, and we've discussed it here previously.

I hear you...but not heard anyone really express the advantages outside of competition or military application.....since I am assuming, maybe wrongly, that most here are hunters first. Would you mind, seriously, explaining what you found that shows that MIL is better for hunting? I am more than willing to talk on phone too if too much....trying to learn as would need to be a visible improvement and advantage for me to swap everything I got in my two safes over to MIL....LOL

 

[Jordan Smith]

I hear you...but not heard anyone really express the advantages outside of competition or military application.....since I am assuming, maybe wrongly, that most here are hunters first. Would you mind, seriously, explaining what you found that shows that MIL is better for hunting? I am more than willing to talk on phone too if too much....trying to learn as would need to be a visible improvement and advantage for me to swap everything I got in my two safes over to MIL....LOL

Ultimately, it really depends on how you hunt. If you simply zero 2.5" high at 100 yards, and hold center-mass out to your PBR, then the only difference you'll see is at the range when zeroing the scope.

If you hunt varied terrain and expect shots that could be short or long, then the same advantages that apply to competition also apply to hunting. I recently shot on a team at an NRL-Hunter match, and the same processes that we practice and use in competition are used by us in the hunting fields. In fact, just a couple of weeks before the match we used the same process on a shot during a bear hunt.

Bottom line, the biggest difference between MIL and MOA in actual practice is the mental effort it takes to use each of them when under time pressure and stress. Smaller, decimal numbers are simpler and easier to work with than larger, fractional numbers. DOPE that is simple is easier to remember and use when under pressure and adrenaline is up. Keeping the system simple reduces the probability of making mistakes. And I've made my share of mistakes in high-pressure situations as I've learned along the way.

 

[solarshooter]

When you have a ballistic solver in hand and only rely on solutions to shoot past practical distances, there is no advantage.

Except it's slower compared to quickdrop (unless by practical distances you mean further than quickdrop is valid for).

Would you mind, seriously, explaining what you found that shows that MIL is better for hunting?

Mils enable the use of the quickdrop and wind number methods for quickly and precisely estimating elevation and windage solutions (moa also works for windage estimation, but the math is harder). It also allows for quick, intuitive adjustments on the fly as the animal moves or as the wind changes. Compared to moa, you will be faster to your first shot, and quicker to adapt to changing scenarios, and not dependent on electronics or phones (beyond a rangefinder).

 

[Navaluk]

I am sticking with MOA for now. Not sure going with the French method is better. The US military adopted it from the frogs in the late 50s and our war record since then is very French. Could be coincidence.

 

[HuntHarder]

Except it's slower compared to quickdrop (unless by practical distances you mean further than quickdrop is valid for).

Maybe I am really fast, but rangefinder spits out a yardage with moa drop, I dial what it says. How is mils quick drop faster? Or if your rangefinder only does range, you have a range card taped to your stock or turret tape. Range, look at card and dial. Or range, then dial based on turret tape. How do you do it quicker with mils?

 

[Harvey_NW]

Maybe I am really fast, but rangefinder spits out a yardage with moa drop, I dial what it says. How is mils quick drop faster? Or if your rangefinder only does range, you have a range card taped to your stock or turret tape. Range, look at card and dial. Or range, then dial based on turret tape. How do you do it quicker with mils?

You beat me to it. Push the button and it says 673 yards, 13.2 MOA, zip, check level, exhale, boom. No thinking.

Even with MILS if the animal moves more than a few yards, you should be re-ranging. And I'm not betting a BOAL on having solutions memorized for oddball yardages.

 

[Shortschaf]

I'm a MILs guy and I agree with the two above^^

Mental MILs isn't somehow faster than a rangefinding solver ha

 

[Jordan Smith]

You beat me to it. Push the button and it says 673 yards, 13.2 MOA, zip, check level, exhale, boom. No thinking.

Except that you’re mixing decimals with 1/4-MOA clicks, which requires rounding. Seems like a small thing, but the devil’s in the details when it comes to executing under pressure without making a mistake.