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

[HuntHarder]

Same.. Range, dial and shoot. Mils or moa. Same, same.

 

[Iukamedic]

I don't think most people can shoot the 0.1" difference honestly. If you're a world-class benchrest shooter, go MOA.

Not exactly what I meant. There is probably more than .1 difference in my hold from on shot group till the next. How many mils is in 1/2 inch. You are either over or under. That is not significant at 100 yards. But the farther you get out the more it grows. You take into consideration wind, distance and elevation error and just plain ole human error and it grows any more. I’m not a world class bench shooter.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Not exactly what I meant. There is probably more than .1 difference in my hold from on shot group till the next. How many mils is in 1/2 inch. You are either over or under. That is not significant at 100 yards. But the farther you get out the more it grows. You take into consideration wind, distance and elevation error and just plain ole human error and it grows any more. I’m not a world class bench shooter.

If that mattered to any practical degree, I feel like 99% of the PRS guys wouldn't be using MILs. Or I guess if you're a person who cares about what the military does, them too.

 

[HuntHarder]

Not exactly what I meant. There is probably more than .1 difference in my hold from on shot group till the next. How many mils is in 1/2 inch. You are either over or under. That is not significant at 100 yards. But the farther you get out the more it grows. You take into consideration wind, distance and elevation error and just plain ole human error and it grows any more. I’m not a world class bench shooter.

I am a moa guy but I can assure you the .11" difference in a tenth of a mil vs. a 1/4 moa is not noticeable by 99.9% of people. It is not really a reason to shoot moa over mil.

 

[goalie]

As long as the reticle matches the turrets, it works.

I personally think mil and base 10 is easier, despite being old, but I understand people not wanting to switch if they have been using MOA since the 80's

 

[Formidilosus]

Some things have been said in this thread that opened my eyes to better understanding. I have both mil and moa scopes and can use either with dope. In my opinion Mil is a better small number dialing than moa but Moa is more precise. Moa seem easier for a more precise zero at 100 yards because of measurements in .25 inch vs .36 inches.

The largest possible difference in zero POI between .25 MOA and .1 mil adjustments is .055” at 100 yards. You are not adjusting your zero to that level.

 

[06 SB]

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

It is definitely my brain.

 

[Iukamedic]

If that mattered to any practical degree, I feel like 99% of the PRS guys wouldn't be using MILs. Or I guess if you're a person who cares about what the military does, them too.

Prs use mils because the dialing is less and the continuity with other shooters. The same reason service rifle shooters like myself use Moa is the continuity between other shooters. Just thought it was a conversation forum. Sorry to ruffle feathers.

 

[eric1115]

Lots of reasons why some choose mils over moa. Your example is not one of them imo. A rounding error will be greater in mils than it will be in moa. If you round down vs. Up with mils in attached picture, you'd be off .09 mils. If you incorrectly rounded using Moa and went up instead of down, you'd be off .21 moa. .09 mils is roughly .31 moa. View attachment 921887

For me the conversion from decimal on a ballistic rangefinder to ¼ moa on a dial is not an issue of precision, but one of focus. To me, when the rangefinder spits out 5.63 moa, the 5.5 vs 5.75 error is a non-issue, but the decision to use one or the other takes more focus than going up from 2.45 to 2.5 or down from 2.44 to 2.4 mil.

That focus can absolutely be better used on other parts of my pre-shot routine.

I also find myself using quick drop a ton, even with a ballistic rangefinder especially when shooting different guns. I'll keep my long range rifle profile loaded, and just use quick drop with the .223 rather than switching profiles.

I don't even use the wind output from my rangefinder, just wind brackets. It's faster for me than waiting for the number in the viewfinder, and allows me to adjust my hold while in the scope as wind changes.

 

[HuntHarder]

For me the conversion from decimal on a ballistic rangefinder to ¼ moa on a dial is not an issue of precision, but one of focus. To me, when the rangefinder spits out 5.63 moa, the 5.5 vs 5.75 error is a non-issue, but the decision to use one or the other takes more focus than going up from 2.45 to 2.5 or down from 2.44 to 2.4 mil.

That focus can absolutely be better used on other parts of my pre-shot routine.

I also find myself using quick drop a ton, even with a ballistic rangefinder especially when shooting different guns. I'll keep my long range rifle profile loaded, and just use quick drop with the .223 rather than switching profiles.

I don't even use the wind output from my rangefinder, just wind brackets. It's faster for me than waiting for the number in the viewfinder, and allows me to adjust my hold while in the scope as wind changes.

My main point was rounding errors have the ability to be more costly with mils. Not that I truly think rounding errors are a big deal. As far as which way to round with moa. It really doesn't matter to 99% of hunters. Being off a 1/4 moa or .1 mil either way probably isn't going to make or break in a hunting scenario unless you are shooting an extremely long distance.

 

[The Harbor Master]

I've been following this thread and chimed in a couple times. It makes good sense to me, I've already swapped to a .mil scope. I can't wait to employ these concepts in the field.

This will be a slow process for me. As a self described "poor" that shoots factory ammo, every box of 20rds hits the wallet for $60. First thing first, the new scope needs to get a good 100yd zero and confirm with 10rds at least... Next I need true velocity data but $400 for a chronograph won't happen soon (unless anyone in the SW Idaho area would be willing to meet up so I can throw 3-5rds over theirs ).

Next I'll need to put that accurate chrono data and other load info into ballistic calculator (still trying to wrap my head around figuring out density altitude, no Kestrel or similar) and test that out to range... figure out my quick drop and practice that. Are guys testing their drops on paper at range, confirming with 10rd groups at 200, 300, 400, and on? I have an obsessive brain that needs to be sure via real world testing that everything works like the calculator says it will.

Not sure what I'm getting at, just thinking out loud. Appreciate all the info and discussion thus far.

 

[eric1115]

I've been following this thread and chimed in a couple times. It makes good sense to me, I've already swapped to a .mil scope. I can't wait to employ these concepts in the field.

This will be a slow process for me. As a self described "poor" that shoots factory ammo, every box of 20rds hits the wallet for $60. First thing first, the new scope needs to get a good 100yd zero and confirm with 10rds at least... Next I need true velocity data but $400 for a chronograph won't happen soon (unless anyone in the SW Idaho area would be willing to meet up so I can throw 3-5rds over theirs ).

Next I'll need to put that accurate chrono data and other load info into ballistic calculator (still trying to wrap my head around figuring out density altitude, no Kestrel or similar) and test that out to range... figure out my quick drop and practice that. Are guys testing their drops on paper at range, confirming with 10rd groups at 200, 300, 400, and on? I have an obsessive brain that needs to be sure via real world testing that everything works like the calculator says it will.

Not sure what I'm getting at, just thinking out loud. Appreciate all the info and discussion thus far.

If you find yourself in the wood River valley hit me up. I'm lame and have a magnetospeed (no Garmin) but you're welcome to use it.

Honestly if you're using a mainstream bullet, the box BC is going to be good and you can validate trajectory with a solid zero and one 10 round group at 600-800, skipping over 10 round groups at all the intermediate distances.

If you're using something without a well validated BC that might not be quite enough, but it's still going to be better than most.

Edit to clarify - at 600 if you're in the ballpark with environmentals, sight height over bore, etc velocity is the only thing you should be changing to make your app line up with as-shot results assuming you're shooting enough rounds to get a valid center of group on your 100 yard zero and 600 yard trajectory check.

 

[The Harbor Master]

If you find yourself in the wood River valley hit me up. I'm lame and have a magnetospeed (no Garmin) but you're welcome to use it.

Honestly if you're using a mainstream bullet, the box BC is going to be good and you can validate trajectory with a solid zero and one 10 round group at 600-800, skipping over 10 round groups at all the intermediate distances.

If you're using something without a well validated BC that might not be quite enough, but it's still going to be better than most.

Edit to clarify - at 600 if you're in the ballpark with environmentals, sight height over bore, etc velocity is the only thing you should be changing to make your app line up with as-shot results assuming you're shooting enough rounds to get a valid center of group on your 100 yard zero and 600 yard trajectory check.

That's a great point, didn't think of that. Solid data at 600 or 700 should allow me to infer the distances before that.... I appreciate the chrono offer, though I rarely make it out that way. Thanks!

 

[Jordan Smith]

Given the example above of 13.2 MOA for 673 yards.
Do you think there is a big difference between 13.2 and 13.25 in field conditions?

My 308 calls for 11.3 MOA at 480 (for example). If I dial 11.25 would that result in a miss low?

I don’t think that I have the ability to shoot to a .05 MOA accuracy at distance.

Not at all. The issue isn’t the precision of the adjustment increments, but the mental processing required to round and mix decimals and 1/4-MOA clicks.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Lots of reasons why some choose mils over moa. Your example is not one of them imo. A rounding error will be greater in mils than it will be in moa. If you round down vs. Up with mils in attached picture, you'd be off .09 mils. If you incorrectly rounded using Moa and went up instead of down, you'd be off .21 moa. .09 mils is roughly .31 moa. View attachment 921887

Again, it’s not the rounding error I’m emphasizing, but the mental processing required.

 

[HuntHarder]

Again, it’s not the rounding error I’m emphasizing, but the mental processing required.

I am a little confused. Which part of the mental processing are you emphasizing? Are you saying converting, let's say 13.35 moa to either 13.25 or 13.50? As in 13 moa plus 1 or 2 clicks?

 

[Jordan Smith]

I am a little confused. Which part of the mental processing are you emphasizing? Are you saying converting, let's say 13.35 moa to either 13.25 or 13.50? As in 13 moa plus 1 or 2 clicks?

Yes, rounding as well as the larger numbers. Seems like a simple thing, but they add up when under pressure. Shoot a few PRS matches and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[BLJ]

I guess I think in .25 MOA clicks instead of 1/4 MOA clicks when I’m shooting PRS 22 matches. Plenty of dialing there.

And I also make a dope card prior to each stage. Just like I would for my hunting rifles I would be shooting at distance.
And when dealing with unknown distances I wear an arm board broken down in 10 yard increments. That’s worked in the past.
At that point my dope is just a number on a card. The type of measurement used to get that number is irrelevant at that point.

Verify range, match distance to dope and dial. I suppose that we’ve used MOA long enough now that it has become natural for us.

And just to clarify, I’m not professing that MOA is superior. It’s to state that it most definitely can be learned and used proficiently.

 

[HuntHarder]

Yes, rounding as well as the larger numbers. Seems like a simple thing, but they add up when under pressure. Shoot a few PRS matches and you’ll see what I mean.

Thanks, I am not a prs guy, but have shot in them. I never had the issue you describe, but I suppose it's a possibility. Everyone's mind works differently.

 

[solarshooter]

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?

Assuming you have a RF with a solver built in, YES it is neck and neck with quickdrop. And yes both are 5-10x faster and more accurate than the range card taped to the stock. Turret tape may be ok but you need to be able to adjust it for DA and other variables, so you might be redoing it often, and you still have to eyeball interpolate 463yds between "4" and "5" on your turret which may be noticeably less correct.

I've seen ballistic RF give weird answers too. Sometimes they get bad environmental readings, angle readings, etc. Or they pair with your phone and grab a different profile when you didn't want them too. And now your ability to shoot quickly is dependent on having one particular rangefinder with your solution programmed in. If your battery dies, or if you're in a scenario where your buddy is ranging and spotting, this won't work. With quickdrop, not only can I use any rangefinder/range estimate, I can pick up most any common gun/bullet and estimate it's trajectory pretty damn close.