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

[HuntHarder]

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.

So with quick drop, there is no need to adjust for DA?

 

[solarshooter]

So with quick drop, there is no need to adjust for DA?

There is, but it's just a mental math adjustment to the correction factor. No changing tapes or anything. If we drove from 2k to 8k feet I could get out of the car and make an accurate shot.

 

[HuntHarder]

There is, but it's just a mental math adjustment to the correction factor. No changing tapes or anything. If we drove from 2k to 8k feet I could get out of the car and make an accurate shot.

Interesting. Seems a bit crude as compared to getting actual #'s. I'd have to see some real world examples to try and understand just how crude or exact it can be. Seems to me that setting a sight tape or range card similar to mils quick drop would be very comparable. After getting a range, look at your card and dial accordingly. Takes less than 5-10 seconds in my experience. Environmentals don't really have a huge impact, until further than most should be shooting. I've just never experienced a lot of these "issues" with moa that some say exist. I could see starting from scratch and saying why one would go mils over moa.

 

[eric1115]

I've just never experienced a lot of these "issues" with moa that some say exist. I could see starting from scratch and saying why one would go mils over moa.

I was same, and know lots of others too. They aren't things you identify as problems while doing it, but rather on the other side looking back I see a surprising amount of mental energy that went into making MOA corrections vs mil.

It stood out most noticeably when shooting the last couple of rifles that wore MOA scopes as I made the changeover. Shooting mil and MOA back to back really highlighted the difference.

I am a carpenter, and inches and fractions are a very comfortable language for me. I liked the easy conversion from MOA to inches and x-hundred yards. I was hesitant to switch, but so glad I did.

 

[Jordan Smith]

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.

Have you done it with both MOA and MIL scopes? That's really the only way to see the relative advantage.