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.

 

[justin davis]

Yardage turrets? Because conditions change.

I can make a tape for a day. And sure conditions can change a little but I haven’t seen them change enough to have it affect much. It’s easy to put on another piece of electric tape and look up my drop table and write yardages in.

 

[BLJ]

What distances are you guys seeing environmentals (specifically DA) start affecting dope?

 

[HuntHarder]

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

I have not and honestly never really competed either. Just shot a couple because it looked fun. If I had more time in my life, I'd love to get into that scene for sure.

 

[BLJ]

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

What significant advantages have you noticed shooting MIL over MOA in a PRS match?

 

[Nimrod85]

MOA and mils are both angular units of measure. So they can be used mathematically in the same way. One guy may like doing math in base 10 and another in 0.25 units--but the conversions and dialing are all the same. I'm not a long range shooter, so using the approximate conversion of 1 moa = 1 inch at 100 yards works well for me at all reasonable hunting distances.

Some guys are on here saying that the conversion from linear units to angular units doesn't matter and isn't important. The exception--and I feel it's a very useful exception--is when you're stuck using your reticle as a range finder.

You can determine the approximate range to a target if you know the approximate linear measurement of some aspect of that target. For example, a few years ago on an antelope hunt, I accidentally lost my range finder somewhere on the prairie during a stock. Rookie mistake.

But I know that the ears of an antelope buck are typically about 6 inches long. The distance between the tip of the nose and the eyes is about 8 inches. I use these distances to help judge horn length and trophy quality, so I have them memorized.

But the same distances can also be used to determine range. So, for my buck antelope, I could tell through my scope that the nose to eye distance was about 2 moa. 8 inches will subtend 2 moa at about 400 yards, so I knew the antelope was about 400 yards away, even without a range finder. That buck is hanging on my wall next to me as I type this.

Yes, you could do the same with mils, since 0.1 mil subtends 1 cm at 100 meters. So I suppose you could range in meters and memorize animal dimensions in centimeters. But most of us have animal dimensions memorized in inches. And yes 1 inch =2.54 centimeters, so then at 100 yards 2 inches subtends about 0.5 mils. But that math seems harder to me at unknown distances. I already know inches intuitively and I range in yards. So the approximation 1" = 1 moa at 100 yards is helpful to me.

Using your reticle to range will come in handy if your range finder battery dies, or if it won't penetrate the fog, or if you lose it. And I find using moa makes this easier for me.

 

[T_Widdy]

What significant advantages have you noticed shooting MIL over MOA in a PRS match?

Wind brackets and a gun number

 

[BLJ]

Wind brackets and a gun number

MIL has a more simple solution for this, but I’m pretty sure the same can be achieved in MOA.

I was curious about the differences between the two during a match.

And it’s possible that I’m not understanding your response.
I would think a wind bracket/gun number would be sorted out prior to a match.

 

[T_Widdy]

MIL has a more simple solution for this, but I’m pretty sure the same can be achieved in MOA.

I was curious about the differences between the two during a match.

And it’s possible that I’m not understanding your response.
I would think a wind bracket/gun number would be sorted out prior to a match.

You can shoot your first shot and miss due to wind, spot your impact, measure it with your reticle and now you know your wind angle or the value percent of the distance for your wind call, it can be done quickly on the clock. Once you have a correct call for the percentage of your wind number you can apply that to all your other targets yardage and if the wind doesn’t change you should not miss due to wind. It’s hard to explain if you don’t use it and know how wind brackets and wind angles work.

You could probably do it with moa but I think you would need to be a math professor to be as quick as a redneck with Mils.

There are very very few people that can call wind good enough at the beginning of a stage to not make a correction on the fly while shooting the stage.

 

[LongWayAround]

People who are stuck on MOA say:

It's the same.
I don't want to change all of my scopes.
I have never had an issue.
I think in inches.

It's pretty safe to assume that most shooters start with moa. The conversion is pretty one directional and I personally don't know anyone who went to mil and returned to moa.

 

[HuntHarder]

You can shoot your first shot and miss due to wind, spot your impact, measure it with your reticle and now you know your wind angle or the value percent of the distance for your wind call, it can be done quickly on the clock. Once you have a correct call for the percentage of your wind number you can apply that to all your other targets yardage and if the wind doesn’t change you should not miss due to wind. It’s hard to explain if you don’t use it and know how wind brackets and wind angles work.

You could probably do it with moa but I think you would need to be a math professor to be as quick as a redneck with Mils.

There are very very few people that can call wind good enough at the beginning of a stage to not make a correction on the fly while shooting the stage.

Wind is the hardest part of LR. I can do the adjustment after a miss with moa as well, but if mils is considerably easier I'd like to learn. So lets say 400 yards my guess was 1.5 moa of wind hold. I shoot, miss by 1 moa. Wind was stronger than I thought. Simple to hold the extra 1 moa on follow up. Now trying to math that to the next target at 700 gets tricky. @T_Widdy could you give me a quick run down with a similar scenario using your mph and missing .3 mils or something, then mathing out to 700.

 

[HuntHarder]

People who are stuck on MOA say:

It's the same.
I don't want to change all of my scopes.
I have never had an issue.
I think in inches.

It's pretty safe to assume that most shooters start with moa. The conversion is pretty one directional and I personally don't know anyone who went to mil and returned to moa.

No doubt, the juice has the be worth the squeeze to committ to $10,000+ to swap reticles on guns that you haven't encountered the issues others have.

 

[LongWayAround]

No doubt, the juice has the be worth the squeeze to committ to $10,000+ to swap reticles on guns that you haven't encountered the issues others have.

I would agree.

But I don't see the logic in that. You "need" one or two scopes in mil. Assuming you have a trainer and a hunting gun. One doesn't have to do a total recall to test the waters.

 

[Nimrod85]

People who are stuck on MOA say:

It's the same.
I don't want to change all of my scopes.
I have never had an issue.
I think in inches.

It's pretty safe to assume that most shooters start with moa. The conversion is pretty one directional and I personally don't know anyone who went to mil and returned to moa.

What about my post above on determining the approximate range to a target? How would you accomplish that with mils using easy math in your head? I'm honestly curious, but I also can't think of a way to make it easy short of memorizing animal dimensions in centimeters, which I suppose one could do.

The reason I feel this is important is that it's a common and handy hunting scenario at practical ranges when your range finder won't penetrate fog, stops working because the battery got cold, etc. Shooting an animal at 400 yards, acquiring a wind correction, and then using that wind correction to shoot another animal at 700 hards--that is definitely not a common hunting scenario.

No one discusses determining range with a reticle, and everyone says you don't need to convert angular units to linear units--but to determine approximate range, you need to do exactly that.

 

[HuntHarder]

What about my post above on determining the approximate range to a target? How would you accomplish that with mils using easy math in your head? I'm honestly curious, but I also can't think of a way to make it easy short of memorizing animal dimensions in centimeters, which I suppose one could do.

The reason I feel this is important is that it's a common and handy hunting scenario at practical ranges when your range finder won't penetrate fog, stops working because the battery got cold, etc. Shooting an animal at 400 yards, acquiring a wind correction, and then using that wind correction to shoot another animal at 700 hards--that is definitely not a common hunting scenario.

No one discusses determining range with a reticle, and everyone says you don't need to convert angular units to linear units--but to determine approximate range, you need to do exactly that.

It's similar to the same way you do it with moa. Really no different other than different "'s. .1mil= .36" or 1 mil = 3.6". Instead of 1/4 moa = .25" and 1 moa = 1" @ 100

 

[LongWayAround]

@Nimrod85 I admittedly have not done that.

Two years ago I made a post asking about the average height of an elk chest after a situation where I could have used that knowledge.

I think the correct way to play that would be to work out a chart and attach it to your gun. Guys do the same to measure antler width for Alaskan moose.

I believe you are correct that to range with the reticle you need a known target size.