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

[HuntHarder]

I also used the measuring ability of my reticle on a moose hunt. I only got to try it on an easily visible sub 50"er, but it was good practice and let me apply some of my preseason practice. Fwiw I used a moa scope sfp, so I had to be on the correct power as well..

 

[longwalk85]

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

Yes for sure. I guess what I'm saying about that is that the mental math for that particular conversion feels a lot easier to me with MOA than with mils. I didn't check you, but if 1 mil is 3.6" at 100 yards, 1.3" at 200 yards, 0.65" at 300 yards, 0.325" at 400 yards, etc-- that mental math quickly become clunky and difficult.

I only shoot to about 600 yards. I have my holdovers memorized in moa, if I miss I can still correct for wind at a single distance, and I occasionally use my reticle to estimate a range. So without shooting PRS and getting super technical at longer distances like a lot of you, I find it hard to figure out why I ought to change.

 

[Jordan Smith]

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

I wouldn't say they're significant, but they're not totally insignificant, either. Read back through the thread, I've described them a couple of times.

 

[HuntHarder]

Yes for sure. I guess what I'm saying about that is that the mental math for that particular conversion feels a lot easier to me with MOA than with mils. I didn't check you, but if 1 mil is 3.6" at 100 yards, 1.3" at 200 yards, 0.65" at 300 yards, 0.325" at 400 yards, etc-- that mental math quickly become clunky and difficult.

I only shoot to about 600 yards. I have my holdovers memorized in moa, if I miss I can still correct for wind at a single distance, and I occasionally use my reticle to estimate a range. So without shooting PRS and getting super technical at longer distances like a lot of you, I find it hard to figure out why I ought to change.

You are going the wrong way.. 1 mil at 200 yards is 7.2" similar to 1 moa at 200 is 2". Again not 100% accurate, but pretty close. So if you use tenths of a mil you can pretty quickly measure. Fwiw, it is very hard to get an accurate measure on a live animal at distance. Especially if you are trying to determine 6" at anything more than 200 yards away. Now if they are stationary and you are rock solid, sure. I found it difficult at 150 yards to get consistent measurements on the sub 50" moose.

 

[longwalk85]

You are going the wrong way.. 1 mil at 200 yards is 7.2" similar to 1 moa at 200 is 2". Again not 100% accurate, but pretty close. So if you use tenths of a mil you can pretty quickly measure. Fwiw, it is very hard to get an accurate measure on a live animal at distance. Especially if you are trying to determine 6" at anything more than 200 yards away. Now if they are stationary and you are rock solid, sure. I found it difficult at 150 yards to get consistent measurements on the sub 50" moose.

Ha! Yes you're right I did the conversion totally backwards. I do feel it's an advantage for moa over mils for someone who thinks in inches. But yea it starts to fall apart at longer distances, but then so many other variables come into play that I feel it's not a responsible hunting distance for me anyway. Measuring at longer distances is hard, but it's been close enough to get my bullet into the kill zone out to about 400 yards.

 

[T_Widdy]

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.

First target is at 500, you have a 6mph gun. You think the wind is 6 mph from 9 o’clock. You held .5L and missed off the right by .5 from your poa. Now you know you need to double your wind hold and the wind is actually 12mph between you and the target. Held 1Mil and hit. Next target is at 800, you know it was a .8 hold on you “armboard” but it wasn’t enough for the first target, you had to double that wind hold so now you hold 1.6 and hit. Next target is at 340, would have taken .3 but again there is more wind now so hold .6 and hit. Last target you transition left roughly 45°, target is at 700, so now your wind is not full value it’s 75% so it’s 75% of 1.4, hold 1 Mil L

Take 50% off full value wind call if the wind is from 1 o’clock, 5 o’clock, 7 o'clock or 11 o’clock

If the wind is from around 2 o’clock, 4,8 or 10 it’s rough 75% of your full value

 

[Jordan Smith]

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.

Indeed. Those concepts are more useful for hunting than for PRS matches. You usually have time before shooting each stage to record DOPE for each target, including estimating wind correction.

When we talk about wind brackets and a "gun number," some people seem to be mixing up concepts.

A "gun number" is really about simplifying the math involved with making corrections. Rather than using a simple and standard wind speed (e.g., 10 mph) and then figuring our the correction for our load, we would figure out a simple and standard amount of correction (0.1 mrad per 100 m) and figure out the corresponding wind speed. This is generally not used in PRS matches, since we generally have time to estimate exact solutions and don't need to simplify.

Wind brackets are more about estimating min and max wind drift, and then using those estimates as brackets, or upper and lower bounds, to stay between when making calls on the fly. We figure out our wind brackets before we shoot the stage, and this is generally written down where we can quickly see and reference it.

 

[BLJ]

First target is at 500, you have a 6mph gun. You think the wind is 6 mph from 9 o’clock. You held .5L and missed off the right by .5 from your poa. Now you know you need to double your wind hold and the wind is actually 12mph between you and the target. Held 1Mil and hit. Next target is at 800, you know it was a .8 hold on you “armboard” but it wasn’t enough for the first target, you had to double that wind hold so now you hold 1.6 and hit. Next target is at 340, would have taken .3 but again there is more wind now so hold .6 and hit. Last target you transition left roughly 45°, target is at 700, so now your wind is not full value it’s 75% so it’s 75% of 1.4, hold 1 Mil L

Take 50% off full value wind call if the wind is from 1 o’clock, 5 o’clock, 7 o'clock or 11 o’clock

If the wind is from around 2 o’clock, 4,8 or 10 it’s rough 75% of your full value

This probably sounds odd but I think that sounds logical and easy to pick up on.

 

[Jordan Smith]

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.

Yessir, at least very very few that can do it on every stage.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Yes for sure. I guess what I'm saying about that is that the mental math for that particular conversion feels a lot easier to me with MOA than with mils. I didn't check you, but if 1 mil is 3.6" at 100 yards, 1.3" at 200 yards, 0.65" at 300 yards, 0.325" at 400 yards, etc-- that mental math quickly become clunky and difficult.

I only shoot to about 600 yards. I have my holdovers memorized in moa, if I miss I can still correct for wind at a single distance, and I occasionally use my reticle to estimate a range. So without shooting PRS and getting super technical at longer distances like a lot of you, I find it hard to figure out why I ought to change.

Other than estimating range with your reticle, one of the main points here is that you shouldn't be thinking in inches or converting to dimensions of length at all. You should be thinking only in angular units. And MIL scopes are just a more streamlined system of angular units.

 

[T_Widdy]

This probably sounds odd but I think that sounds logical and easy to pick up on.

It takes a lot of practice but it is how the top shooters are only dropping maybe 1 point a stage. It is a lot more useful at NRL hunter matches where you don’t know exactly what the wind is doing until your first shot

 

[Jordan Smith]

First target is at 500, you have a 6mph gun. You think the wind is 6 mph from 9 o’clock. You held .5L and missed off the right by .5 from your poa. Now you know you need to double your wind hold and the wind is actually 12mph between you and the target. Held 1Mil and hit. Next target is at 800, you know it was a .8 hold on you “armboard” but it wasn’t enough for the first target, you had to double that wind hold so now you hold 1.6 and hit. Next target is at 340, would have taken .3 but again there is more wind now so hold .6 and hit. Last target you transition left roughly 45°, target is at 700, so now your wind is not full value it’s 75% so it’s 75% of 1.4, hold 1 Mil L

Using a "gun number" is a way of simplifying wind drift correction without having to consult DOPE.

This can be accomplished equally effectively during PRS matches by consulting DOPE using an estimated wind bracket, and then scaling corrections from there on the clock. As a simple example, if you write 10 mph wind drifts on your DOPE card, and estimate actual wind speed to be FV 5 mph, you can cut the 10 mph corrections in half. If you miss, you can modify the multiplier accordingly.

 

[HuntHarder]

First target is at 500, you have a 6mph gun. You think the wind is 6 mph from 9 o’clock. You held .5L and missed off the right by .5 from your poa. Now you know you need to double your wind hold and the wind is actually 12mph between you and the target. Held 1Mil and hit. Next target is at 800, you know it was a .8 hold on you “armboard” but it wasn’t enough for the first target, you had to double that wind hold so now you hold 1.6 and hit. Next target is at 340, would have taken .3 but again there is more wind now so hold .6 and hit. Last target you transition left roughly 45°, target is at 700, so now your wind is not full value it’s 75% so it’s 75% of 1.4, hold 1 Mil L

Take 50% off full value wind call if the wind is from 1 o’clock, 5 o’clock, 7 o'clock or 11 o’clock

If the wind is from around 2 o’clock, 4,8 or 10 it’s rough 75% of your full value

Thanks! The doubling part seems easy enough although its the same process with moa. If I miss by double my initial hold, that same value holds true throughout, similar to your scenario. I'll do some more research on the not so easy scenarios. I.e holding 3.5 moa at 400 and it ends up being 5.5. Doing the quick math on that is tough for most including myself. Trying to do quick math in your head to calculate same wind degree and speed but now at say 750 yards. If mils is quicker and easier at that, then I can get on board.

 

[5811]

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.

I think your example of 8" and 2 moa makes for clean math. And I'm glad it worked out for you.

But what if it's actually a 7.5" nose (but you assume 8") and the animal is giving you a 70° side profile (but you assume full 90°) and it measures 1.6 moa in your scope but you see 1.5?

You will calculate 533 yards based on your assumptions. The actual range is 440 yards. Which, check my math, might be 20" difference in drop with a 6.5 creedmoor.

 

[longwalk85]

Other than estimating range with your reticle, one of the main points here is that you shouldn't be thinking in inches or converting to dimensions of length at all. You should be thinking only in angular units. And MIL scopes are just a more streamlined system of angular units.

Well, the original poster was asking whether anyone prefers moa to mil for hunting. The only kind of mental math I actually do in my head while hunting is when occasionally estimating range with my reticle. And that seems easier with moa.

The examples folks are giving for why mils are better typically involve wind, changing from one range to another with the same corrections, etc. But I never do any of that while hunting.

I keep my distances reasonable out to no more than 600 yards. I have my holdovers memorized or written down. I'd have to do the same with mils also. As for wind, I hunt in a very windy place and I generally avoid long shots in strong wind. Usually I can wait between gusts. Even if I miss due to wind, I can see the miss in my reticle and make a correction just as easily.

So if the only kind of mental math I ever need to do (estimating range) is easier in moa, then I think that's one argument for why one might prefer moa over mils.

 

[longwalk85]

I think your example of 8" and 2 moa makes for clean math. And I'm glad it worked out for you.

But what if it's actually a 7.5" nose (but you assume 8") and the animal is giving you a 70° side profile (but you assume full 90°) and it measures 1.6 moa in your scope but you see 1.5?

You will calculate 533 yards based on your assumptions. The actual range is 440 yards. Which, check my math, might be 20" difference in drop with a 6.5 creedmoor.

Yes for sure. I generally use a laser rangefinder. But on the occasion when it doesn't work (which is not uncommon with precipitation, etc in the late season), estimating range is useful. And yes--you obviously need to sit there and stare at the animal for awhile and make sure whatever you're measuring isn't at an odd angle, or that the animal isn't super small, etc. And because there's so much uncertainty, it's only useful out to sensible distances. 533 yards is really getting out there if you don't actually know the range precisely, so I'm not sure I would take that shot based on a reticle-guesstimated range from the nose to eye distance. Even if you did take the shot and watched it hit low, you could adjust and make a hit if the animal is undisturbed--and mils or moa on your reticle hash marks in that situation wouldn't make much difference.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Well, the original poster was asking whether anyone prefers moa to mil for hunting. The only kind of mental math I actually do in my head while hunting is when occasionally estimating range with my reticle. And that seems easier with moa.

The examples folks are giving for why mils are better typically involve wind, changing from one range to another with the same corrections, etc. But I never do any of that while hunting.

I keep my distances reasonable out to no more than 600 yards. I have my holdovers memorized or written down. I'd have to do the same with mils also. As for wind, I hunt in a very windy place and I generally avoid long shots in strong wind. Usually I can wait between gusts. Even if I miss due to wind, I can see the miss in my reticle and make a correction just as easily.

So if the only kind of mental math I ever need to do (estimating range) is easier in moa, then I think that's one argument for why one might prefer moa over mils.

Modern LRF technology has made manual range estimation a rarely used skill, IME.

This discussion is mainly around dialing and holding solutions for hunting shots past the PBR, both elevation and wind. You say you have your holdovers memorized, but that's likely only in 100-yard increments, and is quite coarse for holding intermediate distances. The mental math is in the process of ranging the animal, consulting DOPE to get an elevation solution (whether on a card or in the display of the RF), rounding to the nearest 0.1 mrad or 1/4 MOA, dialing or holding that solution, and then correcting when needed after spotting your own miss or receiving a correction call from the spotter.

 

[solarshooter]

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.

Using a mil reticle to mil a target is indeed very easy. Here's an example:

You see a deer at some unknown range. The deer looks to be about 1yd tall at the shoulder. You use your reticle to count how many mils tall the shoulder is, let's say you count 3 mils tall. Then you do this mental math:

Range in yards = (1yd target/3 mils measured)*1000 = 333yds

Or let's say you are estimating the distance to a male of a certain species of walking monkey that average 6' or 2yds tall. And that target measures the same 3 mils tall. Then the math would be:

Range in yards = (2yd target/3 mils measured)*1000 = 666yds

You exploiting the definition of a milliRADIAN, where the arc length (aka distance on target) is 1/1000 of the radius (aka distance to target). The key to a fast and simple calculation is estimating distance on target in the same units you want to output range to target in. If you mix units, you need to include a conversion constant in the math, which makes it harder. In the case of inches, moa, and yards, this conversion constant is about 100, so it ends up being easier. But I think estimating dimensions on an animal through a scope in inches is overly precise and not necessarily accurate. Yard and half yard increments are precise enough, and enable really easy math.

 

[longwalk85]

Using a mil reticle to mil a target is indeed very easy. Here's an example:

You see a deer at some unknown range. The deer looks to be about 1yd tall at the shoulder. You use your reticle to count how many mils tall the shoulder is, let's say you count 3 mils tall. Then you do this mental math:

Range in yards = (1yd target/3 mils measured)*1000 = 333yds

Or let's say you are estimating the distance to a male of a certain species of walking monkey that average 6' or 2yds tall. And that target measures the same 3 mils tall. Then the math would be:

Range in yards = (2yd target/3 mils measured)*1000 = 666yds

You exploiting the definition of a milliRADIAN, where the arc length (aka distance on target) is 1/1000 of the radius (aka distance to target). The key to a fast and simple calculation is estimating distance on target in the same units you want to output range to target in. If you mix units, you need to include a conversion constant in the math, which makes it harder. In the case of inches, moa, and yards, this conversion constant is about 100, so it ends up being easier. But I think estimating dimensions on an animal through a scope in inches is overly precise and not necessarily accurate. Yard and half yard increments are precise enough, and enable really easy math.

Nice. I like that and agree. Thanks.

 

[Castle Rock]

21 pages,unbelievable.