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

[5811]

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.

In my example, 1/2" difference isn't a super small animal and 70° side profile is very realistic for someone to confuse with full. Could you watch for longer and measure more carefully, sure, but you're still rounding to 1/4 or 1/2 moa.

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.

The actual distance was 440. Still long range, but it looks a lot more appetizing in the scope than 533.

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.

Except in this example, you dial or hold for 533 and the round goes over the animal. Maybe you see the impact, maybe you don't. Maybe the animal runs off and now you're spending a half day looking for sign.

I chose my example with variables that were additive in error. They could just as easily cancel each other out. My point was to establish how many sources of error there are in that method and how easily it could bite you.

Error in estimating the "known" length, error in apparent vs true measurement (at an angle), error in reading the measurement in the scope, error in rounding the calculated distance vs your dope chart, changes in conditions if the animal moves while you do all this math, horizontal component vs estimated range, etc., etc.

And don't forget, you still have to dial and come up with a wind hold using moa after all that.

All this to say range estimation, which you might use infrequently, is not awesome enough with moa to outweigh the advantages of mils, which you use every time.

 

[Brock63]

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.

I am not hearing and understanding your "mental effort" comment in this day of accurate range finders and dial-able turrets. If I have my DOPE card on rifle buttstock...and use rangefinder that may or may not also tie into my ballistics calculator to give me dope in viewfinder. I still am not sure it takes more mental effort to read yardage, refer to dope or ballistics calculator and dial or hold the shot. Plus a rounding error in MOA is smaller if between clicks.
Like I said...I dont do long range competitions and am not trying to do mental math while hunting. An animal 300 yds or more typically gives time . If glassing you should take a reading on major terrain features in area to get idea...look at DOPE to see what you might need. If they are moving that fast where I have to rush I should not be taking shot anyhow.
Good explanations...but still not convinced it is worth converting...someone would have to show me in hunting situations how it is measurably better. Now if shooting LRF or PRS...I can definitely see if engaging multiple targets at variable ranges with winds gusting and swirling.
Furthest I have ever shot in military was 1000 yards....furthest animal ever shot in 50 years is 400 with most less than 250. I am also a trad bowhunter so I tend to stalk closer rather than rush or take iffy shots...but maybe that is why I come home empty handed more often...but I also have fewer wounded animals. LOL

GOod thing we have choices and free will. Thanks again and good luck on your seasons...if a hunter.

 

[T_Widdy]

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.

That equates to 1.2 mil hold at 400, it ended up being a 1.6 mil hold. If you had a 6mph gun your original hold was 3 times the distance to get to 1.2, it took 1.6 which was 4 times the distance at 400, so going to 750 you would hold 4 times the distance, 4x7.5 so your hold is 3 mils. Easier math is 4x8 =32 or 3.2 mil hold which would be a bolder wind call.