Vote - MOA or MIL

[Lawnboi]

It’s interesting to see that MOA still has a sizeable lead when the “strictly MILS” camp seems to be much more “gatekeeper” about this topic based on comments.

We are on a hunting site and not a shooting site, from the sound of it lots of guys are still believing the numbers off the back of the Hornady box.

 

[chutinlead]

I figured out my mph number for my MOA scoped 6.5CM for the NRL Hunter match I just got back from. 12mph wind worked out to 1/2MOA every 100yds. Or take the first number of the yardage and divide it by 2 to get your wind hold at 3 or 9.

Example: 400yd target, 12mph wind, 2MOA wind hold.

Keeps it super simple and I live/hunt/shoot in Wyoming, so the whole 10mph and under wind is just a dream. Might at well figure my rifle is a 24mph wind rifle and run 1MOA for every 100yds.

 

[dreamingWest]

I use both. I've come around to mils being superior for wind holds. This makes for a simpler chart.

I do think @Justin Crossley makes a good point on a spotter needing to use inches. This is something that always bothered me during the MOA/MIL debates when thinking about follow-up shots in a hunting scenario.

I also think @BlackTail makes an interesting observation with his wind "clicks" for an MOA scope. I just checked and it works out great with my 30-06 and Hornady PH ammo. This is scoped with a Nightforce SHV 3-10 which is still not offered in mils. Maybe I won't make a switch. Not sure why I never noticed this before.

ETA: Of course then I remembered I never click for wind.

 

[Justin Crossley]

The results are pretty close as I kinda figured.

94 people shoot MIL 40%
113 people shoot MOA 48.1%
28 people shoot both 11.9%

Some great discussion in this thread. I think we learn the most when we are willing to debate a topic and have our own ideas challenged.

 

[Lawnboi]

The results are pretty close as I kinda figured.

94 people shoot MIL 40%
113 people shoot MOA 48.1%
28 people shoot both 11.9%

Some great discussion in this thread. I think we learn the most when we are willing to debate a topic and have our own ideas challenged.

Makes you wonder what it would have looked like ten years ago, and what it’s going to in another ten. Precision shooting technology has come a long way.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

The results are pretty close as I kinda figured.

94 people shoot MIL 40%
113 people shoot MOA 48.1%
28 people shoot both 11.9%

Some great discussion in this thread. I think we learn the most when we are willing to debate a topic and have our own ideas challenged.

should have added 2 other categories, 1. hold in inches, 2. other, please explain

like the guy who mph'd the moa system...right on, find your system, also love all the guys who said they too have inches burned into their minds from a lifetime of working with that measure, I mean literally lol...we handle a handful of inches multiple times a day lol

had to vote moa but would have chose other if available, it was closest option

and maybe defined the usage of said systems a little further (big game hunting only, small game hunting perhaps/pest control, competitive shooting, or combination of activities) maybe a scale in percentages, 100 hunting, 50/50, 75/25 hunting/steel etc.

great thread and resource btw

 

[roperking]

I am a MIL guy. I think most hunters like the idea of MOA better only because they don’t really understand either of the measurements and don’t know how to use the reticle. I was there once as well and thought the same thing. Once you learn how a ballistics program works and use you scope a few times, you stop trying to think of the wind in the amount of inches you have to hold and how many inches you need to move at 100 yards. That being said either system works just fine, MILs are just more simple numbers to remember and keep track of.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I am a MIL guy. I think most hunters like the idea of MOA better only because they don’t really understand either of the measurements and don’t know how to use the reticle. I was there once as well and thought the same thing. Once you learn how a ballistics program works and use you scope a few times, you stop trying to think of the wind in the amount of inches you have to hold and how many inches you need to move at 100 yards. That being said either system works just fine, MILs are just more simple numbers to remember and keep track of.

Welcome to Rokslide Morgun! Glad to see you posting.

 

[Rock-o]

Poll closed before I saw it. I vote mil. Not sure why moa even exists now.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Poll closed before I saw it. I vote mil. Not sure why moa even exists now.

haha you sound fun....mil for what?

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

For those shooting moa, how are you determining your wind hold in the field? Chart? Gun number?

Find a wind speed that results in MOA correction that is half the distance at every 100 yards for your rifle and load.

Example:

10/mph at 500 = 2.5 minutes
400 = 2 minutes
Etc…

Adjust for actual conditions.

Example:

5/mph wind at 600 is 1/2 of adjustment.
For 10 mph gun 600 yards is 3 minutes divided by 2 is 1.5 MOA.

It is not as quick or intuitive as the MIL wind bracket system Form has outlined at first but if you stick with it can be done very quick.

 

[Rock-o]

haha you sound fun....mil for what?

@Stinky Coyote

For what? Meaning hunting or target? Yes.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

@Stinky Coyote

For what? Meaning hunting or target? Yes.

you sure? what's your definition for hunting? for most hunters and hunting kills it's 600 or less, that's less than 2' feet full value 10 mph wind value...you sure you want to choose mils as best? on the ballistics calculators you get to choose units of measure, what are they again? inches/moa/mrads

this poll should have had those 3 categories lol

one of those applies to 'hunting' more than the other two, one of them is easily the 3rd choice....see where this headed?

 

[BjornF16]

I don’t compete. I want to stretch my hunting range out further. I’m converting everything over to mils…I was content to have mix until I saw @XLR post on mph.

 

[Lawnboi]

you sure? what's your definition for hunting? for most hunters and hunting kills it's 600 or less, that's less than 2' feet full value 10 mph wind value...you sure you want to choose mils as best? on the ballistics calculators you get to choose units of measure, what are they again? inches/moa/mrads

this poll should have had those 3 categories lol

one of those applies to 'hunting' more than the other two, one of them is easily the 3rd choice....see where this headed?

They don’t make inch scopes, at least not reputable scopes used for precision shooting.

 

[Rock-o]

you sure you want to choose mils as best? on the ballistics calculators you get to choose units of measure, what are they again? inches/moa/mrads

this poll should have had those 3 categories lol

Yes, I'm sure. I don't use ballistic calculators. Well, not in the field. I really don't use one out of the field either though.

"inches/moa/mrads"? What's with inches? I use mils. Not going to convert to inches.

 

[Shraggs]

Totally correct. The problem is that binoculars and spotting scopes don't have a reticle which leaves the spotter guessing the correction in the case of a miss.

Let's say we are shooting a 10" square target at that example of 568 yards and your buddy misses to the left by 5 inches. An exact error of 10 inches to the left of the point of aim. That error equals about 1.75 moa or .51 mils.

As the spotter (without a reticle) you will need to estimate how far from the center the hit was. I believe it's much easier for most of us to estimate that error in inches. If the spotter estimates the error correctly and comes up with the correction of 10 inches to the right, it's easy to convert that to moa.

If the shooter is using moa the spotter converts the estimated 10-inch error into moa knowing it's about 1 inch per hundred yards. That is a fairly easy calculation for most of us since we know one moa is equal to about 5.7 inches at 568 yards.

If the shooter is using mils the spotter converts the estimated 10-inch error into mils by guessing because they don't have a reticle and they were told on the internet to think in angles. What angle equals a 10-inch error at 568 yards?

Instead, if I was giving that correction in mils my thought process would be: 1 mil equals 3.6 inches per hundred yards, so 1 mil equals 18 inches at 500, so I need about .5 mil correction for a 10-inch error at 568 yards.

Both moa and mil can be figured out in your head but I believe it's simpler to use moa.

Not meant as a disagreement, more a tangent. I’m very happy with my transition to mil and wind brackets or bucket or number whatever it called. It has helped me over the hump of learning. Arcs in Base 10. I feel if you have the time, use your tools but sometimes things can be over in a minute and speed if building a position and solution determines success. Wind brackets for me are quicker also. But I think the rational for mils or moa should be separated from initial solution and follow up correction.

This post hits home in a couple levels to me. A mil shooter should know the math at distance for quick correction and so must a buddy/spotter. A mixed team of mil moa hunters could be a problem either way.

Second, again for me, having FELT recoil low enough to spot my shot, hit or miss is important. In this example that 5” left, 10” miss I can now correct “visually” with my mil reticle. As I would expect a quality moa reticle would with a ruler too….

Seems both work. Folks are successful with both. I wonder if the real answer is understanding angular. .25 or .36 per click or horizontal hold times distance in 100 yard increments.

 

[Rock-o]

The problem is that binoculars and spotting scopes don't have a reticle which leaves the spotter guessing the correction in the case of a miss.

As a generalization, correct, but I know there are spotting scope eyepieces with reticles available. I'm not sure about binoculars other than some of the fancy new ranging models may have a reticle.

Not trying to nitpick.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

A mixed team of mil moa hunters could be a problem either way.

Second, again for me, having FELT recoil low enough to spot my shot, hit or miss is important. In this example that 5” left, 10” miss I can now correct “visually” with my mil reticle. As I would expect a quality moa reticle would with a ruler too….

couple things here, spotting a shot hit or miss is a huge advantage, since 'hunting' situations usually reduce us to our basic instincts on auto-pilot, whether you need a pal to do this or solo doesn't really matter so long as you can solo as that would be far better prep for hunting than having to rely on a support team, more guys kill alone than not

if first shot doesn't land where intended, at this point it's a lottery if the animal is still standing there...so spotting your miss may only just be an educational event on seeing how you read the wind wrong, having said that, if the animal is still there...you can bet you're not going to math in the extra .whatever mils or moa for your correction, you're brain is wired from kindergarten to certain measures and it's going to take your last hold point and move you 5" or 10" necessary as referenced on the target (not reticle) to send it again...

so here's a thought, had you started with a 12" wind hold on target as that was your initial wind math with a regular duplex reticle and spotted that hit or miss and you need an 18" wind hold you will adjust faster to that and send the second much quicker than any other system...with mils/moa reticles you instead started with an on reticle reference other than center line and in the heat of the moment you're going to try and reference again from that first reference point? this will slow you down and increase the odds of not closing the deal, when the shtf you will reduce to the most basic and institutionalized system and you will reference off the target not the reticle to correct....it makes absolute hunting sense (KISS principle) to know this and set up for it and work with it in the first place so it's as intuitive on auto-pilot as it is when you're not

any of these systems work when you're not on auto-pilot, big game hunting is a completely different thing

I sometimes hunt with a guy who has a rangefinder in meters, mine is yards, does competitive shooting long range, has the charts and dials in these moa or mils...however in a hunting situation if I spotted the hit or miss for him at 550 and he needed to send another in a hurry we'd both be on auto-pilot at this point and I wouldn't be calling out .3 more mils or 1.5 moa more hold anything, I'd say move over one more foot and send it again and he'd understand the assignment instantly and get it done. Then I'd tell him to quit bringing that range gear hunting.

Why set up any differently for what we would be reduced to on auto-pilot? Doesn't make sense for hunting. For the 1% who have every intention of shooting at game 600 and beyond it will make sense to run a different system but if your true limits are 600 or less on animals...it will slow you down, there is a more instinctual hunt friendly measure to work with, the hint is that you play with this measure many times a day and your girl knows it by heart also.

heck, we could use a new measure, dinks, how many regular dinks was I off? how many dinks do I need to move over? just move over a Ron Jeremy, thank you sir, meat in the freezer lol

joking aside I think you can see the tip...I mean point...many people might actually shoot better on game if they set up inches/dinks vs moa/mils (for wind holds)

 

[Stinky Coyote]

As a generalization, correct, but I know there are spotting scope eyepieces with reticles available. I'm not sure about binoculars other than some of the fancy new ranging models may have a reticle.

Not trying to nitpick.

So now we need not only a personal spotter but all our optics should have this noise inside them so we can speak alien to fill our freezer and put trophies on the wall in the heat of the moment.

Or we could speak in the language we all reduce to on auto-pilot...inches and feet...on the animal and other terrain references long burned into our subconsciousness.