Vote - MOA or MIL

[PrimarySecondary]

MOA bc my brain doesn't think in MIL, but I will need to practice MIL eventually.

 

[sram9102]

I think people typically start out with MOA due to being able to use inches rather than actual MOA for the vast majority of shooters. That .047 doesn't come into play until way past what the average person shoots. Then when people try to convert over to mils they still try and adjust mils into an inch measurement and that is the confusing part. Have to get used to measuring with the reticle and not looking at the target and thinking those shots are x number of inches off.

 

[prm]

I am not really set in my ways, probably a little more comfortable MOA, but once I saw proficient shooters using MILs I felt upping my game would be easier using MILs. FFP, good reticle, MILs turn out to be really easy.

 

[ID_Matt]

I feel like a lot of hunters are in the same boat. I know my brain works like this.

You're correct except for one thing. Most binoculars and spotting scopes don't have a reticle in them.

I'm not saying one is better than the other but I do think there are pros and cons to each. It's interesting that most comments in this thread and others seem to favor MIL but more people seem to shoot MOA. I wonder if it's because MOA makes more sense to people when they first start out, or maybe just marketing?

I won’t argue that MOA is easier to convert to inches, and i will admit i switched to mil only a year ago after using moa my whole life. You’re definitely right that most spotters/binos aren’t going to have a reticle to measure off of so they’ll likely be talking to you in inches/feet. But even then, in my head it makes more sense if a spotter says “you hit 10 inches right” that you just look at your reticle and see where approx 10” right lines up on it and then move your aiming point over to the corresponding hash mark and shoot. Vs thinking, well 10” at 639 yards is about 1.5 moa, dial turret and re shoot.

 

[Lawnboi]

I see most beginners picking moa because they are still stuck in measuring inches, when in reality it’s an angular measurement just as mils are. The generic inches are easier argument only hampers progress regardless of the unit of measure.

The sooner you let go of the grasp of talking in inches, and move to thinking in only whatever angular measurement your shooting, the easier it will become.

The MPH wind gun number is the way to go imo, especially for most hunting situations. There’s a time and place for perfection but it allows making an accurate wind call on the fly, at reasonable ranges.

People are not shooting hunting weight rifles in the field to the level they can tell the difference between a tenth of a mil and a quarter minute. I’d argue that nobody is wringing out that kind of precision in a hunting rifle period, especially when you consider accuracy along with that.

 

[204guy]

If a spotter gives a correction in inches, I can't imagine calculating that to moa and using the reticle to hold. Most everyone especially on an animal is going to slide what they think 10" or whatever the call was and shoot.

Thinking on it more the above is just a disaster. You've got a guessed correction by the spotter compounded by a guessed correction by the shooter. There is definitely an unfilled niche of alpha spotters with a reticle in them. The spotter would be far better off spotting through his rifle scope if applicable, assuming you're both using the same system.

 

[Landonm]

I usually lean MOA. I find simple MOA/half-MOA windage subtensions are more than granular enough, make for simpler and cleaner reticles.

That being said, I have a smattering of both MOA and MIL scopes spread across different rifles. Really doesn't matter at the end of the day. The dial-up solution is just a number.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Is it a fair assumption that most people who choose MOA are strictly hunters and most who choose MIL compete in precision rifle comps at some level and/or were trained in the military?

I ask this because I personally feel the choice makes much less of a difference for someone who strictly hunts.

 

[justin davis]

MOA makes more sense in my head

 

[Lawnboi]

Is it a fair assumption that most people who choose MOA are strictly hunters and most who choose MIL compete in precision rifle comps at some level and/or were trained in the military?

I ask this because I personally feel the choice makes much less of a difference for someone who strictly hunts.

I am mainly a hunter who also competes. I couldn’t go back to MOA

 

[woods89]

I have one of each, and don't find it too big of an issue to go back and forth. If I have the choice going forward all scopes will be mils so I can use a wind bracket. I hunt and shoot recreational, but don't compete.

I have never understood why inches get tied to MOA, though. It's an angle of divergence, not a unit of measurement.

 

[XLR]

I'd appreciate a whole new thread on this subject, along with links to the reference material if you have time. I think some of us could really stand to gain something in this MPH conversation.

There you go! Took me a little longer than I thought it would but I hope you like it! Would love to hear what you think!

 

[WeiserBucks]

There you go! Took me a little longer than I thought it would but I hope you like it! Would love to hear what you think!

Thank you very much.

 

[Miflatlander91]

I had to get rid of my minute scopes when I started calling wind off mph gun number.

Guys that are not doing the above are missing out.

You can still do this off moa it's not nearly as easy as mil but works for me

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

[Lawnboi]

You can still do this off moa it's not nearly as easy as mil but works for me

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

The moa version was way too complicated for me to do on the fly and in my head, especially when not shooting a full value, or when the numbers didn’t line up.

 

[deadwolf]

Another plus for MIL is more reticle options. That are also less cluttered : )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tak]

mil for me

I completely understand why people are comfortable with MOA, but the fact is we should all be "thinking in angles" not in inches or centimeters or whatever.

Using mils has been much easier to transition to the angle type of thinking. (Maybe because it doesn't translate to inches very well, and I certainly don't think in meters and cm, so it forces you to use the angle measurement). I shot a gun with a minute scope for a few hunts last year and it made me realize how much I really do prefer mils.

Gunwerks has a good formula for wind calling in minutes, it was explained pretty well on Backcountry Hunting Podcast, but I don't think it's as easy as the gun number.

The finer adjustments of a quarter minute scope isn't a good argument either; no one can shoot the difference between 0.25" and 0.36" at 100; no one looking for advice on the internet anyway.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I understand and have shot both, but prefer MOA because it's what I learned first and a simple reticle has always done what I've needed. I definitely use angular measurements all the time in my own head, but I'm also guilty of converting to inches by habit. I think it's easier to reference certain things in a unit of measurement we've used our whole lives, as opposed to one that typically only long range shooters use. So when measuring targets for reference, the size of a kill zone is probably easier estimated in inches instead of minutes, but easily converted. In my mind anyways.

 

[deadwolf]

I feel like I’m on a boat, going up and down with the MOA/MIL swell. : )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jhm2023]

I like MOA for hunting and it works for me as I don't shoot past 600. I used milliradians plenty in the military when I did big boy long range stuff like across entire map sheets using surface to surface and air to surface assets. To me me mils made a lot of sense for that.