Vote - MOA or MIL

[Stu]

sense of humour, shall I poll to see what percentage of the audience here got that one? C'mon...mil bullies is funny, no one really took that seriously did they?

I certainly didn't take it as seriously as you present it there; I realize you just intended it as a quip. I'm just advocating for more objective discussion which requires setting aside personal and emotional tendencies. Easier said than done, I admit, as I'm guilty of the same.

 

[Formidilosus]

I may use a system you disapprove of for what I currently do 0-600

I do not approve, disapprove, or have any feelings towards the topic. That’s not how my brain works.

and I'll argue with you all day about who will be faster into the kill zone but you're making assumptions that was my implication here in these past few posts. Each guy practiced with his gear will be very quick.

I am not making assumptions. There had been quite a lot of work over the years to measure and determine what way results in the quickest and highest hit rates on a lethal zone sized target at random, unknown distances; in random, unknown field environments; from random, unknown positions. This has been done from previously minimally trained shooters (can load the gun, and function with it, but have no previous exposer to techniques); all the way to world class shooters (national and world level precision and speed shooting champions).

I never said in these last posts to 'hold' anything, just comparing angular measurements to most of our hardwiring...that's it. If you want to be accurate at the big league distances you'll wanna use either on the angular for more accuracy, take your pic, hold .2 mil or 1.5 moa or whatever is your chosen flavour.

Everyone that is taking a shot on an animal is “at the big leagues”. And there is a difference between mil and MOA- they are not equal in use.

If you took 100 people, cloned them and 100 used MOA, and 100 use mil, and 100 used “inches” or whatever you want to call what you advocate; then all three groups learn, practice, and use that system the optimum way for ten thousand rounds apiece while tracking and logging every shot fired; at the end, the three systems/techniques will not have an identical performance level- one will result in higher success rates, one in the middle, and one will result in the lowest success rate.

Many find it helpful to understand a 1000 yard shot is about 20' holdover or the length of their pickup truck and 5 mph wind might be about 4-5'....visualizing that arc...I didn't actually math that, just going off recollections for example purpose but the holdover is very close to that for many cartridges used right now.

That’s really no helpful at all in hitting something. Well, only if your way to hit something is to guess at it.

Just another example of 3d understandings and getting really intimate with ballistics at all levels. It adds up to what you could do if you had to and a bunch of things quit or weren't available to you when you needed or for straight up fun while playing on the range. Practice only makes you better.

Sure. Everyone should plink at some point with a red Ryder BB gun.

You'd likely be surprised to see what a guy could do who knows his flight path intimately with hardly any compensation aids at all.

No I wouldn’t. I have competed in and won major matches in multiple sports where speed, stress, and accuracy matter; as well as hunted with, and killed lots of animals using hold over “inches/duplex’s/whatever”, MOA dialing and holding, and mil dialing and holding. I have also seen quite a few others do the same. At no point has anyones duplex/inches/swag results been better than that same persons MOA dialing elevation/holding windage, nor has that same persons MOA results been better than that persons FFP mil/mil dialing elevation/holding windage results.

Getting all reliant on some non hardwired system is all well and fine for many and great for the range work.

What point has anyone but you mentioned getting reliant on anything?

It never had to be mil however, still doesn't need to be, there was another more institutionalized system already at play. What are they teaching in American schools these days? Have they gone metric? Maybe it is the better choice for the kids lol. But some of us older farts seem just fine with moa. Are they slamming mil the same rate as mil guys slam moa though?

A base ten system is more intuitive, simpler, takes less brain power under stress, and is therefore more durable than a quarter based system.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm still in the MOA camp and am looking for some examples of how MIL is better, more intuitive, faster, etc.... Someone mentioned a podcast I think? Or is there a another thread I can go spend time reading and cogitating on?

A couple of things to understand-

We use a base ten ranging system= hundreds of yards or meters. That same base ten system of distance also corresponds generally with a rifles drop. There is a system for accounting for that drop/drift that is a base ten system.

Because Jesus loves tens: using mils for shooting generally matches up for drop/drift, and also allows very simple and straightforward way to adjust for wind drift with no electronics, never having fired that specific rifle, nor ever putting in that rifle/ammo combination into a ballistic calculator.
The first number of the G1 BC of the bullet is the full value wind bracket of that combo for 2,300’ish to 2,800’ish FPS MV (G1 bc is .536, the wind bracket is 5mph). If over 2,900’ish FPS MV, then add one MPH to the number (G1 .536 at 3,000+ Fps, wind bracket is 6mph). This is rough, but usually closer than anyone can call wind.
The same is also true for elevation (drop). Most bullet/MV combos will result in drops from 300-600 yards that are either .1 mil per ten yards, or .1 mil per 20 yards. It is easy to remember which, and in the moment when the animal runs another 20-30 yards closer or father, it’s simple to add .2-.3 mils, or .1-.2 mils to the hold without looking at a chart.

In short, mils offer-
-The simplest most intuitive way to make wind calls from muzzle to 600’ish yards without electronics

-The simplest and most intuitive way to remember and adjust for drops from muzzle to 600’ish yards without electronics

-Requires the least brain power and eye tracking of any of the methods to account for drop/drift

 

[Jimbee]

Has anyone ever sold all their mil ffp scopes and converted to MOA? I know a couple guys that have done the opposite....

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Has anyone ever sold all their mil ffp scopes and converted to MOA? I know a couple guys that have done the opposite....

Hang around awhile, there will be another trend and you will see exactly that one day.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hang around awhile, there will be another trend and you will see exactly that one day.

No you won’t. And “popular” is not proof of superior.


Where exactly- be specific, do you believe that your “system” results in quicker hits, more hits, or more consistency over a properly designed FFP mil reticle, with mil turrets? Speed to first hit? Hit rate? Second shot corrections? Shooter/spotter communication?

Please give target sizes, times, etc.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I do not approve, disapprove, or have any feelings towards the topic. That’s not how my brain works.

I forget how to do multi-quote so this could be ugly.

I am not making assumptions. There had been quite a lot of work over the years to measure and determine what way results in the quickest and highest hit rates on a lethal zone sized target at random, unknown distances; in random, unknown field environments; from random, unknown positions. This has been done from previously minimally trained shooters (can load the gun, and function with it, but have no previous exposer to techniques); all the way to world class shooters (national and world level precision and speed shooting champions).

Ok, so good for beginners and having a common language for new trend mostly on the competitive scene for buddy and team shooting etc. Got it, sounds like a solo hunters wet dream.

Everyone that is taking a shot on an animal is “at the big leagues”. And there is a difference between mil and MOA- they are not equal in use.

Well I guess I have homework to do here as other than a base 4 vs 10 system as you say I'd have to agree there's a difference. Would also agree they won't be equal in use. One might be better in certain windows than others however and more closely related to lifetime hardwiring that you could care less to address.

If you took 100 people, cloned them and 100 used MOA, and 100 use mil, and 100 used “inches” or whatever you want to call what you advocate; then all three groups learn, practice, and use that system the optimum way for ten thousand rounds apiece while tracking and logging every shot fired; at the end, the three systems/techniques will not have an identical performance level- one will result in higher success rates, one in the middle, and one will result in the lowest success rate.

0-600 yard hunting, you're saying a base 10 will put more bone on the wall and meat in the freezer between equally trained and competent with their gear of those 3 systems of a group primarily hardwired for life in two of those systems? How were they doing so well before? Anyway, if you live in prs competitive team shooting land you may think the oddball would be the winner here because base 10 offers more precision potential and may be a great universal for the newbs/teams/competition but in scenario we seem to lose focus on, hunting, does it offer a bunch of unnecessary noise? So I don't agree and the thread can have a broad perspective from way higher up to see what may make more sense to invest in for what they're gonna be doing out there.

That’s really no helpful at all in hitting something. Well, only if your way to hit something is to guess at it.

Sure. Everyone should plink at some point with a red Ryder BB gun.

Yes they should. As we've seen mentioned in other threads a theme of reasonableness for application and or it's easy to go down a lot of unnecessary rabbit holes and over complicate something and the goal should always be KISS principle for hunting and auto-pilot proficiency. So would it be better to run a simpler system past 600 and not shoot as well in the practice stuff in order to be deadlier with the hunting? Or run the noisiest stuff likely to giving a few more hits on steel and medals and dollars and prestige against other people to put the bone on the wall and meat in the freezer? You never acknowledge that, you got stake in some of this gear to sell or something?

No I wouldn’t. I have competed in and won major matches in multiple sports where speed, stress, and accuracy matter; as well as hunted with, and killed lots of animals using hold over “inches/duplex’s/whatever”, MOA dialing and holding, and mil dialing and holding. I have also seen quite a few others do the same. At no point has anyones duplex/inches/swag results been better than that same persons MOA dialing elevation/holding windage, nor has that same persons MOA results been better than that persons FFP mil/mil dialing elevation/holding windage results.

Useless statement in a hunting forum. Sort of proving some of my points. Few can be fluently deadly against other people competitively and be equally so in the field on game so kudos, I have no doubts you're a killer at both. Again though, so many get wrapped up in trying to be all that at one and can't do nearly the same at the other so did all the work in one hurt them or overload them for being better set up for the other?

What point has anyone but you mentioned getting reliant on anything?

Well this likely doesn't need response but I'm hitting them all anyway. I guess I answered it in the response above.

A base ten system is more intuitive, simpler, takes less brain power under stress, and is therefore more durable than a quarter based system.

I disagree if you're hardwired for life in other measures.

I think there's been some further assumptions made on type of gear used between the two angular methods as being different other than unit of measure? But the trend to one for common language on the competitive scene is also a driving factor to the shift. So solo 0-600 yard hunters should up and switch to mil/ffp based systems or they won't be nearly as good as putting bone on the wall or filling freezer?

You didn't address how many users in this thread also see the linear difference measure between poa or where barrel is pointed to where bullet lands and how they reconcile that back to the angular measure/flight path. For those that can't turn off their brains to all things they see...what's the solution?

Many outside of me have in this thread have confirmed they are hardwired to base 4 system starting in inches and brains aren't putting the 4"-30" left impact into mils as easily as they can with moa but they are trying for they like to study, same here. I do see the benefit for beyond 600 a system that adds more precision which this does but that should have been clarified in this poll what the parameters were? Anything over the fur hold to 600 yards is most guys 'long range hunting'.

Most hunters don't need a common language or system to train to others, or communicate with teams across a competitive shooting discipline, and most don't need the next level of precision as to require a new system for the usual long range hunting limits, most don't need to be part of a team to score multiple hits on multiple targets at speed against other teams at distances they typically won't hunt at. A kill zone will do and you can get into it very quickly with a much more Occam's Razor and personalized k.i.s.s. solution which is a driving formula for all things hunting imo.

Redo the poll, refine the parameters, likely won't even see me enter the chat if it leans away from 0-600 yard hunting and starts at 600+ yard combined hunting/competition/team work etc.

Lets remember in the ballistics calculators you get the choice of units, inches/moa/mil so there's applications for all of them, many of us look at all of them and study all of them, several ways to skin the cat. Pick the best horse for what you do and giver.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

No you won’t. And “popular” is not proof of superior.


Where exactly- be specific, do you believe that your “system” results in quicker hits, more hits, or more consistency over a properly designed FFP mil reticle, with mil turrets? Speed to first hit? Hit rate? Second shot corrections? Shooter/spotter communication?

Please give target sizes, times, etc.

moa vs mil measure is the argument,

my system is irrelevant in this discussion, pissing contest deflection en route...I'm quite comfortable in my system and have been called out by a combo competitive shooter/hunter bud a couple times afield, he didn't need to do that after a couple, been there done that, he knows he would whip me on the bench and anything requiring groups or ultimate precision, full custom vs full factory, but he knows I lack nothing afield and am very quick into the kill zone with zero ask from whoever is with me as I am almost always solo, factory everything sub moa will do, sounds like you'd be faster than him but not sure if we could replicate those call outs, my freezer and walls could care less to race you into a kill zone, my competition has always been about me vs the game and my set up afield with my own gongs etc. about that also, competing against people is not where I want to be but still do well, we'll both do just fine, been a strong closer since single digit ages so a lot more to it than our individual set up flavour of the moment but I'll be sub moa to 600, can read the wind pretty good and I'll be in the kill zone very quickly first shot, doesn't take a lot of noise or the latest setup trend to do it either

the poll is moa vs mil in long range hunting forum so a lot of subjectivity at play in responses, I'm at one end, you're at the other, unless further definition is applied like over 600 and combined disciplines/team shooting/training etc. then I'm out of the discussion, I could care less about that stuff, the hunting is the only thing I care about

 

[Formidilosus]

I forget how to do multi-quote so this could be ugly.

Ok, so good for beginners and having a common language for new trend mostly on the competitive scene for buddy and team shooting etc. Got it, sounds like a solo hunters wet dream.

It has nothing to do with trends and is not limited to competition- this is where you are showing ignorance.

Well I guess I have homework to do here as other than a base 4 vs 10 system as you say I'd have to agree there's a difference. Would also agree they won't be equal in use. One might be better in certain windows than others however and more closely related to lifetime hardwiring that you could care less to address.

There is nothing natural or hardwired from life that translates to shooting. This is not an opinion.

0-600 yard hunting, you're saying a base 10 will put more bone on the wall and meat in the freezer between equally trained and competent with their gear of those 3 systems of a group primarily hardwired for life in two of those systems?

100% and without guessing. One system is faster, more intuitive, takes less brain power, and less eye movement. One “system” by happenstance or because Jesus loves tens, almost perfectly follows and tracks trajectory making corrections without looking at electronics or charts significantly more intuitive.

I hope every hunter chooses a SFP, MOA reticle and turret scope and continues trying to think in inches. They will kill less.

How were they doing so well before?

That’s a fallacy- success, ever how you define it, in using one technique, does not mean there wouldn’t be higher success with another. Again, it is obvious you have not used both mil and MOA systems optimized, heavily and measured the results, as they are not equal.

Anyway, if you live in prs competitive team shooting land you may think the oddball would be the winner here because base 10 offers more precision potential and may be a great universal for the newbs/teams/competition but in scenario we seem to lose focus on, hunting, does it offer a bunch of unnecessary noise?

No. Mil is winning because it is simpler, more intuitive, and offers easy to remember and apply wind and drop corrections without aids. Those same attributes apply to shooting regardless of whether the target is steel or tissue.

So I don't agree and the thread can have a broad perspective from way higher up to see what may make more sense to invest in for what they're gonna be doing out there.

Your, mine, or anyones “preference” has no bearing on which has a higher success rate when actually measured. I do not talk about “I like, I think, I feel”; I talk data and measured results.

Yes they should. As we've seen mentioned in other threads a theme of reasonableness for application and or it's easy to go down a lot of unnecessary rabbit holes and over complicate something and the goal should always be KISS principle for hunting and auto-pilot proficiency. So would it be better to run a simpler system past 600 and not shoot as well in the practice stuff in order to be deadlier with the hunting?

Again, the fallacy you are using is that a FFP mil/mil system used optimally is more complicated- that is not true. It is in fact the simplest way so far to have the highest hit rates, the fastest, with the least screwups in unknown conditions, unknown range, and unknown positions.

Or run the noisiest stuff likely to giving a few more hits on steel and medals and dollars and prestige against other people to put the bone on the wall and meat in the freezer? You never acknowledge that, you got stake in some of this gear to sell or something?

There is nothing to acknowledge- your base premise is demonstrably incorrect. How does the rifle and bullet know that it’s being aimed at a piece of paper, a piece of steel, cardboard, or tissue?

No, I do not make any money in any way from companies.

Useless statement in a hunting forum. Sort of proving some of my points. Few can be fluently deadly against other people competitively and be equally so in the field on game so kudos, I have no doubts you're a killer at both. Again though, so many get wrapped up in trying to be all that at one and can't do nearly the same at the other so did all the work in one hurt them or overload them for being better set up for the other?

Again, the fallacy is the same as above.

I disagree if you're hardwired for life in other measures.

There is nothing anyone has done that hardwired them for shooting. It is a learned skill, that by all accounts and research so far has no correlation to anything else.

But the trend to one for common language on the competitive scene is also a driving factor to the shift. So solo 0-600 yard hunters should up and switch to mil/ffp based systems or they won't be nearly as good as putting bone on the wall or filling freezer?

The exact same hunter/shooter using an FFP MOA optimized system will lose opportunities that they will not with a FFP mil optimized system.

You didn't address how many users in this thread also see the linear difference measure between poa or where barrel is pointed to where bullet lands and how they reconcile that back to the angular measure/flight path. For those that can't turn off their brains to all things they see...what's the solution?

The spend a whopping one day and about 80 rounds learning how to use the system. Regardless of angular measurements use, trying to convert inches to the angle is an extremely poor way to do it. When you shoot and miss, you have a measuring tape 3.5 inches in front of your eye. You do not need to convert anything- miss by one tick, adjust one tick.

Many outside of me have in this thread have confirmed they are hardwired to base 4 system starting in inches and brains aren't putting the 4"-30" left impact into mils as easily as they can with moa but they are trying for they like to study, same here.

No one is hard wired for anything in shooting from life. Thinking inches and adjusting in inches adds multiple steps that does not need to be there. It is slower, more convoluted, more complicated, and results in more errors.

I do see the benefit for beyond 600 a system that adds more precision which this does but that should have been clarified in this poll what the parameters were? Anything over the fur hold to 600 yards is most guys 'long range hunting'.

Regardless of range, the moment you need to correct for drop and drift, the difference apply.

Most hunters don't need a common language or system to train to others, or communicate with teams across a competitive shooting discipline, and most don't need the next level of precision as to require a new system for the usual long range hunting limits, most don't need to be part of a team to score multiple hits on multiple targets at speed against other teams at distances they typically won't hunt at. A kill zone will do and you can get into it very quickly with a much more Occam's Razor and personalized k.i.s.s. solution which is a driving formula for all things hunting imo.

Higher hits rate is a higher hit rate. There is no one that is 100% on animals or targets.

Lets remember in the ballistics calculators you get the choice of units, inches/moa/mil so there's applications for all of them, many of us look at all of them and study all of them, several ways to skin the cat. Pick the best horse for what you do and giver.

Except that in way does not require a calculator at all.