WEZ hit rates.

[HuntHarder]

Appreciate the discussion today. I will say, I did not/have not read, most of your posts historically as light hearted. We all think people see this the way we see it- the internet to me is mostly just a data and information source- pure learning. So I tend to approach others as if what they wrote is from the same goal.

Apologies for digressing in your thread.

I've seen you joke on here... I'd imagine you are a very serious person in real life. Some of us are a little more relaxed and not so serious. Sorry my meme ( meant to be a joke) started this thread going in the wrong direction.

 

[huntnful]

The biggest advantage for wind is being able to constantly recalculate and update your wind hold without leaving the scope. If the target moves closer and you can estimate that change in range, or if the wind changes speed or direction, you can immediately update your hold.

Right. You do this with MOA also though? You’re just saying it’s more simple with MIL right?

I just killed two bucks about 10 seconds apart at different yardages. Dialed for the further one, held a little lower on the closer one. They ended up being 330 and 300 yards. I never ranged the closer one. Just knew he was closer.

I think you’re really pushing it making bold assumptions and corrections on the fly. Or shooting a cartridge that requires bold corrections with minute changes in environment and animal distance at moderate ranges.

But if you are going to do it, having the absolute most optimized elevation and wind system and memorizing it and not constantly swapping cartridges and getting confused is certainly a benefit.

 

[solarshooter]

Right. You do this with MOA also though? You’re just saying it’s more simple with MIL right?

Doing this with mental math for MOA is possible but more complicated, requiring an additional operation to get to the correct answer. If the wind switches direction and magnitude, it will be more difficult to scale your initial hold correctly than to simply recalculate it using the wind number method. Same with elevation, 0.1mil per 10yds change in distance.

I think you’re really pushing it making bold assumptions and corrections on the fly

There's no bold assumptions, quickdrop can get you really really close, to the point you will not notice the error. Same goes for the wind number method, you will never be able to detect the error due to the method amidst all the other sources of error, for anything less than extreme ranges.

It's actually kind of funny and characteristic of MOA shooters to assume there must be some large error with any mental approximation of the trajectory, because it is so hard to do correctly with MOA .

Seriously though, once you go try and use it for shooting practice, it works so well and you will get hits without ever needing to consult a computer of any kind (other than a rangefinder). This is a little woo-woo but I feel like it also increased my intuitive "connection" to my gun, because I was able to build an accurate mental model of the bullet trajectory. If one wanted to really practice using the reticle to estimate range, they could feasibly shoot pretty damn accurately with no aids at all, just the rifle and some mental math. I guess that appeals to be at some base level haha.

 

[huntnful]

Doing this with mental math for MOA is possible but more complicated, requiring an additional operation to get to the correct answer. If the wind switches direction and magnitude, it will be more difficult to scale your initial hold correctly than to simply recalculate it using the wind number method. Same with elevation, 0.1mil per 10yds change in distance.


There's no bold assumptions, quickdrop can get you really really close, to the point you will not notice the error. Same goes for the wind number method, you will never be able to detect the error due to the method amidst all the other sources of error, for anything less than extreme ranges.

It's actually kind of funny and characteristic of MOA shooters to assume there must be some large error with any mental approximation of the trajectory, because it is so hard to do correctly with MOA .

Seriously though, once you go try and use it for shooting practice, it works so well and you will get hits without ever needing to consult a computer of any kind (other than a rangefinder). This is a little woo-woo but I feel like it also increased my intuitive "connection" to my gun, because I was able to build an accurate mental model of the bullet trajectory. If one wanted to really practice using the reticle to estimate range, they could feasibly shoot pretty damn accurately with no aids at all, just the rifle and some mental math. I guess that appeals to be at some base level haha.

Oh for sure. I get what you're saying on the wind now.

I meant bold assumptions about how far the animal moved before re-ranging, sorry about not clarifying that. Not bold assumptions on what the correction would be IF you guessed the amount they moved correctly.

 

[huntnful]

Doing this with mental math for MOA is possible but more complicated, requiring an additional operation to get to the correct answer. If the wind switches direction and magnitude, it will be more difficult to scale your initial hold correctly than to simply recalculate it using the wind number method. Same with elevation, 0.1mil per 10yds change in distance.


There's no bold assumptions, quickdrop can get you really really close, to the point you will not notice the error. Same goes for the wind number method, you will never be able to detect the error due to the method amidst all the other sources of error, for anything less than extreme ranges.

It's actually kind of funny and characteristic of MOA shooters to assume there must be some large error with any mental approximation of the trajectory, because it is so hard to do correctly with MOA .

Seriously though, once you go try and use it for shooting practice, it works so well and you will get hits without ever needing to consult a computer of any kind (other than a rangefinder). This is a little woo-woo but I feel like it also increased my intuitive "connection" to my gun, because I was able to build an accurate mental model of the bullet trajectory. If one wanted to really practice using the reticle to estimate range, they could feasibly shoot pretty damn accurately with no aids at all, just the rifle and some mental math. I guess that appeals to be at some base level haha.

.1 mil per 10 yards? Under what circumstances? Definitely not from 100 to 200 yards. That's .3 mil.

 

[BBob]

Simplicity is one of the main reasons I’m planning on shooting my .308s for a while. It’s preferred load does 2 mils at 400, 3 at 500, 4 at 600 and 5.1 at 700. Doesn’t get much easier than that! 6mph gun too.

John

What bullet in that 308?

 

[TimberHunter]

Okay yeah, you definitely take killing animals more seriously than me. Because 1/2 the shit I say is in jest and just for fun to interact light heartedly on the forums and poke fun, while getting fun poked at me.

They’re suggesting it to ME, who have used BOTH. I think I get to have a slight opinion about it in the field situations I used them in.

I promise I won’t take anyone’s MIL scopes from them .

I understand all the shit about proving mil is faster when you set up every scenario to prove it. I’m not denying it. But it’s also not a big deal in the field from what I’ve seen.

My last belly shot on a bull
View attachment 961555

I have no dog is this fight, but the first thing I thought of was went I saw that pic was there’s a PRS shooter. Good use of tools but why bring such a massive tripod?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[huntnful]

Doing this with mental math for MOA is possible but more complicated, requiring an additional operation to get to the correct answer. If the wind switches direction and magnitude, it will be more difficult to scale your initial hold correctly than to simply recalculate it using the wind number method. Same with elevation, 0.1mil per 10yds change in distance.


There's no bold assumptions, quickdrop can get you really really close, to the point you will not notice the error. Same goes for the wind number method, you will never be able to detect the error due to the method amidst all the other sources of error, for anything less than extreme ranges.

It's actually kind of funny and characteristic of MOA shooters to assume there must be some large error with any mental approximation of the trajectory, because it is so hard to do correctly with MOA .

Seriously though, once you go try and use it for shooting practice, it works so well and you will get hits without ever needing to consult a computer of any kind (other than a rangefinder). This is a little woo-woo but I feel like it also increased my intuitive "connection" to my gun, because I was able to build an accurate mental model of the bullet trajectory. If one wanted to really practice using the reticle to estimate range, they could feasibly shoot pretty damn accurately with no aids at all, just the rifle and some mental math. I guess that appeals to be at some base level haha.

I'm going to be 100% honest. I think my perspective on "it doesn't matter much" stems from shooting high BC bullets at fast speeds. Shooting slow, low BC bullets, EVERYTHING matters and you're constantly needing make these corrections at all standard hunting distances. I'm not sure if people realize the mental handicap they're potentially bringing upon themselves doing that. Here's a scenario I just had earlier this year on an aoudad.

Trying to get 3 people into range. Sheep start to spook (excellent eyesight). I range them. 580 yards. Wind is for sure blowing right to left, but not ripping. I don't check the wind, I don't guess the wind. It's for sure under 10 MPH. Sheep is facing left. I lay down, hold the right edge of lungs and send it. DRT. It can't get any faster than that. I didn't hold any MOA. I rarely hold any "MOA" now that I think of it. I hold "windy side of vitals".

The bull I just killed at 500. Right to left wind, maybe 5 MPH (ended up being less), didn't make an MOA hold. Held center the shoulder and sent it. There's 15" of forgiveness there. I don't have to worry about it.

That's exactly why my perspective of "it doesn't matter that much" is skewed now that I'm typing it out loud. Because it really doesn't matter in 90% of the scenarios I'm in. I'm not holding shit, I holding edges of vitals lol.

I'm not even out of vitals until there's a 10 MPH wind at 550 yards. And beyond that with more wind than that, I'm likely not shooting at an animal personally. When wind is less, and distance is further, I take a lot of time before shooting.

Everyone needs to be shooting at least a 22CM with 80's at 3300. You won't be out of the vitals much either hahaha.

 

[huntnful]

I have no dog is this fight, but the first thing I thought of was went I saw that pic was there’s a PRS shooter. Good use of tools but why bring such a massive tripod?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hunting from the side by side hahaha. I have my smaller tripod in my pack in the bed of it . Saw a cow down in that cut and figured there would be a bull in there somewhere. So I just grabbed my gun and the big tripod and mosied my way down to a decent clearing.

 

[Hondo64d]

What bullet in that 308?

168gr TMK at about 2730fps.

John

 

[Jordan Smith]

I just always use and practice quickdrop. What about 430yds? 260? 550? 2.3, 0.6, 3.5. So easy. No memorization ever. I increase DA 5kft? 1.8, 0.1, 3.0. I can pick up my buddy's 24" 7RM or my 18" 6CM and get pretty damn close with those too. Still no memorization. Just one simple equation and a choice of correction factor.

Which is a fair way to do it, but you still need to remember the algorithm and correction factor, and it really only works if you measure distance in yards. I operate in meters, and it lands me about 0.5 mrad low at all distances with the DOPE I mentioned above, in my average atmosphere, requiring an additional correction factor.

 

[HuntHarder]

Which is a fair way to do it, but you still need to remember the algorithm and correction factor, and it really only works if you measure distance in yards. I operate in meters, and it lands me about 0.5 mrad low at all distances with the DOPE I mentioned above, in my average atmosphere, requiring an additional correction factor.

If you use a ballistic rangefinder for every shot, I see no advantage of mils over Moa, do you? I am not near as technical or experienced as a lot on here in long range shooting, but I have been really successful doing it. At one point I tried to talk myself into MILs, but as deep as I am in moa, ill likely stick with moa unless a mils scope comes out that I have to have. I don't ever see myself using quick drop. If I have to dial, I will always require a ballistic rangefinder range. It could cost me a shot or 2, but there is always tomorrow or the next hunt. Knock on wood, it has never been the difference in filling a tag or not.

 

[huntnful]

I just always use and practice quickdrop. What about 430yds? 260? 550? 2.3, 0.6, 3.5. So easy. No memorization ever. I increase DA 5kft? 1.8, 0.1, 3.0. I can pick up my buddy's 24" 7RM or my 18" 6CM and get pretty damn close with those too. Still no memorization. Just one simple equation and a choice of correction factor.

Am I reading it right that at 5000’ DA you have a .1 Mil correction at 260 yards? It’s that just to hit vitals? Or are you shooting a further zero than 100 yards.

I just have to be honest, none of this is jiving with my short experience shooting Mils.

Like I know you study it and now your stuff for sure, but these blanket numbers aren’t adding up to me. Please elaborate if you don’t mind

 

[Schmo]

Am I reading it right that at 5000’ DA you have a .1 Mil correction at 260 yards? It’s that just to hit vitals? Or are you shooting a further zero than 100 yards.

I just have to be honest, none of this is jiving with my short experience shooting Mils.

Like I know you study it and now your stuff for sure, but these blanket numbers aren’t adding up to me. Please elaborate if you don’t mind

I think he meant 2.1, not 0.1.

 

[BBob]

I think he meant 2.1, not 0.1.

No, he’s taking a -.5 correction for the change in DA. His base 260 is .6. .6 -.5 = 0.1. I can’t say that’s correct for the change in DA but that’s what he’s doing.

 

[huntnful]

I think he meant 2.1, not 0.1.

That would also be way off as well. It should be somewhere around .6 mil depending on cartridge. 5,000' elevation change shouldn't change it .5 mil at 260 yards.

I could absolutely be incorrect. But I'll wait for him to explain it better. The simple math, isn't simple mathing for me though at the moment.

 

[huntnful]

No, he’s taking a -.5 correction for the change in DA. His base 260 is .6. .6 -.5 = 0.1. I can’t say that’s correct but that’s what he’s doing.

Right. It's simple, but not correct. Neither is .1 mil per 10 yards as a blanket statement. Both of those corrections are only true under a confined, specific parameter. Not in general.

But I get that it might be generic and just kind of like "these corrections keep me in the vitals at these distances. They aren't perfect, just fast, and close enough".

That's why I'm not reading too much into it. But I think you might actually not kill a deer under some circumstances with a .1 correction at 260 yards. Being 5" low from center of vitals. It'd be close for sure.

 

[Schmo]

That would also be way off as well. It should be somewhere around .6 mil depending on cartridge. 5,000' elevation change shouldn't change it .5 mil at 260 yards.

I could absolutely be incorrect. But I'll wait for him to explain it better. The simple math, isn't simple mathing for me though at the moment.

Yeah. The numbers seem out of order. Hopefully he’ll chime in to clarify

 

[BBob]

That would also be way off as well. It should be somewhere around .6 mil depending on cartridge. 5,000' elevation change shouldn't change it .5 mil at 260 yards.

I could absolutely be incorrect. But I'll wait for him to explain it better. The simple math, isn't simple mathing for me though at the moment.

I just ran Shooter with a 5Kft DA change and there was no change in hold at 250 yds, -.5 at 1K but zero change at 250.

 

[wind gypsy]

If you use a ballistic rangefinder for every shot, I see no advantage of mils over Moa, do you? I am not near as technical or experienced as a lot on here in long range shooting, but I have been really successful doing it. At one point I tried to talk myself into MILs, but as deep as I am in moa, ill likely stick with moa unless a mils scope comes out that I have to have. I don't ever see myself using quick drop. If I have to dial, I will always require a ballistic rangefinder range. It could cost me a shot or 2, but there is always tomorrow or the next hunt. Knock on wood, it has never been the difference in filling a tag or not.

Unless your ballistic rangefinder reads the wind on the fly, yeah there is a benefit to mils for wind holds. For most folks who dont practice and shoot with wind brackets and aren't going to use it hunting, they obviously wouldn't see that benefit.