Vote - MOA or MIL

[Stinky Coyote]

What's with inches? I use mils. Not going to convert to inches.

I would bet almost all of us, when shtf in hunting situations, reduce to inches/feet on target reference vs on reticle reference regardless of how the rodeo started, including you, why not start there so you're maximum speed on auto-pilot and no noise or confusion can get in the way and slow you down?

 

[Shraggs]

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)

I don’t support your methods of using inches and holding off target in any way shape or form

 

[BjornF16]

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...

ummm...no.

I'll use my reticle to measure the mils or moa of impact to aim point and adjust from there.

There ain't no inches about it...

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I don’t support your methods of using inches and holding off target in any way shape or form

you don't have to, it's still sort of free world

you may need to clear up the 'holding off target' part though as the guys moving centreline crosshair off target are doing same thing and finding a reference point further along on the horizontal plane of the reticle rather than horizontal reference point on the target itself but it's same thing...one simpler than the other

otherwise you dial your wind in then? how do you respond if shtf afield and you get to keep shooting? or wind dies off, do you keep dialling wind holds for every shot when precious instants matter or do instincts take over and you start doing reference holds based on impact visuals in relation to the target?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

ummm...no.

I'll use my reticle to measure the mils or moa of impact to aim point and adjust from there.

There ain't no inches about it...

sure, you've got lead in a critter that's now leaving, sounds like what we'd all do, grab the tape measure and start doing math

what's your set up? max hunting distances and are you a xmas tree shooter or just wind hold reticle and dial up for elevation?

 

[BjornF16]

sure, you've got lead in a critter that's now leaving, sounds like what we'd all do, grab the tape measure and start doing math

what's your set up? max hunting distances and are you a xmas tree shooter or just wind hold reticle and dial up for elevation?

I'm confused as to why you think I'd be doing math?

I don't run a Plex type reticle...my scopes all have cross with either MOA or MIL. I dial for elevation, hold for wind.

If there is a miss, AND the animal is still there, then I look at impact versus aim point with the tree, and adjust accordingly. No math...ymmv

 

[sndmn11]

I voted for lasers.

 

[hereinaz]

I'm confused as to why you think I'd be doing math?

I don't run a Plex type reticle...my scopes all have cross with either MOA or MIL. I dial for elevation, hold for wind.

If there is a miss, AND the animal is still there, then I look at impact versus aim point with the tree, and adjust accordingly. No math...ymmv

I have to agree with F16's sentiments here, why do you think we FFP MIL guys are using the maths?

The way the reticle is used in FFP MIL scopes is a completely different methodology than the way SFP MOA shooters uses inches and convert stuff in your head. MIL/FFP scopes completely eliminate the need to use any conversion math at all. I barely use addition/subtraction on occasion for a few tenths. I haven't thought about target size in inches in forever. (With the advent of rangefinders, measuring in MILs to estimate range by sizing things in MIL is completely unnecessary and I never do it. It seems like that gets lumped into "benefits" of MIL scopes and adds to confusion. IMO, that is completely old school keyboard warrior stuff except for hardcore professional shooters.)

For those that it bogles the mind, I think it is one of those things that you have to see to believe, I guess. It gets hashed over a lot and I didn't get it at first until an AHA moment shooting one day early on. I can see why guys stick with MOA and inches and find it adequately fast. Its a feasible way to do it. The only time I get frustrated or do math trying to convert to inches and MOA is when I am shooting with old school MOA buddies. they give me corrections in inches, but I usually have already seen my correction and the inches in my head just build onto it. I don't even try to talk to them about changing, cause unless you really want to commit and build a new habit.

This is how simple it works for me. I spot my shot, and use the ruler in my scope to measure the miss and adjust based on the measurement and shoot again. It isn't complicated at all. Lots of times I don't even have to count MILs, I use the hashes as reference. Most guys quickly learn how to do it in competitions under pressure and it becomes automated so that your eye is almost calibrated to seeing the miss in mils. Of course, this is why we run a FFP we we can use reticle at any magnification.

 

[BjornF16]

This is how simple it works for me. I spot my shot, and use the ruler in my scope to measure the miss and adjust based on the measurement and shoot again. It isn't complicated at all. Lots of times I don't even have to count MILs, I use the hashes as reference. Most guys quickly learn how to do it in competitions under pressure and it becomes automated so that your eye is almost calibrated to seeing the miss in mils. Of course, this is why we run a FFP we we can use reticle at any magnification.

To be honest, this will work for SFP scopes with "ruler" as well...just don't change the magnification.

Doesn't matter whether a MIL on the ruler is actually a MIL or not...so long as the reference doesn't change it is still a valid method (assuming you hold over and not dial for the correction)

ymmv

 

[hereinaz]

(Edit: F16 beat me to it. I had the thought after I posed.) I should add that the way I use my tree reticle like a sheet of graph paper to mark a miss and then just adjust based on what I see can be done with a FFP, SFP, MIL, or MOA. With the SFP, you just can't use the ruler to scale unless it is at the correct power to make subtensions correct. I do have some SFP scopes and BDC type scopes I can use the same method, but am limited with smaller references than my giant tree reticle.

There are advantages to FFP/MIL that make it just that much faster and easier to communicate, but practice whatever you run and you'll kill animals just fine. Don't overcomplicate it. And, if you have hesitation about learning the FFP MIL stuff, just forget about it and go about your SFP MIL business.

Lots of guys switch back after trying the FFP MIL, and I appreciate buying their barely used like new scopes.

 

[sndmn11]

To be honest, this will work for SFP scopes with "ruler" as well...just don't change the magnification.

Doesn't matter whether a MIL on the ruler is actually a MIL or not...so long as the reference doesn't change it is still a valid method (assuming you hold over and not dial for the correction)

ymmv

Correct, my wife doesn't know what a mil or moa is, she just knows that the turret has numbers and the reticle has numbers. They could be elvish widgets for all she knows, but when I say turn it 2 and aim a half right it works out.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I'm confused as to why you think I'd be doing math?

I don't run a Plex type reticle...my scopes all have cross with either MOA or MIL. I dial for elevation, hold for wind.

If there is a miss, AND the animal is still there, then I look at impact versus aim point with the tree, and adjust accordingly. No math...ymmv

you said first...

I'll use my reticle to measure the mils or moa of impact to aim point and adjust from there.

then second...

animal is still there, then I look at impact versus aim point with the tree, and adjust accordingly.

seems to be a bit of delta going on here in those two responses but I'm with you on the second one, no tree necessary to adjust accordingly using the references at point of impact (the puff and the animal), main crosshair will do just fine and be simpler and faster, animal still there and walking, running with a bad hit....one system and auto-pilot ultimately provides most chance to close deal while animal still in sight

if you are saying you'll be able to find which hash mark of maybe 10 tiny hold points along a plane you held for first shot and then figure out from there which hash mark to hold for subsequent shots on moving/leaving/possibly wounded game etc. then no I disagree, you're going to ignore the hashes and focus only on the main crosshair, the animal, and the impacts and you'll instinctively move the main crosshair in reference to the puff....at that point no one is working in inches or reference points on reticles, it's straight visual reference of impact to animal...you can start this way in inches and have no noise to slow you down or transition from one system to another

 

[hereinaz]

Correct, my wife doesn't know what a mil or moa is, she just knows that the turret has numbers and the reticle has numbers. They could be elvish widgets for all she knows, but when I say turn it 2 and aim a half right it works out.

Hahahaha, that is so true! Elvish widgets, lol.

It frustrates me to no end when the guys I am shooting with get it all complicated with how many inches is that? I am like I am too stupid to figure out how many inches. It is 1.5 MOA, move over one tall stick and one half stick on the right side and shoot!!!!

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Correct, my wife doesn't know what a mil or moa is, she just knows that the turret has numbers and the reticle has numbers. They could be elvish widgets for all she knows, but when I say turn it 2 and aim a half right it works out.

she doesn't hunt solo then?

all good fun, but you can understand this in 5 different ways as you set the system up...did you set it up to blend disciplines or for one main discipline?

 

[sndmn11]

she doesn't hunt solo then?

all good fun, but you can understand this in 5 different ways as you set the system up...did you set it up to blend disciplines or for one main discipline?

The animals she has shot have been her own stalks while I sit behind optics from where we have spotted the animals.

Our scopes are in mils simply because I had been told that is what the people who I would go to for formal instruction shoot, and I thought it would be easier for me. The reason being that I presumed if we shot MOA I would always think of it in terms of inches and probably goof things up. With mil and having no foundation of what linear measurement it relates to it made me just think of the values and not over-process things. Lastly, LRTS/LRHS scopes only come in mil.

 

[BjornF16]

you said first...

then second...

seems to be a bit of delta going on here in those two responses but I'm with you on the second one, no tree necessary to adjust accordingly using the references at point of impact (the puff and the animal), main crosshair will do just fine and be simpler and faster, animal still there and walking, running with a bad hit....one system and auto-pilot ultimately provides most chance to close deal while animal still in sight

if you are saying you'll be able to find which hash mark of maybe 10 tiny hold points along a plane you held for first shot and then figure out from there which hash mark to hold for subsequent shots on moving/leaving/possibly wounded game etc. then no I disagree, you're going to ignore the hashes and focus only on the main crosshair, the animal, and the impacts and you'll instinctively move the main crosshair in reference to the puff....at that point no one is working in inches or reference points on reticles, it's straight visual reference of impact to animal...you can start this way in inches and have no noise to slow you down or transition from one system to another

Angular measurement

 

[Lawnboi]

You guys are wasting your time it’s been explained. Just not in this thread.

Long story short, guessing holds in inches for everything is better for hunting to 600 period.

 

[hereinaz]

if you are saying you'll be able to find which hash mark of maybe 10 tiny hold points along a plane you held for first shot and then figure out from there which hash mark to hold for subsequent shots on moving/leaving/possibly wounded game etc. then no I disagree, you're going to ignore the hashes and focus only on the main crosshair, the animal, and the impacts and you'll instinctively move the main crosshair in reference to the puff....at that point no one is working in inches or reference points on reticles, it's straight visual reference of impact to animal...you can start this way in inches and have no noise to slow you down or transition from one system to another

That is generally how it works, but you are imagining it is more difficult than it actually is. Again, until you do it, you can't really feel it. Just like your brain gets the feel for "inches" and then the quick conversion, and you will argue with us how quick your brain knows it, that is how our brains work using the tree.

Someone smarter than me needs to come up with a good name for the method that doesn't reference anything else about the scope. It is unfortunate in some ways that the MIL/FFP shooters are the ones who use it the most, because it seems to become directly linked to the MIL/FFP. And, maybe some MIL/FFP shooters use it to argue for their preferred method. Because, besides this method itself, there are derivations and other things that make FFP/MIL better when shooting with others and when making wind calls, but I digress.

The type of reticle is irrelevant and the numbers or MOA/MIL don't matter for the aim, shoot, spot, adjust, shoot method we are talking about. You could have a pair of elvish kindergartners scratch a tic tac toe game and use that as your reticle. It is entirely spatial relation based on the specific points on the tic tac toe game.

The aim, shoot, spot, adjust and shoot method actually uses faster and more intuitive brain processes. Human brains are wired deeper / evolved first for visual and spatial acuity before mathematical processing. Its the reason you can "think" in inches intuitively. There are parts of our brain that perceive finer details than we ever consciously process. And, thinking about it slows the process, or if you think that thinking is necessary, you miss the process.

I think those coming from MOA/inches are imposing how you think we must be doing it based on how you do your quick perception and math. I hope we can cut through the confusion. We FFP/MIL types don't have to count which hash mark it is and do any math. Just point your eye to the point of impact and hold it there. Peripherally, you can then put the aim point on the animal. The point where the tree reticle rests imposed above the point of impact based upon the actual conditions of the first shot and is now your new point of aim. No counting, no nothing. Simply move that spot in the reticle of point of impact as the point of aim on the animal and press the trigger carefully.

That is why you can use any reticle, because it requires no math and everything happens in relation to what you see. Now, you can't translate that outside of what you see with a SFP unless it is on the right power so the subtension is correct.

Think about it like a piece of graph paper, maybe that will help. All you have to do is put the crosshair where you aimed on the graph paper, and the then pick the specific spot where the bullet hole is. You can pick that spot with your brain and hold it in your minds eye without counting anything.

You could make a reticle out of letters / elvish widgets. You wouldn't have to count, you just say adjust to the tree grid at location L / pointy ears, that is where the bullet landed. As long as you put the original point of aim on the same spot of the target, the point of impact of the first shot showing on the tree will then be the point of aim AND point of impact will be the same on the second shot as long as no conditions change.

 

[hereinaz]

No maths when you run a tree...

 

[Shraggs]

Hereinaz—- although crude cartoon drawing , nice job. Hopefully in this threads case a picture is worth a 1000 words.