Vote - MOA or MIL

[Justin Crossley]

No maths when you run a tree...

You canted your scope on your second shot....lol

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

Can't say he isn't steadfast in defense of his method.

I buy that it works fine for him and his applications. Just think it would be a poor decision for anyone getting into longer range precision shooting in dynamic situations to follow suit when there are methods developed to be more efficient, accurate, and streamlined by people who do this for a living. Especially because then you could communicate with others on the same wavelength to understand how to address certain challenges as you progress.

 

[hereinaz]

You canted your scope on your second shot....lol

I always make sure to have a pre-prepared excuse when I miss. My bubble level must have gotten bumped on the hike in.

 

[grapo13]

Started shooting in mils it works better for my brain.

 

[BjornF16]

No maths when you run a tree...

rocket science!!!!

 

[robtattoo]

I know a lot of folks with sub MOA rifles.
Not sure I've ever met anyone with a sub 3/10 mil gun.

I prefer mil scopes, personally, but I don't use the reticles properly. I slap my data into an app & do whatever it tells me to. I guess it doesn't matter what your system is, if you're a dumb as me!

 

[Stinky Coyote]

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.

One would need a system beyond inches to blend disciplines, so carry on. The thread is a bit ambiguous as it is primarily a hunting forum so there's gonna be a guy or two that is far more hunt only oriented and set up that will challenge some of these other systems that make more sense on the range and for teams. Even if you're highly unlikely to shoot at game beyond 5-600.

Are those hunting scopes? Gosh, been hunting a long azz time and it was quite awhile before it went from inches to moa and now mil also lol. I see the advantage of developing a system like moa when trying to get others to drive your rigs (ie; best of the west and the big hash little hash lol)

A solo hunter can drive simpler and faster without either system to 600 with modern gear, although I still drive others on my rigs but I likely won't walk anyone in on one of my rigs where the wind hold isn't on fur so I'll just ask them to hold where it needs on the body by description of the body, inline with leg or just in front etc. Worked great and always walk up to it after the shot so I see no need to complicate things for 'hunting'.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

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.

Lol, almost perfect understanding. Just remove 'guessing' and you're bang on.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

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.

I'm with you for basically all of it, the hold reference points are either on the reticle or on the animal, if you know your environment, the animals etc. and were born with a tape measure in inches/feet in your hand you don't need the references on you reticle...they will just be a potential issue in a heat of the moment hunting situation where you go on auto-pilot and reduce down to institutionalized instincts. No one seems to acknowledge that the on target reference is another effective option for what 98% of us do in the field.

It's boring I know as you're not gonna sell much gear as you can do it all with a 3-9x40 duplex lol. It may not be the system for having a team of shooters behind your rig either lol.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

No maths when you run a tree...

Lol, a picture is worth a thousand words, y'all gonna get mine on how this is about the most awful thing you'd want to see while in a hunting situation when you're reduced to auto-pilot (basic instincts and institutions) and shtf. And your reference for the follow up shots? lmao...not a chance is the xmas tree even remotely hunt friendly...can you even see the hair you're trying to hit behind that thing? just stop with that target nonsense, start coyote hunting and see how that thing works out for ya

and a reminder, I've used reticles half this busy for wind and or elevation before, and drove them well, but I drive simpler better for hunting

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Can't say he isn't steadfast in defense of his method.

I buy that it works fine for him and his applications. Just think it would be a poor decision for anyone getting into longer range precision shooting in dynamic situations to follow suit when there are methods developed to be more efficient, accurate, and streamlined by people who do this for a living. Especially because then you could communicate with others on the same wavelength to understand how to address certain challenges as you progress.

well that's the point of...well....me...., lots more hunters here reading than prs guys and be a little more respectful in these 'moa/mils' is best threads to make sure you're discussing what is the activity that the systems are best for, no blanket statements please as this still a hunting forum right?

perspectives important, we've all seen the target gear slow people down afield or had it slow us down afield as we've tried to apply too much nonsense to the wall hanging freezer filling game, this is a known phenomenon so it's not like I'm arguing anything new, just lets acknowledge where most actually hunt, and really how simple you can do it as simple has always ruled for hunting, everything will work at the range but most of that will end up causing you an issue afield at some point

I see a lot of people here who won't shoot at game past 600 or deal with more than a foot of wind hold at outer edge distance and right on, it's a live animal you want to be more than confident you land in the pie plate. But same lot of people practice and compete to 1000 and try to combo up their rigs up for hunting and it will work, good drivers that know their gear will be successful everywhere. The reality is though that once you head afield you've got inches/moa/mils as your top 3 choices, 2 of them on reticle references, 1 of them on target references. All three can be very effective. One of those says 'hunting' a bit more than the others.

Practice it sometime and you'll see what I mean...carry 4 points (300-400-500-600) of 5 mph wind rounded to either all odds or all evens in inches (for memory ease...3,6,11,15 or 4,8,12,16 etc., I prefer evens) and forget your reticle and see how you do on the range in very little time. They are not hard to remember and the visualization of that bullet path starts to correlate automatically as you feel and witness breezes, your subconscious knows how big your target is and everything around it. On target reference will become as fast as anything else you've ever driven. Just sayin...

 

[Lawnboi]

Lol, almost perfect understanding. Just remove 'guessing' and you're bang on.

I understand because that’s how I started shooting, probably not unlike many here. I found a better way and moved on. Guys I shoot with have found a better way…. And moved on.

Your positive mils suck, but have said yourself you have never shot a mrad scope or an mrad reticle. Speaking on things so definitive, on a subject you have no experience is seems kind of strange? And poking shots? I’d expect to get called out too.

That would be like me sitting here and telling you that your system dosnt consistently work having never done it. Problem is I have, that’s all we did years ago.

 

[nikoavg]

Let me know what you prefer.

I have both. Probably will switch everything to mil. No good reason though

 

[hereinaz]

Lol, a picture is worth a thousand words, y'all gonna get mine on how this is about the most awful thing you'd want to see while in a hunting situation when you're reduced to auto-pilot (basic instincts and institutions) and shtf. And your reference for the follow up shots? lmao...not a chance is the xmas tree even remotely hunt friendly...can you even see the hair you're trying to hit behind that thing? just stop with that target nonsense, start coyote hunting and see how that thing works out for ya

and a reminder, I've used reticles half this busy for wind and or elevation before, and drove them well, but I drive simpler better for hunting

You drive simpler better. OK. That is good for you. Maybe you are a simple guy and that is fine. But, you are making personalized arguments about what is "best for you" and then extrapolating them out to "most awful" "nonsense" "remotely hunt friendly" "can you even see"

It is argumentation like this that confuses people who are trying to decide. I don't really care to "win" an argument here. I think it is helpful for people reading the arguments pro and con. You do raise common points and some points are valid when it comes to preferences.

I learned Spanish as a second language. It is far easier than English to learn and functionally more clear in many ways. But there is no way I am switching because my brain operates in English and everyone around me speaks English. Those are exactly the same reasons you should consider when getting a scope. My advice?

What does your brain speak? Fortunately, learning MIL isn't really like a second language. You already speak base 10 math in your brain. And, you already know how to use a ruler. So, switching to MIL is far easier to learn than a language. And, it is more like learning a new skill than a new language.

What will those around you speak? If they speak MOA, then go MOA but drop the inches to MOA and learn how to use it as an angular measurement with FFP. Learn how to use a tree reticle if you want. You can get most every benefit of the MIL/FFP/tree method using MOA as the angular measurement.

There isn't anything you can see with a crosshair with hash marks that I can't see with a tree. Let's walk through it.

When aiming, you aren't using the whole scope, your vision focuses on the crosshair area. So, when I am aiming, the balance of the tree is in the peripheral vision and the crosshair (a dot in an open center for me) is focused right behind the shoulder. I don't need to see anything more than that during aiming. So, the actual stuff in the important field of view is the same. And, if the animal is taking up a large part of the scope, then it is big enough that the tree isn't going to obscure it.

It should be obvious that the top half of the reticle is perfectly open and the lower half is still very open. And, my "tree" reticle is more open at the center than a lot or most of the hunting crosshairs. I have a dot for my aiming point and nothing else around it. I would say that where it really counts, my "tree" with an open center and dot is actually easier to aim at a precise point than a crosshair. My dot obscures less of the "hair" than a crosshair does at full power. And, at low power the tree won't obscure anything at all it is so faint.

Practically speaking, every time I have loaned my rifle to guys who have never shot a FFP/MIL/tree scope they kill stuff between 300 and 1000 yards (with no lost animals). So, it just makes your point sound silly to me. The killing they did had nothing to do with the scope, except they could put the dot on the animal and kill it. Only one of them had to take follow up shots, and it was on a bull elk as it was moving after the first shot.

On the other hand, I was standing in front of a herd of bison, literally less than 100 yards away with 9 other hunters in the meadow outside the Grand Canyon National Park. We had all the time in the world to pick out an animal. The first guy shot and killed an animal that was standing. After that, they all took off to the park. I was the only one who shot a buffalo that was moving, and they were barely above a walk. There were guns a blazing, dozens of shots, but no one else drew blood. The reticle made zero difference.

I will stick with the objective facts again. There is a massive amount of proof that the MIL/FFP method is simple, easy, and effective, and outperforms the inches MOA with SFP method when it comes to long range and dynamic shooting. Competitions demand the best, and when fractions of seconds count, there is only one choice. Most guys hunting don't need the speed and certainly don't put in the time. The difference between the two is at the margins, so to the vast majority of hunters, it doesn't matter at all.

That is my point. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF YOU PRACTICE, YOU WILL KILL. Choose the one that the other guys you are shooting with choose. It comes down to the old saying, fear the man with one gun. I believe you are a great hunter. That doesn't mean anything about the differences between the systems.

I spend a whole lot of time conversing about long range with enthusiasts and professionals. They don't waste their time in forums like this. But, I do cause I like to think about it and share what I learn from others who are really cool. I have talked with trainers at top tier long range schools. None of them would agree with your conclusions. Most teach and run the MIL/FFP with a tree for all rifle shooting. If you show up with MOA/inches, they will teach you that too.

You want to talk about "autopilot" your way being faster, but the fastest and most precise long range shooters use MIL/FFP. We MIL people literally don't have to do any conversion like you do from inches/linear measurement to MOA/angular measurement. We only think in MIL angular measurements. And, our math is done in the numerical system that we use everywhere else in our lives, the "base 10" system. I don't ever do math in quarters any more because who uses cash. Seriously, where does anyone use .25 as the base increment except in MOA and counting quarter coins? How can your method be faster on autopilot when you have twice as much to think about and use a counting system based on quarters? Seriously, add 1.2 plus .6, its 1.8. Now, add 3 3/4 plus 1 1/4. Which is faster? Which can you add better under pressure when the SHTF? Now, figure your inches, then translate it to MOA, then make your adjustment. I fail to see how that system can be objectively "faster" all things being equal.

You talk about "basic instincts" and "intuition" as if the reticle choice is predominant factor in that. That makes little sense to me. And, implicit is that you propose that thinking in inches plus quarters is better than thinking in tenths? Please explain how that makes any difference?

We all know that you perform best with whatever you train with. We all know that you can spend a fortune on gear, but gear doesn't make you better. When SHTF in the moment, everyone defaults to training. Centimeters and meters are "basic instinct" and "intuition" to everyone in the world except us backwards Americans with our inches and yards. I wish I never learned inches, feet, and yards, cause the math sucks. Yeah, in construction I could add and subtract in inches, feet and yards as quick as I needed to build. I stick with inches and yards but only because learned it first.

Your coyote hunting example is lame. At low power with a coyote close, the tree is very small. In fact, some arguments against FFP is that the tree is "too small to see" at low power. And, that is a legitimate preference to consider. What is funny to me is that the best shooters that I know hunt coyote with a MIL/FFP tree reticle. If you can't see a coyote on low power with a tree reticle, you are doing something wrong.

You have inspired me to get more pictures of what game looks like in my reticle at different powers and different conditions. I will work on that this summer. Help people visualize what we are both talking about.

 

[Justin Crossley]

A lot of good info @hereinaz.

The only thing I would point out is that FFP vs SFP is a separate topic from MIL vs MOA. Yes, they do often correlate as far as more MOA shooters seem to use SFP and more MIL shooters tend to use FFP but they aren't exclusive to each other.

I have actually shot PRS matches with MOA and MIL and also FFP and SFP. MOA vs MIL makes no difference to me other than the obvious advantage of using the same system as other shooters.

FFP has an advantage in that type of shooting but not as much as most people think. All my SFP scopes have a mark at half power so I can either shoot a stage at full power or half power. Half power just doubles your reticle subtensions so instead of one MOA marks you have two MOA.

 

[hereinaz]

A lot of good info @hereinaz.

The only thing I would point out is that FFP vs SFP is a separate topic from MIL vs MOA. Yes, they do often correlate as far as more MOA shooters seem to use SFP and more MIL shooters tend to use FFP but they aren't exclusive to each other.

I have actually shot PRS matches with MOA and MIL and also FFP and SFP. MOA vs MIL makes no difference to me other than the obvious advantage of using the same system as other shooters.

FFP has an advantage in that type of shooting but not as much as most people think. All my SFP scopes have a mark at half power so I can either shoot a stage at full power or half power. Half power just doubles your reticle subtensions so instead of one MOA marks you have two MOA.

Agreed. Master the tools, understand the principle, and for the pure act of shooting long range you can do it with whatever system you are given.

If I were going on a hunt where I would be doing most of my hunting in dark timber, I would have no problem running a SFP just because the reticle would be easier to see in lower light. I don't have illumination on my FFP scopes. If needed, a long range shot gives me time and opportunity so I wouldn't have any problem killing with a SFP scope.

You'll laugh about this. Early on I went to a match with the first "real scope" I bought, hahaha. I got a smoking deal on an ATACR off Ebay. It had MOA turrets and a MIL reticle, lol. You don't know what you don't know... Glass was amazing but I sold it pretty fast and have been MIL/FFP since then, except my rifles that are MOA/SFP (cause the scope is adequate and cheaper) that I might shoot out to 350-400 with holds.

Yeah, I used the FFP/MIL consistently only to simplify. My answer was already bordering on way too long. Half of explaining the differences between MIL/MOA and FFP/SFP and crosshair/tree seems to be disabusing people of incorrect beliefs and separating out personal preference/opinion.

I think the biggest misconception and confusion is that most people don't understand how to use "angular" measurements with the "reticle as a ruler." If I have a first grader's ruler to measure the length of lines, you can measure a line in centimeters and flip it over and measure in inches. The reticle is a ruler, its a simple as that. Pick the one YOU like, and explain why you like it, but don't make stuff up.

I hate when talking with guys who ask, what should I get? And, what would you get? Those are two different questions entirely... I get MIL/FFP cause that is what I like best and practice with the most. What should you get? Man, I have no idea. It takes several trips to a range with a friend before they begin to understand and see the difference. Its the same on these forum asking which you should get. I would be wrong more than I am right. You may as well ask me what your favorite color should be.

Pick something, learn it, and go kill stuff.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

@hereinaz you said up to 1000 yards hunting so we don't really need to argue, pick your system and get good with it, you're going to want more precision system and nothing beats the nut behind the wheel when he's put in his time, xmas tree's, multi-aimpoint reticles, wind meters and ballistics computers etc. sure makes it so you don't have to do as much practice if you don't want as all the work can be done immediatly before the shot

for 0-600 hunting only though you can do all the work before you head out and get it done with a duplex, couple points of wind, a rangefinder and a speed dial turret, and you can do it very quickly with a 7 lb all up factory rifle and factory ammo

we're all good man, I feel like these competitive shooting things take away from things a guy could be working on for hunting if that was his primary jam and it sure seems a lot of guys won't hunt as far as they prs, competing against each other for money prizes and ego will have guys carrying way more than necessary when transitioning that same set up to 0-600 hunting...be better off taking a better hunting 0-600 set up and lose the points on the stuff beyond 600 in prs so you can get better and faster with your hunting rig rather than transition your prs rig to hunting if you're good with killing game to 1000 then carry on, prs to hunting set up will be great...these threads don't seem differentiate the differences in flight path/tof etc. of 0-600 majority of hunters vs things exponentially falling off the face of the planet past 600, wish more perspective was present in these discussions, lots of people thinking they need to run out and buy prs rigs/scopes to be a top dawg killer out there...that's simply not reality

 

[Muddslinger48]

I like moa for measuring antlers without having to convert to inches

 

[Llama32]

Let me know what you prefer.

Moa

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I bought my first MIL scope and I have a headache from zeroing it and validating my dope out to 1000 yards. Give me MOA any day of the week. Its a tenmile 3-18x50 if anybody wants to trade me the same scope in MOA…lol . I think once everything is validated, dialing MIL is MOA shouldnt make much difference. Making adjustments on the fly however I am screwed. My head just works in MOAs apparently.