there is nothing magic about one system over another, they are simply a unit of measure nothing more nothing less. sometimes I think people that use the mil system get and attitude that its somehow better and that MOA people are inexperienced and don't know what they are doing. I have read the threads and used the mil system as well. I still can't get the argument of why mils is better.
Mils aren't better, they're just universal. Americans are the only ones who use MOA for the most part. 10 times the amount of scopes and spotters are available in Mils rather than MOA. Life is easier in LR shooting when you stop fussing and get on board.
YES its 1/10 and 1/1000th of a unit and yes I will admit its a superior unit breakdown, just like the metric system is a better unit of measurement. The problem is this doesn't correlate to anything we use in our daily life. The only thing 1 mil corelates to in our daily life is 1 of them means 1 yard at 1000 yards. The problem with this is it doesn't breakdown that well making small corrections, small corrections is what we need when making long shots.
No, you need to make the correction that the reticle tells you. You don't argue when a the tape measure reads 12 inches, you just cut the board to 12 inches. And stop trying to put a linear measurement to it.
I don't get to make a correction typically I am shooting at live animals and if I do its not the same shot. keep in mind the guys at snipers hide are using their guns in a TOTALLY different manner in most cases than us long range hunters are.
No they're not. Well, actually they are. They're hitting targets.
ok so everyone is out in the field totting a 20# rifle?!?!? bull$hit number one they are generally always at a range rather than in the field.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I disagree You can evidence this by the massive IMO unportable rifles they use. a 15-20# gun is the norm.
That's because if 7lb rifles could be competitive against purpose built LR systems, they would be using them. They aren't, so they don't. That's not to say that weight hasn't gotten a bit out of control, however.
Where did I say anything about a 7# rifle?? I didn't but an 11# rifle will shoot just as well as any 34mm tubed accuracy international chassied mega magazine fed 20# pig, given the guns aren't a 338 lapua but rather a standard magnum or smaller. they also have range cards, a spotter and other things that are not very portable to use.
So you "hunt" and shoot animals at 500/600/700/800/etc yards, without range cards and spotters?
my range card is taped to my stock my spotter consists of my son looking through binoculars and say dead coyote or you missed. most of the time there is no dust kicking up where I hit, besides that can be very misleading if there is[b][/b]
They also tend to shoot and adjust, or some would call them sighter shots. a long range hunter is lucky to get more than one shot and if they do get more than one it aint the SAME shot they just took. I guess bad guys don't move either.
Again, you are clueless. Despite what BS is pushed EVERYONE misses shots. Even 10 yard shots. Whether or not one can correct and kill with the next is the difference. Spotting misses and correcting is important no matter the range and essential for long range.
keep shooting in your ninja sniper suit, bad guys don't give you a second shot, after all you are a sniper wanna be right?? you should place more value in the first shot connecting!! They will also tell you they depend on the reticle to make the corrections in mils based on measurements inside the reticle. ok thats fine and all, but why couldn't this also be done in MOA with a MOA based reticle AND you also have the benefit of understanding just what the distance is converted roughly to inches.
It can be. Not a big deal as they both do the same thing. However, the mil radian system has become the standard in long range shooting. Again, life is easier when you just let go of the ego and refusal to learn, and get on board. And who cares what the distance is converted roughly to inches?
yeah who cares if you can do math in your head, who cares if you actually can see the distance through the scope and not have to even bother measuring with the reticle. as to the standard of long range shooting, yeah your standard but mine is different. my whole point is why not use a system you can both do the math in your head with AND make corrections for.
For the same reason that I do not care how many centimeters are in 12 inches. If the board needs to be be 12 inches, you cut it to 12 inches, not try to imagine what size in "prairie dogs" it is.
The snipers hide guys say oh quit trying to do math in your head just use the reticle. with MOA based reticles why not quit with the math and use the reticle AND if you need to correlate target size or other things in your head if needed.
Because it is slower, is unnecessary information, and in general is mental masturbation. Quite trying to do math.
until someone gets me a decent rational argument on why mils are better other than it breaks down in 1/10ths I see no reason to change my thinking, although I could if someone even made a halfway decent case for it.
Mils are better because the people that shoot and kill at long range has made mils the system.
That will not change.seems you and others are more worried about second shot correction that killing any living thing like an animal or a person. just because the military uses something doesn't mean its better I like being able to look at a rock across a canyon pulling out my RF distance 750 yards. rock measures 2 MOA I know thats about a 15" rock,
Why? What information does this give you that will increase you ability to hit that rock?
like the size of the freaking group!!! and like how that correlates to the size of the rock thats is softer than your head. so why care about the size of the target that doesn't matter, you gotta be kidding meif I shoot 3" low I can just make a half minute correction,
Or you could stop trying to be a mental mathematician and just read it in the reticle, thereby actually hit the rock faster.
to me MOA has an advantage when the distances may not be known.
How?
the other thing is I think many long range shooters prefer the mil system because up until a few years ago mil based reticles were all you could get on a long range scope.
No they prefer it because the entire long range field shooting and sniping communities have made it the standard. While one should be able to transition seamlessly, fighting against mils is akin to stubbornly trying to use the metric system when everyone else is using imperial.
I meet, teach, hunt with and compete against people that believe what you do. They get destroyed. In LR field/sniper matches the people who hit the most, miss the least, hit faster, waste less time, and make the least mistakes win. There is a system to competently succeed at long range in the field. It is not what you want.
ok so then why are you so worried about it if your system of measurement is so awesome. so its because they are using the superior mil system that they are winning?? is that what you are saying. instead of belittling everyone you disagree with, why not come up with an original thought and say the system is better and this is why?? you want to attack me and tell me how little I know. I simply stated tactical matches are different than long range hunting, I stated why the MOA system is better for me. you still never said WHY its better other than its part of the metric system, which it really isn't. MOA based reticles are for the most part brand new as in 2-3 yrs old I am sure there were some others before that but they weren't that wide spread. before that you were forced into the mil system. since you claim mil is so awesome why are we seeing MOA reticles more and more these days?? in all seriousness why can't you just disagree and say ok your background is different and your main use is different and maybe one use is better than another depending on the use.
