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.
Because your arguments are like a child stomping its feet in anger. I have read your responses in other posts about shooting and it is quite clear that you do not have very much experience in long range shooting. This is not said in malice. It's just a reality. You are so consumed that you throwing shots at coyotes with your son looking through binoculars, is the pinnacle of distance shooting, that you bury your head in the ground when it comes to people, rifles, scopes, and systems that the best field shooters in the world use. Your "wanna be" sniper comments are the best. Please keep swallowing your feet without even knowing it.
I have stated multiple times that neither MOA or Mils are better. Just that one has become standard community wide. Using a Mil based system will not make your shooting ability suffer. However, your refusal to learn from a community that makes their entire living hitting targets at long range as fast as possible and as accurately as possible, most certainly will.
From the moment that the decision to shoot has been made the physical and mental acts to hit the target are the same regardless of whether the target is a piece of steel, coyote, or human. The gun doesn't know the difference, the scope doesn't know the difference, the bullet doesn't know the difference and the environment doesn't know the difference. The only difference is the emotion that we project into the shot.
I am in the unique vocation to have to learn quite a bit of different skills. I do not go to cross country skiers and blast them with all that I "know" and how they are doing it wrong and that act of skiing is different if my goal is to kill something at the end, rather than just skiing. I go to the best cross country skiiers and shut the [bleep] up and learn. Once I learn "how" to cross country ski, THEN I ask why.
I have told you before to attend a long range field match like the Steel Safari (it's close to you) and in one day you would understand that what you think you "know", just might be flawed. By your posts you have not learned how to shoot long range using the methods that have proven over the last couple decades to be the most efficient and capable way, and yet you believe that your way is better? By how you say that you shoot, your hit rates and success could go up immensely in a day with someone that knows what they're doing.
Unfortunately, males all believe that by the mere presence of a penis, that they are as good at shooting as they are at driving, fighting, drinking, smoking, and romancing the panties off of hotties. And they're generally correct.......... They suck equally at all of them.
