Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Why are so many shooters afraid of a mil/mil scope

I use mil/mil.

I'll counter by saying if you can't hold to dial to impact, maybe you shouldn't have taken the shot to begin with, PRS not withstanding.....

Also, if you hold isn't good enough to dial to impact, then more than likely you couldn't spot your shot anyway.

Big difference between holding with one hand and holding with two. Think prone, unsupported. Dialing to impact requires watching the sight picture, holding the rifle with one hand, and dialing with the other hand, all while holding the rifle rock solid on your original POA.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. It sounds to me like you're describing taking a shot, spotting miss through the scope, holding on original POA and dialing until the POA matches POI, yes?

Either way

Exactly.......

Again, I'm not talking about PRS and all the gyrations a guy has to go through during a match. Although I just went through this yesterday sitting, shooting off my tripod. Just not a good enough hold to spot every shot until I put a strangle hold on the gun.

There is no way that someone who actually shoots in a field environment would say something like that.


But I guess it works if you’re shooting water filled milk jugs.

Bullshit.....

I have no issues with one, I like them for bench rest shooting, but have found for my hunting (100 yards is a long shot) they are much to busy and there is no need for "ranging" A #4 is a great point and shoot, but sucks for a bench target scope. Horses for courses.

So on a live animal, you shoot, miss, and you’re going to hold a rifle resting sitting on a pack, and adjust your turrets until it lines up with where the bullet impacted, on an animal that almost certainly moved after the shot?



There’s someone full of chit, but it ain’t me.

I'm glad someone else was scratching their head other than me...

LOL...not to speak for anyone, or to get in someone else’s pissing contest, but it’s done every day on ‘live animals’ from improvised rests, though the correction is usually faster to use the reticle to move the MILS and not the knobs, if time is an issue. The better the rest, the better everything is, but that technique has to be and IS used, often and accurately. Now, it’s not a typical hunting technique for 90% of what I do these days, but neither is any dialing or true FFP need on all but a few of my rigs. It’s good to know, good for practice/improvement, and not intended to be any ‘ideal’ solution or final ‘range type’ refinement....just an adaptation to circumstances in evidence.

Ok, help me out here- When is that used hunting animals?

I don't think you're talking about the same thing as aalf.

You appear to be talking about seeing POI (somewhere offset from zero) and just holding the reticle that amount over to make the hit. That's basically the same as what the rest of us do, and whether you hold that amount on the reticle or dial it depends on the circumstances and is the same end result either way.

Aalf is talking about holding the rifle still enough to remain aimed at the same spot while he adjusts the dials to the bullet's POI, which is a different thing altogether. I won't say I've never done that, but it's certainly more prone to error if the rifle shifts even a tiny bit, so that it's mostly a useless technique in the field. I honestly don't know why anyone would do that when it's more accurate and reliable to just dial or hold the offset you see on the reticle, other than specific situations like benchrest where the rifle is held in a very solid rest.

Dialing to a miss is asinine these days when a reticle can be used as a ruler to give an exact measurement to either dial or hold vs trying to hold a rifle completely steady with one hand while dialing with the other.

From a bench with a flat bottomed rifle in a rest that doesn't allow it to move, well maybe.... (not really.)

Oh, I’d agree that trying to re-zero the rifle in the field, for only one range/wind scenario might seem a tough concept, especially IF you tried to do it the way it seems to be being presented. If you can’t make the MIL/MOA E&W call, you are gonna have trouble more trouble getting there, just blindly moving a reticle, but it can be done. I didn’t say I did it hunting, but I’m sure you could.....especially if the animal was asleep. LOL. My point is (1) Yes, a good reticle and using it is far faster. (2) calling the E&W accurately lets you just run the dials, off scope, faster.......which you all probably knew or know better than I do.....I’m just saying #2 is the SAME THING, whether you try to stay on the scope in a circus act outside of a good rest or not. The ONLY difference (really) is one is trying a visual confirmation instead of tactile/math, due to either spotty scope adjustments (mechanical issues) or not being able to use the E&W as indicated (mental issues). The physical ability to get there seems to be the sticking point being argued over. I’m not arguing what another individual can/can’t do. I’m just not seeing the need to go about it THAT way, in field/hunting, to arrive the same place as others utilizing the system and equipment as intended. I make ZERO claims to be an ‘expert’ here, because I happen to know and have worked with some serious SMEs, and good teachers of the art. I’m just trying to indicate the differences in thought process some seem to insist on having with trying to do the exact same thing, and how the simple appears magical sometimes, when it shouldn’t. Is YOUR way better/worse/doable/right/easy/hard?.....DEPENDS, but I guarantee someone else is getting it done ‘better’ no matter what we like to think.

No fear, I’m just not that sophisticated.

I Have one and plan on fooling around with it. However, if this means it is a simpler way of doing things, it may go back.

I honestly don't see what the fuss is about if all that is being discussed is a unit of measurement. In the end, one can call it what he wants and it is still a unit of measurement. If you have a scope on which the adjustments are marked in "glorps", with twelve glorps making a "fliggle", the end result is the same. Only the name has changed. Now, if one is speaking of the difference between using a scope with crosshairs or a single dot, as opposed to a scope with a whole bunch of dots, then there is a difference in how a problem is approached but, again, it doesn't matter what the unit of measurement is. It only matters that you are able to hold or dial for range and condition. When I'm on the silohuette range, I know I have to come up ten minutes from my 200m setting to hit a ram (hopefully). If the alternative is to come up 2.5 mils, the bullet won't care, the ram (which has about a fifty/fifty chance of being safe either way) won't care, the universe won't care. The only difference is in my mind. I happen to not care for reticles with a whole bunch of dots, hash marks, or printed instructions. I am perfectly happy with a simple reticle for hunting or target use and it doesn't much matter to me if the adjustments are in minutes, mils, or glorps, once I know just how far the measurement is. My only desire is that the bullet hit the point of aim; the rest is just crap. GD

These seem to be fine for use in the wide open, and where the target is on something that will fling up a sign if you miss. Not so fine for out there when the target is standing in the timber.

Or running in the timber....