Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Do many here use MILS?

But getting a scope with a reticule graduated in PD's is a b1tch though!

Suppose we have a circle, and two rays drawn outward from the center of the circle. If the arc length between the points where the rays intersect the circle is the same as the radius of the circle, then the angle between the rays is one radian.

I would much rather use something the shooter and spotter can both see in the scope to judge holdoff, rather than an arbitrary system of measurement. My idea of what 12 inches vs. the shooters idea can be considerably different, especially on animals or targets that are unfamiliar in size.

It's easy to say "hold half a prairie dog high", because we are both looking at the prairie dog the shooter just missed. If it's the shooter's first time killing p-dogs, and I say "you hit 6 inches low", he really has no way to judge what 6 inches looks like at distance.

This is all much easier if everybody has a coinciding reticle. Then we're using a real measurement, not a guess.

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. 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.

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. number one they are generally always at a range rather than in the field. You can evidence this by the massive IMO unportable rifles they use. a 15-20# gun is the norm. they also have range cards, a spotter and other things that are not very portable to use. 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. 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. my whole point is why not use a system you can both do the math in your head with AND make corrections for. 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.

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. 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, if I shoot 3" low I can just make a half minute correction, to me MOA has an advantage when the distances may not be known. 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.

PS, yes I know 1 MOA isnt 1" and there is roughly a 5% difference. buts its close enough and the distances we are shooting at 5% correction error in a windage adjustment is less error than our rifle is capable of in the accuracy department.

Personally, I find Mils easier to use and I find that being a base10 system, it fits with the metric system "better".. The topo maps I use are metric and thinking in terms of 1/2Klick, 1Klick, 10Klick ect comes naturally..

I don't use the reticule for ranging so that's not an issue for me which ever system I use so really it comes down "familiarity"..

I think the one thing to avoid is a scope with mixed Units as is pretty common for some strange reason.

Go with MOA/MOA or Mil/Mil and just get out and shoot..

Quit thinking in inches if you want to use mils, a mil is just another unit of measure.

As far as optic recommendations it matters not, use what you are comfortable with, just make sure your turret matches your reticle which is nothing more than a measuring tool.
I would recommend FFP scope to avoid having to dial magnification to the correct setting to what the reticle subtends to.

When you speak of corrections in mils vs moa you are saying the same thing just a different unit of measure.

I shoot MOA. Shoot quite a few coyotes from 400 to 600 yds. I have my clicks checked and written down every 20 yds. The wind is more difficult to adjust for but takes practice. I click for windage as well. Which ever system you use, you simply have to practice with it. With coyotes, you usually don't get a practice shot. Have to hit them the first time. No luxury of a spotter shot to see where you are hitting. Pick a system that maximizes first shot hits for you. I don't have a particularly fancy scope. Leupold vx II 6-18. Fine duplex. works really well, always returns to zero.

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.








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.











No they're not. Well, actually they are. They're hitting targets.









You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.









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.








So you "hunt" and shoot animals at 500/600/700/800/etc yards, without range cards and spotters?









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.








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?









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.











Because it is slower, is unnecessary information, and in general is mental masturbation. Quite trying to do math.










Mils are better because the people that shoot and kill at long range has made mils the system. That will not change.









Why? What information does this give you that will increase you ability to hit that rock?







Or you could stop trying to be a mental mathematician and just read it in the reticle, thereby actually hit the rock faster.









How?









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.

I use both to shoot, but I can only range in MOA for some absurd reason. I have to do some conversions in my head to range in yards and I am not a very smart person.

I am trying to make the conversion to MILs fully and learn to range in Mils. I am having a little difficulty because of how ingrained MOA is in my head. It is almost like trying to do stuff with your non dominant hand.

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.

Mathman here is a good wonk video of the math.




Mike

Here ya go formy...





Take two and call me in the morning.

Still see much reference to spotters with MILS in them or spotting hits/splash and re measuring.

This isn't really apllicable to a Hunting scenario-regardless of units or reticles.

I'll continue to read, research and listen.

Sure it is. Coupling a mil reticle with mil turrets (and a mil reticle equipped spotter, if you've got one) allows for quicker adjustments on misses or hits off center, and for me I'm noticed that I center punch targets more easily while practicing when using a Mil/Mil setup.

I guess what I'm saying is- better practice=better performance. I can see myself switching to all Mils in the next few years. It really is incredibly easy to use.

Tanner

They are both units of the same measurement , but I like mil/mil for pretty much what Tanner said above and its easier for me to remember 7mils as opposed to 25 minutes for some reason.

There is truth in both positions. I've hunted for over 35 years, have dabbled in a few informal F Class matches in recent years and participated in one certified long range shooting class last summer at Gunsite. That's a few very broad brush strokes of my experience, which clearly represent the bias of my skill set. As a big game hunter the goal is to deliver a lethal shot at the first pull of the trigger with a very high level of certainty. The ole "one shot, one kill" idea. Which is what I thought military snipers adhered to as well. That is until I visited Gunsite.

Now I'd guess the military community still strives to achieve the "one shot, one kill" ideal, but the mission taught at Gunsite is actually "one hit, two shots, quickly". They didn't come right out and say it, but that's what's taught. And the instructors at Gunsite are very, very, very clear these long range methods are not appropriate for hunting big game. To paraphrase the instructor's orientation lecture, "All these long range hunting TV shows are lying to you." The wording may not be exactly right, but the message was clear to everyone in the class.

To summarize what they taught: the spotter finds, ranges the target, and estimates the wind through the spotting scope. The spotting scope has a mil ranging reticle. No laser range finders are allowed. The spotter calculates the solution: elevation dial settings and windage hold-offs and communicates these to the shooter. The shooter pulls the trigger and the spotter watches the shot. If the shooter misses, the spotter tells the shooter the POA corrections, the shooter then makes POA corrections in the scope, not the dials, and shoots again. This should all take less than about 10 seconds start to finish. Note: this is where having the spotting scope and the rifle scope marked in the same units (mil's or moa's) is extremely helpful. A hit anywhere, not just in the vitals, on the second shot is considered "success". Of course, the sizes of all targets is known. Obviously, to do this well takes lots of practice.

I found ranging in the spotting scope a challenge but by the end of the class I was getting pretty good at it. Not so reading the wind. It was pretty calm while I was there, yet I was never confident, nor accurate in my wind calls. Reading the wind to an acceptable level of accuracy for successful long range shooting takes serious practice.

The whole point to all of this is: the goals of a big game hunter and a long range shooter are different. The goal/mission/ethic of the big game hunter is "one shot, one kill" at any range and it's up the hunter to know what his/her effective range is. If long range shooting skills/technologies (i.e., mils, etal.) can be used/exploited by the big game hunter while keeping the integrity of his/her mission, then all is good. It's up to each hunter to decide and execute. Though I suspect many in the field these days are "overdriving their headlights".

MOA or mil's makes no difference all you need to know is how many do you need.

I use mil's, I have used both but have become very fond of mil's

A couple of things....

Right off the bat, if you are hunting or trying to hunt at long range without someone on a spotter..... you are wrong. Everyone misses. At every range. Long range shooting is a two person event. That is where the spotter and shooter having the same unit of measure in each optic comes in.














Gunsite isn't exactly the pinnacle of training anymore. I've been a sniper for over a decade and at no time in any course has "any hit is a good hit" or "a wound is better than a kill" BS been taught.

As well, trying to range using a reticle is an exercise in futility.

Not really. At just about every Precision Rifle Match we hold there is at minimum 1 stage that requires it with multiple targets and paper work or actually ranging and engaging a target with your rifle