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

Yep. Can't imagine being too successful without a calibrated spotter of some sort. I guess some of the tactical match shooters do it themselves but use light recoiling rifles with muzzle brakes which allow them to call their own shots.

Spotters watch the vapor trail (not so much the splash) through a spotting scope with a reticle, read or measure the delta in the spotter, and then tell the shooter the new POA. If shooter's scope and spotter's scope are in same units (MILs or MOAs) no calculations required. The trick at this point is proper communication. That is don't tell the shooter by how much he missed because it takes time and may confuse the issue. Just tell him in the correct POA. For example, "One MIL right, down 1/2 MIL." The shooter corrects his aiming point in the scope, no dialing turrets at this stage, and fires the second shot. Done right, it happens very quickly, in a matter of seconds.

The best and most successful field shots I know use a scope of some sort that uses either MOA/MOA reticle and turrets, or MIL/MIL reticle and turrets.

Being able to connect on game animals on shots that exceed the skill level of the majority of hunters, can mean the difference between success and failure in some situations where most hunters would pass on the shot and try again another day.

All long range shooting stuff aside, a high quality spotting scope with an MOA reticle would be awesome for this very reason. I'd use a LRF to determine distance to target and then the spotter to assess the trophy quality.

JB's reasons for preferring MOA/MOA are very convincing.

ok this is the type of argument I am wanting to see out of the MIL guys. look I will freely admit I am wrong sometimes, I am willing to learn. but this is an argument I can SEE and understand. The mil people say use the reticle, I say ok but what If I also want to understand the distance in real life measurement better. shooting at live animals is different than targets. as much as I support and believe MOA is the better system for me. I could still be convinced otherwise. but so far no one has really made a good argument for it IMO.

JB, I also noticed the same thing with my 243 AI in the yardages being half the MOA for 10mph wind holdoffs.

alluding to another comment by a poster. that said you wiffed the shot by 1 foot. The people I hunt with ARE NOT long range shooters or hunters. my son is only 11, he is with me most of the time. the other guys I hunt with don't know a mil from a moa, you missed by 1 foot is probably going to be the feedback I get IF I am lucky. the mil system is more complicated for inexperienced shooters. the reality is the spotter probably should be the more knowledgeable person between the spotter and shooter.

Ok. I'll give you a response from start to finish. Bluntly, but with no malice.

First I want to address some thoughts. The big one being- do you really want to know how to shoot successfully at extended ranges? Even if it means that what you know, or what you think that you know about bullets, rifles, scopes, positional shooting, spotting scopes, communication, everything(?) may end up being proven wrong? You can't put more knowledge in a cup that's already "full", and there are a lot of hunters that are just positive that what they "know" is right, even when they are laughably wrong. I ask because I have read your postings on several subjects and while you claim that you want to learn something, you never stop arguing long enough to learn anything.









Why? Why are you so concerned with what anything subtends in inches, and how will that help you hit more targets?

I'll answer the last question for you- it won't. Quite the opposite. I see people on a weekly basis that try to think like that and they fail miserably.


But to answer your question a Mil is 3.6'' per hundred yards.

If you are 9 inches left at 765 yards you divide 9 by 7.65= 1.17647059 and then divide that by 3.6= 0.32679739 mils correction. Or my spotter could just tell me to come right .3.







How is hitting live animals different than hitting targets?

I'll answer this one too- It's not. A ten inch plate is just as hard or just as easy to hit as a ten inch vital zone under the same conditions. Hitting is hitting.









Probably because no one cares to. Your "questions" come off as demanding and argumentative. It takes a long time (or at least it does for me) to write responses, only to have someone ignore them, and scream that they know better.








Then you have two choices- either learn how to shoot LR well enough to teach them... or don't shoot long range. What you describe above is what the vast majority of people who shoot (miss) at long range do. It is akin to peeing up a rope.











Not even close. 5 year old girls can learn how to spot and make corrections in less than 30 minutes. People who think in MOA really think in inch per hundred yards (IPHY) and are the hardest people to teach how to shoot long range because they spend all of their available brain power and time trying to convert everything to inches. It's stupid. Stop.

Exactly.

MOA and mils are both measurements of angle, not linear inches or centimeters. In answer to a question in another Campfire forum I mentioned a 6.5-06 that grouped 3 shots into 1/2 MOA out to 600 yards. One guy immediately posted: "You have a rifle that shoots 1/2 inch at 600 yards?"

I even had a recent conversation with a 1960's-trained sniper who said his present long-range hunting rifle grouped into "3 MOA" at 500 yards. He obviously meant 3 inches.

form, thanks for your explanation attempt. what is your suggestion for spotting when you don't have some type of mil reticle inside the spotting scope? particulary with a shooter whom has no idea a mil from a MOA. The have to convert what they are seeing to a unit of measure they are unfamiliar with. how about a 5 minute spotting lesson.

there isn't that many spotting scope options that have mil reticles in them is why I am asking.

Hey brother I'm typing a long post in between cooking. I think it will answer your questions.

John this isn't an argument as Mil or MOA doesn't matter as they are angular measurements and if you think in inches you will only be hurting yourself, I'm just countering you points on the other side.






Even .5 Mil reticles are broken down into .1 mil for shooting. I've never seen a single person have any issue holding to at least .1 Mil. And .1 mil is finer than .5 MOA, no? With a Horus reticle we can hold to .05 mil.








Mils are the universal measurement in distance shooting in the world. Every single branch in the US military uses Mils and only teach MOA because there are legacy scopes left in MOA/MIL. 90% of shooters at LR tactical/sniper matches use Mils. It's actually probably higher than that. And it doesn't matter which you use as you will have to learn both if you shoot much. Someone that chooses a MOA/MOA scope is the minority anytime he shoots LR with other people. Learning how to use MOA and Mil is to freaking easy. If someone is too lazy, or they are incapable of learning to use both MOA and Mils, then truly they are incapable of shooting LR.










Can't say that I have ever seen anyone do this despite having heard the theory numerous times. In any case it's just as easy to do it in mils as MOA.












No, it works different. Ex.- wind brackets....









It works just as well and faster with wind brackets and mils. Using your 264 WM above as an example the wind brackets are 7mph. That means every 100 yards is .1 Mil with a 7mph wind. The math is easy and very quick with just a bit of practice. I taught a buddies 7 year old son how to do it at lunch one day.









I don't really get the underlined portion. If you're using Mils then the shooter has a Mil reticle and .7mil is simple? If you meant that there is nothing in the spotter easily broken down into Mils, then there's also nothing easily broken down into MOA either.

The answer is simple. Get a spotter with a reticle.












There are more FFP MOA/MOA scopes now then there were 5 years ago, however it is still pathetically few in comparison to FFP Mil/Mil options. And the people that dominate the LR community have spoken. MRAD is the standard. So even if someone can find a scope that's worth a poop that is FFP MOA/MOA, everyone around him shooting LR will be using Mils. So he's still stuck with Mils.









I do not know a single manufacturer that uses anything other than .1mil= .36 inches subtention at 100 yards.

I am trying to wrap my head around this statement, actually the whole post, and the best I can come up with is I simply disagree.

Maybe someday when I learn how to shoot LR it will make more sense.

Burns, do you feel that you would be less successful in your long range pursuit utilizing mils?

form, one of the things that keeps more companies from doing FFP MOA scopes, is I personally think a FFP mil reticle is going to work better at lower powers. I think a MOA reticle unless its graduated in 2 moa markings is going to wash out at lower power if its put as a FFP. I could see the argument definitely for mil if you insist on FFP.

in a perfect world you always want your reticle to subtend the same, who wouldn't. I prefer SFP myself. maybe your more of a mil fan because you want FFP instead of SFP. I personally would not want a 2 MOA graduated MOA reticle. before I would do that I probably would switch to mils as well. SFP isn't a big deal to me because if I am shooting far enough to need the features of the reticle I want max power.

Successful long range shooting is about having a "system" and reducing as many variables as possible. It is a two person event. There is too much happening before, during, and after the shot for someone that is not extremely proficient to see and "read" it. With that I am speaking to the far side of 400 yards or so. Inside of that, there is no reason to miss shots that a spotter would help with, although of course everyone misses, yet inside 400 yards this is usually due to a failure to apply the fundamentals of shooting properly.


When talking about things such as Mil vs. MOA everyone needs to be on the same sheet of music. If your idea of long range shooting is to rest you rifle on the rear view mirror and hold "high" there is little point in discussing the finer details as it won't matter. Below is a condensed version of how I explain the entire shooting system to every class/person so that we are speaking the same language. It's too much to write in one piece, and a lot of it is better seen rather than told. Sorry to go on a tangent, but it's hard to understand a single part (mil vs. MOA) without a glimpse of the whole.




Think of your shooting system as the operating system in your computer. Any missed codes and the system fails. Any viruses and the system fails. When I'm speaking of shooting system I mean everything. From your rifle, scope, rest, ballistic program, spotting scope, breathing, NPA, how you zero, how you practice, how you test, trigger control, communication with your spotter, how you make corrections, how you prep for the shot- everything. We should be learning from every round fired and certain gear and techniques will help us with that.

My goal is to make it as foolproof and simple as possible. I want to trim any unnecessary fluff and get rounds accurately on target as quickly as possible. I also want to have a system that is "unmess-withable". That is; even when excited, cold, wet and tired, out of breath, scared, whatever, I will still accomplish the tasks required to hit the target.



It really breaks down into two parts- hardware and software. First with the hardware....

Rifle:


We want a rifle chambered in something that has high BC bullets readily available, and in a cartridge that has low enough recoil to be shot a lot. The style of rifle can be argued forever. The important thing is that the rifle maintains the same relationship to the stock from day to day. This is important obviously for zero retention. So pretty much quality synthetic stocks, bedded and free floated.




Scope:


The most important function of the scope is to maintain zero. Point of aim/point of impact without fail. Next is reliable and consistent adjustments with no dead spots, jumps, or drifts. After that is for the optic to be durable and reliable for extended and repeated use. Last is for it to be clear enough, bright enough and have enough resolution to see the target. Almost all scopes from Leupold VX1's up have adequate glass yet this is the singular topic that people get stuck on because you can show your friends how "bright and clear" the glass is, but you actually have to shoot to see that it does what it's supposed to. Very, very few scopes actually meet the first 3 requirements.


Without getting into a long discussion on BDC versus dialing, etc. Dialing is what you want. More specifically dialing for elevation and holding for wind. It will produce the most hits in the shortest amount of time.

We dial for elevation because the center is always the center- out brains are used to aiming where the crosshairs are. As well it keeps us from holding out in air when we adjust for wind. To do this the scope must adjust correctly 100% of the time.

We hold for wind because it switches too much and too fast to dial. To do this effectively there needs to be reference marks on the reticle. They come in two "types". The most common is a Mil based reticle. Less so MOA based reticles.

The reason for this is quite simple. The American military sniping community got started using MOA as a result of golf shooters using MOA "clicks" on the service rifles. Meanwhile they took Mils from the Artillery side. The result is that American LR shooters were stuck with MOA adjustments and Mil reticles for 30 years. At the same time the world standard for snipers was to use MRAD's, and the europeans were using matching reticles and adjustments nearly from the start. Mil reticles were used heavily for range estimation, and later began to be used for elevation due to scopes not adjusting properly. Around a decade ago the real push came for matching reticles and adjustments, especially the more that shooters were around others using Mil/Mil and for front focal plane optics so that they subtended correctly no matter the power.

The Mil reticles weren't going away in favor of MOA based reticles, it made sense to be talking the same as everyone else, and had just as much to do with the fact that only European scopes were offered in FFP with matched reticles/adjustments and only in Mil. In a nut shell that's how Mil became standard with LR field shooters. And it won't change. While there are no technical disadvantages to using MOA/MOA, options in scopes are extremely limited and options in spotters ridiculously so.

Both are angular measurement, not linear, and in shooting are used exactly the same. Life is simply easier for us to use Mil based scopes. More options, more common, and you will have to learn to use Mils anyway.

For these reasons and the availability of mil reticles in spotters I suggest going Mil.



Next is second focal plane (SFP) versus front focal plane (FFP). If the reticle is designed properly than a FFP is far and away preferable for general use. It's not about "ranging" as most think it is, it's about the reticle being "correct" no matter what. Lots of shots are missed because SFP scopes weren't set on the right power. No matter what you may think, SFP scopes bite everyone eventually. Never worrying about whether the scope is set correctly eliminates a variable. This is really useful when you start getting better and start being able to spot your own shots, as you will need to turn the power down to do it.

SFP versus FFP is kind of like MOA versus Mil. Again, make life easier and go FFP.




Mounting system:

Generally I use picatinny rings and one piece bases as I have seen the least amount of POI wandering with them, however, Tally LW's or DNZ's work well for lightweight rigs. Regardless, degrease them and affix with blue loctite (rust works as well). Torque correctly because lots wonky stuff happens to most scope tubes when rings are over tightened.





Spotting scopes:

Remember that distance shooting is a team event. Trying to learn, or practicing without someone on a spotter and vice versa will take 100x as long to learn. For every shot fired we should be making wind calls and seeing trace and splash for corrections. Make your life easier and get a spotter with a reticle. Actually spotting without a reticle blows in comparison... There are quite a few available with mil based reticles, not so much with MOA.

Get a good tripod.











Software........

Software.....



I'm not sure that everyone wants to get into the mechanics of shooting, but let's just say that we need a stable rest (bipod and rear bag helps here), a neutral straight body position behind the rifle, correct hand and trigger finger placement, no torque on the grip, good cheekweld, etc. Then we must get a smooth break on the trigger with no disturbance. Doing this will let us get a good zero and hit targets. Doing the above correctly with practice will let us spot our own trace/hits through the scope during recoil....



Zeroing:


All guns fire in a "cone". Some fire in bigger cones and some smaller, but they all fire in a cone. 3 rounds are not enough to show where the center of the cone will be. If you don't believe this fire five, 3 round groups on five separate, but identical targets and then overlay all 15 shots. You'll see that your ".5MOA all day long" guns, aren't. Or you can just shoot 10 round groups and it will show the same thing. Doing so (yes, even with normal hunting rifles), will show you what the gun really will do, and it ensures that when we zero we are actually zeroing to the center of the "cone". All rounds fired count. There aren't any "fliers", "pulled shots", or "off days" BS. Those are all excuses for why a gun that we think is .5MOA or whatever, isn't. Guess what- it's not. SInce we are trying to actually hit things, we need to know what the mechanical accuracy of the gun is and where every single round fired will land.



This what we are looking for-





POA was the tip of the diamond that used to be there.





Zero at 100 yards. Not 2 inches high at 100, or zeroing for 300 yards at 100, or anything else. Zero point of aim, point of impact at 100 yards. We want to know that at a set range that our bullets are impacting where the crosshairs are. This allows us to check zero correctly. Yes, you could zero at 300 yards if you had a 300 yard range, however at 300 you're dealing with the environment, winds, etc. Also how many places have 300 yard ranges? With a 100 yard zero there is less than a quarter of an inch difference in impact between 60 to 120 yards or so. A 100 yard zero allows you to check it almost anywhere.

Also there is a benefit in use of always dialing "up". It's simpler, easier and removes a variable.





When you're zeroing and need to make a correction, you do it by "reading" the reticle in the scope or spotter. Place the reticle on the target or bullet hole and read how many mils that you need to adjust to bring it to center. Do not think in inches. If you are doing it right, your spotter will just say- "up .7 and right .8". Just like that. Corrections are given in direction then distance, in that order. It cuts down confusion and speeds the process up. Avoid telling the shooter (or thinking to yourself) where he missed, ie. "you were 1 foot low". Telling someone that they missed by "looks like a foot and a half, maybe two feet" doesn't help him hit the target. Telling him- "left 1.7" does.

In use it becomes painfully obvious to those without why the shooter and spotter working in the same units with both having reticles is SO superior to guessing. Doing this even when zeroing makes it easier and quicker to do it when shooting longer.


When you start shooting past 100 yards the whole process becomes critical. Mistakes add up fast and it doesn't take much to miss the vitals of a deer (or an elk facing you...).






Shot setup:


This is the process I go through for every shot-



Shooter:

See target (animal)
Range
Get into the best position available
Dial elevation
Turn scope power up
Check parallax (if available and range is far enough to matter)
Find NPA
Tell spotter your elevation and that you are ready and wait for the wind call...



Spotter:

While the shooter is getting ready you get the spotting scope on the target and start making a wind call.

Once you have the wind you give the correction. IE. "left .4"



As the shooter you have to be ready to fire as soon as you say "ready" and get the wind call. It's a command, not permission. When the spotter says "left .4" you need to fire NOW. You have to get the round off before the spotter needs to blink. No more then 5-8 seconds.


At the shot the shooter follows through, and chambers another round, and the spotter watches for trace and splash. If you do it correctly it'll be a hit and the spotter says "hit". If not the spotter gives a correction by reading the trace or splash with the reticle and immediately tells the shooter. Lets say the shot landed .3 to the right from center. All the spotter does is add .3 to his last call. So the only thing that the shooter would hear is "left .7", and he would hold left .7 and send it. This works even if it's a hit but not center. Say the hit was too far back on a coyote, just give the correction to bring them to center.



Now what if you don't have a spotter with a reticle. Well first off that sucks. However all is not lost. I overcome it by asking the shooter how big the target is. As an example if we're hunting he can tell me that from back to brisket on the deer is 1 mil. This gives me a ruler in my mind and actually works better than you think that it would. If neither of you have reticles in the scope or spotter shame on you, but you can still work it. You can say that from back to brisket is "1 unit" and then break it down from there. If you tell him "down .5 unit" then he can see that you want to him to come down half the distance of the chest. It works for wind calls as well, though without a reticle I try to stay in "favors and edge holds".












All of this may seem over the top, or "snipery", but it's not. A lot of this stuff you do already and you just don't know it. While maybe hard to understand it all from reading, it is really quite simple and it works. This is how the best shooters on the planet shoot.



Hope it made some sense or at least gave you an idea of where some of us are coming from as I'm tired and going to sleep.

EXCELLENT post, Formid.

If one must think in inches or MOA while using a MIL scope then .3 MILs is aproachimently 1 inche at 100 yards. If I want to hold off in the wind in inches that close and is close as one can hold in my experience.

The 1/3 MOA that you use is very close to MILs in adjustment. 1/3 MOA is .349" at 100 yards, .1 MIL is .366 a difference of .017. Don't see any advantage in one over the other.

Thank You

Formid- Big thanks for taking to time to type that out.

But NOT as Bogus as your excuse for using MILS!!

Hey Douche, time for you to move on to a thread where you have something to CONTRIBUTE.