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

EB, for what it's worth, I thought this was hilarious:



Because when it's all said and done, what you spend your money on is nobody's business but your own. The only things anyone can know about you from that exchange are 1) You have the cash to do what you want, and 2) you have the capacity to laugh at your own mishaps and blow it off. Oh, and 3) you've been known to take a drink every know and then.

Other than that, it's just the normal BS that goes on here.

It is strange how number 3 facilitates number 2

Come on! You guys can't be through already. DeFlave throw some more useless insults around, TAK & prairie goat have at it, rc post some more boob shots!

Personally I like the MOA 2nd Focal Plane scopes, separates me from the ninjas and that is just fine with me

John Burns made the most compelling argument for hunters and Formidilosus for tactical/competitive

Main reason I like the MOA is being able to think about it with what I grew up with. The FFP scopes obscure too much of the target when the reticle thickens at high power

Obviously they both work if you've been schooled adequately. The military has embraced mil/mil scopes primarily because trigger pullin' ain't what washes most folks out of sniper schools, inability to do arithmetic, quickly, is the culprit. Mil/Mil scopes helps to minimize that for you kids who've been subjected to idiot publik skool math programs.

Guys like Burns, Mathman, and others don't have a problem ciphering in their heads.

Let it be said that Burns system, is, apart from his proprietary reticle, damn near exactly what the Army used for a generation with the M3 Ultra scope on the M24.

How is a fixed 10x with M3 covered turrets and a 4.5-14x50 with 1/3 MOA turrets damn near the same... Other than having a BDC Turret they are nothing close to being the same...

If your reticle is covering too much of the target then you are using the wrong reticle. I use the P-4 fine in my S&B PM ll and do not have that problem.

There's no better reticle than a TMR

Woods I have never had a problem in low light with a S&B. unlike other scopes the reticle doesn't fade out. At least not to my eyes and I will be 63 on the 30th of this month.

I think the BDC is kind of the point.... range it, dial it to the range, and smash it. This schitt isn't that hard.... and doing math ain't the same as shooting stuff. Most folks don't even need to know the math, heck most folks don't want to know the math.... they just want to be able to put bullets on target.

I've seen John's system in action, in the field, and it works very well. I've been using custom calibrated turrets for 10+ years now.... and for smacking stuff in hunting situations.... it's still the system I prefer. Maybe that's because 10+ years ago I saw John's system, it seemed simple and effective.... so that's where I gravitated. I still use 90% of what I've learned from John, his shows , and his excellent video series. John seems to get a lot of flak for pimping his wares... why? I don't know anyone who has put more critter dicks in the dirt ON VIDEO at long range than John. Like 'stick..... he's not often wrong.... but he can be a bit of an azz hole.... so am I, and I'm not right nearly as often as those guys.

Flip side..... Form also makes a living teaching/showing folks how to make hits at long range. He's obviously good at.... as folks pay him. When he talks about things like glass durability and tac type shooting... I tend to listen. I'd love to send a few rounds down range with him.... as I'm sure I'd come away a better shooter.

I think it's pretty interesting when folks get their boxers all in bunch over subjects like this.... especially some of the very experienced guys. At the end of the day.... LR hunting and Tac shooting require many of the same skills.... but they ain't the same. I liken it to the difference between MMA and Boxing. A boxer (tac shooter) deals with far more refined rules and engagement situations. Being a better boxer will make you a better MMA fighter. But, boxers typically get worked pretty well when some other variables are thrown at them. A hunting situation is always different... different angles, and real world results. Hunters deal with other variables that are meaningless in a tac match. It isn't simply hit or miss in the field. Put an MMA type guy in with a quality hands guy.... and make them box... they'll get outclassed quickly. Reverse that, and the MMA guy will figure out a way to gain an advantage. Put me in a LR steel match, and I'll make some hits... but I'll miss more than I should. Put me in the field, on critters.... and I'll still miss more than I should. What can I say... I get my ass kicked at the gym too... boxing or grappling.

Tanner and I were laughing about it the other day. I bet John, and Pat, and Larry, and Rick, and Jordan, and Billy, and whoever Form is.... would all get along pretty well in an actual shooting situation. I bet they can all hit stuff, and I bet the techniques and philosophies are really far more similar than they are different.

jwp I see you could read my post before I deleted it where I asked about not being able to see a fine reticle in low light low power

I was at the tire store and did that post on my mobile and tapatalk app gave me a virus so I quickly deleted the post and uninstalled tapatalk. That virus was throwing sites with much more graphic pics than rc's pics faster than I could delete 'em

True that a very fine scope like a S&B with exceptional light gathering, contrast and clarity would not have as much a problem

BTW you could buy a very good scope for what it costs to get 4 tires, 275/60 R20 Michelin MS2's. $1,280.00! F'in ridiculous!

Amen

Great post.

What it really comes down to is becoming adept with whatever system, rifle, and philosophy a fellow chooses to use.

Laugh everytime I read this.

Me too, it's pretty obvious he's switching to mils.

PS, it's obvious that rc is the smartest guy on this thread.......

Just trying keep it on track