I am saving for a nice scope to help me extend my range. Trying to graduate from charts and CDS Leupolds to the next step.

Hate to ask the "question" which is asked 3X per week of What Scope. I am torn.

Think I could pony up $1000 which is a popular budget limit for Working Guys. Made the mistake of reading Sniper's Hide for a few weeks. How all these guys are saying "I'm in for 2" on new Nightforce scopes at $2400 each is beyond me.

I've read ScenarShooters reviews of the upcoming Bushnell LRHS scope in 3-12. Seems the scope was pretty much tailored to his specs along w George. There has to be a reason I'm sure. Seen enough pics and targets to know he isn't a poseur. Think many others have asked why he does MILS and meters. Not sure his answer.

I've been doing MOA for a while. I think I get it. Have not had too many hang ups. Very hard for me to consider anything MILS. Spoke to a friend who is a combat vet w confirmed kills behind a bolt gun. We did math, examples, diagrams etc. Still confusing.

Seems all Snipers Hide guys make it simple. Shoot. See splash. Measure from POA to POI, adjust same and send 2nd. That's great if you are splashing on steel. Or Hadj doesn't move and you can see bullet impact.

But if I'm spotting for a bud. He whiffs on an 'lope at 628. I guess he misread the wind by a 12" miss. I can tell him in 5 seconds of math "Hold 2 minutes left"

Am I missing an easy Short Cut with MILS? If I am truing my zero or checking data at 300 yards(or meters) and I'm off 5" what do you adjust(you can't see bullet holes thru scope to measure in MILS in this example)

I'd guess even the cheapest of software or aps offer come ups in both MOA and MILS. Not too much headache there. Just way wierd to me. Lots of scopes offered with MILS of some sort. MOA seems more limited in offerings.

300 yards is 10800 inches.

Calculator in radian mode: arctan(5/10800) = .000463, so you're needing right between .4 and .5 milliradians.

One Mil is 3.6" per 100 yards, or 10.8" (rounds to 11) at 300 yards.

If you miss by 5" at 300 yards, adjust half a mil, and send again.

Herein lies the beauty of Mils. You don't think in inches. You measure in mils.

In the above example, your friend didn't miss by a guess of 12", he missed by 1.9 Mils, which is what you as the spotter measured with the reticle in your scope or spotting scope.

You then tell your buddy the correction, in mils. He dials in or holds off the proper amount of mils for the next shot.

When everyone is on the same system, there are no math conversions needed. This not only helps to eliminate mathematical errors, but it makes the whole process a lot faster in the field.

Not really adding anything to this thread, but I often wonder the same thing as above. I have little debt, pretty decent job and I could push the toy fund a bit to maybe cough up 2 grand for a scope, but these guys who buy multiples or that can even think about spending 3 and now 4 grand on a scope is beyond me. Much less having several scopes in that category.

There's talk about the new scope/brand that bought Premier over at the Hide, 4200 retail (ouch).

As long as you are set up to use one or the other there is no difference. To spot correctly your spotter needs a reticle with the unit of measure you are shooting that way he can give you an instant call on the splash or dirt so you can get another round in the air if needed under the same conditions.

The only thing that speeds the call up is measuring it in a reticle you are spotting with.

With that said, at tactical matches you see more Mil. set ups.

In theory I had a hard time converting to MILs. My buddy sent me a MIL scope to try. In practice, its a breeze.

Here's a good thread.

http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-rifle-scopes/229906-understanding-mils.html

I use and like both MOA and MIL scopes. They are simply 2 different systems of measuring angles- one is in degrees and the other in radians. The only things that distinguish the two, in my mind, are that MOA scopes are typically designed with finer click increments, and the MIL system works neatly in divisions of 10, like the metric system.

Both work very well, as long as some thought went into scope and reticle design.

Spot On!

In fairness its exactly the same if you had a reticule and turrets graduated in MOA..The point is you all need to be working the same units (whether Mil or MOA) and forget using linear corrections. The beauty is that you don't have to worry about exact distances re the second shot as the system sort of automatically takes that into account when you read off the correction..

Yep. A full-on MOA system would do the same thing, it's just that Mils are currently more available. It seems like we're seeing more and more MOA systems becoming available, which is great!

The big thing for me is not having to guess. No more "hold a half prairie dog high".

Without looking it up, who knows precisely what angle a radian is?

to how many significant figures, or will symbols work?

Definition, not equivalent in degrees.

Can't remember exactly but its derived from the arc of a circle where the arc is the same length as the radius.

If you really want to confuse people, google how many different "Mils" systems are in use..

180/PI

Sorry, you're still involving degrees.

survey habit.

other than saying "ratio of arc length to radius", I always think in degrees.

edit: 1 radian is where the arc length equals the radius.

Pete is pretty much there.

In the military, we always took a Mil as the angle subtended by 1m at 1000m but I am not sure how that fits in with the scientific definition..

Half a pd high might be more accurate than 4 inches or 1 moa or .25 mil etc... due to the fact they vary in size...

Actually I dont' care for mils much. I don't think in mils. All you have to do to run mils is think of everything in mils and its no different than MOA etc...

Jeff

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

Pretty sure I've shot a match or two. Also well aware that trying to mil living objects is not in any way accurate enough to get a range to shoot an animal.

I know I grew up and did my initial training on moa in a SFP scope. I chugged along for about 15 years of shooting, even spending the last few teaching at several schools geared towards law enforcement precision rifle. As much time as I put into all of that and I spent about 15 minutes with mil in a first plane glass and I was sold completely.

I have taught my kids and my wife, all new shooters, to simply read the reticle and get their hits. I dont think about my hold over cards as 26" of drop at x yards or 13" of drift at x yards in x winds, they are simply 3.3 mils of elevation or .5 mils of drift etc. The other beauty of a proper mil reticle and mil adjustments is the option to dial or use holdover as needed, Whether you go with mils or moa to make the system work best it should be a FFP scope and turrets that match the reticle. If you want to have the most difficult to use system go with a mil reticle, moa turrets in a SFP system, all I can say is pass the aleeve for the headache that will follow.

As far as only being conducive to the range or heavy rifles, I will have to disagree. I run the SWFA 3x9 on all of my rifles and my Tikka runs under 8lbs loaded and ready to go. My only complaint about mil and generally FFP scopes is they tend to be catering to the military market and focus on durability which adds to more weight than sporter scopes.

Also for field practicality I have not been super successful on using a mil to get proper ranges. On a square range I have been able to work off of a known size gong and gotten hits but a real life example was my mule deer this year. I lost my LRF in the morning and kept hunting. I finally find a volunteer for the freezer and use my scope to determine his range as about 320-340 yards (yes I use yards and not meters with a mil and have survived). The shot strikes lower than intended and barely catches the bottom of the heart, I could not call my impact but could see blood squirting out both sides as he turned and jogged straight away for about 400 yards before dropping. I went out next week and confirmed the range was much closer to 390 yards and my error was in using the average body size of a deer, not the reduced freezer size on the buck I had in the reticle.

Either way I strongly encourage you to find someone to get to a range or in the field with and use a mil scope. I looked at it on paper for years and dismissed it as to complicated, a complication that totally disappeared when I could actually sit down and use it.

I am not so sure that I can agree with that even though I do not possess the skills myself. I have seen some guys that were pretty damn amazing at it.

On deer/elk/lopes?

You're a trained sniper? I thought snipers were trained to use mil reticles to range live targets. I could be wrong.






Here's how it's done with the 4 legged version...







I believe the standard is 18" for deer and 24" for elk brisket to backbone...

Its fairly accurate for me to 500 yards or so..And if conditions are bad enough that I cant use an LRF, 500 is probly plenty..

Using a reticle for long distance ranging is something wannabe snipers do to pretend they are real snipers.

everytime I practice it i have to reference a chart of some sort..then I forget it all a few hours later..LRF's are a wonderful thing.

This is where the difference between theory and reality collide. Anyone that has tried to mil range animals would know how abysmal the results are.



So standard on a deer is 18" back to brisket right? What happens when the deer really is 17in or 16in or 19 inches? What happens when the deer is 16.5 inches from back to brisket and what you thought was .8 mil is really .88?

Interestingly went to NE a couple years ago and I killed a Mule deer and a WT, and my buddy's wife killed a WT. All bucks and all from the same NF. The Muley I shot was right at 18.5in back to brisket, the Whitetail she shot was under 17in, and the WT I shot was almost 20 inches. If you believe that you can mil range live targets and get acceptable results.....

I agree. If the conditions are too schitty for a good LRF, they are probably too schitty to shoot out very far.

The other thing is, up close a guy can be off by a decent amount on his estimate and still hit vitals.

At closer range, one should have a pretty good idea as to how far a big game animal is without needing any form of device to get the range. If a deer pops out at 320 yards, and you estimate and hold for 275, you'll still kill him with about any decently flat shooting round. Just takes some practice by estimating yardages then using the LRF to test your guess. Do this enough and a guy can get pretty good out to surprisingly far. LRFs sure are nice....much better than pacing off your guesses

Yep, we were all deluded in the 80's, all those gongs that rung were figments of our imaginations. Carlos Hathcock is some sort of imaginary mind-warp [bleep] too!

Times change..I'm sure long trang would be thrilled with LRF's and a scope that wasnt 4 foot long.

That's nice.

I remember when our outfit first got ahold of some Vectors. It was like a whole new [bleep] ball game.

Once again milling a known size piece of steel is so different than milling a living, varrying sized target that they shouldn't even be spoken in the same breadth.


Milling was used back in the day (and still taught, although given way less importance than it was) because there was no other way. Homies didn't have PLRF 15's.


I'm a freaking baller at milling pieces of steel on a range. Milling animals or people and than checking with a LRF always makes me chuckle.

Back when I was guiding pronghorn and mule deer hunters in the 1980's, I learned to use my scope reticle to range both animals, which worked pretty well out to 500 yards on mature bucks--though it didn't work very well beyond that, because even the best bullets dropped too quickly.

Kept using the method for a while even after the first civilian LRF's became available, because most of them became just as unreliable beyond 500, and often even closer. But once accurate LRF's appeared I quite ranging with the reticle, because there was no comparison.

I don't guide much anymore, but do occasionally, and one of the great advantages of an LRF in guiding is that people will believe a digital readout far more readily than how much a reticle subtends on a pronghorn at X range.

Maybe you just suck at it:)

Do not get me wrong I am a LRF fan hell I own a swaro, a Leica 1600, Leica LRF binos, and a vectronix plrf15. I cannot accomplish it, but have seen two of my buddies range deer with a mils with some amazing accuracy confirmed by LRF. I can range do okay measuring known sized targets using mils, but not well enough for me to shoot at an animal. But I am wise enough to know just because I cannot do it, does not mean that no one else can.

"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."

crap , guess I need put all those animals back , Ill call Shawn Carlock and everyone else I know to put theirs back too.Damn you internet!

I have optics by both Swaro and Zeiss. Took me a long while to save on a Blue Collar budget to purchase them. None have mil reticles. I won't schitt can my whole optic arsenal to buy again, but with mils. I guess I will STFU and stay on the porch.

Thanks

Another fly in the ointment besides the variance in size of animals being ranged the possibility (probability) that some popular scope manufacturer's stated reticle subtensions are incorrect.

When I used a reticle to range animals, I sat down at a bench with a target with 1" squares a taped 100 yards away, and measured the reticle against the target, instead of relying on anybody's listed subtension.

I also measured the chest depth of a bunch of animals, including pronghorn, deer, caribou and elk, getting enough samples to come to a reasonable average, especially for mature bucks and bulls. But it sure doesn't work with bears! They can be all over the place, both due to size and hair.

As I noted before, it worked quite well out to around 500 yards, but gets iffy beyond that, both because of the probability of some error in ranging and the increasingly steep trajectory--especially for first-shot hits.

The 26 Nosler is gonna change all that:)

There is your problem. Two problems, actually.

#1 you don't "guess"
#2 inches have nothing to do with shooting rifles at distance

To correct #1 you measure the difference in POA and POI with your reticle. To correct #2 you tell the shooter the number you determined in #1. Simple. No math required. You (and most LR shooters learning the ropes) are making it more difficult than it has to be. When it's time to shoot your rifle, leave the inches in the truck. NOTHING is done in inches or any other linear measurement.

Make a dope card in MILS.
Dial/hold in MILS according to your dope card.
Observe & correct (if needed) in MILS

Too easy.




Oh, and on the 5" zero correction @ 300 yards question.... If you can't see bullet holes to measure in mils you can't see them to measure in MOA. When you go to the target you mark the holes (dark permanent marker into the group center on a light target and vice-versa) and measure in MILS when you get back to your firing point. That avoids math altogether.

If you just have to do math for some reason (that's just craziness, btw ), keep in mind that there are 2.5 CM (2.54 but we don't need to worry about the 0.04) in one inch if you must measure your required correction in inches.

5" * 2.5 = 12CM

0.1 MIL (one "click" on most MIL scopes) works just like the one inch per 100 yard MOA thing does except it's 1CM per 100M. This is why people sometimes refer to MILS as "Metric" even though that's not correct.

12/3=4 (0.4 MILS correction) Again, too easy.




If you need to convert yards/meters just remember meters + 10% for yards and yards - 10% for distance in meters. That's close enough to get you on target waaaay out there.

Examples:

1000m +10% = 1100 yards (within 7 yards from the actual number)
1000y - 10% = 900 meters (within 14 yards from the actual number)



I was a 100% MOA shooter many years ago. Made the switch to MILS and immediately saw the advantages. I finally sold my last MOA scope last week and will never go back. I would much rather deal with 6.9 MILS than 29.22 MOA.









In the end, either system works. MILS are just a little simpler once you let go of linear measurements.

^^^What he says in a well explained post. I switched over to mils nine years ago.....it was very easy.

FWIW, most Tac Comps are not held on square ranges, and are very simalar to hunting senerios. The shooter has the responsibilty of finding targets, ranging them and making first rounds hits without anyone telling him what to do with the wind, shot angle, posistion, or where the first round hit falls, etc....very challinging and very good practice for any hunter.

Good post.

But mils ARE metric...

Radians are the SI standard unit of angular measure.

I also switched from MOA to MILs and will not go back.

Both above posts are 100% accurate and well explained

Are they? SI may adopt them as standard, but no particular set of units is necessary to define a radian.

your initial question really got me thinking about the whole thing again, been a while since I actually used mils, and even then, that was under the pretext of the U.S. Army - and a brief stint using a Zeiss.

But they are dimensionless, by definition, like sine and cosine.

The only reason they really got into SI, is its reliance on base 10, and the ease of 1 meter over 1000 meters (or 1cm over 100m (.1 mil))

but it works just as easy with 1 ft over 1000 feet. You start getting goofy when you go to inches over yards.

With the way shooters use them, the 1cm over 100m for .1mil is only an approximation anyway.

In the proper definition of a radian, the 1cm is wrapped along the outside of a 100m circle, whereas shooters treat the 1cm as a vertical displacement perpendicular to the line of sight.

Hello all, my name is Engine 22 and I made the switch to MILS�..

Target size X 1000
---------------------- = range in YDS
Target size in MILS


"�..the guys at sniper's hide..," -- this made me laugh a little.

What's with all this bickering back and forth? How about we agree that it doesn't matter one way or the other what freaking measurement you use or I use. Just be prepared to make the shot by knowing YOUR system.

I started thinking that day about chord versus arc, but I do that enough at work; besides at extended difference for small arms, it's probably not a concern.

Examining the Maclaurin series for tangent and arctangent shows the error is small for small values of the argument.

Well said. I am a little late in life making the swap to mils, but am trying. MOA has served me very well and is very ingrained. I could probably do everything I ever need done using MOA. It is hard swapping from something that works and that you know. I can see some advantages so am making the swap. The real problem is thinking in mils versus thinking in MOA. If I were a little smarter it would probably be easier.

Trouble is how often does the target stand perfectly upright and perpendicular? That applies to humans on the battle field and game standing at less than ideal angles..

There are lots of variables when using a reticule to range a live target and the more variables, the less accuracy..

Personally I believe this entire situation evolves around a bunch of 'youngsters' that didn't have balls enuff to join the military whom are now wishing to 'play sniper' by adopting the MILS system!

Wannabe snipers!

Makes me laugh!!

Of course I don't have to tell you this, but...

By definition "metric" means that SI has adopted a certain unit as the standard, using a decimal system of measurement. Radians have been adopted, and the decimal system certainly passes the smell test Radian, milliradian, etc. Base powers of ten is a tell-tale feature of most metric units.

A radian is a radian in any base.

who the hell they gonna snipe? Its a bunch of folks learning you can shoot deer past 200 yards if you practice a bit... they are learning to shoot longer.

At least thats the ones taht I read of....

Laser it, correct it shoot it, give me a call in something I know for correction, generally I'm not far enough off that you can't just say hold 4 inches left, or 12 inches higher... I can do that instantly without correcting anything.

To do mils everyone involved has to understand them.... which would be nice, granted... but ain't common unless you are paid to shoot at people.

For ranging game I think the mils are best use as a backup plan or to confirm nothing is wrong with your LRF. I have had problems getting a good reading on flat ground and if a lazer is telling me 500 yards and I am seeing something other than close to .5mil I had better recheck something.

The other point that is being missed on using a mil is it is least accurate when you need it most. An error under 500yards can be survived but if your off 50 yards at 800 (which I think is incredibly easy to do in the field without an exact size of a target)it could easily be enough to screw up a drop or wind correction.

This. Metric us nothing to do with it, similarities or not.

1 Mil = 1 inch @ 1000 inches
1 Mil = 1 foot @ 1000 feet
1 Mil = 1 yard @ 1000 yards
1 Mil = 1 peckerjoule @ 1000 peckerjoules

Nice Bogus post......

Not exactly... A radian, or a radian/1000 for that mater, is a unit of angle not of distance. An angle can't equal a distance. In other words, units can't be mixed. The expressions shown are approximations not actual equalities. The approximations applicable because the angles are small.

Also, radian is the derived unit of plane angle in the SI units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

Agreed, Most of the people I know enjoy the challenge of shooting long range tactical matches. They also help prepare you for long range hunting in varying conditions. The military adopted Mils and at most of the high end tactical matches you will have military shooter there, so who better to learn from and adopt techniques that work. Most shooting disciplines are molded by the top shooters and techniques that work. No interest here of being a sniper, just like hitting random long range targets. And for those that poke fun at the abilities of some of the tactical shooters feel free to come out and shoot a match such as ASC, it might be an eye opener. With that said at these matches you will hear most corrections called in Mils. I shoot MOA and so does my shooting partner so it works fine. If I shot alone I would be at a big disadvantage in this discipline.

Exactly.

Furthermore, the fact that we use radians in divisions of 10 signals a metric unit of measure.

Back in the day of being a Fire Suport Man (enlisted FO) we used mils to calculate deviation corrections to the observed fall of shot in relation to the target.

Our binos had a reticle with an index every 10 mils. In practice, we rounded distance from observer to target to the nearest 1000 meters, then used that factor to multiply by the measured deviation in mils, to determine a correction in meters we would send back to the FDC.

For example, target 2800 meters from observer gets an O-T factor of 3. An impact observed 20 mils left of target, would be multiplied by 3, for a correction of "Right Six Zero" (60 meters)

Our compasses had a mil and degree index. A full circle had 6400 mils.

Here's the part where it goes to hell, a circle with a radius of 1000 meters, has a circumference of something like 6283 meters....

Please note the lack of any other particular units in this definition of the radian.

Similarly, suppose we have the circumference of a circle and divide into 360 equal segments, and two rays drawn outward from the center of the circle to intersect two adjacent segment nodes, then the angle between the rays is one degree.

Degrees and radians are both derived units of angle. As is MIL (radian/1000) and MOA (angle/60). Although an MOA (minute of angle should be called MOD or minute of degree).

I suspect most shooters think in terms of subtension, or distance (e.g., inches, centimeters, yards, meters, etal.) at range when using either MOA or MILs. I know I did. It can cause a lot of confusion.

To the OP's original question: I do use MILs and MOA's in the field; very poorly as a range finder, but with moderate success for hold overs and hold offs.

Sunday a buddy and I were shooting rocks out to 3/4 mile... he runs MIL/MIL (SS 12x) on his .300.... and I run the fine Nightforce MOAR reticle on my .260...

Simply remembering a MIL is about 3.5 MOA in the reticle allowed me to spot and call his misses in MILs.... and visa versa.

Another way to run a SFP MOA reticle is to simply dial it back in power to make the MOA marks correlate to MILS. Set at 22x I have 1 MOA marks in the reticle, on 11x they're 2 MOA.... So, at 12x they're close enough to 1.8..... or about a Half-MIL... to allow me to spot and call in MILs with no math to be done.

This schitt seems a lot harder than it is... taking the leap to MILs will provide a more universal language, and is quite a boon when that's what your spotter is set-up for. I don't think it makes first round hits easier at known distances... but, having a reticle that matches the turret certainly makes second shot corrections much easier and far more accurate.

I'm at ease with MOA and Mils in any variation,if only because it's all I've ever done.

That being said,for a flying headstart for a Newb,the Mil/Mil relationship and driving in 1/10th's is very easy for folks to cypher. There has been alotta Fixed [bleep] sold very recently,due that ease and fresh look at things,via them who ain't ever dabbled subtension or a turret before. The impetus isn't as a range determination vehicle(which is folly at best),but as a means of arranging CBS POA/POI intersections.

I'll try to remember to take a pic today,of the system that is bolstering them sales,by letting folks see with their own eyes...how dots is quickly connected and reliably.

A 5 Minute Tutorial and they's off and runnin',blowing their own minds.

Thanks

I am the OP and asked the question. I can get/grasp the concept. What is still bugging me is the same mantra of "spotting the miss and correcting"

In my initial scenario with the antelope miss....I DO NOT have any spotters or binos with MIL reticle. If I hunt with a Bud and we are doing this, I've either already tagged out and rifle is stored, or I am guiding a Bud as a freebie and not hunting at all. Point is I doubt I would be down behind a rifle with Mil reticle watching him shoot(maybe this is my big F up?)

It would take me quite a while to think in Mils re: the miss. Should I see dirt puff just off the front brisket and behind, my first thought would be same as example "Dude, you wiffed wide right by a foot".

Someone would have to be doing some sort of reconfiguring of the next hold. Whether he holds off his estimation of 1 foot and lines up the next partial Mil or whatever. Something needs to be done.

Or you could break down the scenario and tell me how if I missed "guessing" the wind at that distance I have no business shooting that far. That's fine. I wouldn't anyhow. It was just a random scenario with non-round distance factors. But reading wind is still a "guess" or educated estimate. The Formidotilis guy said he botched a wind call under 400 yards and missed an Elk. He claims to have shot several Tac Matches and claims to be quite accomplished. Seems it can happen in the real world.

I understand the concept of running down to the 300 yard target that was a 5" off shot. I can afford a sharpie and make a large line visible in the rifle scope reticle in order to use the Mil to adjust hold off/dial correction.....But if I am looking through a Zeiss spotter on 45X and can see the 1" grid on the target and can tell that it's 5" left, but perfectly centered, isn't all the other stuff BS and making THAT harder than it needs be?

I am not trying to be obstinate. I would guess that if I purchased my own scope in Mils I could learn it better 1st hand rather than reading it. I do get that I could make a drop/wind chart in Mils vs MOA. Ballistic Aps give correction in Mils also. Not a big deal.

Just having a hard time with everyone relying on "seeing the splash" and "Adjust accordingly to the appropriate Mil in the reticle". I don't see how this really is practical in many hunting scenarios in areas other than Wyoming.

And the discussion of using Mils as a rangefinder can stop. Not at all interested in that. If my LRF is broken or out of juice, I'd never shoot. Borrow one, or it's back to how hunting was in 1979.....250 yards/meter and under.

The 10% fudge factor for yards vs meters a great tip and I will learn it and remember it.

If I miss.... and the spotter says "a foot left".... I just hold off the approximate 12" and send the second. Doesn't matter if it's MOA, IPHY, or MIL.... when someone says "a foot", it'll require math to make the correction on the turret....

Binos/spotting scopes with MIL/MOA reticles are quite handy and universal in all situations, paper target grids and approximations of animal parts in inches notwithstanding.

Do you even know how to read mirage and can you reliably read bullet trace? If you can't do these two things, then yes, it would be of no use to you. To those of us with the training, with a similarly trained spotter, it only takes 2 or 3 seconds to send that second round.

Funny how threads morph, huh? Unfortunately as an OP, you can't make people post only what you want them to; the discussion will always take twists and turns.

Some of the idiotic, ignorant posts declaring that anyone who uses their reticle to range a target who isn't a trained sniper is just a "wannabe" are just that; Idiotic and Ignorant.

Pitiful and Pathetic also come to mind.

A rifle and scope are nothing more than tools. Disparaging someone who wants to be able to use those tools for what they're made and are capable of is what is really phhuckking funny and illustrates lack of knowledge.

Your original question to the board was about how many long range shooters use a scope set up in mil. It has been answered somewhat.



I think your real question is what is the best set up to use to be able to consistently hit targets at any range.



The answer to that will best be found by asking others that do more than hunt.

Whether you're shooting a rifle, pistol, shotgun or bow, you need to find out how the guys who compete configure their tools. In these games, usually only first round hits count or matter and that should tell you something.


Wanna have a pistol that shoots lights-out? See what IPSC or 3-Gun shooters are using. Want a shotgun that shoots where you look, is fitted properly, etc? See how the Sporting Clay competitors configure and fit their shotguns. Same goes with a rifle.

There's a reason practical rifle competitors use reticles set up in either MOA or mil and it's directly applicable to long range hunting. Just as many things pistol and shotgunners do to their weapons to hit more targets consistently are directly applicable to hunting.

Whether you choose an MOA or mil reticle really doesn't matter, just pick one and go with it. Either one will result in more first round hits than reticles with lesser information. That is if you actually practice.

You are correct, that was the initial question. Was a barometer of sorts, to see who used Mils in HUNTING.

And I am anxious to see what others are using for a set up. That's spot on. My only competition is in 3D archery. I'm quite serious about it. And I do need to look at what the guys who win are running, and why.

"isn't all the other stuff BS and making THAT harder than it needs be?"

It seems it is to hard, you should just stay with what you are comfortable with.

There has been some great advice and insight given here by some posters and it has been rebuked by folks that really don't have and idea about what they are speaking of.

If mils or moa or whatever just does not appeal to you then don't bother with it, make your call in inches or whatever you speak in.

I personally like the mil system and have converted most of my equipment as such.
In the end whether moa or mil they are just tools and if you want to be proficient in spotting hits at distance in a mils reference then the only way is to get equipment set up for mils and learn to use it.

I guess I will be odd man out as I think MOA/MOA is decided superior to MILs in a hunting optic.

1 MOA is a better �size� to work with for shooting. A MIL is too large and, when working wind, even reticles such as Leupold's TMR with � MIL hashes, is courser than I prefer. Working in � MOA increments on wind holds supplies all the precision I can use from field shooting positions and allows me to get my focus off the reticle and on the target.

MOA is pretty much the universal unit of measurement for rifle accuracy (in the USA) and even the guys who are dedicated to MILs usually discuss groups size or hit potential in MOA or the approximation inches at 100yds. Because we use the US customary units for linear measurements MILS has a hard time translating to accuracy standards or hit potential. So if you go to MILS you will still use MOA. Why use 2 systems?

Being able to determine linear measurements in inches is very useful if you wish to check a buck antler spread or tine length. MOA is quite a bit faster and simpler to work with if you are using yards for distance and inches for measurements. I am not sure what the minimums for B&C alltime are in centimeters.

MOA works better for quick wind drift formulas. As an example my 243 Win/105gr VLD @ my standard density (85%) has a Range / 2 = MOA drift in 10mph crosswind. This is an approximation but holds very close.

Example:
10 mph drift at 500yds is approximately 2.5 MOA
10 mph drift at 1000yds is approximately 5.0 MOA

My .264 Win Mag/ 140gr VLD @ 3250fps @ my standard density uses the same formula but is modified by subtracting 1 MOA from the Range / 2 formula.

Example:
10 mph drift at 500yds is approximately 1.5 MOA
10 mph drift at 1000yds is approximately 4.0 MOA

Wind drift has a tendency to work out in a linear manner as far as MOA holds.

I believe it is easier for a spotter to give MOA corrections than MIL corrections when using non reticle equipped spotting scope. Most all of us do not use a spotting scope with a reticle. When I am looking at a buck 800yds away I can �see� MOA easily because his back to brisket is 2.5 MOA. His back to brisket is also .7 MILs but it is much clumsier as nothing in the shooters reticle is exactly or easily broken down into a .7 increment.

Matching reticle to adjustments makes sense and there are more options in MIL/MIL but that is changing.

Short answer is if you are used to US customary units for range and measurements then MOA has a lot to offer.



Shane,

You hit one issue with MILs, as a MIL is not always a MIL. In real mathematics there are 6283.185 (2 X pie X 1000) Milradians in a circle. The US military rounded to 6400 to make the arty calculations simpler. Other countries rounded to 6300 or even 6000 (damn Russkies).

Some ballistic programs, when computing the bore angle, use real calculus radians and some use the 6400 approximation. This also applies to scope manufacturing concerning reticle subtension and click values.

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.

And you need to go fight a fire!!

I do when I'm working, but right now I'm too busy hitting targets using MILS Thank you for proving my point and have a great day.

Good stuff. Love this part. Thanks for taking the time for the post.

How often do you see a guy plunk down at the range and shoot a sub-MOA ten shot group, particularly with a factory rifle in a larger than varmint cartridge?

I get a kick out of this in the classifieds "10 rounds fired. Half inch rifle".

Yes, exactly.

The point is that MILS do not require the shooter to refer to target ranges in meters as many new shooters mistakenly believe. MILS can be used with yards just as well.

The lineal measurements and units are irrelevant when talking in terms of angles

The same goes for MOA, people just associate inches with MOA, but it doesn't have to be so.

When long range hunting it is the first shot that matters, not the whole 10 shot group . Gunny Sargent Hathcocks rifle in Vietnam was a 2 MOA rifle that he did amazing things with because it is shot number one that is important. .

Yes, Jeff Cooper said, "A rifleman does not shoot groups, he shoots shots".

How do you know the one sample you pull from a statistical distribution will go where you want?

They're talking about the only shot of the group that matters in hunting; the Cold Bore

You should sight in for your cold bore shot

Yes, good barrels should have the cold bore in the group. Still, making daily trips to the range and firing a single round at a paper target will tell you lots about your rifle and load

I understand about the Cold Bore Shot.

Question: You have a real 2 MOA rifle, and a real 1/2 MOA rifle. Day after day, which one is more likely to place the CBS dead nuts center?

Yes.



I really wish I had more time to address more of your points and will make an effort this weekend if possible but feel this need to be addressed. Sorry for the drive by post.

My .264 Win Mag at my standard density (as I stated in my post) works off a 9 MPH windbracket when using MILs. If you had actually compared your 7 MPH wind bracket with my posted MOA holds you would have seen your mistake.

I can�t help but smile at the irony (a rare instance where that really applies) that I understand MIL windbrackets better than you, yet I choose MOAs.

I find it amusing that some seem to think, even after my explanation of the difference in Military MIL approximations (6400 divisions in a circle) and actual real Milradians, that somehow I just don�t understand MILs.

I get and can use MILs, better than most in the thread. I prefer MOA because it works better, faster and simpler in a hunting optic.

Here are few field pictures of my use of MIL/MIL optics in the field in the past few months. I tend to use and test most everything to keep up on current options.

Feral Pigeon at 370 yds. Leupold MK6 3-18X44 with Horus TREMOR.


Coyote at 370yds Leupold MK6 3-18X44 with TMR Reticle.



Feel free to hang a picture of you using a MOA reticle/ MOA adjustment optic in the field. My suspicions are you have never actually used an MOA/MOA optic.

Cold bore BS needs to die.


How does the gun know what number shot it's on?



Where in this group is shot #1?




How about this one?




This one?




Or this one?





That is every round fired in that gun from load work up with 155's. Coincidentally the shot that is out on the last target was the first round ever fired from that barrel...



How about another gun?




?







"cold bore/first shot is all that matters" nonsense is said by people who's guns don't shoot as well as they think that it should, so they come up with excuses for every "miss". Put the rifle in a mechanical rest and fire one shot a day for ten days on the same target and you don't get a bullet diameter sized hole. You get a group..... One that looks remarkably like if would've just fired 10 rounds to begin with.


I'm not interested in stroking myself about how I have a ".5 MOA all day long (if I'm feeling good, and the rifle is emotionally ok, and the sun is just right, and I do my part) rifle, and instead care about what size target I can mechanically hit with every round fired. Guess what!? If your rifle is a .5 MOA or 1 MOA, etc gun then on demand that gun will put every single round into a .5 MOA or 1 MOA target. Not some rounds over here and the next group over there.... But every round into that dot.

Even some 2 MOA rifles will shoot their CBS in the same place every time and that's what jwp is talking about. It's when they go to shooting groups that they open to 2 MOA.

Exactly.....before an elk hunt several years ago I set up a 12 inch circle gong at 600 yards and fired 1 shot 3 days latter I fired 1 shot 4 days later I fired 1 shot. I then drove to the target a I had 3 cold bore shots in 2 inches. I knew all that I needed to know to go hunting and that is that my CBS would be on the money. Remember that there is no defined aim point on a gong.

Wow. You don't grasp at straws much, do you?

I used SAC for the calc on the 264WM. Didn't and don't care about comparing anything. Sweet so wind brackets work just like the 1/2 distance MOA thing?


I killed more in a single week with this Nightforce 2.5-10x32 HS .25/MOAR than most will kill in a decade.



Do tell about all those FFP scopes and spotters available in MOA...?

Looking forward to your review of my post...

Then something is wrong with the gun. What happens when you need to fire a second shot? Or a third?

If your cold bore goes where it's supposed to, there's no need for 2nd and 3rd shots.

Have you never tested a rifle/load combo as I've described?

Give me a 1.5 MOA rifle that puts it's CBS to the same point of aim every time over a 1 MOA rifle that puts that first shot "somewhere" in the group.

Mil/Mil works fine, but I would sure as hell rather have everything on a MOA/MOA system. As they become more available, it's just an easier way to go.

Was that a serious answer and is this a serious question?

I'm sorry I try not to do this, but I gotta ask, how many big game animals have you killed? Not one person that I have ever met or hunted with that had killed much at all has not had to put more than one round in animals.

Well if working off the 7 MPH or 9MPH drift is as easy as the base 10 MPH drift and if splitting MILs holds into 10th is easy. Wind brackets in MILs is a simply silly method of estimating wind holds. Still it is funny that I understand it better than you, makes me smile.



Not so much a fan of FFP because I use hunting optics with reasonable zoom ratios.

Spotters with reticles sound real cool until you actually use them hunting. In the Big Boy world of hunting the spotter is employed for, literally, days of looking for every second of spotting shots. Reticles seriously degrade a spotters utility for the number one job of finding game. Not mention there are simply no Alpha Level spotters with a reticle of any type.

As I stated in my post I can very simply see MOA in a spotter without a reticle. There are quite a few members here at the Fire that can attest to the fact that I can call pretty good wind (in MOA or MILs) from my Swaro 65mm HD and my Leupy 60mm HD. You might say I am something of a proven entity.

You on the other hand are simply an anonymous internet poster who seems to scared to post under your own name. Care to change that and let us all know who you are?????????????

Pat, John B, Rick, Jordan, John (JWP), Larry, Joshua, Shane, Pete, Jeff, and Tanner have all contributed to this thread. Non have felt the need to hide behind a screen name. How about you open up a little and let us know who we are yappin at??

Here is the country I hunt and how we find bucks. Reticles in the spotter are a major distraction and will cost you bucks, bulls, rams, and boars.





You seem full up on theory but lacking in real world application. Funny thing about experience in that it takes time and is pretty expensive. Of course it is also pretty valuable.

ps, I cherry picked those picts with the MK6 because they were right about the same range you had "issues" with an elk this year.

JB: Just a thought, but the whole "using your real name" thing comes off as a little self-serving, coming from a guy who sells the equipment being discussed.

It is pretty much a ford chevy type thing IMO. For shooting I feel confident using either MOA or MILs. For ranging I suck with mils, and suck a good bit less with MOA. I know the NPR2 reticle is not that popular here, but I like it. As long as things are MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL its all good.

I agree, and I like the NP-R2 more than the NP-R1

Ford/Chevy things do tend to make for good reading and long threads.

Se�or formy,

Of course that's a serious question and answer.

I really don't know how many big game animals I've killed cuz I don't keep a tally, but your question made me at least think. Of the 4 Oryx I've killed, I did shoot one twice because it ran 50 more yards and stopped. I did shoot only one of the many mulies I've killed twice. Shot it at 300 with a .243 and it walked 5 feet and stopped so I let him have another. The first shot was lethal. When I was 18 I shot an antelope at 600 yards with a .22-250 that required a finisher. I've never shot an elk or goat more than once.

Seems to me everyone you've met or hunted with needs to improve their first round accuracy.

Maybe if they really knew where it was going or had a clue about calling wind...

All this talk about cold bore accuracy is humorous. Very, very few hunters have ever shot a 10 shot group, or admitted to the results. Even less have tested cold bore accuracy, because it's more inconvenient and time consuming. But, its easy to claim when your rifle shoots a 1.5" three shot group.

BTW, I have a friend who has the means to be able to hunt when and where he likes. He takes yearly trips to Africa.

His consecutive 1-shot kills now total 52


....and of the 10,000 of these I killed in 5 days, I can think of only 3 that required a second barrel.

Smoke,

I have to disagree. By being upfront about who I am and what I do anyone can then put my opinions into context. If I were king everyone would have to post under their own name.


Formidilosus is obviously advertising.

When you're ready for some lessons with that shotgun let me know.

After attending two Icebreaker shoots I decided to try a MIL system. Actually, I decided to have my son try a MIL system that way if I didn't like it, he was stuck with the POS and not me.

After doing so I have decided to convert all my optics to MILS.

You can end this discussion now.


Travis

Rick,

Just a question, cuz I may be confused here, but is shotgunning doves the same thing as shooting mule deer at 700 yards?

Thanks!


(just ribbing ya!)

You guys are just "wanna be snipers"..............grin!

LOL, that's ironic! There's nothing wrong with advertising, right John?!

Bring your freakin' gear this time!

Mini-'flave is no sniper, but he went three for three on some eggs last weekend. First at 200+ and the next two were at 300+.



Travis

If the wind isn't too ridiculous tomorrow we're gonna hit the prairie dog town.

With our ghillie suits of course...



Travis

Should be able to get a few 7 yard shots in ghillie suits. Don't forget your dope card. Dialing in the wrong ele and windage will result in everyone knowing that you're not authentic snipers, much to your chagrin...

Be honest John... you've also developed simple yet highly sophisticated indicators of wind speed in the field.

Visa Vi..... "The spotter just blew over, and my hat flew off.... lets call it 30 MPH."....

You'll actually need to dial UP 6.8 mils from your 100 yard zero for that 7 yard shot.

carry on....

JB, do you have a theory as to why the tactical community has all embraced the mil system??

I think this thread is interesting because I think it high lights there is a big difference between tactical shooting, which if you really delve into the discipline isn't really sniping but rather simply long range shooting. Long range hunting to me is closer to what sniping really is compared to tactical shooting. further I don't want to and refuse to put 10 quick rounds down ANY of my barrels. I would not do this unless I was shooting a ballistically inferior 308. I just don't want to put extra wear on my barrels by heating them up that much. however a 10 round grouping might be a great idea if you are shooting at targets alot in a tactical match and its common to need to shoot 10 rounds at a time. I don't care where my gun shoots after the 3rd shot frankly because after that heat could be effecting my barrel and I don't ever shoot at multiple big game animals at the same time.

back to john's argument about wind brackets. here my problem with mils, it just seems like an odd ball unit of measurement during field conditions, no one has ever showed me an easy to remember in my head way of dealing with the math of it. you guys that love mils if anyone here can convince me and show a simpler way of dealing with mils in my head math wise in field conditions, heck I might even embrace it. I just don't see it. could it be that you guys that are mil users have become that way simply because there is more and BETTER equipment that is mil based for long range shooting??

Nope.


Damn.



I had that Swaro out yesterday and couldn't figure out why the eye piece zoom was sticky. Forgot about the tumble it took that day.



You just ran 7 for 7 on the 600yds steel. 2nd focal plane duplex in a VX6. Good shooters can make most anything work.

When you've got Natural Talent, it makes no difference what you're shooting or what your target is

That Dogshooter guy couldn't hit his ass...

Like I said, wouldn't want to dial in the wrong dope...

Laughin' my ass off...



Travis

yowza

I hate 10 round groups too. the heat's gonna ruin my shcitty factory remington barrel thats rough and fouls up after 10-15 shots anyway:



thank goodness that's shots 1-10 starting with "bare metal", not shots 120-130 since the last cleaning

I just have one question:

How many MILs, or MOA, of correction does the spotter call when when you send one down range at 500.... If the shooter forgets to dial the dope from a 100 yd zero? Seems we've had this discussion before.... I believe I played the roll of 'spotter'....

By the way.... you are correct, I've yet to shoot myself in the ass. Is that bad?

You read the amount needed off the reticule in your spotter or you look at your drop chart which is written in Mils/MOA..

I think he's just gouging Tanner.....grin!

The "tactical community" is mostly wannabe snipers who have never worn the uniform or graduated sniper school. Go any range on any weekend and there will be no shortage of them.

Genuine long range target shooters buy the best optics they can afford and don't really worry if it adjust in mils or inches because they know what their rifle, scope and load do.

The biggest dumfest that is going on in America is all the long range wannabes who are buying SFP variable scopes with mil dots or whatever reticle and not understanding that the reticle is only accurate at one magnification setting.

All you have to do is look at Hunter Benchrest shooters who shoot tiny little holes with a mere 6X scope typically fiited with a custom reticle so there is no knob twisting. Then we have those boys who wear the The Eagle, Globe, and Anchor who can wax you at 1000 meters with their 3-12 FFP Schmidt & Benders. If they have a spotter they MAY dial but usually they hold over/off with the mil dot reticle as the increments are always 3.6" regardless of the power setting.

Most hunters who shoot big game at ethical distances don't have a spotter and really have no use for any fancy reticle as "minute of deer" is pretty big.

For shooting Varmints, paper or people at long range special reticles have a place in a top quality scope. Folks who invest 2500-4000 buck in a scope generally will learn how to use it. I own several but don't hunt big game with them.

In any case, stick with fixed or FFP variables, whether they are mils or inches is immaterial as long as you learn them.

^Larry Root^

Holy schist that is funny... I think it was actually 650. I think I might have been an inch or 2 low....grin

Worst part is that it wasn't my first time doing that, probably won't be the last.

Tanner

John, I have to disagree with both. First of all, I put everyone's opinions (on this website) into context the same way. By judging the quality of what they have to say, or as some call it "reading sign." Some guys you can tell in one post are just FOS, some take a while to sort out, and a handful of guys obviously know their stuff, no doubt about it.

I'd put you and scenarshooter in that last category. The fact that he doesn't post under his own name really has no bearing.

A cynic could say, "being up front about who you are" is just a good technique to sell more of what it is you're trying to sell. I'm not saying that, just saying I don't really care who uses their name or not. The fact that you do is just personal opinion or preference.

On the second point, it appears to me that Formidolosus was responding to a direct question with a direct answer, and avoided advertising by keeping the name of his company out of it. The only thing ironic about it is that you labeled it as advertising.

If members had to post under their real name, it would eliminate a lot of the nasty attacks and completely fabricated BS posts.

Anonymity provides cover for some jokers who are the real "wannabes".

Formy used to have a link to his shooting school on his profile, but it's not there now. I'm sure his students know his real name and I can't see any reason that he doesn't use it here.



I don't know about most here, but I would give more credence and weight to information in a post about, let's say reading the wind, to a poster named "David Tubbs" than if he used the name "6mmlover" (unless it's like "Mule Deer" and everyone clearly knows who it really is)

So start your own forum and set your own rules. While you're at it, ban BS posts and any references to 'the tactical comminity" and "wannabe snipers." and anything else you don't like.

Lots of knowledgeable guys who don't engage in personal attacks and BS posts contribute here, and all have their own reasons for not using their names.

A good one is not making it easy for anyone so inclined to burglarize their residences and steal their $5,000 rifles.

Lots of guys on here, including this thread, know who I am. Anyone who needs to.

I thought I told everybody this discussion was over?



Travis

Of course anyone that knew anything about Hunter Benchrest would know this is a bunch of horseshit.....

Horseshit is what larry root lives on.

Alan has spoken...



I did that last week at 1200+.... the miss, as most of mine are, was measured out and corrected using the two actual most popular Long Range Subtentions: WTFs and LOLs

I believe the total correction was +4 WTFs.... and about two revolutions of LOL.... most of which was dialed by the spotter...

apparently so can I on occasion...

Funny how that picture makes it look like a gorgeous day....

My favorite is when I forget to dial back after a long shot. Nothing quite as cool as shooting 4 feet over a prairie dog at 100 yards.

I was trying to stay outta this, but dicklips put me over the edge....

Or a deer....

I had been checking drops to 400 on a new Ti 30-06, and left the clicks in the scope. Went deer hunting a day or three later and had a chip shot at a hundred or so. Shot and the deer ran anther hundred or so, and stopped quartering away, looking back over her shoulder. Another shot and she folded like a Walmart lawn chair. Got up to her, and I had center punched the neck. WTF?

Next day I had everything loaded to go check the zero, and got the brain storm to check the scope....oops. Just by schithouse luck her vitals were inline with her neck. Mystery solved and a lesson learned.

I would agree with this. The fact that Formid takes the time to be helpful and post a long description of what he gets paid to teach people, for free, is nothing more than trying to help out his fellow shooters. He's not advertising his name or company, so it doesn't really benefit him economically. I appreciate a lot of the info he posts.

everyone who's anyone has you on ignore, I just happened to toggle at the wrong time......

Exactly. I haven't seen Form lead anyone astray. He posts good, practical info, and is a definite asset to the 'Fire, whether some egos choose to acknowledge that or not.

somehow I get the feeling that JB knows exactly who formadillo is and is patting himself on the back for pointing out some discrepancies in the teachings. thats why I think he called for him to post his real name.

this I will say I think the tactical community could learn things from people like JB and his equipment although I am not a leupold user anymore. the people at g7 have come out with an RF unit that does alot of cool things, it would be prefect for the tactical crowd but because it didn't come to the market through the right channels its virtually unknown to most of that crowd. imagine if they had paid frank at snipers hide a bunch of money to review and pimp the g7 RF unit over there?? or if george wrote about it over there. once you have been around that group over there you realize its very myopic and group think over there.

GFY

It sucks to be an untrained dickhead, don't it?

Those who do all of their shooting from the couch, never miss.

[/quote]On the second point, it appears to me that Formidolosus was responding to a direct question with a direct answer, and avoided advertising by keeping the name of his company out of it. The only thing ironic about it is that you labeled it as advertising. [/quote]

Smokepole is spot on with his assessment of this except I think it smacks of being pompous instead of ironic.

If the g7 would output a solution in mils and meters, it might be better received by those who use mils and meters.

yeah maybe but its really simpler than that, you enter your load info and this is your baseline, it spits out a corrected yardage according to your baseline. so what most people do is have their turret etched with the baseline on it, G7 automatically gives a firing solution based on the baseline then gives you an adjusted yardage to shoot to. so if the actual distance is 750 yards but your shooting in cold conditions and at lower altitude than the baseline you entered, it spits out a shot to distance of say 780. so you adjust to 780 and shot. no looking at a drop chart, no thinking about MOA or mils at least in the elevation adjustment, wind is another manner. for taking a shot up hill, downhill in the mountains and in all sorts of conditions I can't imagine anything else giving quicker firing solutions is almost like have a spotter in your hand instead of needing to tell you what to do. there is no free lunch with the wind.

CC, was Pat following group mentality when he switched to mils? He doesnt seem the type. I wonder how many hearts he has stopped at dial and hold off distances?

Ole "Larry The Root" just can't stay away. Why post something when you already know that everybody knows who you are and your post is based on nothing but pure imagination laced with pure B.S. He should bring some of his junk and superior knowledge to a real shoot some day.

You're right, I haven't been shootin' much of late, but I still remember to look at my elevation dial before I find my NPA, just like I still remember the JMPI sequence I learned 30 years ago. Like I said, it sucks to be untrained.

No, he does not. He tried to "call me out" because he sells a Leupold MOA scope.


I don't use my name because this isn't Facebook and I'm not trying to sell anything. I don't care who John or anyone else is. Either what someone posts is sound or it's not. I don't care about what someone likes in a spotter, nor do I care about shooting winged rats.

For someone to say that the difference in 1/3rd MOA clicks and 1/10th Mil clicks will make them less successful on targets is so ridiculous that even a rank beginner should see through it.




You seem to have some issues fixation with Frank and snipers hide, but we're so far past what the G7 RF does that it's not even on the radar. Competitors will do and buy almost ANYTHING to get a teeny, tiny advantage. If the G7 was the hotness I'd be rolling it instead of a LTLM, PLRF15, etc. that's free. I'm not sure why you need affirmation that your choices or ideas are great? If you want to use MOA, do so. Why do you feel that you need someone to tell you that everyone that uses Mils are wrong?

That's nice. Like I said, the only guys who don't make mistakes, don't shoot.

Pics? Nah...you're FOS. Off to ignore with you.

Why don't you just use that method then? Why all the drama?

Which is better..... a .308 running MIL/MIL.... or a 7/08 running MOA/MOA?

Who's more full of sh�t, Larry Root or TAK?

You and TAK will make a great looking baby.



Travis

Am I missing some fun?

cumminzcowboy.

Because he's an idiot?



Travis

TAK takes gold....


Travis

You don't even run turrets you [bleep] dinosaur.


Travis

Dotz�.but Im only shooting short range�..

This thread is great! I'm going on my 3rd bag of microwaveable popcorn!

There's no shortage of brown spewing out of this thread, though...

I thought [bleep] dinosaur was over the top�.

Impossible. My tubes have been tied for 20 years. And I hear he got his tied after your soiree on what was it, Brokedick Mountain? They's a reason that was set in Montaaaaaaana.

Maybe, but I wouldn't crawl over my dead mother to cornhole my syphilitic sister like you would.

Bingo. I thought JB was gonna leave if we did not quit pointing out this POS wares were overly expensive for their utility?

Didn't he get laughed off longrangehunting a few years ago? I think some of the posters gave him hell then and I think goodgrouper got run off over it. Or maybe he just left because he could not speak truthfully about a sponser's over priced stuff. Wasn't he that guy?

I have to admit he was kinda right about Echols rifles, a lot of work goes into them, but the Legend is still are not worth 15K

There's a very clear window into your being a fat ass.



Travis

I am not bad about doing that when I am hunting.....but I have forgotten twice while dialing scopes for the wife, causing her to miss a couple animals by about 15 MOA. I bought her a scope with a zero stop and taught her to dial. It is safer that way. I think if I had done that to her again I would have gotten shot.

Wrong state. Get with ingwe. He is running a 'how to post if you're really old' tutorial.


Travis

Nobody's as old as Ingwe. I just saw him go drivin' by in a little tiny car with his knee's stickin out, wearing a fez, blowin' a kazoo.......

I liked rcamuglia's response to my post better�


Who told you about the kazoo?

WIN

[/thread]

how many mils wide are those are 100 yards?? ah who needs mils 6" IPHY, thats what she said

sorry, I thought everyone knew how you got to be called 'poobah.'

I better start hanging out on this forum more often�.

Awesome sig line right there.

You're not gonna last here, new_2 is getting cranked up over on the NBTE

LOL!

I wonder if even MOA would help!

Sir,

That was not a "kazoo."


Travis

I don't think you said it loud enough.

Ouch!! The Butt Hurt runs strong after that mudhole I stomped in your ass in the D'Arcy thread.

I figured the the $7K you spent on POS ARs after I posted those AR picts and the $9K you spent on a Echols Legend built for another guy would have helped with with the sting.

Not so much??? Its only money and hey you gots a lot. Spend some more it will help.

In some circles your response has been described as "EPIC".

i dont have much to share on this debate, except my buddy has a couple of the greybull optics,, i have 4 of the regular 1eupold 4.5x14 with turrets, i wish leupold would put a reticle like the new gen 2 reticle in the greybull,

for me ranging, wind meter, look at my turret , spin it to the yardage note the moa hold for wind and shoot,,,,

i have asked a couple of guys on here to help me out and explain why i should change to mils, they keep touting there mil system and there new bushnell or whatever scope, but not one of the guys has responded to me to help me undersatand why i should switch,,,
i see a couple of the gen 2 greybull optics in my future, its easy for my dull mind to make work,,,,

Stay classy Mr. Burns
Posting under your real name is not helping your image.
Hint.

And all this time I thought the optics forum was the place to go for pizzin' matches�.


Oh, BTW Deflave�it is indeed a kazoo, regardless of what you heard�

I'm going back to spinning my new CDS turret at 50, 75, and 100 yards�...

Dang, you were right rc, it's working already.

I like the fact that with MILs I deal with smaller numbers. My 338 Lapua needs 6.9 MILs to get to 1,000 yards at sea level. In MOA angle I need 24 not a big deal really, but I like dealing with the smaller number. It matters not for a long range hunter which you use, because both work to perfection IMHO.

I don't know the history here, but it looks like a reply in defense rather than an attack


My post about using your real name was concerning forums on the net in general

formodillo, when JB started wondering who you are, I looked at some of your old posts. a few notes, for one I actually think you should be a writer your a very good story teller, seriously. I notice your from the east or south or both. that speaks volumes to me about what your knowledge is of a long range hunter and further your potential lack of it. I grew up in texas, which much of isn't any different than Tennessee or georgia or wherever your from. THERE IS NO PLACE TO LONG RANGE HUNT ANYTHING THERE!!!! further there is no place to shoot long range either other than someone's gun range. because there are too many trees and terrain generally doesn't allow that sort of distance shooting. everything is private land, this tells me most of your shooting is likely at a gun range somewhere. This is why I find it strange you coming on here and telling us westerners how its done.

I also find it strange how you reference LOTS of animals killed every year. This just sounds kinda strange, the people that really do don't brag about shooting "lots of animals every year" The other was your story of the elk hunt, I found it actually a cool story, but the people that have really spent "lots of" time in the mountains I am sure had their jaws drop. dude do you know how close you came to killing yourself?? people like you show up in the mountains all the time they are rescued if they are lucky, less lucky they are found dead, even worse they are never found, period. This happens every year where I live. that is all if your story is indeed true, which I am not going to comment on but others questioned. The mountains are an unforgiving place. even more so in the winter. I found little reference to common preparedness for back packing in the mountains on that trip. I don't say all this to belittle you, I say this so that next time you think about safety and preparedness because it could save your life, I don't think you have any idea even now the dangers that could have happened to you. attempting an elk hunt in the winter mountains ALONE is crazy IMO. I am sure you will pipe in and say I hunt this or that. I am sure you will attempt to debunk what I am saying with a my weiner is bigger that yours hunting comment about all the things you have done. all I am saying is just be careful when you get out in the wilds of the west.

What about it, formadillo, sounds like you got some splainin' to do.........

Do you have any idea of the dangers that could have happened to you?

OMG!!! I COULD'VE BEEN HURT!!!!


so scary




Bro.... You need help.

not smokepole, btw.....

formidillo, I am not trying to be a douche, I am serious. you need more preparation and most of all you need to learn what NOT to do. your in great physical shape that great but it can also get you deeper into trouble.

if you have any interest in hunting my state just to show I am not an A$$. I have a knowledge of just about every unit in the state. PM me and I will be happy to help if you want to come this way for a hunt. we have some great elk hunting if you draw a tag for it. Most of all I will tell you what to expect.

You really are clueless. Lots of folks that don't live "west" have ample skills/experience to hunt there.

Now's the time to post some examples your time in those big, dangerous mountains. How many big game critters have you killed in say the last 5 years out of those big, dangerous mountains? I can't recall you posting of any. You did hang a picture of a dead coyote once though...

Nowhere to shoot long range in Texas, the south, or the east. Got it.

Wonder what else I will learn today?



Travis

Did they mention how epic of a douche you are in that circle jerk You are right I did get drunk at the gun shop and buy some chit that was over priced.......I guess I know how people feel after buying your chit now.

As far as your imaginary mudhole, I loved the "I will take my pink soccer ball and go home and go home" rant that got reposted. Didn't you post the same thing on LRH when you got laughed off that site.
You need to ask yourself, whose reputation matters the most on this forum. Someone who spends money buying overpriced chit, or someone who sells over priced chit

The irony of someone who sells crap that is as over priced as those ARs I bought when I got drunk at the gun shop whining about someone buying over priced crap is humorous to say the least.

pointer GFY, I don't need to show any animals I have killed, I am confident in my abilities, and see no need to brag about it. I come here to learn new things not show people how great I am. if you can't look at my advice to form and think yeah thats good advice to someone who is unfamiliar with the area you are insane and don't know what the hell you are talking about. I am not saying you need to be from here to hunt here, did you actually read formos elk hunt thread?? like I said I offered him all the help I can if he wants to come here to utah. I thought that was a pretty nice gesture, I sure wish somoene else in another state around me would share such knowledge with me!!!! knowledge about odds the units, what kinds of and class of animals to expect is freaking huge. but then again what do I know I don't have pictures posted, I say the mountains are dangerous in the winter during snow storms, I say people should be prepared better, I am scared of the mountains, all I shoot are coyotes and only 1 at that, yeah what do I know.

Are you saying that you're going to switch to mils?


Travis

Don't have time to read the last page.. Can you catch me up on the insults?

John Burns overpaid for an AR and cumminscowboy said Texas sucks balls, which ain't exactly news.

EddyBo built an Echols and Burns wants one too.

I think that's it.


Travis

PS-pointer still lives in Indiana. Who the hell moves to Indiana?

yeah thats pretty much the sum of it.

WTG flave you made the wife give me a nasty look because of all the giggling at your recap. I am noticing a trend. You tend to get me a lot of nasty looks from the wife, who gives me a withering stare every time I start chuckling at this forum.

LMAO, no place to shoot long range in the south.

Mine did too and I'm not even married.....

You mean you don't already spin turrets and use mils for wind?

Or when engaging multiple Targets with a FFP scope spin to the closest one and us mils from there for both.

Huh.

Did they quit planting bean fields?

Odds...Anyone?

Last time I checked 1,000 yards was the same in the South as it was in North, East, or West.

CC, that was a cool gesture and I will try to help a brother out here. I read it and I came away with an entirely different impression. He did take some risks, some that most guys shouldn't take. But I did not come away thinking he was in over his head.

Yes, he almost slid off a cliff, but I've gotta say I've been in similar situations and I'm still here. And I'm no Bear Grylls. And I wouldn't be up to doing the climbing he did but I've known people who are. So it was as good a read I've seen on here but not implausible or as dangerous as you're making it out to be IMHO.

Did they quit planting bean fields? [/quote]

If they did nobody told us. I can look out over 2 miles of them from my back yard. We even got hayfields and powerlines too!

If they did nobody told us. I can look out over 2 miles of them from my back yard. We even got hayfields and powerlines too! [/quote]

And we got my personal favorite cut overs. I am all a tither and my heart goes pitter patter thinking about next years deer season. We are going to have a fresh cutover that could give me 5000 yard shots if I owned anything that would stay supersonic that far. Before that the longest shot I had at deer camp was on a bluff shooting down onto a rock bar 1400 yards down the river.
At home I have an 800 yard range in the back yard. I also have a place 6 miles from my home where I can shoot from a piece of property I own there across my buddies dairy farm onto another buddies back field that gives me 1200 yards. Another spot 5 miles further gives me spots to shoot a mile and any range from 1400 to zero. I do not have anywhere to shoot ranges between 1400 and 1760 close by and I can only shoot at a mile on Sunday mornings, but there are plenty of places to shoot long range in the South. I am in probably the worst place ever for shooting long range, but there are still plenty of long range opportunities.

Yeah, I think that cold weather up north has done froze them Yankees brains,lol.

My folks are from Indiana, and will be the first to agree.

Thanks for the update, back to work..

Never pay attention to your wife's opinion.

(I'm divorced)


Travis

I'm shocked.




Travis

Same here.

I have a bone stock Sako Vixen that needs barrel channel hoggin' and some Acraglass. Those foreigners could [bleep] up anything.


Travis

Especially if they're from Finland or other Third-World countries that are just getting used to electric lights.

Damn! Didn't know that! Guess I'll have to disk this sumbeech up and just grow corn on it but it's provided some mighty fine days of shooting all the way back to 1600 yards for 30 years now!!


1000yd by Sharps45 2 7/8, on Flickr

That a trailer hitch on your bench? mtmuley

Nice bench.

Thank you Mr. Mule Deer.

There is nothing that an American, Budweiser, and a Dremel can't correct.


Travis

Yep! Can tow it with truck or wheeler!!

Are you pretending to be a sniper in that cornfield?



Travis

WTH? I'm laughing my ass off and all of a sudden two of the Montana All-Stars are bad-mouthing 3rd-World Finnish rifles!

What happened?

"All-Stars"....MT ain't got much in the way of standards, I suppose....

Certainly. Travis wants to cornhole you...again. Polesmoker wants to watch this time.

Awesome pictures, TAK!

No one can ever accuse you of not backing up your talk.

Ive got him on ignore�he has pics???


Yeah��.right�..

You can't have him on ignore.. He's the best entertainment on this forum next to the freakshow.

Ohhhhh, I toggle occasionally. The freakshow was great last night
I got jumped for saying the market was overdue for a correction


Damn�I heard it on CNBC�.

I bet he has some pics of "cornholes," whatever those are, they're all he wants to talk about. He's probably some kind of expert on 'em. Are those what you get when you play sniper in a corn field?

I saw a pic of him once. Looked just like Ned Beatty.

The "dreaded southern-sheriff" must just stomp a mudhole in your ass and walk it dry.

Is the rogaine working? Are you still squealin' like a hog?

Dude, I've got more hair than your old azz. It would be your job to squeal "like a pig" for Travis. He likely ain't gettin' much lately.

Well, back on topic. Were those animals in the pics you posted shot with mils or MOA?

What pics?

Exactly. And I apologize for saying you look like Ned Beatty, that was insulting.

Sorry Mr. Beatty, T-A-K is not nearly as svelte.

5'8" and 170# of masculinity.

Freakin' classic...



Travis

Wait a minute�I didn't go back and look at every post but am I to understand TAK looks like Ned Beatty, squeals like a pig, and takes pics of it all?


Not that I'm surprised, just kinda curious�.

No on the Beatty thing. Beatty is thinner and more athletic-looking. The rest is right on though.

So a guy travels 1/2 way across the country to a place he's never been, shoots an elk and you think he needs your advice? Really? If you've read his posts much as all, it'd be easily apparent he's no rookie. Care to point out the "good advice" you gave? Looks like to me you were blinded from him not being from the "west" and telling him he was lucky and not very smart. Didn't see much offered in the way of advice.

Even posting lots of pics wouldn't change what I think of you. We both know you aren't refraining because you are that humble. You aren't posting them cause you don't have them. Nothing wrong with that, but don't be giving "advice" about what you don't do.

Hope you enjoy the 5 day deer seasons in the Hunting Capital of the US!

IIRC this guy moved back to Indiana from Boston.


That said, I don't think he wanted to move here any more than I did. One good thing about here is that when I travel it makes most every where else I go seem really awesome...

PS- cowboy, travel means to go out and actually do stuff sometimes quite a ways from home.

For all of this ranting I'd like to at least see what a $7,000 AR looks like and see TAK in Class A's or something.

Degenerates degenerating

Mike

Class A's??? What difference does it make what he's wearing, they'll be down around his ankles.

She's shooting more better. Just verified.

Not saying they don't build a good platform, they just need a little American to truly shine.


Travis

Put that twinkie down!


Travis

Judging by his pictures, TAK is a frequent user of twinks as well as twinkies.

There is no 7K AR at least not that I have ever seen, but I got drunk before going to the gun store and made some crazy purchase decisions almost as bad as buying a new echols legend. I did buy a 3K AR15 and a 3.5K AR10 and a couple of 700s off the used racks for donors actions. There is more to it than an outlay of cash, but not going to explain the store credit given me as security for a personal loan.
That JB would heckle me over buying overpriced stuff is irony beyond belief

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