mils or moa, what do you prefer?

[yobuck]

so the spotter would also be using a scope with a reticle matching the shooters in order to do that?
i mean im picturing 2 guys laying prone with matching scopes with one watching as the other shoots?

[missed]

I use moa, I do have two bdc Scopes I know what my windage and hold overs are from my ballistics program I use. I do want to get a moa moa hashed scope but I can't make myself cut loose of the money before Christmas. Using the tenths in the mil seems like it could be easier on the math, but the smaller click distance of the moa I do prefer. I'm going to stick with the moa when I get the vortex viper pst with the ebr reticle.

[yobuck]

well your program might tell you what to do (IF) you knew what the wind speed was. fact is you wont know till after you shoot.
even the best weather station gives wind speed on the spot not halfway to the target. so windage is always somewhat of a guesstimate at least initially. having a favorite type reticle or a preference of mil vs moa is strictly a personal choice.
it dosent mean didly when it comes to a hunting situation like i layed out.

[chukarmandoo]

so the spotter would also be using a scope with a reticle matching the shooters in order to do that?
i mean im picturing 2 guys laying prone with matching scopes with one watching as the other shoots?

That is correct except it is usually a spotter using a spotting scope with (in my case) a mil reticle.

[chukarmandoo]

it dosent mean didly when it comes to a hunting situation like i layed out.

Everything is relevant especially in a situation like you laid out because you have to be positive you will make the shot whether you are using mils or moa. So use whats best for you.

[chukarmandoo]

Not exactly. Those scopes with BDC advertise them as BDC, not MOA/MOA. If a scope has BDC subtensions, it is not a true MOA or MRAD scope, as neither system will match the BDC subtensions. Most hunting scopes do have some form of BDC, but that does not relate to an MOA or MRAD adjustable turret, so to me, it's useless. Know the distance, calculate the drop, dial or hold, and let it fly.
I'll never understand why scopes are made with Mil Dot reticles and MOA turret adjustents.

Texas Solo the BDC reticles are almost always setup in MOA. Like 1.5, 4.5, 7.5,11 and they have MOA turrets. You then zero at 100, 200 or 300 yards to make something fall into place with a certain mystery gun that uses those substensions.

[Neo2savage]

I bought a BDC scope once. Big mistake. Bought a couple MOA scopes after that for other rifles and lived happily ever after.

[Silvercrow1]

ok so heres another question.
lest say you shot at a deer at 1050 yds and your shot fell about a foot below his feet and about 2 ft behind him.
what would you do?

1- Voluntarily commit myself to the nearest mental institution; WHAT WAS I THINKING..?!?

2- Be somewhat impressed I got THAT close with my shot.

3- SNEAK in closer...

But seriously- I just got a Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14x40 Mildot and I ordered the calculator they offer for $5.00 handling when you buy the scope. I am VERY anxious to learn how to properly use it and then test it in real world situations. The little "Mil Magic" booklet they give with the scope is informative and interesting.

The scope is mil - recticle and MOA turret adjustments, but I dont believe it will give me too much problem once I learn how to use them together.

FWIW- I had two Nikon BDC scopes; a Prostaff Rimfire 150 on my .22LR (still have that one) and another on my 110 .223 that I sold to help fund the Buckmasters. BOTH worked amazingly well at short distance i.e. 100 yds. for the .223, 50 yards for the .22LR, and the weather / wind were both very favorable. I honestly believe that for what they are, the Nikon BDCs in conjunction with their program are very usable- BUT NOT in the same class / usefulness as a MilDot system.

Brian

[yobuck]

it dosent mean didly when it comes to a hunting situation like i layed out.

Everything is relevant especially in a situation like you laid out because you have to be positive you will make the shot whether you are using mils or moa. So use whats best for you.

well first understand that im old and probably set in my ways and opinions. then also understand that we were killing lots of deer
with unertle target scopes before all these new and (better) ones came along. the dials on those scopes werent as user friendly for
what we were doing with them compared to todays scopes. most of us counted clicks as a means of adding the required elevation.
now at least most guys werent so dumb as to count say 96 clicks. you knew how many were in a full rev say 50. so you would go
around twice then back off 4 clicks in the case i just described. the key was and frankly still is knowing your equiptment and how to use it.
many of us use what you might know as the one shot zero method in a case where the miss was larger than a hold over might be good for.
in other words simply dial to the hit and shoot again. so the scope system wether it be mills, moa or neither isnt important.
granted target situations will be different but not really. as for the spotter, we always use them. but we also hunt with large tripod mounted
binnoculars which are mostly made up from 2 spotting scopes in brackets. so we also use those for spotting shots. one spotting scope is good till youve used two. close one eye and use your binnoculars and see what i mean.

[thomae]

the key was and frankly still is knowing your equipment and how to use it.

That sums it all up.
If you know how to make your gear work consistently, it is good for you.

[mattri]

Very interesting thread. I am looking at getting a new scope and have been seriously considering a mil/mil set up. I have always used MOA, like it well enough and am comfortable with it. I like the idea of a mil system and like the idea of learning and using a new system. Will it be better? Only one way to find out, that's a lot of the fun. Do I really need a new scope? What a silly question.

Also- am always impressed with the way people on this board can discuss very different views/opinions and keep things decent- a number of forums aren't like that- well done guys.

[yobuck]

well if your shooting and not hunting it makes no difference what you do or use. hunting requires everybody
to be on the same page and the same line on the page. your gong plate will be there tomorrow at exactly
the same place. no telling where an animal will show up and how long he will stay around when and if he does.
a few seconds could make the difference between success and failure. so get a system that works and stick with it.

[rattfink]

My scope has 1/4 inch clicks at 100 yards. But I don't use a ranging reticle so there are no conversions to be made.

Simple system. I like it just fine.

[yobuck]

My scope has 1/4 inch clicks at 100 yards. But I don't use a ranging reticle so there are no conversions to be made.

Simple system. I like it just fine.

like meat and potatoes. we can survive very well with just the basics.
practice on paper by holding steady on your aiming point.
then dial the scope to your hit and see what happens.

[newtoy]

MOA makes sense to me but I would love to understand MRAD better

[yobuck]

either nobody noticed or were to polite to mention, (doubtfull) my dan qualle mistake on the spelling of (potatoes)
poor dan really took a beating over that from the press. maybe many here are to young to remember dan?

[stangfish]

Ever been quail hunting yobuck?

[chukarmandoo]

yobuck, it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. I'm the world's worst speller. Bye the way did you know Ol McDonnell was a terrible speller?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zebvFBNZ3Mg

[yobuck]

well i was always pretty good at it. when i was in grade school (40s) we had spelling contests
within the class. a few girls and i always won. yes fish i have hunted quail a few times back when there still were a few in pa.
in fact i have a pair mounted here that i shot in the crate before they were released. i could be wrong but i think dan spelled
his name differently. for sure he spelled (potatoes) differently.

[chukarmandoo]

thomae, that was pretty funny. Thanks