At times when my rangefinder gives me nothing or picks up brush clutter, I wish I would have a MIL reticle. Frustrating.Shot MOA for my first 30 years. Switched to MIL about 5 years ago and never looked back. I much prefer MIL myself.
Ok, I understand the basics of both systems.
But what I'm really interested in is for those who have made the switch. Were you happy? Regret your choice? Stick with it or go back? Why?
At times when my rangefinder gives me nothing or picks up brush clutter, I wish I would have a MIL reticle. Frustrating.
I agree^
I bounce around both all the time. Being just angular measurements, it really makes no difference. If one has the ability to learn the difference and get intimately familiar with, then it will help in use of a matching reticle, and the features that go with that. I wish some of you guys were into this whole long range hobby when scopes were commonly in mil reticles and moa knobs. You had to know both at the same time...and how to convert corrections.
Just quicker dials.I've heard comments like this a few times. What does a MIL reticle do that an MOA wouldnt? Is it just that the math is faster/easier? Or am I missing something?
I have a 2nd focal plane on an moa reticle. Zooming in and out to bracket a target/animal creates a guess as to what exactly my zoom setting is to create a usable formula. Milling for distance is doable if you have a zoom value that is calibrated at max power for instance. Having never owned a mil scope, that's only what I have read and not practiced it. There is a way to range with moa, but I believe it must be in the first focal plane, which I dont have. Rangefinders are hit and miss with bright sun, and little rangeable vegetation near the target/animal. Dry brushy country has also caused errors for me. The earlier military snipers were taught milling techniques as laser rangefinders were not even thought of. Not sure how they did it, so accurately, with a single miss that could cost them their life. It must work.I've heard comments like this a few times. What does a MIL reticle do that an MOA wouldnt? Is it just that the math is faster/easier? Or am I missing something?
This is what actually steered me away from MIL when I first looked at it awhile back. The scopes I looked at were MOA/MOA or MOA/MIL, could never see the sense in that, to purposely mix two systems. Maybe it's from being Canadian and having both French and English on our cereal boxes, but when I'm tired and hungry I dont want to do extra conversions.