Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
Need Help Deciding on Aiming Methodology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grit" data-source="post: 607694" data-attributes="member: 4112"><p>I prefer MOA for a couple reasons. </p><p></p><p>I'm accustomed to thinking in inches. There is no hesitation, no translation when making corrections. 1 MOA is easy to keep track of at varying yardages. example, 1moa = 6 inches at 600, 10 inches at 1000. A mil is 36" at 1000 yards. Divide 36 by varying yardages and keep track of it instinctively? </p><p></p><p>Who wants to do math in multiples of 3.6? Lets say there's a buck at 800 yards and we want to know how wide he is. You measure his antlers at 3 minutes and multiply by 8" to get an aproximate width of 24" Now with the mil system. The buck is 3/4 of a mil. So, 36" X.8 X.75=?? Or, 3.6x8x.75=?? I could get out a calculator, but, I allready quit the mil and finished the MOA.</p><p></p><p>If you have a scope with a mil system and one with an moa system (turret and reticle), It will be the same to dial the correct elevation with the turret, measure a correction with the reticle, and make a corrected shot with reticle or turret. However, in pressured shooting situations I have found MOA much more instinctive to use and keep track of. No doubt, if you worked with mil enough it'd become automatic. I believe MOA the easier system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grit, post: 607694, member: 4112"] I prefer MOA for a couple reasons. I'm accustomed to thinking in inches. There is no hesitation, no translation when making corrections. 1 MOA is easy to keep track of at varying yardages. example, 1moa = 6 inches at 600, 10 inches at 1000. A mil is 36" at 1000 yards. Divide 36 by varying yardages and keep track of it instinctively? Who wants to do math in multiples of 3.6? Lets say there's a buck at 800 yards and we want to know how wide he is. You measure his antlers at 3 minutes and multiply by 8" to get an aproximate width of 24" Now with the mil system. The buck is 3/4 of a mil. So, 36" X.8 X.75=?? Or, 3.6x8x.75=?? I could get out a calculator, but, I allready quit the mil and finished the MOA. If you have a scope with a mil system and one with an moa system (turret and reticle), It will be the same to dial the correct elevation with the turret, measure a correction with the reticle, and make a corrected shot with reticle or turret. However, in pressured shooting situations I have found MOA much more instinctive to use and keep track of. No doubt, if you worked with mil enough it'd become automatic. I believe MOA the easier system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
Need Help Deciding on Aiming Methodology
Top