Do you hunt with MOA or MRAD scope , and why ?

[H82MISS]

Just wondered what your preference is, and if so, why. Is there any reason one cannot use a MRAD scope to hunt with, especially at medium to long range (400-1,000 yds.) I'm thinking of trying a MRAD scope on my 7mm for hunting, but I have not any real experience with MRAD scopes. I like and prefer some of the reticles that MRAD scopes offer, along with a FFP. I know the MRAD is adjusted in 10ths of an inch, so the math is easy. I just wondered what anyones' experience has been using this type of scope, and if it made any difference that was positive/negative in any way. Thanks for input.

 

[LaHunter]

A mil is actually 1/1000th of whatever distance you are shooting. At 100 yards, a mil equates to 3.6" on the target. At 1,000 yards a mil equates to 36" on the target.

 

[OG10]

I use, and understand both.Go with mils and don't look back, easy .

 

[mwkelso]

I never got caught up in which system to use. There have been many career shooters, typically gunnys, that have reiterated to me "it does not matter which system you use, as long as you are proficient with it."
For me having grown up with imperial units it is easier for me to calculate MOA. The trouble with MOA is that there are a few manufacturers out there that advertise an MOA system, but they are calibrated for 1/4" click value. At closet ranges this is negligible. As the distance grows though, the amount your shot placement is off increases.

I'm sure that if I took the time to learn the MRAD system, it wouldn't be much trouble to switch. I do believe there is a greater element of exactness, from what I hear and read. I don't know by any personal experience though.

 

[nmbarta]

10ths of a mil, not an inch.
they do the exact same thing, both are offered in sfp or ffp with matching reticles.
You can certainly use either system at any range for hunting or target shooting, it really doesn't matter. If you haven't learned a system yet, I'd go with mil, unfortunately for me I've been on moa for so many years it's how set everything up. Mils offer a greater "element of exactness" because you can do the "exact" math in your head. With moa, you can get really close, but very few can do "exact" moa math in their head. Most moa guys that think in moa aren't thinking in moa, they're thinking in iphy which gets you really close, but enters an x factor into the equation. The more I write about it, the more I think I should learn mils, it's not even hard to do.

 

[Black Hat]

I use both MOA and MRAD.

One example of my MRAD scopes is the Bushnell Elite Tactical G2DMR FFP Reticle 6-24x50mm, it offers 0.1 Mill clicks which equate to 10mm or 1cm at 100 metres and 100mm or 10cm at 1000 metres, and the same can be used to range targets, a 100mm target will appear 1MIL on the reticle at 100 metres, or hight of target in cm divided by image size mils times by 10 equals distance in metres, it's easy if you have grown up with the metric system.
The First Focal Plane allows you to make use of the reticle at any magnification level and it offers a wide field of view helpful for fast acquisition of targets

One example of a MOA scope I use is a Nightforce Competition 15-55x50mm FCR Reticle SFP, it offers 1/8" clicks at 100 yards equates to .125" at 100 yards and 1.25" at 1000yards verry fine adjustments.
The Second Focal Plane Reticle it only true at 40 power magnification, and is much harder to range targets with, but usefull for holdover but don't be caught out trying that at a different magnification.
Ranging requires the target size in inches divided by the image size of target MOA times by 95.5 equals range in yards, much harder to do in your head.

Ranging targets isn't verry practical for hunting anyway so its irrelevant, but gives you an idea and can be fun for ringing steel, any system will work just fine if you have dope for your rifle and you can call wind in either.

 

[Bravo 4]

Lots of discussion points/ considerations can be brought up here (what your spotter is using, other reticle/measurements being used, and on & on). Or it can be as simple as this; if you're using a ballistic app of any kind then it doesn't matter. Punch in the numbers and go with it. Or learn to speak both and not have to worry about any of it.

 

[User4302021]

I know many who grew up with MOA and switched to MILS later in thier career. Of the people I know who have a good base of knowledge with both systems, I don't know a single one who would choose MOA over MILS if they had to make a choice.

It really comes down to how much wind you are going to be dealing with, and how you intend to get that solution. Out to 500 yards or so, it doesn't matter. You are holding so little wind most of the time that a small favor into the wind will do the trick. Farther out, it starts to get critical really quickly. So, how you intend to deal with that (if you intend to at all) plays a role.

Funny thing is, you already know how to use MILS, you just don't realize it. Everytime you think of pennies and dimes and dollars and how to make change, you are using the same system as MILS.

 

[H82MISS]

I understand everything Bravo 4, and Dog Rocket have stated. I grew up using a MOA scope and have always wondered why I don't see or at least hear more rifle hunters, using a scope in MILS. Maybe there are, and I just never realized that.
I've never used the ballistic app(s) available, just always "held over" using duplex reticle, or lately using CDS dials on the Leup.

After hunting pronghorn again this fall, it just got me thinking of switching to the MIL scope. Maybe I am "overthinking" this too much, and should start learning the MIL scope, period. It appears that a MIL scope can serve as a range estimator also.

 

[Canhunter35]

I understand everything Bravo 4, and Dog Rocket have stated. I grew up using a MOA scope and have always wondered why I don't see or at least hear more rifle hunters, using a scope in MILS. Maybe there are, and I just never realized that.
I've never used the ballistic app(s) available, just always "held over" using duplex reticle, or lately using CDS dials on the Leup.

After hunting pronghorn again this fall, it just got me thinking of switching to the MIL scope. Maybe I am "overthinking" this too much, and should start learning the MIL scope, period. It appears that a MIL scope can serve as a range estimator also.

If you've only ever use cds dials or held over with duplex then you've never really used Moa reticles either.
It honestly doesn't matter. You can use them the same. Moa and mil are just different measurement units that can be converted.

 

[seawolfxix]

The guys above have alluded to it, but 1/4 MOA < 0.1 mrad, so MOA proponents say your adjustments at say 1,000 yds can be more precise with MOA.

 

[User4302021]

The guys above have alluded to it, but 1/4 MOA < 0.1 mrad, so MOA proponents say your adjustments at say 1,000 yds can be more precise with MOA.

1/4 MOA at 1,000 yards is 2.6", while 0.1MIL at 1,000 yards is 3.6". So yes, going MOA buys you an inch more resolution at 1,000.

 

[Barrelnut]

It appears that a MIL scope can serve as a range estimator also.

Both are used for range estimation.

Add: If you think in inches and yards and typically measure your rifles accuracy in MOA, then a MOA reticle will be easier to use target shooting and hunting.

 

[johnnyk]

Just wondered what your preference is,

I use MOA as that's what I've always used and prefer. I've used scope of each flavor but since I hunt/shoot using a range finder and ballistic app. it just doesn't matter. I can adapt if need be.