Been looking at alot of different scopes. Overwhelmed by all the different reticles. Was thinking about bdc hunting reticles but found they may not be as accurate and only work in whatever enviornment they're set up for and many are limited on distance. Is there a benefit using moa turrets and reticle over mil dot setups.Is one easier to calculate in the field on the fly. Been strongly considering the npr1 moa reticle in a nightforce nxs. Not partial to any brand. Just want a good scope for hunting long range for my 7mm rem.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes mil or moa for hunting
- Thread starter huntdog13
- Start date
i have mil mil and mil moa ffp and sfp and like them all. i like a sfp for hunting because the reticle does not get hard to see at low power. .25 moa is about .25 inch at 100 yards. .1 mil is about 1/3 inch at 100 yards. if you are figuring ballistics and ranging in the field. it does not seem like it would matter. as long as you figure moa for an moa scope or mil for a mil scope. i like my burris xtr 312 and 416. i feel like i got a lot of features for money spent. 600 for a used one. great glass great tracking forever warranty. it would be a cheaper way to find out what you like while not sacrificing to many features or too much glass quality.
First for the reticle: And this may not be the popular viewpoint, but it just doesn't fucking matter. Reticle ranging is for emergency backup in war zones. I doubt that you are going to tell me your primary plan is to rely on a reticle to range a trophy elk at 700 yards?? Don't feel bad, no one does because it's not even a good backup plan in this instance. While you will get lots of great scientific answers for ranging mil vs moa, those are just for scope review material and to pump sales. I'll be surprised if you get one experienced based answer for mil vs moa ranging for hunting. So....buy what looks purty to you in the pictures or impresses your buddies the most....that's what I do...but I highly recommend MOA for this!
For the round thing that makes clicky noises....this is a matter of personal preference. You are not military trained, or you would not be asking this question as it would have already been decided for you
. So....you have options. For me, it is easier to dial MOA and I find this to be the case for most new LR shooters....but not always. I will say this, it is worth a little bit of time to learn both systems on paper, and see which one feels more intuitive to you before you invest in a scope. Keep i mind that you are also most likely going to invest in a seperate system that provides elevation correction to you...and all of these do both mils and moa. So, while which system you choose may matter, it will only matter to you, ergo you are really the only one who can answer the question. Look at this way...you have a 50% chance of not replacing your first LR scope which you can better somewhat by playing around with both systems beforehand.
Now, go forth my friend and purchase without fear or hesitation!
For the round thing that makes clicky noises....this is a matter of personal preference. You are not military trained, or you would not be asking this question as it would have already been decided for you
. So....you have options. For me, it is easier to dial MOA and I find this to be the case for most new LR shooters....but not always. I will say this, it is worth a little bit of time to learn both systems on paper, and see which one feels more intuitive to you before you invest in a scope. Keep i mind that you are also most likely going to invest in a seperate system that provides elevation correction to you...and all of these do both mils and moa. So, while which system you choose may matter, it will only matter to you, ergo you are really the only one who can answer the question. Look at this way...you have a 50% chance of not replacing your first LR scope which you can better somewhat by playing around with both systems beforehand. Now, go forth my friend and purchase without fear or hesitation!
Last edited:
Agree with what the other posts above stated. I have both Mil/Mil and MOA/MOA reticles in both FFP and SFP and will tell you I like them both and will work equally well if you learn to use them. I would not recommend the BDC reticles because they work with a specific load and atmospherics. There is a wide selection of reticles available and research them all. The thing to look for is whether the sub tensions will allow for proper holdovers whether you are using external turrets or not. For hunting I prefer a SFP scope for a number of reasons. I am not of a believer of ranging game with reticles because the probability of poor shot placement grows exponentially as the range increases and best to use a LRF. If you are looking at the NXS be sure to look at the MOAR reticle if you decide to go SFP and I have two of them mounted on hunting rifles.
Really depends on what system of measurement your comfortable with. With mils your dealing with the metric system and decimals, moa is in the English system and deals in fractions. Ive used a inch tape measure most my life so I went moa on all my scopes.
What do you plan on hunting? The 7mm mag has a point blank range of around 400 yards. There is a difference between setting your rifle up for long range precision shooting and setting it up for hunting. Your post states you plan to hunt only with the rifle. If that is the case, pick the clearest opticts. Dont concern yourself with moa vs mil. Its about ethical kills. As Jack O'Connor might have said, sight your rifle 3"high at 100 yards and you can hold dead center to around 400 yards. On a side note, if you cant get within 400 or 500 yards of ANY animal, you need to find new hobby. In the real world, shots on game past 500 yards are rare.
Remember mils and moa are angular measurements not linear. The mils are read in increments of 0.1 but are not metric, moa are read in increments of .125 (1/8), .25 (1/4), .5 (1/2), and 1 but are not exclusively imperial.
No matter which you choose, any ballistic program can spit out one or the other, and a dope chart can be prepared for either.
So the choice comes down to whichever your comfortable with. I can use both, but lean toward mil because of incremental wind holds. 7mm mag, .6BC, 6mph wind 100Y= .1 200Y = .2 . As you can see its pretty easy to remember, and out in the field wind will be your biggest challenge.
No matter which you choose, any ballistic program can spit out one or the other, and a dope chart can be prepared for either.
So the choice comes down to whichever your comfortable with. I can use both, but lean toward mil because of incremental wind holds. 7mm mag, .6BC, 6mph wind 100Y= .1 200Y = .2 . As you can see its pretty easy to remember, and out in the field wind will be your biggest challenge.
Mils are not Metric and MOA is not Inches. Both are Angular increments.
For the OP:
Knowing your DOPE is all you need with either system. The path of the bullet is the same either way and your DOPE is your DOPE no matter how you measure it. Pick one and stick with it.
In defense of BDC reticles I would like to mention that on SFP scopes you can fine tune to your actual trajectory with the magnification.
In the most extreme case I was able to match a Zeiss Z-600 reticle exactly with my muzzle loader's trajectory if I half the distance (i.e. the "4" line is for 200 yards). Modern muzzle loaders have impressive accuracy but the trajectory is anything but flat. I hunt out of a climber on fire roads where there is little time for "target" identification and acquisition. While waiting, I laser certain terrain features, known trails, etc. and memorize the distances. If a suitable deer comes out, I and just raise the rifle, cock the hammer, put the right line on the boiler room, and BLAM. Worked beautifully the last dozen times anywhere from 20 to 225 yards. On some close shots I quickly cranked the magnification down but that does little to the POI at these distances.
Long story short, with a little tinkering, BDC reticles are very handy if you don't have the time to crank the turrets and they do not prevent you from dialing in your DOPE if you have the time.
As far as dots are concerned this sums it up nicely:
In the most extreme case I was able to match a Zeiss Z-600 reticle exactly with my muzzle loader's trajectory if I half the distance (i.e. the "4" line is for 200 yards). Modern muzzle loaders have impressive accuracy but the trajectory is anything but flat. I hunt out of a climber on fire roads where there is little time for "target" identification and acquisition. While waiting, I laser certain terrain features, known trails, etc. and memorize the distances. If a suitable deer comes out, I and just raise the rifle, cock the hammer, put the right line on the boiler room, and BLAM. Worked beautifully the last dozen times anywhere from 20 to 225 yards. On some close shots I quickly cranked the magnification down but that does little to the POI at these distances.
Long story short, with a little tinkering, BDC reticles are very handy if you don't have the time to crank the turrets and they do not prevent you from dialing in your DOPE if you have the time.
As far as dots are concerned this sums it up nicely:
Last edited:
Yep, don't get too hung up on the mil/moa debate.
If you feel more comfortable with the "moa to inches correlation", then use it.
More importantly, whatever you decide, focus on style/size of the reticle for the type of hunting you'll be doing. Seems like I lean toward the more 'simplistic' reticle designs, and bold outer post sections for hunting scopes.
If you feel more comfortable with the "moa to inches correlation", then use it.
More importantly, whatever you decide, focus on style/size of the reticle for the type of hunting you'll be doing. Seems like I lean toward the more 'simplistic' reticle designs, and bold outer post sections for hunting scopes.
Since you specify an optic for long range I urge you to consider the scope in the attached link. It is mil\mil with FFP reticle.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-rifle-scopes/225830-new-optic-bushnell-lrhs.html
I have two of these and think it is an ideal LR hunting scope. I could not be more satisfied with these scopes for the intended purpose.
I have done some considerable searching and it is difficult to find a scope with these features for the money.
You will have more options with Mil based scopes and really it matters not whether you chose mil of moa platform. Learn your equipment and use it.
Good point. One of my favorite reticles is the 4 or 4A from Kahles/Swarovski. It is a fine cross hair with massive rectangular posts in the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions. In places where you can hunt boar at night but without NVG, the posts were always visible when I could identify the boar through a 8x56 Zeiss bino. The fat post were also easy to see in the lowest magnification on driven hunts. The crosshair is fine enough for the range and the subtensions is all I ever needed for holdover by using "hair on center", "hair on top", "post on bottom", etc.
Last edited:
