What do you use for correction.
Printable View
What do you use for correction.
Metric for anyone not living in the past. Nothing worse than working with imperial
both just to make it hard
I use a big stick and a stern voice
The old moa way is the only way!
Moa all the way for this old coot.
I have four MOA scopes but now moving to Mil...
Though my brain was 20 minutes behind my actions at a service rifle shoot a number of weeks ago, when I was thinking MOA on my new Mil scope... I got 0,0,0,0 for that particular match... :P
next round was a lot better :)
Difficult
I'm old enough not to have been taught metrics at school, but can see the merits in a system that is far simpler to use.
I'm in the process of going fully metric for dialling.
Have one mil scope, have updated my rangefinder from yards and am in the process of selling the last moa turret scope and getting another mil one.
Moa
brb buying a car with a speedo in mph
Yep mph speedo is perfect, I'm happy with 100 being the limit
I ticked "other" for iron sights btw
You'd expect a poll regarding measuring distance based on the thread title, no?
Tick box 4 gives us clue to the applications of the first three tick box subjects, ie as units of windage/elevation
Then conveniently Vietnamcam uses a modifier to the title in the form of a question in the first post in his thread.
So there's two clues as to what he's on about, one more subtle than the other.
So you are right, it's a poll on measuring distance, and the first clue is in the heading, and the second clue is in the question in the first post, both telling us it's windage/elevation distance.
People use the term "kentucky windage" colloquially to refer to holdover as well as windage.
I can't see the poll with tapatalk but while I can work with both systems as I'm in my mid thirties I never learnt that weird old imperial system at school so I don't use it for anything unless I have to
What does it matter if you can hit what your shooting at?
When in the Army I was taught metric but I am more comfortable with and use imperial now. Imperial still rules the reloading world.
Doesn't bother me either way as scopes still only have the same maximum amount of windage and elevation no matter what you use. Measuring distance is the same.
Its just a turn of a turret.
I navigate in metric if using a map and compass.
If the reticle matches the turrets, the ballistics chart and reading from the range finder, what does it matter?
I don't feel either is better or worse. Perhaps if trying to judge distance with the reticle it may help to be in metric, but then 1mil is equal to 4moa so it's not particularly difficult to use either.
I use MOA, I am young enough to have been brought up with the metric system but the last 30years or so has seen predominantly American or aimed at the American market scopes in MOA on the shelves.
I shoot MOA. I will never change. You see the day I lay several thousand on the counter to my first NF 5.5-22 with NP-r2 reticule that was the beginning of the end for me. At the time I just followed Tracey’s advice. It was good advice. I now have 3 NP-R2 and the new one turns up today with MORA? Whatever it is. Is it better than metric I don’t know you guys can argue that one out. All I know is it would cost thousands to change over now. I do find it much easier to make corrections from a bullet splash with the NP-R2 compared to the mil reticule though.
No but I have looked through them. The hairs are very fine. I shyed away for hunting but then the NP-R2 is often too fine as well. Fortunately the NF illumination is excellent and seems to run forever and with that on you see into shadows no problem at all. In hind sight the NP-R1 may have been better for the shooting I am doing. The 2 moa ele and 4 moa wind is a little too much for making corrections at times.
Daily stuff metric. Shooting is moa, it just makes sense.
Even the Americans gave up on using imperial to get man into space because the calculations were nigh on impossible. In the end they converted everything to SI for the calculations, ... then converted the results back to imperial.
Me? I'm happy with anything, a measurement is a measurement and it is the same distance whatever measuring system you use and converting between them is easy. I tend to use metrics to measure distances and error at target and just to a quick mental calculation, only takes a second, to convert to my MOA scope.
Let's not also forget the failed MBT-70 project which ended up being a complete (expensive) mismash of imperial and metric measurements. As for firearms, personally all my gear's in MOA so I use it. As long as the Americans continue to use the Imperial system, it's simply not going to go away anytime soon. Much like the aviation industry where one sees a lot of feet and pounds.
So it would seem that the awnswer to @gimps question in another thread "who uses MOA in this day and age" or words to that effect is "the majority of hunters and shooters"
Ignorance is bliss, if they don't know any better then they might as well carry on with MOA.
Short range what does it matter anyway?
But mil is far superior.
The only reason people want to run mils now is cause that's what the "snipers" use just look at the people in the states the most backward country in the world and they run metric scopes I wonder why how is something that is pretty much 1.5 times per click going to be as accurate at long range . You can't just say it's easier cause all you are doing is punching numbers into an app to get your solution
The maximum error that can possibly be ascribed to click value is half of one click, as perfect data will put point of impact within that margin of point of aim.
For a scope that adjusts .1mil, this is <5cm at 1000m
For a scope that adjusts .25moa this is <3.45cm at 1000m
If that 1.55cm potential additional maximum aiming error at 1000 metres is responsible for a miss, there was never going to be a meaningful hit anyway.
Double the numbers for 2 kilometres if you wish and it's still utterly insignificant
Some light reading: Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This explains things pretty well :)
MIL vs MOA: An Objective Comparison | PrecisionRifleBlog.com
Actually
What this poll clearly shows is that, in round figures, 52 percent of people who are members of this forum use moa for windage and elevation correction.
It also clearly shows 48% don't.
Where the guessing game starts is .
What would be the result of say an equivalent poll ten years ago, and also one in 10 years hence.
Then if you bought country of origin into it.???
I wonder, knocking on the door of Europe, what would the results a similar poll in England be.
Be interesting anyways.