MOA or MIL for hunting?

1

I’m going to be ordering my first scope with a turret dial but not sure which unit to use. The scope I’ve chosen is the Arken EPL-4 6-24X50 FFP Illuminated VHR - Zero Stop - 30mm Tube. I know nothing about MIL and barely anything about MOA but I’m willing to learn either. So which one is better for hunting?

1 Like
2

I think that it depends upon how your brain is “wired.” Until I started shooting 1,000 yards+ is was easier for me to think in MOA. 1 inch at 100 yards is 4 clicks doesn’t require much thought, but when I started stretching it out most of the people I took classes with and shot with used mils.

It really comes down to what your preference is as both work well. Just another thought is that it has been my experience is the MOA can be “finer tuned” at closer (inside 300 yards or so).

have 3 Arken scopes and you might consider going with the “J” glass. It is Japanese glass and I really like it. SH-4J 6-24X50 FFP Illuminated VHR/VPR - Zero Stop - 34mm Tube

3 Likes
3

Is this for hunting? 6-24 is a lot of zoom.

I personally prefer mil because that’s simply the way most people go in competition. There really is little advantage to either.

1 Like
4

It is for hunting but I wasn’t sure what was too much zoom and what wasn’t enough zoom for hunting. What in your opinion would be a better zoom for 100-500 yards?

5

I use either a 3x9, 4x16, or a 4x20 for my hunting. Element Optics makes a 2x16 in their Helix HD that I’m wanting to get and use on a couple of AR hunting rifles

1 Like
6

I really like a 4-20 for hunting. To me, it’s perfect. You can still see half a deer in the scope at 25 yards whereas the 6 power scope would be zoomed in way too much if an animal is close.

For about the same price, you can get the Athlon 4-20. Its form factor and zoom range is suited much better to hunting, and the glass is a big step up. Everyone has their own preferences, but I own both those scopes and I’d pick the Athlon every day of the week.

If that’s what works best for you, don’t forget coupon code plus to get 10% off. But whatever you pick, I just want you to end up with the best scope for your needs.

1 Like
7

I do like having a 4-20 or a 3-18. I just don’t like 3-9. For me, it’s not enough zoom to see impacts on the paper at 100 yards, so it can be annoying to sight in and pick a load.

If I’m shooting an animal at 500 yards, though, I wouldn’t be more zoomed in than 16x. Weirdly, I use the zoom more for shooting at 100 to see impacts than at distance where I don’t want to be so zoomed in that I can’t see the impact during recoil or lose the animal.

1 Like
8

If you don’t mind do you have a link for the scope? I looked on their site and they have way more scopes than I could imagine

9
3 Likes
10

Thanks. Also I was looking at the Vortex Diamondback tactical 4-16x44 and I saw your video on it a while back. Could that also good a good option?

11

Yeah, I like the diamondback. The glass quality is mediocre and the turrets sometimes get mushy clicks. But it’s a solid scope for the price.

1 Like
12

Thanks. After doing some more research I think I’m gunna go with the Vortex Diamondback. I’m sure you’re busy so I’ll stop bothering you. Thanks for the help

13

I used mils EXTENSIVELY in the Army, for many different jobs. I use MOA on all my different scopes now. FFP for sure. I can use either, but since I may be hunting with Hunters and not Competition-Hunters, it is easier in my book. 1 mil @ 1K Meters is 1 Meter. So, start doing the math a bit. If you can wrap your head around mils, it is easier math, in a way. Do the math, practice the math, if it is easy, make your choice. But again, as a hunter MOA is good. Anything over a mile I will use binos and a radio with Artillery or Mortars or aircraft at the other end. Sudden Impact, Rockets Away!

4 Likes
14

For me, it depends on what everybody is using I hunt with. All my buddies use MOA so it would drive me crazy to use MILs. I treat it as a language. If we are all speaking the same language then we can communicate and help each other with dialing.

If you are the only one using one vs the other, it will be difficult to work together.

2 Likes
15

It really doesn’t matter for the first scope. You can train yourself on either system.
Personally my first scope was MOA so I stayed with it because that’s how I trained myself.
I do feel it’s easier for us simple folk to make adjustments with an MOA system because it is based on Impirial units vs metric.
At the end of the day you can run your ballistic calculator and put on turret tags from the Backfire shop. At that point which system is a moot point for elevations. Just gotta worry about windage.

4 Likes
16

My 9-year old daughter has the Helix HD 2x16 on her Camilla 7mm-08. She and her 12-year old brother love that scope (me, too). I’m trying to get them to trade me the Helix for my Leupold VX3, but they will not budge. If I had to do it all over again, we’d only have Helix on our rifles.

3 Likes
17

Are you saying the Athlon has better glass than the Arken? Kinda qurious?

1 Like
18

I hadn’t seen that Element Helix HD 2-16x50 before, but it looks like a good value (8x zoom range for under $600 is just nuts). I also like that it is SFP–I truly don’t understand the FFP craze. I have tried a few out like the Diamondback Tactical and the Arken, but I have yet to find a single FFP scope that has a usable reticle at lower magnification. So, the fact that you might have a scope that starts as low as 4x zoom–it doesn’t matter when it’s FFP because the reticle only gets functional once you are zoomed into about 12x. Just makes no sense to me, at least for hunting. In long distance shooting I can see the advantages when you are always out beyond your MPBR, but for 95% of hunting it feels unnecessary. But in this group I seem to be in the minority.

2 Likes
19

Alex, you’re not alone.

I learned in the military the MIL reticles and systems. When hunting, I always have used an MOA optic.

  1. Hunting ranges both in bullet performance and shooter capability to deal with wind, in my opinion tops out at 600 yards.
  2. Leupold 4.5x14x30mm tube - with the Boone and Crocket drop reticle is the single best hunting reticle made.
  3. If shooting a non-magnum the reticle has a 10x setting and the drops take you out to 500 yards.
  4. If shooting a magnum the reticle has a 14x setting and the drops take you out to 600.
  5. The reticle is neither too light (cant see in low visibility) nor too heavy and covers the target at distance. Very quick to target an animal if you have the range.
  6. The windage lines work as long you know the ballistics of your load.
  7. The drops work and are spot on, especially if you do the range time to know what your round is doing at each distance interval - very easily keeps you in a 4-5 inch circle.
  8. If shooting a non-magnum like a 308 win, but running some of the newer 155s at higher velocities 2900ish, or 125s, 130s at 3150-3200, the reticle matches up with the 14x power.
  9. Started with traditional reticle designs, got my first Boone and Crockett in 2005 and have never used anything else for hunting, have 3 on my rifles.
  10. Have never had an issue either adjusting for elevation changes either, just researched the prevailing altitudes for where I would be shooting or hunting, and made the adjustment…never had a problem being on target.
  11. Very clean scope as the turrets are standard height, but finger adjustable with the caps off; I did send one of mine back to Leupold and had them put the Mark 4 turrets on it, just to have one I could dial on if I wanted that ability.
    Thanks
    John
3 Likes
20

I’ve heard where the reticle would be say in MIL and the turrets in MOA and vs versa. Is that true? I’m learning about scopes here.

1 Like