Thanks fattigla! I shot 3 hours of video at the range that day only to find out every scene was out of focus! So it was one of those days. Thanks for watching my friend!
As you stated, the biggest reason to use mils for PRS is so you’re speaking the same language as your squad. When at a stage and trying to determine target size, we sill measure it in mils regardless of what MOA the target actually is. Thanks for putting out great content!
I like the ability to estimate wind with the "gun number" I've seen people doing. I haven't fully played around with it, but it seems to be a fast way to judge wind holds.
Agreed, especially in a hunting situation where you may not have time to pull out your ballistics device/app. I've "learned" it, but I don't use it much because I'm lazy and have an "app for that"!
I have recently come to the place that if I don’t need to communicate with others, and the extra revolutions of dialing an MOA scope don’t matter, then MRAD or MOA makes no difference. After the first miss I self-spot, I am moving hash marks to a target more than I am figuring out in a numerical value how far I actually missed by.
Hi Phil! I totally understand that logic and more power to you for wanting to be more self-sufficient. You have a great point that sometimes, others can provide conflicting information that only confuses your thoughts around what is really going on downrange. I, like you, am trying to not listen as much and perform my own analysis during and after the stage. My challenge is that with my eyesight, I have a hard time seeing my misses, depending on what is behind the target, so when I come off the line, I like to hear where I missed, and the guys I shoot with are very good about providing that information to me. I then assess the misses, and make any wind adjustments for the next stage. This technique has really given me more confidence the last two matches where I am figuring my wind on my own, then NOT listening to anyone else as they come off the line. Thanks for watching my friend!
@@The4GunGuy thank you! For the record, I am all MRAD all the time, though in the beginning I did this as I was following the pack vice thinking on my own. That being said, I wouldn't change my journey one bit. Thank you for continuing to make amazing videos!
MILS are so much easier to use. It's much faster and simpler to dial 4 MILS than 14.4 MOA. People get hung up on the math but you really don't have to do any.
Totally agree Michael! I never used MOA scopes, so it was easy for me to just pick up Mils and not look back. And agree that if you just make the switch, there's no math to think about. Thanks for watching my friend!
@@The4GunGuy I've got an MOA AND a MIL Venom. One's on one rifle, one's on the other. I switch back and forth. It only becomes a real problem when your phone isn't picking up data for your ballistic solver, AHMIK ...but even then there's usually *someone* out there shooting MOA on the line. Till then it's just 'dial to X to get to the answer' (X being 3.4xxx) ...but yeah, MIL is easier to crib wind/distance call estimates off your squad mates' Kestrel
Appreciate the time and simplicity of your videos. I just started NRL22 this year with moa, I’ve literally already bought the identical scope in MIL but hesitant to put it on because I am very familiar with my dope in moa. Not to hijack your topic but I’d like to know your thoughts on the Gen3? NF Nx-8 has always been a bucket list scope for me but Razor gen3 checks more of the boxes. Street price they aren’t that different but don’t want to spend AtacR money. I will be shooting NLR22 and hopefully a PRs match next year with 6BR. I’d love to hear feedback or comments. Thanks again for taking the time.
Hi David! I have nothing against NF optics and have looked through many of them. If you watch my optics review videos, you'll hear me talk about how important the reticle is, and in my opinion, the Gen III with the EBR-7C reticle is one of the best scopes out there, bar none. Join the PRS and you'll be pleasantly surprised at the discount you receive from EuroOptic on a Gen III. Now, the NF ATACR with the Mil-XT reticle is a good scope as well, but the NF reticles (along with Tangent Theta) are too thin for me, and I've had to increase magnification to really see them...That's just MY eyes though, and some shooters like the thinner reticles. ZCO would be another choice, but honestly, I sold 5 ZCO's and went to the Gen III's for competition and haven't looked back. Hope my input helps and thanks for watching my friend!
Appreciate your opinion. I’ll go back and check out other videos. I’ve never had the chance to look through NF but did look at ZCO and completely agree on very fine reticle, I struggled at lower power. I had to be up to about 20x before I could see well and that is a bit further that I like to be zoomed in. Thanks again
One big reasons new shooters think they need to stay MOA is because they can see a 1in or 5 inches. But in reality, that is not how u make corrections. U need to use the retical and measure instead of making a guess. I have talked to several shooters about this, and it finally makes sense, and it is most of the reason they don't want to change to MIL.
Hi 1clnsdime1! Yep, I totally understand the thinking there. The problem is that PRS is so "Mil" focused from a scope perspective that if we are able to give feedback to an MOA shooter, we'll be giving it in Mils and they'll have to make that calculation and adjust...On the clock, that will take time that they don't have as a newer shooter. But I do get the reasoning here. Thanks for watching my friend!
Hi Tantrum! A new video on Discovery scope mounts/rings drops this week and I talk a lot about my Discovery experience. Short answer is 300+ rounds out of a light weight 6.5 Creedmoor with the Discovery scope mounted in Discovery rings and no issues even with me shooting off of stage props we use for PRS matches. I'm very happy with both so far. Hope this helps and thanks for watching my friend!
It works even better if we use meters for target range & centimeters for the angular displacement. Using metric systems with a metric angular system brings the whole system together. Better to forget MOA, inches & yards. These are antiquated shit systems.
@@The4GunGuy Tis a shame most American shooters not switching to meters, especially PRS shooters or long range hunters. Since it's impossible to judge distance to any accuracy out past about 100 meters/yards, it wouldn't matter a jot if they ranged everything in meters because it's rather meaningless accept for the range figure they input in their app. Working in meters also makes the gun number much easier to work with also. If they can accept metric, they can also express accuracy/repeatability in 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 mils at 100 meters. Using Mils to determine accuracy also discourages using the very misleading tendency to quote exact MOA figures when in reality, there is no such concept. Accuracy & repeatability are always within a range & the mil system tends to more truthfully represent a range rather than an absolute measurement due to it's smallest increment being 1cm or about a 1/2" at 100 meters. So much better to envisage in the minds eye. It's a complete system when used correctly. They don't know what they're missing. Thanks for the vid.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Don't worry about the little mistakes while filming. You always do an excellent job presenting us with good info. Thank you!!
Thanks fattigla! I shot 3 hours of video at the range that day only to find out every scene was out of focus! So it was one of those days. Thanks for watching my friend!
As you stated, the biggest reason to use mils for PRS is so you’re speaking the same language as your squad. When at a stage and trying to determine target size, we sill measure it in mils regardless of what MOA the target actually is. Thanks for putting out great content!
Thanks for the input and kind words Matt, and for watching my friend!
I like the ability to estimate wind with the "gun number" I've seen people doing. I haven't fully played around with it, but it seems to be a fast way to judge wind holds.
Agreed, especially in a hunting situation where you may not have time to pull out your ballistics device/app. I've "learned" it, but I don't use it much because I'm lazy and have an "app for that"!
I have recently come to the place that if I don’t need to communicate with others, and the extra revolutions of dialing an MOA scope don’t matter, then MRAD or MOA makes no difference. After the first miss I self-spot, I am moving hash marks to a target more than I am figuring out in a numerical value how far I actually missed by.
Hi Phil! I totally understand that logic and more power to you for wanting to be more self-sufficient. You have a great point that sometimes, others can provide conflicting information that only confuses your thoughts around what is really going on downrange. I, like you, am trying to not listen as much and perform my own analysis during and after the stage. My challenge is that with my eyesight, I have a hard time seeing my misses, depending on what is behind the target, so when I come off the line, I like to hear where I missed, and the guys I shoot with are very good about providing that information to me. I then assess the misses, and make any wind adjustments for the next stage. This technique has really given me more confidence the last two matches where I am figuring my wind on my own, then NOT listening to anyone else as they come off the line. Thanks for watching my friend!
@@The4GunGuy thank you! For the record, I am all MRAD all the time, though in the beginning I did this as I was following the pack vice thinking on my own. That being said, I wouldn't change my journey one bit. Thank you for continuing to make amazing videos!
MILS are so much easier to use. It's much faster and simpler to dial 4 MILS than 14.4 MOA. People get hung up on the math but you really don't have to do any.
Totally agree Michael! I never used MOA scopes, so it was easy for me to just pick up Mils and not look back. And agree that if you just make the switch, there's no math to think about. Thanks for watching my friend!
@@The4GunGuy I've got an MOA AND a MIL Venom. One's on one rifle, one's on the other. I switch back and forth.
It only becomes a real problem when your phone isn't picking up data for your ballistic solver, AHMIK ...but even then there's usually *someone* out there shooting MOA on the line. Till then it's just 'dial to X to get to the answer' (X being 3.4xxx)
...but yeah, MIL is easier to crib wind/distance call estimates off your squad mates' Kestrel
Appreciate the time and simplicity of your videos. I just started NRL22 this year with moa, I’ve literally already bought the identical scope in MIL but hesitant to put it on because I am very familiar with my dope in moa. Not to hijack your topic but I’d like to know your thoughts on the Gen3? NF Nx-8 has always been a bucket list scope for me but Razor gen3 checks more of the boxes. Street price they aren’t that different but don’t want to spend AtacR money. I will be shooting NLR22 and hopefully a PRs match next year with 6BR. I’d love to hear feedback or comments. Thanks again for taking the time.
Hi David! I have nothing against NF optics and have looked through many of them. If you watch my optics review videos, you'll hear me talk about how important the reticle is, and in my opinion, the Gen III with the EBR-7C reticle is one of the best scopes out there, bar none. Join the PRS and you'll be pleasantly surprised at the discount you receive from EuroOptic on a Gen III. Now, the NF ATACR with the Mil-XT reticle is a good scope as well, but the NF reticles (along with Tangent Theta) are too thin for me, and I've had to increase magnification to really see them...That's just MY eyes though, and some shooters like the thinner reticles. ZCO would be another choice, but honestly, I sold 5 ZCO's and went to the Gen III's for competition and haven't looked back. Hope my input helps and thanks for watching my friend!
Appreciate your opinion. I’ll go back and check out other videos. I’ve never had the chance to look through NF but did look at ZCO and completely agree on very fine reticle, I struggled at lower power. I had to be up to about 20x before I could see well and that is a bit further that I like to be zoomed in. Thanks again
When you held up 3 fingers (3/10), I thought you were going to say 1 MOA. :-) Great video. Thanks.
Ha! Yeah, I probably was going to say that, but caught myself. Thanks for watching my friend!
One big reasons new shooters think they need to stay MOA is because they can see a 1in or 5 inches. But in reality, that is not how u make corrections. U need to use the retical and measure instead of making a guess. I have talked to several shooters about this, and it finally makes sense, and it is most of the reason they don't want to change to MIL.
Hi 1clnsdime1! Yep, I totally understand the thinking there. The problem is that PRS is so "Mil" focused from a scope perspective that if we are able to give feedback to an MOA shooter, we'll be giving it in Mils and they'll have to make that calculation and adjust...On the clock, that will take time that they don't have as a newer shooter. But I do get the reasoning here. Thanks for watching my friend!
How is the discovery scope doing, can you do an update on your experience?
Hi Tantrum! A new video on Discovery scope mounts/rings drops this week and I talk a lot about my Discovery experience. Short answer is 300+ rounds out of a light weight 6.5 Creedmoor with the Discovery scope mounted in Discovery rings and no issues even with me shooting off of stage props we use for PRS matches. I'm very happy with both so far. Hope this helps and thanks for watching my friend!
It works even better if we use meters for target range & centimeters for the angular displacement.
Using metric systems with a metric angular system brings the whole system together.
Better to forget MOA, inches & yards. These are antiquated shit systems.
Hi rotasaustralis! I wish we could, but Americans are pretty set in our ways regarding measurements. Thanks for watching my friend!
@@The4GunGuy Tis a shame most American shooters not switching to meters, especially PRS shooters or long range hunters. Since it's impossible to judge distance to any accuracy out past about 100 meters/yards, it wouldn't matter a jot if they ranged everything in meters because it's rather meaningless accept for the range figure they input in their app. Working in meters also makes the gun number much easier to work with also.
If they can accept metric, they can also express accuracy/repeatability in 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 mils at 100 meters. Using Mils to determine accuracy also discourages using the very misleading tendency to quote exact MOA figures when in reality, there is no such concept. Accuracy & repeatability are always within a range & the mil system tends to more truthfully represent a range rather than an absolute measurement due to it's smallest increment being 1cm or about a 1/2" at 100 meters. So much better to envisage in the minds eye.
It's a complete system when used correctly. They don't know what they're missing.
Thanks for the vid.
Shooters still talk in MOA to describe accuracy because a "1mil" rifle is not very accurate. A "1 MOA" rifle is more accurate 😂
Ha! So true! If you told me you have a 1 Mil rifle, I'd tell you to sell it tomorrow! 🤣