I'm not an economist, but as far as I'm aware they don't mean the same thing. Methods seems to refer the difference between, for example, artisanal production and factory production, while the means of production for Marx are the things (tools, machinery, etc.) that when combined with the labour of workers allows a commodity to be produced.

When we talk about seizing the means of production, we mean creating a democratic economy in which workers own and control the machinery/infrastructure that allows commodities to be produced and distributed. In a capitalist economy the means are alienated, and thus require seizing, because they are owned by the bourgeoisie/ownership class and that allows that class to steal part of the value that is created when the means of production are used by workers. That kind of alienation is inherent to capitalism because it is a system defined by the division of society into owning and working classes. In contrast, from a Marxist perspective, it doesn't make sense to talk about seizing the methods of production, because, the need to seize is generated by the alienation that comes from not owning the means of production, not from the method of production being used.

I do agree with you that language evolves and that we should use different terms when talking to people who are unfamiliar with Marx. But it doesn't make sense to just do away with the terms that we use among ourselves to analyse and understand capitalism, because these are the product of a long tradition of struggle and critique and provide a common vocabulary that allows us to use shorthands rather than having to explain each term that we use whenever we want to use it. It's jargon, but that's true of most language that is specific to a given community.