I'm putting together my first 1000 yard gun. Have a Rem 700p in .300saum and a Talley Tactical Picatinny style 20 MOA elevated base. I am looking at the Vortex Pst 6-24x50. Should i go with a MRAD or MOA reticle. Any other suggestions on equipment, bipod, suppressor, ect..? Thank You
Rifle Scopes Reticles MOA/MRAD
- Thread starter Packrafter
- Start date
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
MOA or MRAD is a personal choice. Either one will serve you well it is just which one you prefer. You should however make sure that the reticule and the turrets of your scope match that will make dialing it in easier. I do believe that all of the vortex scopes match from reticule to turret. I would highly recommend you get an atlas bipod, they are the best unless you are going to be in some kind of competition where quick deployment is a must then they can be a little slow.
MOA or MRAD is a personal choice. Either one will serve you well it is just which one you prefer. You should however make sure that the reticule and the turrets of your scope match that will make dialing it in easier. I do believe that all of the vortex scopes match from reticule to turret. I would highly recommend you get an atlas bipod, they are the best unless you are going to be in some kind of competition where quick deployment is a must then they can be a little slow.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
+1 with PRS. Would check into ThunderBeast suppressor.
+1 with PRS. Would check into ThunderBeast suppressor.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
What type of shooting will you be doing? 1/4 moa will provide finer increments of adjustment than 0.1 mil. Its really a personal preference. Whatever you do just make sure the reticle and turrets match. Mil reticle, mil adjustments. Moa reticle, moa adjustments.
What type of shooting will you be doing? 1/4 moa will provide finer increments of adjustment than 0.1 mil. Its really a personal preference. Whatever you do just make sure the reticle and turrets match. Mil reticle, mil adjustments. Moa reticle, moa adjustments.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
Your nor 99% of the Internet Comandos here cannot shoot the difference at 1000 between 1/4moa and .1mrad, I own both, and I vastly prefer Mil/Mil, it is a dead simple system with all the accuracy needed to engage targets from 10 feet to 1000 yards.
Your nor 99% of the Internet Comandos here cannot shoot the difference at 1000 between 1/4moa and .1mrad, I own both, and I vastly prefer Mil/Mil, it is a dead simple system with all the accuracy needed to engage targets from 10 feet to 1000 yards.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
Like has been said it's a personal choice I prefer moa/moa for me it is simpler so I can learn the mil /mil system I bought a mil scope just waiting on a barrel so I can mount the rascal.
Like has been said it's a personal choice I prefer moa/moa for me it is simpler so I can learn the mil /mil system I bought a mil scope just waiting on a barrel so I can mount the rascal.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil/Mil, it is a dead simple system with all the accuracy needed to engage targets from 10 feet to 1000 yards.</div></div>
I too find mil easier to deal with.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil/Mil, it is a dead simple system with all the accuracy needed to engage targets from 10 feet to 1000 yards.</div></div>
I too find mil easier to deal with.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your nor 99% of the Internet Comandos here cannot shoot the difference at 1000 between 1/4moa and .1mrad,</div></div>
I wouldn't be so harsh on Mike but I agree as the difference is 1" between 1/4 MOA and .1 mil at 1000 yards. Slight velocity changes or wind will make more impact difference.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your nor 99% of the Internet Comandos here cannot shoot the difference at 1000 between 1/4moa and .1mrad,</div></div>
I wouldn't be so harsh on Mike but I agree as the difference is 1" between 1/4 MOA and .1 mil at 1000 yards. Slight velocity changes or wind will make more impact difference.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
NF MOAR is very nice, but like stated before make sure the reticle matches the adjustment. I chose MOA so that one can shoot/spot for another w/o having to have a MRAD reticle in both optics. I can spot and estimate a correction in inches w/o MOA stadia marks in my spotting scope but I cannot easily see/spot a correction in Mills w/o a MRAD reticle in the scope. ie I see a hit 6" right at 300yds = a needed 2MOA left correction, how many Mills would that look like abt .5 or .75?
For me MOA is simpler, jmho
NF MOAR is very nice, but like stated before make sure the reticle matches the adjustment. I chose MOA so that one can shoot/spot for another w/o having to have a MRAD reticle in both optics. I can spot and estimate a correction in inches w/o MOA stadia marks in my spotting scope but I cannot easily see/spot a correction in Mills w/o a MRAD reticle in the scope. ie I see a hit 6" right at 300yds = a needed 2MOA left correction, how many Mills would that look like abt .5 or .75?
For me MOA is simpler, jmho
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can spot and estimate a correction in inches w/o MOA stadia marks in my spotting scope</div></div>Are you sure about that?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can spot and estimate a correction in inches w/o MOA stadia marks in my spotting scope</div></div>Are you sure about that?
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
Sure? Yes, ie 18" wide target center is approx 9",
a hit observed 1/2 distant to the right edge would be 4.5", come left X MOA based on distance. Key word estimate, do you disagree? What would that distance/estimate be in Mills w/o a MRAD reticle to compare it to?
Sure? Yes, ie 18" wide target center is approx 9",
a hit observed 1/2 distant to the right edge would be 4.5", come left X MOA based on distance. Key word estimate, do you disagree? What would that distance/estimate be in Mills w/o a MRAD reticle to compare it to?
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">come left X MOA based on distance. Key word estimate, do you disagree? What would that distance/estimate be in Mills w/o a MRAD reticle to compare it to?</div></div>Estimation is not key to the result.
Mils and MOA are both angular units of measurement. Take your example to its conclusion: Come left how many MOA? Because that's 3.438 how many Mils.
Back to my question about being sure: Let's say you are shooting that 18" target at 765m. You can't see a bullet hole at that distance. But if you could, how much of an angular unit is 1/4 of that target at that distance through a blank scope?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">come left X MOA based on distance. Key word estimate, do you disagree? What would that distance/estimate be in Mills w/o a MRAD reticle to compare it to?</div></div>Estimation is not key to the result.
Mils and MOA are both angular units of measurement. Take your example to its conclusion: Come left how many MOA? Because that's 3.438 how many Mils.
Back to my question about being sure: Let's say you are shooting that 18" target at 765m. You can't see a bullet hole at that distance. But if you could, how much of an angular unit is 1/4 of that target at that distance through a blank scope?
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
Well yes I understand the angular radia etc,
but back to my first example "ie I see a hit 6" right at 300yds = a needed 2MOA left correction" how many Mills would that look like abt .5 or .75?"
Point being I can 'see' corrections in any scope in inches/feet, left/right, ie the IPHY 1/1 correlation.
One more ie, you are shooting at a moose and I am spotting for you. You shoot and miss and I see your hit 2ft low and to you I state, "you missed, you're two feet low, come up 2ft".
Could you see/make the 2ft of needed correction before the moose ran off easier or could you see needed MRAD correction if you didn't see your hit and I didn't have an MRAD scope?
I cannot 'see' those same corrections in MRADs and I think that those who can are rare.
For me MOA is simpler, jmho
Well yes I understand the angular radia etc,
but back to my first example "ie I see a hit 6" right at 300yds = a needed 2MOA left correction" how many Mills would that look like abt .5 or .75?"
Point being I can 'see' corrections in any scope in inches/feet, left/right, ie the IPHY 1/1 correlation.
One more ie, you are shooting at a moose and I am spotting for you. You shoot and miss and I see your hit 2ft low and to you I state, "you missed, you're two feet low, come up 2ft".
Could you see/make the 2ft of needed correction before the moose ran off easier or could you see needed MRAD correction if you didn't see your hit and I didn't have an MRAD scope?
I cannot 'see' those same corrections in MRADs and I think that those who can are rare.
For me MOA is simpler, jmho
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Point being I can 'see' corrections in any scope in inches/feet, left/right, ie the IPHY 1/1 correlation.</div></div>No you can't; and no, IPHY isn't MOA.
You are confusing linear units with angular units. Therefore you think that it's easier, but it isn't.
At 765m your 18" target is .6 Mils wide. 1/4 of that is .2 Mils. Done. Why do I need MOA for that?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Point being I can 'see' corrections in any scope in inches/feet, left/right, ie the IPHY 1/1 correlation.</div></div>No you can't; and no, IPHY isn't MOA.
You are confusing linear units with angular units. Therefore you think that it's easier, but it isn't.
At 765m your 18" target is .6 Mils wide. 1/4 of that is .2 Mils. Done. Why do I need MOA for that?
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
To make any correction the shooter Must know the location of the hit. At 765m if I know the size of the target is 18" wide I don't need to know how much 1/4 of any angle, only the distance from where I hit to where I want to hit. Which I can visualize in inches. And if I'm 1/2 distance off and I know 1 MOA is about 7.75MOA I'd correct .5 MOA. How many MRAD would you correct?
To make any correction the shooter Must know the location of the hit. At 765m if I know the size of the target is 18" wide I don't need to know how much 1/4 of any angle, only the distance from where I hit to where I want to hit. Which I can visualize in inches. And if I'm 1/2 distance off and I know 1 MOA is about 7.75MOA I'd correct .5 MOA. How many MRAD would you correct?
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Point being I can 'see' corrections in any scope in inches/feet, left/right, ie the IPHY 1/1 correlation.</div></div>No you can't; and no, IPHY isn't MOA.
You are confusing linear units with angular units. Therefore it appears to you as easier, but it isn't.
At 765m your 18" target is .6 Mils wide. 1/4 of that is .2 Mils. Done. Why do I need MOA for that? </div></div>
Are you sure 1/4 of .6 is .2 ?? I think 1/4 of 6 is 1.5
Can you see/visualize,correct .15 mils at 765m
I didn'e say you Needed MOA, my statement was MOA is easier for Me, I see inches/feet and shoot in yards not meters,
R/S
jl
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Point being I can 'see' corrections in any scope in inches/feet, left/right, ie the IPHY 1/1 correlation.</div></div>No you can't; and no, IPHY isn't MOA.
You are confusing linear units with angular units. Therefore it appears to you as easier, but it isn't.
At 765m your 18" target is .6 Mils wide. 1/4 of that is .2 Mils. Done. Why do I need MOA for that? </div></div>
Are you sure 1/4 of .6 is .2 ?? I think 1/4 of 6 is 1.5
Can you see/visualize,correct .15 mils at 765m
I didn'e say you Needed MOA, my statement was MOA is easier for Me, I see inches/feet and shoot in yards not meters,
R/S
jl
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you sure 1/4 of .6 is .2 ?? I think 1/4 of 6 is 1.5
...
MOA is easier for Me, I see inches/feet and shoot in yards not meters,</div></div>Your math is off by a decimal point but I see your point: .15 not .2. That's why estimation isn't the issue: I wouldn't hold .15 I would try to hold .2 Mils. Can I do it at 837 yards? I don't know...Can you hold 4.5"? What's the difference between them?!
So here's the thing: Whether you 'see' inches and shoot in yards does not matter to an angular unit of measurement. What I am saying is that you think that MOA is easier for you because you think that inches/feet and yards matter. They don't.
And you won't necessarily be able to blindly estimate 4.5" at 837 yards just because you know the target size in inches.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you sure 1/4 of .6 is .2 ?? I think 1/4 of 6 is 1.5
...
MOA is easier for Me, I see inches/feet and shoot in yards not meters,</div></div>Your math is off by a decimal point but I see your point: .15 not .2. That's why estimation isn't the issue: I wouldn't hold .15 I would try to hold .2 Mils. Can I do it at 837 yards? I don't know...Can you hold 4.5"? What's the difference between them?!
So here's the thing: Whether you 'see' inches and shoot in yards does not matter to an angular unit of measurement. What I am saying is that you think that MOA is easier for you because you think that inches/feet and yards matter. They don't.
And you won't necessarily be able to blindly estimate 4.5" at 837 yards just because you know the target size in inches.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
I think this discussion shows that you should take into consideration who you are shooting with & learning from.
I started with XXX but found when I was at practice and on the line between two experienced club members, their helpful holds and wind calls were in YYYs. I could do the math, but coverting the numbers and relating that to the conditions was a bit much at that stage. When I switched to YYY like the elders I was shooting with, the learning curve was easier because we spoke the same language.
I think this discussion shows that you should take into consideration who you are shooting with & learning from.
I started with XXX but found when I was at practice and on the line between two experienced club members, their helpful holds and wind calls were in YYYs. I could do the math, but coverting the numbers and relating that to the conditions was a bit much at that stage. When I switched to YYY like the elders I was shooting with, the learning curve was easier because we spoke the same language.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
Well I think it does matter because I am using a linear measurement, an inch, which I am familiar with, to make a correction on an known size target at a know distance.
I am not trying to solve a range finding question, or estimate the distance to a target where the angular measurement comes into play.
You are using long distances (837?) as examples where the numbers are very small and would in fact be very hard to see, but I think I can see 4.5" as easy/easier than you can see .1 Mill.
One more example and I'm done, if a shooter is shooting at 900YDS at a paper bulls eye target and bull is 10" edge to edge and the "9" ring is 20" edge to edge we all know he probably can't see his bullet hole in the target but when his spotter comes up and he sees the 5" spotter centered between the 9 ring and the edge of the bull then he knows that his correction is approx 7.5", a linear measurement, he then dials 3/4MOA (1MOA=1.047") an angular measurement, and makes his next shot before the wind changes.
I can go get a ruler and show someone what an inch is,(IPHY) but you cannot get one for a Mill, and for most people an IPHY or a shooters MOA, 1/1, is close enough because at 1000 the error is only .47" and most cannot shoot that well, lol.
An inch IS applicable and visible & simply understood by most people whereas a Mill or MRAD is not. Most people do not understand what a mill is and don't know how to use it.
I'm curious, are you refering to the NATO Mill of which there are 6400 in a circle or the mathmatical mill of 6283?
By the way my MilDot Master says an 18" target that measures .6 Mills is 830YDS or 766M distant.
I wonder why an M1A on M14NM doesn't have sights with MRAD adjustments, maybe good idea?
I guess if all my virtual shooting buddies had MRAD scopes I'd want one too, even if I had no idea how to use it.
My examples are based on emperical data (real world experience) not mathmatical theory.
Thats why NF makes moa scopes for me, to each his own
Well I think it does matter because I am using a linear measurement, an inch, which I am familiar with, to make a correction on an known size target at a know distance.
I am not trying to solve a range finding question, or estimate the distance to a target where the angular measurement comes into play.
You are using long distances (837?) as examples where the numbers are very small and would in fact be very hard to see, but I think I can see 4.5" as easy/easier than you can see .1 Mill.
One more example and I'm done, if a shooter is shooting at 900YDS at a paper bulls eye target and bull is 10" edge to edge and the "9" ring is 20" edge to edge we all know he probably can't see his bullet hole in the target but when his spotter comes up and he sees the 5" spotter centered between the 9 ring and the edge of the bull then he knows that his correction is approx 7.5", a linear measurement, he then dials 3/4MOA (1MOA=1.047") an angular measurement, and makes his next shot before the wind changes.
I can go get a ruler and show someone what an inch is,(IPHY) but you cannot get one for a Mill, and for most people an IPHY or a shooters MOA, 1/1, is close enough because at 1000 the error is only .47" and most cannot shoot that well, lol.
An inch IS applicable and visible & simply understood by most people whereas a Mill or MRAD is not. Most people do not understand what a mill is and don't know how to use it.
I'm curious, are you refering to the NATO Mill of which there are 6400 in a circle or the mathmatical mill of 6283?
By the way my MilDot Master says an 18" target that measures .6 Mills is 830YDS or 766M distant.
I wonder why an M1A on M14NM doesn't have sights with MRAD adjustments, maybe good idea?
I guess if all my virtual shooting buddies had MRAD scopes I'd want one too, even if I had no idea how to use it.
My examples are based on emperical data (real world experience) not mathmatical theory.
Thats why NF makes moa scopes for me, to each his own
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
After shooting MOA for years, I find that MILS are actually easier to work with..
You could always opt for an IPHY scope.. lol.
After shooting MOA for years, I find that MILS are actually easier to work with..
You could always opt for an IPHY scope.. lol.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I think it does matter because I am using a linear measurement, an inch, which I am familiar with, to make a correction on an known size target at a know distance.</div></div>Nope. Actually you are not doing that, you just think you are, probably because of a lack of experience. In reality you are adjusting by an angular unit of measurement and using inches to derive it. You could use centimeters, yards, meters or parsecs to do the same - with either Mils or MOA.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not trying to solve a range finding question, or estimate the distance to a target where the angular measurement comes into play. You are using long distances (837?) as examples where the numbers are very small and would in fact be very hard to see, but I think I can see 4.5" as easy/easier than you can see .1 Mill.</div></div> That’s like saying you can see 2.54” better than you can see one centimeter. No you can’t: It’s exactly the same thing. You are just calling it another name by expressing the same size using a different unit of measurement. The problem is that you are using a linear unit to describe an angular measurement, and that’s why your technique is wrong.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One more example and I'm done, if a shooter is shooting at 900YDS at a paper bulls eye target and bull is 10" edge to edge and the "9" ring is 20" edge to edge we all know he probably can't see his bullet hole in the target but when his spotter comes up and he sees the 5" spotter centered between the 9 ring and the edge of the bull then he knows that his correction is approx 7.5", a linear measurement, he then dials 3/4MOA (1MOA=1.047") an angular measurement, and makes his next shot before the wind changes.</div></div> Now you are arguing against your former position. You are assuming a square range, and an even-hundred-yard distance, and someone giving you corrections in inches. In that case you don’t need anything but a crosshair reticle because you are planning to dial your windage. But even then inches don’t matter. Because you are dialing in MOA or in Mils depending on which measurements your scope has.
Note that with regard to your above example a 5” spotter cannot be used to give an accurate 7.5” correction. I’ve even seen experienced instructors get this wrong. I’ll give you an example: I was at Storm Mountain a few years back and the task was for us to get our DOPE for 200 yards. The instructor had the students in the pitts put a 2” spotter in the hole after each bullet was fired to show the shooter his point of impact. At the end of the exercise the instructor asked if we all now have good data for 200. I replied that none of us did. You should have seen the look on his face. Why was no one zeroed at 200? Because he was using 2” spotting circles... Well, that and the fact that he didn’t know how much he didn’t know.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can go get a ruler and show someone what an inch is,(IPHY) but you cannot get one for a Mill, and for most people an IPHY or a shooters MOA, 1/1, is close enough because at 1000 the error is only .47" and most cannot shoot that well, lol.</div></div>Again you are arguing against yourself: You won’t find a ruler in Mils because an inch is a linear unit and a Mil is not. That’s why there’s no such thing as an ‘Inch-dot Master’. You don’t make angular corrections with linear units any more than you measure drapery in Mils.
And it’s not ‘close enough’. Your error calculation is incorrect. It’s a 5% error. With a .308, the difference in point of impact on a 1000 yard shot between using MOA and IPHY adjustments is twenty inches. So, even if you limit your effective range to under 500 yards the difference is not to be ignored. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An inch IS applicable and visible & simply understood by most people whereas a Mill or MRAD is not. Most people do not understand what a mill is and don't know how to use it. I'm curious, are you refering to the NATO Mill of which there are 6400 in a circle or the mathmatical mill of 6283?</div></div> There is only one scope which uses the 6400 Mil. It’s the Leupold M3A. Modern optics use 6283. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My examples are based on emperical data (real world experience) not mathmatical theory. Thats why NF makes moa scopes for me, to each his own</div></div>Your real-world experience is insufficient. There’s no difference between correct math and ‘real-world’ math; they are one and the same. Understanding the correct math will help you hit things at distance.
NF makes MOA scopes because they sell: To people who prefer them and to those who don’t understand Mils. Many people claim to be the former when the real reason is that they are also the latter. When I started the long-distance game it became important to me not to remain one of those people. I suggest that you strive to be able to use Mils and MOA interchangeably. That way you can work with anyone and will be able to explain either system to other people.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I think it does matter because I am using a linear measurement, an inch, which I am familiar with, to make a correction on an known size target at a know distance.</div></div>Nope. Actually you are not doing that, you just think you are, probably because of a lack of experience. In reality you are adjusting by an angular unit of measurement and using inches to derive it. You could use centimeters, yards, meters or parsecs to do the same - with either Mils or MOA.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not trying to solve a range finding question, or estimate the distance to a target where the angular measurement comes into play. You are using long distances (837?) as examples where the numbers are very small and would in fact be very hard to see, but I think I can see 4.5" as easy/easier than you can see .1 Mill.</div></div> That’s like saying you can see 2.54” better than you can see one centimeter. No you can’t: It’s exactly the same thing. You are just calling it another name by expressing the same size using a different unit of measurement. The problem is that you are using a linear unit to describe an angular measurement, and that’s why your technique is wrong.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One more example and I'm done, if a shooter is shooting at 900YDS at a paper bulls eye target and bull is 10" edge to edge and the "9" ring is 20" edge to edge we all know he probably can't see his bullet hole in the target but when his spotter comes up and he sees the 5" spotter centered between the 9 ring and the edge of the bull then he knows that his correction is approx 7.5", a linear measurement, he then dials 3/4MOA (1MOA=1.047") an angular measurement, and makes his next shot before the wind changes.</div></div> Now you are arguing against your former position. You are assuming a square range, and an even-hundred-yard distance, and someone giving you corrections in inches. In that case you don’t need anything but a crosshair reticle because you are planning to dial your windage. But even then inches don’t matter. Because you are dialing in MOA or in Mils depending on which measurements your scope has.
Note that with regard to your above example a 5” spotter cannot be used to give an accurate 7.5” correction. I’ve even seen experienced instructors get this wrong. I’ll give you an example: I was at Storm Mountain a few years back and the task was for us to get our DOPE for 200 yards. The instructor had the students in the pitts put a 2” spotter in the hole after each bullet was fired to show the shooter his point of impact. At the end of the exercise the instructor asked if we all now have good data for 200. I replied that none of us did. You should have seen the look on his face. Why was no one zeroed at 200? Because he was using 2” spotting circles... Well, that and the fact that he didn’t know how much he didn’t know.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can go get a ruler and show someone what an inch is,(IPHY) but you cannot get one for a Mill, and for most people an IPHY or a shooters MOA, 1/1, is close enough because at 1000 the error is only .47" and most cannot shoot that well, lol.</div></div>Again you are arguing against yourself: You won’t find a ruler in Mils because an inch is a linear unit and a Mil is not. That’s why there’s no such thing as an ‘Inch-dot Master’. You don’t make angular corrections with linear units any more than you measure drapery in Mils.
And it’s not ‘close enough’. Your error calculation is incorrect. It’s a 5% error. With a .308, the difference in point of impact on a 1000 yard shot between using MOA and IPHY adjustments is twenty inches. So, even if you limit your effective range to under 500 yards the difference is not to be ignored. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An inch IS applicable and visible & simply understood by most people whereas a Mill or MRAD is not. Most people do not understand what a mill is and don't know how to use it. I'm curious, are you refering to the NATO Mill of which there are 6400 in a circle or the mathmatical mill of 6283?</div></div> There is only one scope which uses the 6400 Mil. It’s the Leupold M3A. Modern optics use 6283. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trooper #40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My examples are based on emperical data (real world experience) not mathmatical theory. Thats why NF makes moa scopes for me, to each his own</div></div>Your real-world experience is insufficient. There’s no difference between correct math and ‘real-world’ math; they are one and the same. Understanding the correct math will help you hit things at distance.
NF makes MOA scopes because they sell: To people who prefer them and to those who don’t understand Mils. Many people claim to be the former when the real reason is that they are also the latter. When I started the long-distance game it became important to me not to remain one of those people. I suggest that you strive to be able to use Mils and MOA interchangeably. That way you can work with anyone and will be able to explain either system to other people.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
My preference in reticles is simple. Just have the reticle match the turrets and you will be fine. The adjustments are easier and you don't have to convert from one unit of measure to another. I have an aac Cyclone and couldn't be happier.
My preference in reticles is simple. Just have the reticle match the turrets and you will be fine. The adjustments are easier and you don't have to convert from one unit of measure to another. I have an aac Cyclone and couldn't be happier.
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
I still can't figure out for the life of me why the fuck people won't take time to learn the system and why the fuck they keep trying to convert an angular measurement to a linear measurement, then back to an angular measurement. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY INCHES YOU MISS BY!!!! Your reticle isn't in inches, your knobs aren't in inches. Use the reticle to see how many mils you miss by and either hold or dial the correction. The only time linear measurements should come into play is if you're ranging! For pete's sake, read the stickies!
I still can't figure out for the life of me why the fuck people won't take time to learn the system and why the fuck they keep trying to convert an angular measurement to a linear measurement, then back to an angular measurement. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY INCHES YOU MISS BY!!!! Your reticle isn't in inches, your knobs aren't in inches. Use the reticle to see how many mils you miss by and either hold or dial the correction. The only time linear measurements should come into play is if you're ranging! For pete's sake, read the stickies!
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
Really, take a look at this thread
https://snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads...617#Post3439617
Really, take a look at this thread
https://snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads...617#Post3439617
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skep_tic1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well actually you can show a mil as a linear measurement. The mil graduated ruler is the reticle in the optic that you are staring at the target thru.
I have both mil and MOA optics </div></div>
Well... no.
A linear measurement is the same regardless of distance... if I place a 6 inch scale on a table, on the moon, or on Alpha Centauri (a star over 4 light years away) it is still 6 inches in length, but its apparent angular measurement decreases with range.
One OP is arguing that MOA is a better system for someone raised using the Imperial measurement system (himself) or at least that's sounds like that is the argument he is trying to make. This would be true if MOA equaled IPHY but there is almost 5% difference, which adds up pretty quickly. Since mils are straight decimal math (1 mil equaling 1/1000 of the distance), it's probably just as easy to learn if one discards the idea that it's a metric system (perpetuated by the fact that some scope manufacturers describe .1 mil as cm/100 meters) but lets face it, anybody can move a decimal point, so it works just as well for someone who thinks Imperial if they can get their head around this. I am a (former) machinist who can work in metric dimensions if needed, but I still mostly think in Imperial (inches).
As for corrections, I don't see a difference... if my reticle reveals that I am .2 xxxs off, I dial (or hold) .2 xxxs correction, regardless of whether it's mils or MOA. I use FFP reticles for that reason... I'm not gonna think, well the target is xx wide so I need to correct by xx which equals xx xxxs; why introduce the possibility of a math error into the equation?
Joe
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: skep_tic1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well actually you can show a mil as a linear measurement. The mil graduated ruler is the reticle in the optic that you are staring at the target thru.
I have both mil and MOA optics </div></div>
Well... no.
A linear measurement is the same regardless of distance... if I place a 6 inch scale on a table, on the moon, or on Alpha Centauri (a star over 4 light years away) it is still 6 inches in length, but its apparent angular measurement decreases with range.
One OP is arguing that MOA is a better system for someone raised using the Imperial measurement system (himself) or at least that's sounds like that is the argument he is trying to make. This would be true if MOA equaled IPHY but there is almost 5% difference, which adds up pretty quickly. Since mils are straight decimal math (1 mil equaling 1/1000 of the distance), it's probably just as easy to learn if one discards the idea that it's a metric system (perpetuated by the fact that some scope manufacturers describe .1 mil as cm/100 meters) but lets face it, anybody can move a decimal point, so it works just as well for someone who thinks Imperial if they can get their head around this. I am a (former) machinist who can work in metric dimensions if needed, but I still mostly think in Imperial (inches).
As for corrections, I don't see a difference... if my reticle reveals that I am .2 xxxs off, I dial (or hold) .2 xxxs correction, regardless of whether it's mils or MOA. I use FFP reticles for that reason... I'm not gonna think, well the target is xx wide so I need to correct by xx which equals xx xxxs; why introduce the possibility of a math error into the equation?
Joe
Re: Reticles MOA/MRAD
Packrafter
Well anyhow, now that some folks here have scared the hell out of you, the Vortex PST will serve you well and either moa or mils will be fine. If all your buddies at the range are using moa or mils then here at this point you may want to do the same. Only because when they call out corrections everyone is on the same page as far as making corrections and getting a hit.
I run all my scopes in mils
Vortex Razor EBR-3 MRAD on a 338LM
Vortex Razor EBR-2 MRAD on a 260
Harris or Atlas Bi-pod would be a good choice
Thunder Beast Arms Corp makes a awesome suppressor
A good squeeze bag for the rear – from T.A.B. Gear
Make sure your rifle is set up to allow for a consistent cheek weld
Also welcome to the site
oneshot.onehit
Packrafter
Well anyhow, now that some folks here have scared the hell out of you, the Vortex PST will serve you well and either moa or mils will be fine. If all your buddies at the range are using moa or mils then here at this point you may want to do the same. Only because when they call out corrections everyone is on the same page as far as making corrections and getting a hit.
I run all my scopes in mils
Vortex Razor EBR-3 MRAD on a 338LM
Vortex Razor EBR-2 MRAD on a 260
Harris or Atlas Bi-pod would be a good choice
Thunder Beast Arms Corp makes a awesome suppressor
A good squeeze bag for the rear – from T.A.B. Gear
Make sure your rifle is set up to allow for a consistent cheek weld
Also welcome to the site
oneshot.onehit
Similar threads
