Rifle Scopes MOA or MRAD ?
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
...it makes no never mind to me....not some at all !
...it makes no never mind to me....not some at all !
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
+1 matching knobs. That way you can dial your correction by reading it from the reticle.
+1 matching knobs. That way you can dial your correction by reading it from the reticle.
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
I agree with all of the above on the matching knobs. From what I have seen I think I perfer the MOA over the mils, but that is just my opinion. Get what you feel good with
I agree with all of the above on the matching knobs. From what I have seen I think I perfer the MOA over the mils, but that is just my opinion. Get what you feel good with
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
moa is easier, but mrad is very nice with mil dot.
moa is easier, but mrad is very nice with mil dot.
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
I have talked with a couple of the tech departments of some of the scope manufacturers recently as well as reading as much as I could about this subject. I have been trying to decide myself for a new scope. +1 on all the comments about the matching reticles and turrets. A mix of mil and MOA makes it difficult to read from the reticle and just make the quick corresponding turret adjustment. There does not seem to be an advantage of one system over the other from what I can tell. They are both just angular measurements. I have decided to go MOA again for the new scope. I have used it, it works for me, and I just tend to think in terms of inches and yards. I am however trying to find a reasonably priced mil/mil in about a 10x to experiment with. As far as mil taking the place of MOA, from my conversations with the tech departments, I don't see that happening. Almost all of the brands, with the exception maybe of the big names, still produce the majority of their scopes in MOA. If you don't believe me, go try to find a mil/mil scope in the 10x category. Almost all of them are mil/MOA. Just practice with whatever you get and you will be fine. You may also want to try the mildot simulator website (can't remember the address right now). It is a simulated mil/mil setup. That way you can see if you like it.
I have talked with a couple of the tech departments of some of the scope manufacturers recently as well as reading as much as I could about this subject. I have been trying to decide myself for a new scope. +1 on all the comments about the matching reticles and turrets. A mix of mil and MOA makes it difficult to read from the reticle and just make the quick corresponding turret adjustment. There does not seem to be an advantage of one system over the other from what I can tell. They are both just angular measurements. I have decided to go MOA again for the new scope. I have used it, it works for me, and I just tend to think in terms of inches and yards. I am however trying to find a reasonably priced mil/mil in about a 10x to experiment with. As far as mil taking the place of MOA, from my conversations with the tech departments, I don't see that happening. Almost all of the brands, with the exception maybe of the big names, still produce the majority of their scopes in MOA. If you don't believe me, go try to find a mil/mil scope in the 10x category. Almost all of them are mil/MOA. Just practice with whatever you get and you will be fine. You may also want to try the mildot simulator website (can't remember the address right now). It is a simulated mil/mil setup. That way you can see if you like it.
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Almost all of the brands, with the exception maybe of the big names, still produce the majority of their scopes in MOA.</div></div>
Manufacturers, not surprisingly, tend to make what most people want to buy.
Most of the scope market is for hunters, who buy scopes with duplex reticles with no graduations. Most of those hunters have no clue to the kind of shooting that military and L.E. snipers do, and they neither know nor care what unit their scopes adjust in.
Manufacturers who cater to the military and L.E. markets mostly produce scopes with milliradian-based reticles. It make little sense to make - or for someone to buy - a scope with turrets which adjust in a system other than what the reticle is graduated in.
There is no shortage, though, of people who do things which don't make sense.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Almost all of the brands, with the exception maybe of the big names, still produce the majority of their scopes in MOA.</div></div>
Manufacturers, not surprisingly, tend to make what most people want to buy.
Most of the scope market is for hunters, who buy scopes with duplex reticles with no graduations. Most of those hunters have no clue to the kind of shooting that military and L.E. snipers do, and they neither know nor care what unit their scopes adjust in.
Manufacturers who cater to the military and L.E. markets mostly produce scopes with milliradian-based reticles. It make little sense to make - or for someone to buy - a scope with turrets which adjust in a system other than what the reticle is graduated in.
There is no shortage, though, of people who do things which don't make sense.
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no shortage, though, of people who do things which don't make sense.</div></div>Wasn't it Einstein who said that ingorance, not hydrogen, is the most abundant substance in the universe?!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no shortage, though, of people who do things which don't make sense.</div></div>Wasn't it Einstein who said that ingorance, not hydrogen, is the most abundant substance in the universe?!
Re: MOA or MRAD ?
I don't know about Einstein but science fiction author Harlan Ellison said, "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Ellison is a notorious surly curmudgeon.
Half of the population is of below average intelligence. However, being stupid is not a moral failing - stupid people can't help being stupid. There is a lot of ignorance, though, even among smart people. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not.
I don't know about Einstein but science fiction author Harlan Ellison said, "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Ellison is a notorious surly curmudgeon.
Half of the population is of below average intelligence. However, being stupid is not a moral failing - stupid people can't help being stupid. There is a lot of ignorance, though, even among smart people. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not.
