Rifle Scopes MRAD vs MOA scopes

[svxwilson]

Hello I am curiouswhat everyone's favorite style to use. I have a Viper PST 4-16ffp moa had it for about a year. Love it. Wanted another. Been moving it around on 3 different rifles needed more glass . Local guy didn't have the exact thing in Stock but had one in mrad. Gave me a good deal so I purchased it.
Do you find the less precise but easier math from the mrad style to be better than moa? Didn't realize .1 of a Mrad was larger than .25 moa clicks until I was reading the manual.
I enjoy all of my vortex scopes. All of them are moa. Figured in would give the mrad style a try.

 

[Rob01]

Mils are not less precise in actual shooting. Can you shoot the difference of 1" at 1000 yards between a 1/4 MOA which is 2.6" vs .1 mil which is 3.6"? It's an internet argument that gets lost in reality on the range.

 

[JRose]

Mills are Rad. Nuff said....

 

[MontanaMarine]

Mils are not less precise in actual shooting. Can you shoot the difference of 1" at 1000 yards between a 1/4 MOA which is 2.6" vs .1 mil which is 3.6"? It's an internet argument that gets lost in reality on the range.

And if you have the best possible dope dialed into your scope, you will mechanically, at the very most, be only be 1/2 those distances off your aimpoint.

Maximum mechanical error of 1.3" vs 1.8".

A half inch difference in max mechanical error at 1000 yards.

 

[flatland1]

I've just recently made the switch from MOA to Mils; aside from the fact that I'm getting to be an old fart at 62, and have been shooting MOA all my life, I'm happy using mils. Actually, with .1 mil clicks, I don't feel there's enough (if any) difference to make me feel that I gave up any precision compared to the 1/4 MOA clicks on my old scopes.

Will probably be selling off a few of the MOA scopes I have in order to replace with mil/mil models, which is one of the main reasons I'm looking forward to the new XTR II Burris scopes becoming available. Pricing on these scopes is very reasonable, but if they don't get with it and get some of them out, I may just purchase another Bushnell 34mm DMR.

 

[svxwilson]

Thanks for putting it into perspective. Going to try to make it to the range today. Found some 6.5 Grendel ammo on the shelf at my local LGS for the first time ever. Snagged it on principal.

 

[g2gjoe]

Mils are not less precise in actual shooting. Can you shoot the difference of 1" at 1000 yards between a 1/4 MOA which is 2.6" vs .1 mil which is 3.6"? It's an internet argument that gets lost in reality on the range.

Very well said my friend. Thank you.
You just easily answered a long-standing question I've had for a long time.
I've always wondered why if mills are so less precise than M OA, why all the professionals with use them. Just because they are easier never seem like a viable answer.
That just put it in a whole new perspective, thanks again.

 

[Rob01]

Glad to help. Like SV said it's about perspective. There is a small difference but it's so small it gets lost in body shake or heartbeat in elevation and in windage there isn't anyone who can read wind well enough to worry about an inch at 1000 yards.

 

[mrbig]

shooting paper targets I like MOA better and as long as the reticle matches the adjustments and is in FFP I can get along with either,,the 2nd focal plane mildot reticle and 1/4 moa adjustments is what really sucks,,

 

[damoncali]

Click size matters *a little* at F class on a very calm day. At 600 yards with no/little wind, you get to the point where X's matter, and there is a practical difference between .1 mil and 1/8 MOA (the x ring is 3", and your rifle likely groups about 3" if you've got a good one). You can always hold off if the magnification is high enough to see clearly, but it's nice to be able to get dialed in. Once the wind kicks in (which is normally the case), clicks get lost.

For more "practical" shooting, it gets well into the weeds. .1 mil is not a problem. It's also not quite a fair comparison (.1mil vs 1/8 MOA), because there are scopes with .05 mil that are more comparable to 1/8 MOA scopes.

The main benefit to mils (as far as I'm concerned) is that mil knobs are decimal and not fractions. But that's a pretty minor thing. I still think in decimals - 1/8 MOA is fine enough so that there is a click that is close enough to any decimal point. 1/8 = .1, 1/4 =.2/.3, 3/8 =.4, 1/2=.5, etc... It's close enough, and I don't have to add fractions in my head to make adjustments - I just look at the knobs and pretend there are ten hash marks instead of eight (don't count clicks!). I wish they'd make .1 MOA knobs. Not because I need that level of resolution, but because decimals are easier.

In other words, this is a very fine point. It's well down on he list of things to care about.

 

[supercorndogs]

1\4 moa .25 -1\2 moa .5 -3\4 moa .75. i like them both and find i do not prefer one over the other. i have never tried to figure something out in moa by adding fractions. firing solution said up 11.7 moa. i go up 11.75 moa. what i do is nothing like f class though. small amounts make a big diffrence in their game.

 

[Recreational Shooter WA]

Mil system is much easier to use. Requires less math and is a more natural system IMO.

 

[SquidHC]

As a new shooter I find that the mil system, mathematically, is SO MUCH EASIER to learn and remember than the moa system. No difficult conversion needed.

 

[ridein4life]

^^ Im with Squid on this one. ^^

 

[OUinLA]

I'm a new shooter and recently took a long range class with 8 other people. I was the only one using mils and I hated it. Maybe because I was the only one and everyone else was talking in MOA. MOA is easier to understand for me, especially at long distances. Or, maybe no one explained the benefits of mil adjustments that actually made it sound like a benefit. MOA seems easier because it uses 1" and that's easy to find the adjustments needed at any distance. If I need to come up 4" at 400 that's 1 MOA. For mils I had to look at a conversion chart and it never seemed to be an equal conversion.

 

[Rob01]

I'm a new shooter and recently took a long range class with 8 other people. I was the only one using mils and I hated it. Maybe because I was the only one and everyone else was talking in MOA. MOA is easier to understand for me, especially at long distances. Or, maybe no one explained the benefits of mil adjustments that actually made it sound like a benefit. MOA seems easier because it uses 1" and that's easy to find the adjustments needed at any distance. If I need to come up 4" at 400 that's 1 MOA. For mils I had to look at a conversion chart and it never seemed to be an equal conversion.

You need to use the ruler infront of your eyes. Example, you take a shot and hit low. Look through the scope and use the reticle to tell you how low. Now lets say it's .4 mils. Now you either hold high .4 mils or dial on .4 mils of up elevation. You notice what wasn't mentioned in that example? Inches. No need for them whether it be mils or MOA. Whoever taught the class should have explained that better to everyone.

 

[Neo]

You need to use the ruler infront of your eyes. Example, you take a shot and hit low. Look through the scope and use the reticle to tell you how low. Now lets say it's .4 mils. Now you either hold high .4 mils or dial on .4 mils of up elevation. You notice what wasn't mentioned in that example? Inches. No need for them whether it be mils or MOA. Whoever taught the class shouldn't be teaching.

I fixed for ya Rob.

 

[OUinLA]

You need to use the ruler infront of your eyes. Example, you take a shot and hit low. Look through the scope and use the reticle to tell you how low. Now lets say it's .4 mils. Now you either hold high .4 mils or dial on .4 mils of up elevation. You notice what wasn't mentioned in that example? Inches. No need for them whether it be mils or MOA. Whoever taught the class should have explained that better to everyone.

Thanks, I appreciate it. It was more of an issue at 400-800 yards, where you can't see your hits on paper. Then we'd go check the targets, everyone was adjusting in MOA and I had to do conversions. I'm sure i'll get use to it because i'm not buying a replacement scope haha.

 

[Rob01]

Thanks, I appreciate it. It was more of an issue at 400-800 yards, where you can't see your hits on paper. Then we'd go check the targets, everyone was adjusting in MOA and I had to do conversions. I'm sure i'll get use to it because i'm not buying a replacement scope haha.

How about marking in your data book where the hit on the target was and then when you got back to the firing line you look through your scope and find that spot and then make the correction? Still not having to worry about any conversions and you should be marking shots in a data book anyways.

 

[damoncali]

Thanks, I appreciate it. It was more of an issue at 400-800 yards, where you can't see your hits on paper. Then we'd go check the targets, everyone was adjusting in MOA and I had to do conversions. I'm sure i'll get use to it because i'm not buying a replacement scope haha.

This is another example of how the "use the ruler" method can fail. The other (more common) situations being when you have a scope with plain crosshairs or iron sights. It's worth your time to figure out how to do the basic math to calculate the angles from the distance on target and the range. If you like to think of range in terms of 100's of yards and target sizes in terms of inches, MOA will make this math decidedly easier. If you think in terms of meters and cm, mils will be your friend. But you can work with either - you just need to get used to the units, and it will come naturally.

 

[Rob01]

No that's an example of a new shooter learning. The method works just fine with either mils or MOA as I explained above. You won't be making any corrections until you are back at the rifle anyways. Log the data and make the correction by what you are told by the reticle when looking at target. Simple. No inches or other system.

 

[Lowlight]

With the "use the ruler" you can just send a single person downrange and put a spotter in the target, everything can then read the "ruler" to measure back at the firing line.

Paper at that distance has it's own set of limitations, which is why the competition people use spotters in the target. Doesn't mean, "read the reticle" doesn't work, just means our ability to resolve is limited.

The reticle is a calibrated ruler, it will always be right.

 

[pangelos]

The MOA/inches thing in my opinion is a terrible way to learn. It gets you out out of the mentality of using the ruler that is right in front of you. I learned this the hard way, my shooting partner and I would call "corrections" in inches of how much I thought he missed the target by it started that way because we didn't have reticles we could use to measure and then when we did get the correct reticles we didn't use them. We have both since switched to mils, not that I think it's any better than moa but we needed to get away from the wrong things we learned and that was the best way to do it. Shoot what you think is best for you just don't get hung up on the "easy math" concept cause it's not any harder using mils.

 

[SatCong]

I started out with MOA and I'm to old to care or change. Just a old fart. So far it works for me at 1,000 yards and even a 1 mile. Guess I well stick with it.

 

[damoncali]

There's certainly nothing wrong with notebooks and spotters. Just pointing out what I think is sometimes a better way, and in some cases the *only* way outside of trial and error. I don't even own a data book, and haven't felt the need to. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Lowlight]

Here is why the angle is more important than the linear equivalent ever will be ...

The Angle continues and works to automatically adjust, it does not matter if it's Mils or MOA, it's an angle, only when you "modify" the angle do you have to worry about problems, or if you mix units and want to adjust the angle using a different unit. So if you have a mil reticle and MOA turret you have to change the adjustment to fit. Otherwise with a scope with a matching turret to reticle relationship, the angle works to your advantage.

PS. no datebook loses all credibility if you ask me. Better records equal better results

 

[damoncali]

Do you really plot every shot you take? I write my zeros down, but they don't really change. You guys act like this is rocket science.

 

[Lowlight]

Every time I go out I write it down, but also I use a lot of different stuff so I record that information.

It's called DOPE for a reason, and sure if you don't do much be hang out in the same place shooting the same thing over and over again, you might have an excuse to ignore it, but even your average competitive shooter will tell you to record your data, how else can you diagnose a problem.

Not to mention being able to handle different situations.

Actually it is part rocket science otherwise rocket scientist would not be the guys hired to make this stuff.

My class this past week, I had them write everything down even the guys using computers

Databooks and computers with each shooter

You cannot true one without the other.

 

[OUinLA]

How about marking in your data book where the hit on the target was and then when you got back to the firing line you look through your scope and find that spot and then make the correction? Still not having to worry about any conversions and you should be marking shots in a data book anyways.

It's all in the data book. I'll try this method and see how it goes. Thanks.

 

[jdknotts1]

I'm new to this game and asked the same question recently. I decided to go with mils and in the end I'm quite happy with it. After borrowing a friend's rifle equipped with a mil-dot reticle, and the adjustments in moa, I found it difficult to have to double-think all my shots. When using a mil-dot reticle, moa adjustments, your elevation will be in moa, but your windage holds would be in mils. Gets confusing quick.

So in the end, I'm very glad I went with a mil/mil scope.

 

[damoncali]

Admittedly, I am a 99% KD kind of shooter - I suppose I don't shoot enough then to see the benefits to all this data collection. These days I shoot more F class, and a data book has proven an utter waste of time. I plotted my first match, and not even all of it before I realized it was doing more harm than good. Heck, I shot last weekend with a brand new scope - first time ever at 600 yards with this combo - and shot an 8, followed by an X for the first two sighters. No data required other than 600 is about 10 minutes up. That's not because I'm the grand super master, it's because it's not that hard to zero at 100 and come up to 600.

I had a data book years ago when I started shooting XC high power (the Official USMC one to boot!), but it didn't take long to realize that I was writing down the same stuff over and over again. If I recall correctly, they had boxes for sight picture, light wind, weather- all sorts of stuff, and at the end of the day it boiled down to 13 clicks up, 3 right. Next time out, I'd look at it, and see, "13 up, 3 right". Never did something like the light conditions play in actually deciding how many clicks I put on my rifle. It's just too small/esoteric of a factor to isolate that one variable. I found that when I listened to the old salts' advice on that stuff, more often than not, it just hosed me up - mostly wives' tales. I'd adjust for wind, and that's it. So eventually, I just remembered 13 up 3 right (and wrote it down because I can't remember everything). After a few matches, the points I lost to bad zeros dropped dramatically - they were usually pretty much dead on. I still lost a bunch of points to wind, bad position, and general fuckupage, but I don't see how data books fix that.

Here's a serious question - how do you make sense of all of it (for the shooting you do)? Is this an ELR thing, because I honestly don't see the point beyond recording zeros out to 800 yards or so - maybe further.

 

[supercorndogs]

You need to use the ruler infront of your eyes. Example, you take a shot and hit low. Look through the scope and use the reticle to tell you how low. Now lets say it's .4 mils. Now you either hold high .4 mils or dial on .4 mils of up elevation. You notice what wasn't mentioned in that example? Inches. No need for them whether it be mils or MOA. Whoever taught the class should have explained that better to everyone.

just like he said you do not use inches just moa a mil is 3.5 moa. this is where the math comes in 2 mils easy 7 moa. .5 mils 1.75 moa .1 .2 harder to do the math in your head. i like both though especially scopes with 1 moa adjustments

 

[damoncali]

Did you write down the wind tails (grass, bushes, flags, mirage etc) and what it did to your shots? Not writing this stuff down it is hard to to gain the full picture or learn the wind and all it's signs as fast.

For instance, in a gusty 0-20mph at 1500y my drift only might be L a several clicks, 10mph a bit over 2-1/2mils and by 20mph just under 5mils. Depending on the wind call and when the shot brakes.. Well.... A bit of logging can keep one from making the same mistake. Oh and the the AD make a significant difference..




Jt

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I did all that and more. mirage, grass, flags, trees, wind meter. "Trees blowing slowly, grass not moving" is not terribly helpful, especially when I have a wind meter that says "4.5 mph". But even that didn't really help much. Maybe I just learn differently, but I have to watch the wind and shoot in it while paying attention to get better at reading it. This happens on every single shot, so I have a constant reminder of what the wind is doing.

Zeros I get - note them, write them down. But again, they don't really change outside of elevation. I do not get this idea of logging the impact of every shot. You'd have to log the conditions as well. It's not like they don't change, and sometimes dramatically, over a 20 shot relay. I'd spend more time writing than shooting, and when I go back and look at the data, it's really hard to drag any useful information out of it - there is too much uncertainty in every piece of logged data. Meanwhile the wind is shifting...

I can be convinced that I'm wrong on this, which is why I'm interested to hear what (exactly) people are logging, and how, specifically, they use that information to make the decision on where to turn the knobs to. There has got to be a process, or it's not data - it's just a journal. I don't find journals very enlightening.

 

[Lowlight]

Some people see changes in strings of fire, changes necessary due to the heat, could be outside could be because of stress in the barrel. What if you find after shooting 300, and 600 yards during a. Match, when you get to 800 you're a bit off ?

Some travel for competition, knowing what happens helps, even if you use a computer, writing it down helps you fine tune the computers predictions. It's all great if you get a sighter, but what about where and when you don't?,

A single sample of "you" doesn't tell the story, and things vary all the time, lots of ammo, bullets, if you replace a barrel, scope going south, action screw loosen, having data to help understand when and why matters.

Differences in the morning vs afternoon, if you go to the CRC thread for the Prairie Dog match, you'll see morning and afternoon scores, they don't line up, you clearly see nor set higher than the other.

 

[damoncali]

Some people see changes in strings of fire, changes necessary due to the heat, could be outside could be because of stress in the barrel. What if you find after shooting 300, and 600 yards during a. Match, when you get to 800 you're a bit off ?

Some travel for competition, knowing what happens helps, even if you use a computer, writing it down helps you fine tune the computers predictions. It's all great if you get a sighter, but what about where and when you don't?,

A single sample of "you" doesn't tell the story, and things vary all the time, lots of ammo, bullets, if you replace a barrel, scope going south, action screw loosen, having data to help understand when and why matters.

Differences in the morning vs afternoon, if you go to the CRC thread for the Prairie Dog match, you'll see morning and afternoon scores, they don't line up, you clearly see nor set higher than the other.

No arguments on travel - writing down the air density stuff and using it to make a correction to your zero adjustment is plenty smart. I don't get to travel much, but I'm 100% on board with that. When I do, I usually go WAY up to Wyoming, which is obviously a whole 'nother set of zeros over Omaha. If you mean keeping track of round counts through the barrel, writing down torques, noting changes in ammo lots, I get that too and do some of it (round counts at least, and I know when I'm switching lots). I chrono my loads so I know how fast they're going. I'm talking more about the high power style range data books - conditions, impacts, zeros, etc. - the stuff you write down while shooting.

I guess I don't see large differences - that are not attributable to changes in wind - as the day goes on. Maybe a slight change in velocity/air density due to temperature, but do you need to log and write that down? How can you even tell? I guess what I'm asking is this: When you arrive at a match, and all you have is your data and whatever atmospherics/ranges you can collect on site (with a kestrel, range finder, or whatever means you have available), what is it _in your data book_ that helps you decide whether you should be 16 or 17 MOA up for the first shot and how much wind to put on? In case it's not clear, I'm not being argumentative - it's an actual question that I have obviously not found an answer to.

With all the uncertainties we deal with, if I'm within 1/2 MOA on the first shot, I consider that a win (for high power - for more difficult situations, I'd be happy with greater error). And the only thing that really keeps that from happening is the wind (and altitude, but that's much easier to account for). My data books never provided much help on the wind, and I can get close enough on the elevation with a calculator *without* all that data (just density, mv, and BC).

 

[Chiwawa]

I'm enjoying the discussion going on here. That's what is really cool about this forum, so many smart folks that can put these skills into understandable language. Thanks guys!!!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[LRJammer]

I guess I am just the weird man out on this. I have never been able to get my head wrapped around how the math is supposed to be easier with Mils than MOA. I naturally use range in yards and target size in inches. I think I get how the math is easier if you think in terms of target size in metric units. I have Shooter Ready and no amount of using the software for mils makes it any easier for me.

Being an engineer for a living, I am far from a math idiot. So is it the units conversion is where the translation gets lost? I would really like to understand what part of this equation gives me so much trouble. Any help would be greatly apreciated.

 

[damoncali]

I guess I am just the weird man out on this. I have never been able to get my head wrapped around how the math is supposed to be easier with Mils than MOA. I naturally use range in yards and target size in inches. I think I get how the math is easier if you think in terms of target size in metric units. I have Shooter Ready and no amount of using the software for mils makes it any easier for me.

Being an engineer for a living, I am far from a math idiot. So is it the units conversion is where the translation gets lost? I would really like to understand what part of this equation gives me so much trouble. Any help would be greatly apreciated.

Your'e not crazy. Mrads are easy because the distance at the target is 1/1000 of the range (with the small angle approximation).

So... If you think of range in 100's of yards and target sizes in yards (or tenths of yards), then your'e cool. Mrads are easy easy enough. But nobody does that. So it only works out to be easier for real people when they use the metric system for range and target size. For most people stuck in imperial units (which I happily am), MOA are easier to run in the head (at least out to 1000 yards or so, when the error of the 1" at 100 yards approximation starts to get too big to ignore).

 

[delixe]

I'm a new shooter and recently took a long range class with 8 other people. I was the only one using mils and I hated it. Maybe because I was the only one and everyone else was talking in MOA. MOA is easier to understand for me, especially at long distances. Or, maybe no one explained the benefits of mil adjustments that actually made it sound like a benefit. MOA seems easier because it uses 1" and that's easy to find the adjustments needed at any distance. If I need to come up 4" at 400 that's 1 MOA. For mils I had to look at a conversion chart and it never seemed to be an equal conversion.

1 MOA is not 4" @ 100 yards, it's 4.188".
There are a few scopes graduated in IPHY (inch per hundred yards) but these lose their benefit if you're shooting at 100 meter increments or random distances.

Matching turrets/reticles are far more important then which system you use IMHO.

Pick a system and stick with it for simplicity.
Some shooters may use both but for simplicity sake I stick with one.

Mils reticles are slightly more common in tactical scopes, and some scopes are not available at all with MOA reticles.
Because of this and the easier match involve in ranging (one milliradian subtends to 1/1000 of the distance), I settled on mils.

 

[supercorndogs]

i just really feel like the matching turrets and reticle are greatly over stated for 99 percent of shooters. it might be faster in comps. most people like me who do it for fun, does it matter. i have both and use both one after the other. i have my dope written in mils and moa on the same card because i switch scopes around a lot too. the most important thing is getting the most you can for the money you can spend when you buy a scope.

 

[Docmedic]

All my 3gun scopes are in MOA, so when I picked up a Bushy that was mil/mil with .1milrad adjustment for LR matches I thought I would have a minor panic attack if I had to start adjusting knobs on the fly under the clock. Turned out not so, matter fact looking at my ballistic program and seeing it say adjust for -11 or -26 clicks it was easy to just "understand" 1.1mils or 2.6mils of elevation adjustment, no second guessing. I just found it much easier to understand .1mil to relation of distance on the fly then over .25moa.