Advanced Marksmanship Simple formula for MOA?

Bigwheels

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jun 16, 2007
    1,808
    290
    56
    Anacortes WA
    Is there a simple formula for ranging with MOA as there is for MIL's? ie. target size in inches X ? divided by moa observed. I know I can just round down to 1", & divide it, but to be more accurate than that?
     

    427Cobra

    Lt. Colonel
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 24, 2005
    5,872
    261
    Sanger, TEXAS!
    Re: Simple formula for MOA?

    Its important to know exactly what you have, TMOA, IPHY, MOA, this is why MilRad is a better system.
     

    Bigwheels

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 16, 2007
    1,808
    290
    56
    Anacortes WA
    Re: Simple formula for MOA?

    I have a NXS with NP-R1. Still getting used to it. I know that it's off by about 5% on 22X, But it's as close as I can see on 11X which is where the dot is on the power ring.
     

    Lindy

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Mar 26, 2003
    4,002
    7
    Rifles Only
    www.arcanamavens.com
    Re: Simple formula for MOA?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NPR1 TMOA, hence the 5%</div></div>

    Might not be that. I've seen a number of Nightforces which would not get to quite a high enough power to make the reticle range correctly.

    It's worth checking.

    Optically Checking Rifle Scopes
     

    Bigwheels

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
  • Jun 16, 2007
    1,808
    290
    56
    Anacortes WA
    Re: Simple formula for MOA?

    I did that when I first got it. The turrets are right on, but it won't go far enough to get it on @ 22X. It's on @ 11X tho, which is where the calibration dot is.
     

    jolofree

    Captain
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 19, 2012
    733
    174
    Sooner Nation
    I've noticed some folks using 104.72 as the multiplier constant in the MOA ranging formula,
    when asked about that it was explained that it correlates to the "one MOA = 1.0472 inches at 100 yds".
    Interestingly I also recently read that formula in the "plex reticle" ranging section of the
    US BP precision marksman/observer manual.
    Lindy, What's your thoughts on this, it seems to differ about 10%+-
     

    Rob01

    Cool Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jul 9, 2001
    14,048
    7,876
    NC
    What formula are those folks using? Never heard of that. If they are off 10% from actual range then they are going to be missing alot.
     

    jolofree

    Captain
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 19, 2012
    733
    174
    Sooner Nation
    They're using the same formula as Lindy posted but with 104.72 as the multiplier instead of 95.5. Supposedly because of the relation to the MOA = 1.047in @ 100yds---- Coincidence?

    Height of Target (inches)
    Distance to Target(Yards) = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * 95.5 substitute 104.72
    Image Size(MOA)

    Like this...

    Actual Height of Target (inches)
    ___________________________ X 104.72 = Distance to Target in Yards

    Image Size (MOA) as viewed thru scope

    I haven't actually tried this in the field yet with an MOA marked reticled scope backed by a LRF, I just compared the three formulas that use MOAs viewed thru the scope for range finding and the math differed by approx 10% further target range. I was just wondering if anyone has heard of this formula and worked with it as it's in the BP manual I figured someone here had seen/used it before.
    I think maybe this could be calculated with a Mil-Dot Master as easily as these formulas with a bit of practice, possibly?
     

    Papa Zero Three

    Quiet Professional
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 22, 2012
    1,617
    8
    Directly under the sun
    Just plugging a few numbers in and running them, using 104.72 vs 95.5, I am getting a huge difference in the results. I think someone made a mistake/typo if thats in a manual. But just doing some comparisons I am guessing it should have been obvious that it was off to anyone using it as it gives a greater distance than when 95.5 is used. At first I thought maybe danger space was possibly allowing for hits but the difference between 95.5 and 104.72 distances is such that they aren't even close to overlapping enough that DS would cover it.
     

    jolofree

    Captain
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Feb 19, 2012
    733
    174
    Sooner Nation
    Yes I ran the numbers too, like a known size 18in target that when viewed thru the reticle measures 5 MOA using the 104.72 multiplier ranges at 376 yds and using the 95.5 multiplier ranges at 343 yds or 33yds difference. Getting a little further a 20in target mearured at 2 MOA ranges 1047yds using the 104.72 multiplier (coincidence same number just a decimal off?) where the 95.5 multiplier ranges at 955yds or 92yds diffeence. So it seems to consistantly range targets about 10% further away than the 95.5 multiplier.
    It's in the US BP Precision marksman/observer manual Section 3 pg 3-5
     

    Papa Zero Three

    Quiet Professional
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Nov 22, 2012
    1,617
    8
    Directly under the sun
    Yes I ran the numbers too, like a known size 18in target that when viewed thru the reticle measures 5 MOA using the 104.72 multiplier ranges at 376 yds and using the 95.5 multiplier ranges at 343 yds or 33yds difference. Getting a little further a 20in target mearured at 2 MOA ranges 1047yds using the 104.72 multiplier (coincidence same number just a decimal off?) where the 95.5 multiplier ranges at 955yds or 92yds diffeence. So it seems to consistantly range targets about 10% further away than the 95.5 multiplier.
    It's in the US BP Precision marksman/observer manual Section 3 pg 3-5

    Can you post a link to the manual or a snippet from it? I have to think this is a typo/mistake. Is that 104.72 constant associated with a special reticle/piece of equipment possibly in the manual? Other than that, I'm gonna say that using 104.72 is plain wrong the way they are using it.