Rifle Scopes Vortex viper pst 2 MOA VS MRAD
- Thread starter Qwkcrss
- Start date
MOA vs MIL is just two different units of the same thing that are simply derived differently. They get you to the same place. I like mil just because I like how it jives with me. If it were moa though I would just simply switch the setting in the calculator app and continue on just the same.
Yes, 7c replaced the 2c reticle and
7c mil vs moa
Yes, 7c replaced the 2c reticle and
7c mil vs moa
I just bought the same scope and I got it in MOA. I haven't used it at any distance yet so I cant help.
I'm basically building this same exact rifle. Very nice setup!
just get the Mil.
in 6 months you'll be on here trying to sell your MOA scope at a big loss.
it really doesn't matter if you know how they work. there are 1 billion threads on here beating the topic to death.
but if you aren't familiar or partial with either. just do yourself the favor and start with Mils. chances are you'll be happier in the long run.
i know too many dudes stuck with 3-4 MOA scopes at their house from when they made the switch and they can't give them away
in 6 months you'll be on here trying to sell your MOA scope at a big loss.
it really doesn't matter if you know how they work. there are 1 billion threads on here beating the topic to death.
but if you aren't familiar or partial with either. just do yourself the favor and start with Mils. chances are you'll be happier in the long run.
i know too many dudes stuck with 3-4 MOA scopes at their house from when they made the switch and they can't give them away
Last edited:
If you’re not familiar with either, go with mil
If you don't use either one now, go with Mil.. Eventually you will be shooting with others and 99.9% are going to be speaking in Mils.,(ask me how I know). So, be one of the cool dudes, speak Mil. Mac
Last edited:
Go MIL.
MOA in and of itself is fine but it’s a system that’s been bastardized.
Work really hard to not equate your adjustments to a linear measurement, its like reading and writing a message back and forth with someone in English but speaking in Spanish to each other all while doing math in code. It’s absolutely unnecessary.
Reticle is in MILS, turrets are in MILS, Drop chart is in MILS.
Impact off from point of aim? Use the ruler in front of your face(reticle) to measure in MILS, make your adjustment in MILS.
MOA in and of itself is fine but it’s a system that’s been bastardized.
Work really hard to not equate your adjustments to a linear measurement, its like reading and writing a message back and forth with someone in English but speaking in Spanish to each other all while doing math in code. It’s absolutely unnecessary.
Reticle is in MILS, turrets are in MILS, Drop chart is in MILS.
Impact off from point of aim? Use the ruler in front of your face(reticle) to measure in MILS, make your adjustment in MILS.
Welcome to SH. So, there are approximately 7,498,289 iterations of "should I get MOA or mils." SH's search function wrks pretty well; you can find both useful discussion and amazing amounts of sarcasm related to the subject. It's up to you to separate signal from snark.
Bottom line is this. It.Doesn't.Bleeping.Matter, other than the PRS crowd prefers mils. I started this silliness with MOA scopes becuase I had decades of experience with MOA, but I have transitioned my centerfire rifles to mil optics.
As stated above - if you have no preference, it's a no-brainer: get mils.
Bottom line is this. It.Doesn't.Bleeping.Matter, other than the PRS crowd prefers mils. I started this silliness with MOA scopes becuase I had decades of experience with MOA, but I have transitioned my centerfire rifles to mil optics.
As stated above - if you have no preference, it's a no-brainer: get mils.
- Apr 23, 2019
- 47
- 23
Mil vs. MOA has been beaten to death on this forum a bunch, plain and simple it's just what ticks better in your brain. Personally I've learned both because of my career in this industry and my own personal shooting hobby. I think as a new shooter mil is going to be a better investment in the long run and the main difference I've seen is that the EBR-7c has a floating center dot built into the reticle vs. an open center in the 2c version. Yes it is the updated version.
For the love of all that is good in this world....
Before you go mil or moa, go to the search function.... This is the most dead horse beaten topic on this whole site.....
Also, we need you to post a pic of your field gear before we go any further. Thanks!
Before you go mil or moa, go to the search function.... This is the most dead horse beaten topic on this whole site.....
Also, we need you to post a pic of your field gear before we go any further. Thanks!
Seriously 26.75 moa is not as clean to deal with and remember as 7.8 mils.
I have absolutely no regrets about switching to mils and I absolutely wouldn’t buy a moa scope now unless it was a stupid crazy deal.
I have absolutely no regrets about switching to mils and I absolutely wouldn’t buy a moa scope now unless it was a stupid crazy deal.
Very similar reticles (I have scopes with each one), but the 7c puts the number for the vertical at the end of the Christmas tree lines, while the 2c has them right next to the vertical. The issue with the 2c is that if you're holding over for both elevation and wind, if it's a small amount of wind, then the number placement could screw things up.
It's a minor difference, but if you have a choice and the price difference is negligible, get the 7c.
EBR-7C in mil
Your welcome ?
I have scopes with both 2C and 7C and have the same feeling. Small amounts of wind hold can be a problem with the 2C.
Also - when you get comfortable with the Christmas tree it makes so easy to hold for wind and elevation. Much quicker that dialing it on the turrets
The only guys I know that run MOA are F-Class and Benchrest shooters. All the rest run mils because the math is SO much easier. The math behind each is actually very interesting, and shows exactly why MOA range estimation sucks. (Interesting to me, but I'm an engineering student so I guess that's implied) All the hunting scopes (2-7, 3-9, 4-12, etc.) are in MOA because most hunters zero their scope at 100 and never touch it again unless they rezero. Remembering a quarter inch at 100 is easy, but trying to get an accurate range on a 12" square not so easy.
I'm sorry but that statement is just flat the fuck out wrong
MILs aren't metric. MILs are MILs.
if you shoot by yourself, get whatever you want. If you go to matches, most people today are shooting MILs
I'd like to know why you think so...……..
Range in yards = target size in inches/target size in MOA X 95.5
Range in yards = target size in inches/targer size in milliradians x 27.8
They both suck equally since neither has a simple factor of 10 multiplier like this: Range in meters = target size in centimeters/target size in milliradians x 10
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
He's trolling, he says the same shit in all these type threads.
Mils adjustments for sure.
As for the reticle, there are plenty guys who dislike the EBR-7c reticle. I am one of them. It is newer which doesn’t mean better.
The center aiming point of a scope is one of the least important aspect of the scope just above the color of the scope. If you are stretching it out past three hundred yards, you won’t be using the center much. All the rest of the reticle around the center is what you need to concern yourself with. The long .2 hashes and long .5 hashes along the horizontal turn into a mess below 15x. Stay above that mark and I like the reticle. Drop below it, and I dont like it at all. If you plan on cranking that mag up and leave it up there then you may love the reticle. I would like it on a ELR rig
As for the reticle, there are plenty guys who dislike the EBR-7c reticle. I am one of them. It is newer which doesn’t mean better.
The center aiming point of a scope is one of the least important aspect of the scope just above the color of the scope. If you are stretching it out past three hundred yards, you won’t be using the center much. All the rest of the reticle around the center is what you need to concern yourself with. The long .2 hashes and long .5 hashes along the horizontal turn into a mess below 15x. Stay above that mark and I like the reticle. Drop below it, and I dont like it at all. If you plan on cranking that mag up and leave it up there then you may love the reticle. I would like it on a ELR rig
Same question many of us have starting out. Best answer I got was go mil cause that's what most others will be shooting (prs competition wise) and they were right. I went to a training course early on and sure enough there was one guy shooting moa, and until day three he didn't even realize his scope was SFP so he was a real outlier. ?
As for reticle I'd go 7c personally.
As for reticle I'd go 7c personally.
By the way, back out to the snipershide home page and there's an article smack dab in the middle about MIL vs MOA.
Looking for advice on the specific reticles I listed. I realise this has been listed 1000 times
That assessment seems more like a ding against standard units than mils. A mil is always 1/1000th the distance of the target regardless of unit. 1 MOA is a rather outlandish tangent function. The weird numbers come in for mils when you try to convert inches to yards. It really doesnt matter as long as you stick to the same unit of measurement for everything because the one magic number can be calculated and remembered, but it's only good for those units. For MRAD, you can change units and somewhat easily calculate a new magic number without a calculator. So if you're sticking with imperial units then they're equally annoying, but if you ever use SI, or need to measure in a larger unit (target size in say feet vs inches) mrad is the clear winner.
The EBR2-C was too clean for me. I really like reticles that have .2 mil subtensions. Seems to be the point for me anyway that holdovers couldnt be any more accurate and it doesnt obscure my vision horribly. That being said, I'm a fan of the tremor3 so take that for what it's worth.
Best way of knowing is go watch a few matches and look through some scopes. The shooters are usually extremely helpful, and it's basically guaranteed that you'll find at least a couple guys running razors with both reticles.
Well not shit sherlock, but we don't measure distances in SI units in the states. So my point stands, neither mils nor MOA have an advantage in ease of use when it comes to reticle ranging (which is dumb anyway).
Changing target linear dimensions to feet from inches won't make any math easier........you should know that.
He knows that. Beetroot trolls, is what he does
Range in meters = target size in mm / mils measured in reticle.
150mm target measured at 1 mil = 150m. Math so simple a common core 3rd grader could do it.
If you want to be the only person in the US, outside the Army or Marine Corps, ranging in meters; go ahead.
Not sure why it would make that much difference. Set your LRF to meters. Run off your drop charts in meters. Done.
Do all you people actually use Mil scopes then convert that to yards instead of just using a simpler system?
No, I range the target with a rangefinder, enter into my ballistic calculator and dial the mils indicated.
Well....admittedly that is the simplest method, which is actually what I do as well. But I just figured out a long time ago that making range estimations with the reticle is far simpler if you can work with meters.
If I had a rangefinder (and I do) why would I bother with reticle ranging?
Because rangefinders aren't always usable. Targets aren't always reflective and mid to low end rangefinders wont get out to the edge of the rifles effective range.
I have a Leica
And I have a Sig. But that doesn't change the fact that shit happens (batteries die, equipment gets lost/damaged) and mils is simpler to range for anybody who is comfortable with meters.
Reticle ranging is a skill that doesnt get used often but can be handy to know. I have a phone with GPS but I still know how to navigate with a topo map and a compass.
Reticle ranging is a skill that doesnt get used often but can be handy to know. I have a phone with GPS but I still know how to navigate with a topo map and a compass.
Last edited:
They can send me 1 “)
Frim my experience, MRAD , or MIL works best when ur measuring ur range in meters. Tac scopes in MIL are usually graduated in tenths: 1 click is 0.1 MIL which is exactly 1 cm at 100 meters. If u follow that. Then 10 clicks is 10 cm at 100 meters, 20 cm at 200 meters, etc. MIL scales are common in military applications. Most civilian ranges will measure in yards rather that meters so I find MOA more useful. MOA tac scopes r typically graduated in quarter MOA (minutes of angle) such that 1 clickis 1/4” at 100 yds so 4 clicks = 1” at 100 yds. Mathematically, 1 MOA is abt 1.047” at 100 yds but it’s close enuf to call 1”. 1MOA is 2” @ 200yds, etc. Google MIL vs MOA. You’ll probably get a much better explanation than this. Yes u can convert from one to the other easily if ur familiar with both. I’m just saying what I find most convenient. YMMV.
Cant help u on the reticle.
PS: MIL does NOT stand for military, as I may have erroneously lead u to believe in my last reply. MIL = milliradians or millirads or MIL for short. Same recommendation: Google MIL vs MOA, understand the differences then make ur choice.
Similar threads
