MRAD vs MOA. Which one?

[remingtonman_25_06]

I started with MOA 20 years ago and I prefer MOA. It is a little finer adjustment too. I only have 1 scope with MRAD and I dont use it that much. Only reason I bought it was because it was a steal of a deal, otherwise I would've went with the MOA. I'm not a formal target shooter or sniper, so MOA works just fine for my LR hunting and informal steel shooting...

 

[LongRangeFever]

I think you meant to say that MIL was based on Pi. MOA is based on a simple Trigonometry calculation using angles and triangle geometry. With a known adjacent side distance (distance to target) and a known angle (measured in 1/60th degree), you can calculate the length of the side opposite the angle using a trig Tangent function. Tangent being the relationship between the opposite side of the right triangle over the adjacent side. if my old Math serves me right the 100 yard effect of a 1 MOA shift would be (100)XTan (1/16)=target impact change (in yards). which yields .0290yds or .0872 ft or 1.04719 in. That is why one MOA is 1.04" at 100 yards. Its all triangles these days!! For most of us we just round this off to 1" at 100 yards.

Good Lord man! I think you just made my brain bleed a little.

 

[A/C Guy]

Go for the best glass and turrets you can for your dollars. In the end, MIL, MOA or a mix of both doesn't matter. Master whatever you have.
I thought the following posts from this thread highlighted perfectly, the difference between sales and engineering.
Sales:

Engineering:

An example of a combined result of the above two quotes is the Leupold MK4, with MIL reticle and MOA turrets. Got it used for a song because the owner couldn't adjust to the two systems. I love the glass.

I fixed the typo after it was mentioned.
I have a Zeiss that is a mixed design as well. I don't find it as difficult to use as the majority of experts on YouTube claim it should be. I think people over think the differences.

 

[A/C Guy]

This whole discussion is about preference. One prefers MOA and one prefers MRAD. There is no right or wrong and this whole discussion is getting very frustrating. I don't understand why everyone has to argue and try to be right. Especially when there is no right. Nor a wrong. It's PREFERENCE. So I ask that future posts relay positive information and not this argumentative . Thanks

Shall we move on to our discussion of which oil is best for our trucks for a little less debate?

 

[Kmccord]

Rotella T 15w-40.

 

[A/C Guy]

This has nothing to do with trajectory, wind, or miss correction.

What if the target is at 287 yards? Is the math easy then? The math for determining size or distance requires equal effort in both systems and is not a consideration for the issue we are discussing.

www.milldot.com sells a pocket slide that you look up the guesstimated range in one column and it gives you the MRAD or MOA corrections in another column. No need for batteries. Just slide the slide rule to the range and angle if extreme and the correct adjust is shown in the other column. Simple to use. There are a lot of videos showing how to range using your scope reticle if you want or need.

 

[User4302021]

www.milldot.com sells a pocket slide that you look up the guesstimated range in one column and it gives you the MRAD or MOA corrections in another column. No need for batteries. Just slide the slide rule to the range and angle if extreme and the correct adjust is shown in the other column. Simple to use. There are a lot of videos showing how to range using your scope reticle if you want or need.

I think you missed the thrust of my discourse.

I am intimately familiar with both sytems and have no trouble shooting or ranging with either.

 

[archangel485]

I think you meant to say that MIL was based on Pi. MOA is based on a simple Trigonometry calculation using angles and triangle geometry. With a known adjacent side distance (distance to target) and a known angle (measured in 1/60th degree), you can calculate the length of the side opposite the angle using a trig Tangent function. Tangent being the relationship between the opposite side of the right triangle over the adjacent side. if my old Math serves me right the 100 yard effect of a 1 MOA shift would be (100)XTan (1/16)=target impact change (in yards). which yields .0290yds or .0872 ft or 1.04719 in. That is why one MOA is 1.04" at 100 yards. Its all triangles these days!! For most of us we just round this off to 1" at 100 yards.

Good Lord man! I think you just made my brain bleed a little.

haha, don't let your head hurt too much. @Brad7348 you can actually use trig functions on radians as well, in fact radians work much better with trig functions especially in calculus. Practically speaking, none of that really matters in shooting. One or the other might be a little more convenient to use for measuring target size through a scope or estimating range if you're doing that, but otherwise it's just 2 different sized slices of a pie.

 

[MTbackwoods]

Initial thoughts are pretty good. Take what I say with a grain of salt because I have zero experience with higher end optics but I'm very happy so far. Eye box is a little unforgiving but far from the worse I've seen. Parallax adjustment was incredibly stiff but loosened up quickly. Turrets are a little mushy but maybe it'll improve. If not I'll try wiping out the internals and see if that helps. I'll be taking it out this weekend to do sight-in and I hung a few plates today at about 700 and 900 yards that I'll try to ring. I'll report back soon with more

 

[tylerw02]

I was reinforcing your point in the beginning and explaining why people "think" mrad is more expensive. Had nothing to do with the unit of measure. You just like to argue and hear yourself talk. You completely missed the point.

Roger that, my mistake.

 

[tylerw02]

Haha you'd think that, but I was looking at sig tango 6 3-18 and the MIL DEVL (I think) reticle was over $200 more than the others

Likely because it was a discontinued close out and the mRad sells better. But for giggles I looked them up. Look to be selling (and retailing) for the same price.

 

[MTbackwoods]

Very happy with the scope thus far. 25x is a little hazy when looking at small targets but I have no doubt that on deer sized game it would be no issue. The scope tracked pretty good. The attached picture is a side by side comparison of the Strike Eagle on my 7mm and Nightforce SHV on my 338. Both tests performed at same time, side by side. SHV is on the left and Vortex on the right. Vortex dialed 32 inches and the SHV 31.5. I dialed 30 moa at exactly 100 yards on both. It's close enough for me. Glass clarity on an 8 inch plate at 692 yards was very comparable between the two scopes, with the SHV on 14x and the Vortex on 20x. Ballistic program gave me 13 moa come-up and it resulted in 2 consecutive hits. And I love the reticle. Love it. Turrets click much better and the mushy feeling is pretty well gone. One complaint is that the hash marks don't quite line up after dial up. It's perfect on zero but even at 13 moa, it's a hair over the hash mark. Low light test went very well. I waited until 20 minutes after sunset and stayed til 40 minutes past, 10 minutes past "legal" light. I would be confident in a 600+ yard shot on game still. The illuminated reticle is my first and I kinda like it. Setting 10 was way too much but 3 was perfect for me. Overall I'm happy. Little complaints here and there but it'll work for me. If you're used to budget optics, you'll probably love it. If you're a snob, you may not

 

[Kmccord]

Where is the pictures?

 

[Greyfox]

Shown are my two most used rifles for my most frequent applications. A Nightforce F1 5x25 ATACR FFP/MIL mounted on my PRS rifle, and a Nightforce F2 5x25 ATACR SFP/MOA mounted on my LR hunting rifle. Both scope purchased at the time of introduction, they display comparable dimensions, glass, and mechanical characteristics....except for the difference of MOA vs MIL, and front vs second plane. The PRS rifles F2 is longer because it has the sunshade attached. The cost difference at the time of purchase was and additional $400(+15%) for the F2. The reticles are MIL-R on the F1 and MOAR on the F2. While I prefer the simplicity of the MIL-R on the F1, upgrading to a more sophisticated reticle such as the TREMOR3 would have added as much as an additional $400.
While I have interchanged the scopes on my hunting rifle with comparable results, I haven't used the F2(SFP/MOA)on my PRS rifle. While I could perhaps get by with the MOA system of the F2, the increased click values and finer reticle substentions of the SFP would prove a hindrance in optimizing my times. A SFP for the varied distances would be a show stopper for reticle use only stages. For hunting, I prefer the SFP/MOA. Easily, +90% of the time, my hunting scopes are used at HALF or MAX magnification. The magnification ring is marked for both settings. Windage holds are easily adjusted if needed Full or half substention values. Unlike the static conditions of a PRS match setting, my 70 year old brain thinks in yards, feet, and inches, particularly in the wilds. With decades of mental ballistic, wind, distance, and animal/antler sizing calculations using MOA, this system is well imbedded, and instinctive for me. I will say that aside from being on the heavy side at 38Oz, it soon becomes an afterthought given the overall performance/quality of these scopes.