MRAD vs MOA. Which one?

[MTbackwoods]

MRAD stuff is usually more expensive because of the tacticool factor.

Touché. But as for my original post, would you be willing the sacrifice the extra distance per revolution of the turret to go MOA? I'm just trying to get opinions

 

[milo-2]

How come?

I guess I grew into LR shooting with turrets and a duplex reticle, knowing distance and target size, i could and still can figure and make corrections right now in moa in my empty head.
I hope I did not confuse the situation, I do more than fine with a mil reticle, and am fine with the switch.
I was more or less saying, shoot what the people you hang around with shoot, easier.
My elr rifle has an moa scope, as does my go to AR15, 1-8 LPVO

 

[A/C Guy]

Touché. But as for my original post, would you be willing the sacrifice the extra distance per revolution of the turret to go MOA? I'm just trying to get opinions

I would say Yes. The extra turns amount to very little time.

Find the reticle that you really like. Then choose the scope with that reticle. The proper reticle will allow you to shoot without touching the turrets in many situations. That is more accurate than counting clicks or turns.

 

[MTbackwoods]

Fair enough. I'll probably stick with MOA then because it's what I know and that's what my fiancé and my hunting partners also have. I'll just keep it simple for now. And I may be asking too much of the scope for distance per revolution because I know the glass isn't the greatest

 

[TheBoctor]

They're both fine and are equivalent to each other. I see a lot of people on other forums talking about how it's too easy to get lost in dope with the big numbers MOA spits out. They say it's easier when you're ballistics program kicks out 6.7mil and it's a direct dial vs it spitting out 4.88moa and having to decide between 4.75 and 5.0. They also say Mils are more intuitive, but pretty much everyone in the US uses Yards for distance, which pretty much negates the easy intuitive math. I also have a much easier time visualizing 1/60th of a degree than I do 1/1000th of a radian. Hell the only way I can visualize a radian is dig way back into my school memory banks and convert it to degrees, and you've got to throw Pi into there.

 

[CobraM197]

F-class typically use MOA. PRS and NRL tactical competitions typically see more MRAD.

 

[A/C Guy]

They're both fine and are equivalent to each other. I see a lot of people on other forums talking about how it's too easy to get lost in dope with the big numbers MOA spits out. They say it's easier when you're ballistics program kicks out 6.7mil and it's a direct dial vs it spitting out 4.88moa and having to decide between 4.75 and 5.0.

Ironically, the 4.75 or the 5.0 may actually be closer to POI. The ballistics program rounded either up or down to 6.7, so it's literally a crap shoot either way. I've used both and have no preference either way. They both work equally well.

They also say Mils are more intuitive, but pretty much everyone in the US uses Yards for distance, which pretty much negates the easy intuitive math. I also have a much easier time visualizing 1/60th of a degree than I do 1/1000th of a radian. Hell the only way I can visualize a radian is dig way back into my school memory banks and convert it to degrees, and you've got to throw Pi into there.

MRAD is based upon 1000th of a radian. There are 6283.185 milradians in a circle. *MRAD is based upon Pi; literally. That is why 1 MOA = 1.047 and not 1 inch. Neither is more easy or more difficult to understand at a working level. The only way MRAD is easier is if you range in meters and not yards and you use metric sighting targets instead of American targets with 1" squares. Even then the difference is that you count full turns and tenths compared to counting each click as 1/4 MOA or 1/8 MOA.

Funny how grade school math sneaks it's way into life later. Had our teachers used hunting scope math, we all would have paid better attention and would have aced the test.


o7/09 * Fixed a typo/error. Sorry if it caused confusion

 

[MTbackwoods]

Funny how grade school math sneaks it's way into life later. Had our teachers used hunting scope math, we all would have paid better attention and would have aced the test.

Ain't that the truth. I used to hate numbers and now they control my life. So I'm looking at the new Vortex Strike Eagle 5-25 for $700. Anybody have other recommendations that fall in the same category for price and features?

 

[gilk1]

I prefer MOA b/c it gives you a finer pop adjustment than MRAD. Turret revolutions are irrelevant and amount to very little time. The only thing that's is good about MRAD is most shooters and spotters in the PRS world use it so you can directly compare what wind/drop others shooters are experiencing. I would say get the system that other people you shoot with are using. This makes spotting and sharing data much easier.

 

[RangerLuft]

I know this is going to be the unpopular post but hey out to 800 I know I'm faster. Anyways get yourself an optic with a Hours type reticle shoot allot confirm your reticle and leave the dials alone.

 

[BrentM]

I have both and use SFP and FFP. I use mil and ffp for comp and moa and sfp for hunting. There are pro's and cons to both but I have zero issue using either measurement simply because I don't think about MOA or mil in inches, its just a dial or hold solution based on angle. Literally it is either dial 15moa or 4.3mil, hold wind 1moa or .3mil.

The SFP vs ffp issue is more preference based regarding how well you see the cross hairs in low light and dark back grounds etc. SFP reticles are much easier for me to see at low power and lower light etc. If the target is out there a ways, chances are I'll be running a bit higher power so it's not as big of an issue but it is something a person needs to consider. Some people will argue the hold is not accurate on SFP unless at the proper sub tension, true, but if you are having to hold 5 moa, it's pretty likely you are far enough from the target you will be close to the right sub tension for a good hold.

In the end just don't over complicate mil vs moa.

 

[tylerw02]

MRAD stuff is usually more expensive because of the tacticool factor.

I've yet to see a single scope maker charge more for mRad. That's BS.

 

[BrentM]

I've yet to see a single scope maker charge more for mRad. That's BS.

It's normally because MIL scopes are almost always FFP and they are generally $100 more.

 

[tylerw02]

Probably the best explanation of the two systems.

As he first points out, both are measurements of angles, not distances (inches vs centimeters). Some relies here have mistakenly mentioned the inches vs cm debate.

An excellent point he makes is that the MOA system actually has finer adjustments; 1/4 MOA is smaller than .1 Mil and with some scopes offering 1/8 MOA, that makes the .1 Mil seem huge in comparison. So if you want absolute accuracy of POA and POI being the same in longer distances, the MOA system is more likely to get you to your goal. With MRAD, it is possible that one click up is too high and one click down is too low. Not a big issue for punching paper or steel, but it could be the difference in a one shot kill vs a wounded animal that gets away.

This is full of misinformation. And with environmental ever changing and ranges not being perfect increments sometimes you may be closest to a click on MOA. Sometimes it may be closer to a click on mrad.

If 0.08 MOA, the difference between 0.1 mrad and 1/4 MOA is the difference between killing and wounding an animal, only a moron takes that shot.

My wager is anybody that stated they have a rifle that precise and they are that capable to tell a difference in the field is a liar.