Ok I see the reason for this now. A lot of people use CM as their unit of measure when using Milradian angles because 1 MIL is roughly 10CM at 100 meters which makes the math easier in your head as distance changes. Not because Mil is metric, but because Mil plays nice with metric distances.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
MRAD vs MOA. Which one?
- Thread starter MTbackwoods
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
The vertical adjustment difference between 1 click with moa vs mrad at 1000yd is 2.62" (1/4moa) and 3.6" (0.1 mrad). That means with moa the farthest possible deviation between your poi and aiming point is 1.3". With mrad it's 1.8" and it gets worse with more range. In the tactical world, that's not a huge difference but why purposely handicap your ability to hit targets? Compounding error adds up fast.
azarcher10x
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 277
I saw Midway had Viper PST Gen II FFP for 750.00!
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
mili is 1/1000th. I and most others I know, still use yards and inches. It's really easy that way. For instance, at 1000 yards, a mil is 36". A man is 2 mils tall. So on and so forth. But it's easy to just use the mil relation formula.
Both work fine, but mrad is easier due to the formula, being 1/1000th makes it simple, and spotting scopes come in mil where it is rare to see an MOA spotting scope.
PNWdude67
Well-Known Member
Makes no difference in how "easy" it is using yards or meters for distance to target with MRAD. All my range cards are in yards and elevations and wind holds in mils. It's is actually may be less confusing to use yards for those who grew up with it and the Milradian system works just fine with it.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.
MRAD is based upon 1000th of a radian. There are 6283.185 milradians in a circle. MOA 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.
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
I guarantee neither you or your rifle shoot under .08 MOA.
Both will have a degree to which it will not align with specified dope. In some cases the MOA will be closer. I some cases the mrad will.
Use what you know. I lean towards MOA except for my scopes which mil dots. On my MOA scopes, I know that at 100 yards, 1 MOA is a tad over 1 inch. For me, that's close enough. So if you know your range and your ballistics, you know how many MOA to dial or adjust your hold. But if you have a mil scope it works the same way except that 1 mil equals 3.6 inches. I just think that the math is easier with MOA. Basicly, different strokes for different folks. Use whichever you like best. If you use a app like Strelok, it doesn't matter which you have, you range, you punch it into the app and you either dial or use the holdover it gives you. One thing I like about the MOA reticle is it has less tick marks than the MIL reticle. So use what you like or know the best. I say forget all the advice you get, practice with both, and be happy. They both have their advantages. Good luck.
kmansour111
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2014
- Messages
- 6
BTW,
MTbackwoods:
You may want to look at Athlon MIDAS TAC - Great value same quality as Vortex, lower price and First Focal Point, 6-24 - X 50
Agree, these Midas Tacs get great reviews. Arken is another one that is a good value for the money but prob not the best choice for a hunting rig as they are a bit heavy. Arken also has a super long lead time. (Like 5 to 6 months now due to COVID) But nice glass and real good mechanics in the $600 range
XSIVSPD
Well-Known Member
Are either of those scenarios easier than looking at rack that measures ~10moa @ 405yds and knowing that it's 40+ inches wide?
I've been eyeing Arken for a bit now. The lead time is a huge turnoff as well as they aren't established. They could go out of business and then I have no warranty. I had looked at Athlon in the past but I'll give them another gander
Its similar if you use CM to measure and meters as your distance. 10cm is 1mil at 100 meters. (Learned that today) I have always tried to do the 3.6"/100 yard calc in my head. Where it gets difficult, as mentioned earlier in the thread, is when your local hunting laws specify rack width in inches, you need to calculate that in CM and remember it when you are using your reticle for measuring for legal min size etc. So your reference to converting CM in your head made sense after I thought about it some.
Last edited:
XSIVSPD
Well-Known Member
So the answer is "not quite"? It's just one less thing to remember for me. 40,48 and 50 are easier to remember than 101.6, 121.92, and 127 even if you round them up to the next whole cm
For the reason you mention here, I dumped all of my MIL scopes about 4 or 5 years ago and went 100% MOA. its just easier for me to range in yards and dial thinking 1in/100yds. Plus most ranges you go to are set up in yards not meters, so you are back to using the funky 3.6" math.
