MRAD vs MOA. Which one?

[dwinmeade]

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

I have a Midas TAC, MOA...excellent scope, as well as, the Ares ETR 4.5-30×56 APLR2 FFP IR MOA UHD, which is more money though.

I use FFP MOA scopes because I can range find with them.

A 12" high standing-up woodchuck that is 6 MOA high in my scope...is 200 yards away. 4 MOA high...300 yards away. 12 MOA high, spit on him first...only 100 yards away.

A 6" high prone woodchuck that is 6 MOA high in my scope...is 100 yards away. 4 MOA high...150 yards away. 2 MOA high...is 300 yards away.

A 24" high (back to ground) coyote that is 6 MOA high in my scope...is 400 yards away. 4 MOA high...600 yards away. 12 MOA high...200 yards away.

Athlon explains the formula for all the MOA scopes they sell.

 

[Kmccord]

Don't let the bling, bling extras sway you away from the better scope...better scope companies don't need the bling, bling extras to move their product, others do.

I don't believe Athlon is a better scope when comparing the Strike Eagle to the Midas Tac. My grandson has the first Gen Athlon BTR Ares in 4.5-27x50 FFP in MIL, I own a Gen 1 Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 and comparing the two they are on the same playing field, the difference, the Athlon had a less positive click when dialing up, the Vortex illuminate the MOA/MIL numbers in your reticle, the Athlon did not, my Viper came with sunshade and lens covers. I believe the difference in price is 100.00 for Athlon, so maybe having you purchase the shade and lense covers is why they have it lower, if those items do not matter, then Athlon is the scope. In the end it is what floats your boat and whatever anyone else thinks is null and void.

 

[P7M13]

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:

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.

Engineering:

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.

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.

 

[schmi015]

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.

Not many people can shoot the difference between 1/4moa and .1mil. There are scope in .05mil to increments now so 1/4moa 1/8moa are moot points.
You should switch to mrad cause it's one systems of measurement. Moa has become bastardized you have shooter moa (smoa) (iphy) inch per hundred yards, and moa. Your NightForce that says .25 moa actually adjust .26moa for every quarter you turn it.

 

[BrentM]

Except I provided multiple examples of SFP mil scopes that are the same price as MOA.

FFP MOA scopes are also more.

FFP is irrelevant to the two.

I cannot be held responsible for others false interpretations. It was irrelevant and shouldn't have been brought up. If anything you almost want to reinforce my point

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.

 

[Badgerclaw]

I didn't read all the replies, maybe someone mentioned this. Most posts I read talked about math, which is more precise, revolution per turret, yadda yadda. Who cares.

If it's a hunting rifle. Both will allow you to hit the target fine, the difference being, I can use an MOA reticle to measure the tines on an elk, how tall or wide a buck is, and almost score an animal before I shoot (if its bedded down or feeding and I have time) because I'm american and I think in inches. Also if the range finder takes a cramp (I don't trust electronics) I can do math and range the animal easier. I know what a tree that's two feet wide at the base looks like. I don't know how many miles that same tree is to do the math, get a range in meters and then convert to yards.

If you trust electronics and measure your distance in meters, go mil. If you think in inches and range things in yards, go MOA and learn how to use your reticle.

 

[XSIVSPD]

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.

Ugh. I'm getting tired of repeating the the same thing. There is less math involved using moa to inches than using mrad to inches. You can't argue that. You should probably read the entire thread before posting though.

287yds and a 14moa rack? Round up to 300. 3x14 is 42. Hmm, that's close enough to warrant doing the actual numbers. So I added 13yds 13 x14 is 182. Move the decimal, subtract 1.82 from 42 and you get 40.18. That's close enough to the arbitrary 40" that I don't want to risk it.

 

[MTbackwoods]

Why calculate misses in inches, then convert to MOA?

If you have an MOA reticle, you have a ruler right in front of your face. If you missed by 2 MOA, the dial or hold the 2 MOA correction. If you can see your miss well enough to guess the inches, then you can certainly see well enough to measure it with the ruler in your scope.

I'm teaching my fiancé, my best friend and his wife to shoot and hunt long range with me. They don't have the whole MOA system down yet. And I shoot magnum rifles with enough recoil to put me off target. So I get my corrections in inches due to my spotters being inexperienced

Don't let the bling, bling extras sway you away from the better scope...better scope companies don't need the bling, bling extras to move their product, others do.

And the throw lever is the only perk I see. However, I like the locking turrets and the extra adjustment that the Vortex has. But I know the Athlon has better glass and a better zero-stop system. My problem is that there are no Athlon dealers near me so I can't compare them. Both companies have great warranties so that's a wash. The Athlon is 4 oz lighter too. But both of my rifles are 9.5 lbs naked so 4 oz really won't spare me any sweat. It's a wonderful time to be a shooter. A painfully wonderful time. So many options and so little money

 

[brentc]

Your NightForce that says .25 moa actually adjust .26moa for every quarter you turn it.

Not quite. Your Nighforce that says .25 MOA will (should or is supposed to) adjust .26 INCHES per click at 100 yards. The units matter.

 

[arch408]

They do work, the do track ok, the turret clicks are mushy, but that's just a feel thing. Where you will notice big difference between a $300 Vortex scope and a $1000 Vortex scope is when the sun is setting in front of you, or even worse, you are hog hunting at night with the moon over the top of you. I had one of the entry level Vortex scopes on an AR10 several years back set up for hog hunting at 100 yards (didnt need anything fancy right?) Wrong. It was like looking through a milk jug at night. The moonlight washed out the sight picture so bad it was completely useless. I was lucky enough to have a hunting partner beside me that had a much nicer scope so I could compare them on the spot... The result...I moved up the chain to much better glass (went with a Trijicon AccuPower 2.5-10X56) and a bit larger objective and it is night and day different. Great scope for the money if you don't need the exposed turrets BTW. No white wash effect, perfect clarity edge to edge and on a night with decent moonlight we dont need any artificial light to hunt.

 

[Lee Goodwin]

What do you think of the glass and the erector system?

So far so good. I have shot out to 800 with my Ares on a 300 wm. And I can't hit well but the scope was fine, I think it holds point of aim. It has soft click turrets. That doesn't bug me. Zero stop. I just thought since it was $450 and regularly 800 plus, I gambled. The scope i have is nice. The glass has a rating and I am not around the scope or its box but I think it is H something. The letters seem to matter. It has coatings on the glass. Only draw back it is imported. A lot is now. Or components of USA brands...I would buy this scope again.

 

[User4302021]

Ugh. I'm getting tired of repeating the the same thing. There is less math involved using moa to inches than using mrad to inches. You can't argue that. You should probably read the entire thread before posting though.

287yds and a 14moa rack? Round up to 300. 3x14 is 42. Hmm, that's close enough to warrant doing the actual numbers. So I added 13yds 13 x14 is 182. Move the decimal, subtract 1.82 from 42 and you get 40.18. That's close enough to the arbitrary 40" that I don't want to risk it.

A 42" rack is just short of 12mils at 100 yards. Rounding 287 yards to 300 yards... 12/3=4... So a good rack should be about 4mils at that distance.

Not as hard as your math, but Fudds gotta Fudd.

 

[MTbackwoods]

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

 

[Lee Goodwin]

What do you think of the glass and the erector system?

Here is another scope I have tried and liked, for the money spent. I have two and both are on 243 s and have gone out to 800 yards. Well enough.

Mueller Eraticator Rifle Scope 8.5-25x 50mm Illuminated Dot Reticle

Designed specifically for long-range varmint hunting, the Eradicator features a fine cross hair reticle with an illuminated dot that covers less than...

www.midwayusa.com