Decision time-- MOA or MRAD??

Sporting Lad

Sporting Lad

Regular
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island
I'm looking at a Vortex Viper PST to live on my new Savage 10 FCP HS and I'm faced with deciding whether to stay with my MOA system or
to switch over to MRAD.
All my rifles have been sighted in MOA, even my M-14 has Garand iron sites in MOA/yards, so I know that system pretty well.

Backgrounder: I was a US Army tank gunner/commander when they switched us over from ranging in yards to meters so we'd be like the
rest of NATO. I bought in to the metric system then, but I ended up returning to yards again for my civilian shooting (Canada being too close
the the US to go metric?).

Now I'm looking at these younger guys and they're all talking in radians & mildots. I know what they're talking about and I'm wondering if
I ought to make the jump with the new scope. That will mean working with a different way of conceptualizing size/distances--a paradigm shift,
but if I decide to stay with the MOA system will I end up left behind in an obsolescent shooting world? Will it be like owning a Betamax?

What do you think I should do?
 
as long as the turrets and retical match your good to go.

MOA is a finer adjustment (.25 vs .36" @ 100yds) shooting tiny groups at long range, MOA may be a better choice, just banging steel or rocks, take your pick.. 1/4MOA click at 1000yds = 2.5", 1/10th mil - 3.6", so roughtly 1" per click difference

keep in mind that any retical is only accurate at a certain mag in a SFP scope, but always accurate in a FFP

each systems have the pros and cons, but each is just an angular unit of measurement. so when used for rangeing , its just a matter of useing the correct formula , if your using holds on the retical, its a matter of knowing your bullet drop and wind drift, in that measurement

my personal choice - mil/mil in FFP
 
Last edited:
No teaching Old Dog new clicks...

Well, I'm an old dog who's comfortable with the MOA system (same as my range buddies) so unless somebody can point out the advantages of MRAD
over MOA, then I believe I'll stick with what I know best.

Lord Pepper--I'm not about to change over all my guns to metric, and I won't mix n' match, thx.

Ultimonk--Good point about the SFP thing--This Vortex is FFP--pretty amazing how that works!


Last call for members posting comments about how MRAD is far superior......

 (;0 ]
 
most ranges in Canada are 100m intervals... so the Mrad works bang on. were as MOA is a bit more fudge factor with what 109 yards at 100m?

other then that and the worm rule for range finding it not really "better"
 
I have both. They both work.

I prefer mils and meters for long range. Its all meters in our system anyway. Doesnt really change anything though. Make sure turrets and reticle match though. Adjusting moas on a mildot is retarded.
 
Read an article about S&B scopes comparing MRAD and MOA.

Recollection is (please correct if wrong):
MRAD elevation turret is only one turn, 2.x for MOA.
MRAD is simple base 10 math, cm to m. MOA 12 inch in foot, 3' in a yard is mind blowing. Shooting Range is all M, no yard.
MRAD for S&B was couple hundred cheaper than MOA.

Still saving for that 5x25 S&B.
 
burnaby said:
Read an article about S&B scopes comparing MRAD and MOA.

Recollection is (please correct if wrong):
MRAD elevation turret is only one turn, 2.x for MOA.
MRAD is simple base 10 math, cm to m. MOA 12 inch in foot, 3' in a yard is mind blowing. Shooting Range is all M, no yard.
MRAD for S&B was couple hundred cheaper than MOA.

Still saving for that 5x25 S&B.
Click to expand...

depends on model, the PMII series in MRAD, 10x and under magnification are single turn, over 10x are double turn and the 12-50 is multi turn.. generally speaking, there is an exception or 2 i am aware of
 
Last edited:
No Eurotalk spoken here.

Here on Vancouver Island the two ranges I shoot at are marked in yards. I was a bit surprised when I got here, cos the army I served in had gone metric 50 years ago with the introduction of the 7.62x51 NATO and its weapons system. But here the club execs are, er ...'Old School' and it seems to have rubbed off on the younger members. At first I tried talking in Metric, but it was a language not many shooters were/are familiar with. I've since returned to 1950s speak--yards, MOA, fps, lbs & inches.
Any talk of mildots and other shooters look at you like you're some kind of foreigner from Euroland :)0 |

Since this is the case I might be better served by an MOA scope just so I'll be able to communicate with other members on the firing line.
 
All targets used in LR precision shooting use MOA for scaling.

I am unaware of any F class shooter using MRAD. There will certainly be a wider range of scopes available in MOA. Maybe add Sightron to your list of scopes to test.

Eeeny, meeny

Jerry
 
Sighton vs Vortex?

Thanks for that, Jerry. I'm leaning more towards staying with my tried n' true MOA system.

Yes, Sightron is the other contender I'm considering. A range buddy has one and raves about it. Unfortunately, he's over The Hump in
Port Alberni and I get over there only every fortnight, plus I've not been able to locate a vendor on the Island who carries them.

Which model Sightron would compare favourably to the Vortex Viper’ PST 6-24x50 ?
FFP is essential to me.
thx
Tom
 
Sporting Lad said:
Well, I'm an old dog who's comfortable with the MOA system (same as my range buddies) so unless somebody can point out the advantages of MRAD
over MOA, then I believe I'll stick with what I know best.

Lord Pepper--I'm not about to change over all my guns to metric, and I won't mix n' match, thx.

Ultimonk--Good point about the SFP thing--This Vortex is FFP--pretty amazing how that works!


Last call for members posting comments about how MRAD is far superior......

 (;0 ]
Click to expand...

The choice to go MoA or MRAD, or SFP or FFP is dependent upon your intended use. Rather than falling into the trap of this is far superior to that, look at MoA/MRAD/SFP/FFP as tools, and each tool is better suited than others, for specific things. Pardon me if any of this is redundant for you.

If your intention is to get into F-Class, shoot at targets that are at known distances, shoot from a bench, etc...then a scope with MoA turrets and a finer SFP reticle has distinct advantages.

First, 1/4 MoA or 1/8 MoA clicks are finer than 1/10th MRAD clicks, permitting you to make sharper adjustments to your point of impact and your shot corrections: 1/4 MoA is approximately 0.250 inches @ 100y, 1/8 MoA is approximately 0.125 inches @ 100y, while 0.1 MRAD is approximately 0.36 inches @ 100y. Remember that, despite common usage and association, MoA is not imperial and MRAD is not metric - they are both measurements of angle. As such, 1 MoA is not exactly 1 inch at 100 yards; it's actually 1.05 inches at 100 yards, which will have an ongoing 5% error in adjustment if compensation is not considered. Kind of another topic, but worth mentioning. It's also worth mentioning, that repeated testing has demonstrated that the difference between 1/4 MoA and 1/10 MRAD adjustment boils down to about 1/4 inch difference in impact at 1000 yards, due strictly to the values of the adjustment.

Second, a SFP reticle will give the shooter the same sight picture, with the same reticle sub-tension sizes (not values though), at any magnification. Some prefer this, as the reticle does not get larger as the magnification increases (such as with a FFP reticle), which can result in the target being obscured, thus affecting the shooters ability to make fine adjustments to the point of impact. However, if using a reticle with sub-tension values (i.e. 1/4 MoA per hash-mark), those values will only be true at a specific magnification (typically at max power).

If you plan on getting into tactical match style shooting, shooting at unknown distances and making corrections, shooting at movers, or shooting in a manner that requires quicker adjustments, then a scope with MRAD turrets, and a FFP reticle has advantages.

First, as MRAD adjustment is "coarser", you can make quicker adjustments per click, allowing you to get from one distance to the next in a shorter amount of time. Likewise, given the inherent 10-base system of MRAD/mils, once you understand the math, some find it much easier to make MRAD/mil-based estimations, than with MoA.

Second, a FFP reticle will provide the shooter with the same sub-tension values, at any magnification. Thus, whether the scope is at 5x, 15x, 20x, 30x...you can rely upon the dots/hashes to make point of impact adjustment within the sight picture. Once again, this feature allows the shooter to make adjustments, relatively quicker than with a SFP reticle.

Speaking personally, if I'm punching paper at the range, I prefer a scope with 1/8th MoA turrets, and a very fine reticle in the second focal plane. If I'm shooting coyotes (which appear at random ranges, move, and change their range quickly), I prefer a first focal plane scope, with MRAD sub-tension values within the reticle, and turrets.

To restated with a bit more depth, when shooting paper for grouping accuracy, I don't care about speedy adjustments, and I don't want a big, fat reticle line or dot, obscuring my target at maximum magnification. I have the time to dismount my rifle, range the target, make the required click adjustments, remount the rifle, center my reticle, get composed, and shoot. If I'm shooting at coyotes, the opposite is true: I don't have time to dismount my rifle, range the target, and make fine click adjustments - I prefer to adjust on the fly, and I like that regardless of what mag I'm on, I know the range of each sub-tension line.

Hopefully that helps a bit. Feel free to PM with any questions...even though I don't currently sell Vortex!
 
"PSS": thx for that comprehensive explanation. I may well take you up on the offer to pick your brain for info.
At present I've narrowed it down to an 'MoA' Vortex Viper’ PST 6-24x50(FFP) or a comparable Sightron.
My choice will now be dictated primarily by availability/service close to home.
 
plainSight Solutions said:
T

First, 1/4 MoA or 1/8 MoA clicks are finer than 1/10th MRAD clicks, permitting you to make sharper adjustments to your point of impact and your shot corrections: 1/4 MoA is approximately 0.250 inches @ 100y, 1/8 MoA is approximately 0.125 inches @ 100y, while 0.1 MRAD is approximately 0.36 inches @ 100y. Remember that, despite common usage and association, MoA is not imperial and MRAD is not metric - they are both measurements of angle. As such, 1 MoA is not exactly 1 inch at 100 yards; it's actually 1.05 inches at 100 yards, which will have an ongoing 5% error in adjustment if compensation is not considered. Kind of another topic, but worth mentioning. It's also worth mentioning, that repeated testing has demonstrated that the difference between 1/4 MoA and 1/10 MRAD adjustment boils down to about 1/4 inch difference in impact at 1000 yards, due strictly to the values of the adjustment.

Second, a SFP reticle will give the shooter the same sight picture, with the same reticle sub-tension sizes (not values though), at any magnification. Some prefer this, as the reticle does not get larger as the magnification increases (such as with a FFP reticle), which can result in the target being obscured, thus affecting the shooters ability to make fine adjustments to the point of impact. However, if using a reticle with sub-tension values (i.e. 1/4 MoA per hash-mark), those values will only be true at a specific magnification (typically at max power).

I
Click to expand...


just curious, whose testing?? from a mathematical stand point the difference should be 1" not 1/4"..... since i doubt any person or any rifle can shoot a 1/4" variance at 1000 , something doesn't add up on your statement

1MOA = 1.045" @ 100y
1.045 / 4 = .26125 per click
.26125 x 10 (10 - 100yds in 1000y)
2.6125" per click at 1000

1mil = 1/1000 of distance
1mil @ 1000y = 36" (1 yard)
36 / 10
3.6" per click


#2- the recital doesnt get bigger in a FFP per-say, it is a constant to the target, so if it covers 1" of target at min zoom, it still only covers 1" of target at max zoom, as the whole image magnifies.. i know it may have been a simple mis-wording as your typed quite the reply out, but it is important to note for any one reading this that doesnt know


now to sporting lad- iv dealt with jerry @ mystic precision quite a few times now and hes great to deal with if a sightron is in the line up, id be e-mailing him first for info / availability of one
 
Last edited:
ultimate_monkey said:
just curious, whose testing?? from a mathematical stand point the difference should be 1" not 1/4"..... since i doubt any person or any rifle can shoot a 1/4" variance at 1000 , something doesn't add up on your statement

1MOA = 1.045" @ 100y
1.045 / 4 = .26125 per click
.26125 x 10 (10 - 100yds in 1000y)
2.6125" per click at 1000

1mil = 1/1000 of distance
1mil @ 1000y = 36" (1 yard)
36 / 10
3.6" per click
Click to expand...

As I defined above, we're talking strictly about the values of adjustment, ceterus paribus...not a shooter's ability to hold 1/4" at 1000y. Completely different things and not comparable.

At any rate, this topic has been discussed at length elsewhere and proofed by engineers and others who are good at math...easy to find if you know where to look.

The nuts and bolts are this:

Each gradient of adjustment (1/4 MoA, 1/8th MoA, and 1/10th MRAD) has predictable nodes where the respective click values will provide a more accurate POI adjustment, depending upon the distance to target. While 1/8 MoA should be able to provide finer correction than 1/4 MoA or 1/10th MRAD, this is also dependent upon where the click values fall upon the range spectrum. What follows is not my analysis, but I've put it here out of convenience for you:

• 1/4 MoA vs 1/10 MRAD: 1/4 MoA will get you on average 0.28" closer to your PoA than 1/10 MRAD will. Extreme differences are 0.97" advantage to 1/4 MoA and 0.97" advantage to MRAD (depending on the required adjustment, see graph).

• 1/4 MoA vs 1/8 MoA: 1/8 MoA will get you on average 0.27" closer to your PoA than 1/4 MoA will. Extreme differences are 1.29" advantage to 1/8 MoA and 0.00" advantage to 1/4 MoA

• 1/8 MoA vs 1/10 MRAD: 1/8 MoA will get you on average 0.55" closer to your PoA than 1/10 MRAD will. Extreme differences are 1.32" advantage to 1/8 MoA and 0.35" advantage to MRAD (depending on the required adjustment, see graph).





So depending on where the distance to target, each type of click value may or may not provide a better degree of point of impact correction.

But really, the relevant point is this (which also agrees with your point about no one being able to actually hold 1/4" at 1000 yards): at longer ranges, all three types of scopes adjust far more accurately than most shooters, so the difference between 1/4 MoA, 1/8 MoA, or 1/10 MRAD becomes less relevant, compared to how much adjustment can be crammed into the scope, and how long it takes to dial the required adjustment.

#2- the recital doesnt get bigger in a FFP per-say, it is a constant to the target, so if it covers 1" of target at min zoom, it still only covers 1" of target at max zoom, as the whole image magnifies.. i know it may have been a simple mis-wording as your typed quite the reply out, but it is important to note for any one reading this that doesnt know
Click to expand...

Visually, and measurably, an FFP reticle grows in size and thickness as magnification increases, and shrinks as magnification decreases. By virtue of what you said ("it is a constant to the target") as the image magnifies, the size/thickness of the reticle must also magnify. This is a well documented and measured phenomenon, and very clear in the comparison below (taken from one of many analyses and comparisons...this one is from Primal Rights http://www.primalrights.com/forum/article.php?a=4789):



Pretty easy to see, that at 16x, the FFP reticle is thicker and covers more of the target, than the SFP reticle...which is one of the reasons why F-Class shooters aren't fond of FFP reticles. If both of those scopes went to 20x, the difference would become even more pronounced. So if the objective is to punch tight groups, the shooter may prefer a "finer" SFP reticle. If the objective is just to hit the target, in more dynamic circumstances and with the advantage of constant adjustment within the reticle, who cares if the reticle appears bigger - go FFP.
 
for scope clicks - i think i may have misread what you were saying, first go around i read it i thought you were saying the difference per click for mil - moa was 1/4" my apologize . yes depending on the distance each one MAY work better then the other on getting you do a perfect POA / POI relation.

they are angular units of measurement and that does not mean they change how much they adjust at a given distance, numbers dont lie and for lack of my scientific terms, they work on a straight line, and that doesn't change or bend at distance. but that line may work better at a distance with mil or moa adjust ments i agree..

reticle - i see i made to much bold, i was trying to say that in a FFP the reticle doesnt cover any more or less of the target at any magnification.. it doesnt grow in relation to the target in terms of coverage, yes it appears in the scope that it becomes thicker, but its size does not change to the target. so it doesnt obscure more target when zoomed in..

as i said, it was probably a wording thing in the post, but by saying the reticle grows and obstructs the target as zoomed in, is mis-information
 
ultimate_monkey said:
reticle - i see i made to much bold, i was trying to say that in a FFP the reticle doesnt cover any more or less of the target at any magnification.. it doesnt grow in relation to the target in terms of coverage, yes it appears in the scope that it becomes thicker, but its size does not change to the target. so it doesnt obscure more target when zoomed in..

as i said, it was probably a wording thing in the post, but by saying the reticle grows and obstructs the target as zoomed in, is mis-information
Click to expand...

You're kind of chasing a ghost here. The relevant point is that an FFP reticle changes in size/thickness, and at higher mag will obscure more of a target than an SFP reticle. For benchrest/target shooters, this isn't desirable.
 
ultimate_monkey said:
So your saying a FFP WILL cover more if the target at max zoom then it will at min zoom ?
Click to expand...

You're stuck on some word-picking attempt to be "right".

Since we're into this, let's look at exactly what I said to trigger your obtuse argument:

"Second, a SFP reticle will give the shooter the same sight picture, with the same reticle sub-tension sizes (not values though), at any magnification. Some prefer this, as the reticle does not get larger as the magnification increases (such as with a FFP reticle), which can result in the target being obscured, thus affecting the shooters ability to make fine adjustments to the point of impact."

To which you replied:

"the recital doesnt get bigger in a FFP per-say, it is a constant to the target, so if it covers 1" of target at min zoom, it still only covers 1" of target at max zoom, as the whole image magnifies."

First, you are incorrect: an FFP reticle does, in fact, get bigger/fatter/thicker as the magnification increases. Just because the image gets bigger, does not mean the reticle hasn't actually become larger - it does. Are you saying it doesn't? Are you arguing that at high mag, an FFP does not obscure more of the target than an SFP?

You are correct that the area of coverage stays relative (again...that's the point of FFP), however you're errant in accusing me of stating that as an FFP reticle grows, it obscures more of the target at high mag, than it does at low mag.

I don't say that anywhere.

That's your error or construct. Whether it's a lack of reading comprehension, or a willful attempt to fabricate an argument that you can win, you've strayed into left field.

I even made this more apparent for you with the insertion of comparative pictures above and the following: "Pretty easy to see, that at 16x, the FFP reticle is thicker and covers more of the target, than the SFP reticle...which is one of the reasons why F-Class shooters aren't fond of FFP reticles."

So to reiterate and be crystal clear for you: for some shooters (such as F-Class), an SFP reticle is preferred because it obscures less of the target than an FFP will, at higher magnification. Hopefully that is clear enough.

And people wonder why there are fewer and fewer constructive/informative posts in these forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom