Getting into percision shooting
- Thread starter Madmardigan
- Start date
I would agree to a point.
MOA and MRAD are both fine, providing that you match your MOA or MRAD reticule to your turrets. It also helps if your spotter has the same units.
It really comes down to whether you are more well versed in Imperial or Metric, both me and most of the guys I shoot with all grew up knowing imperial measurement, or learning it on the jobsites. If metric is your deal, then stick to metric, again providing that you keep your reticule and turrets in the same units.
That said, most shooters, even in Canada, will be shooting MOA scopes, so it is harder for spotters to call adjustments to you if you are in MRAD. Nothing beats the magic of a spotter and a shooter both with the same reticules and units. Long range is easy, I was hitting at a mile two weekends ago on a 12" square plate, without proper dope, in under 10 shots, because I had a good spotter who was in the same units that I was.
Food for thought.
Milliradiants and Minutes of Angle are angular units, not linear units. When you relate them to linear units like centimeters or inches, you're doing a conversion that requires you to think about how big your clicks are at that distance and convert that into an angle. That's isn't necessary when you have a reticle that matches your turrets. Both are already in angular units. You just measure with the reticle and use the value directly with the turrets. No need to think about how big your turrets clicks are that distance. No need to think about inches or centimeters. No need to do math. It makes absolutely no difference if you're more comfortable in imperial or metric.
Its easy to do the math if all you're doing is shooting on a square range that has distances that are nicely divisible by 100. In many target shooting disciplines they size the rings on the targets so that they work out well with the angular units of the turrets (MOA) at that distance, so they don't need to do the math. When you use the reticle, you're doing exactly the same thing the target shooters are doing with their scaled target rings, except you're doing it with the reticle. The advantage of using the reticle is that it doesn't matter what the distance is or what unit its in (234 yards, 572 meters, 10043 feet... doesn't matter), and it doesn't matter what the size of the target is or what it looks like. The reticle takes care of it. If your reticle says you missed X mils/MOA down and Y mils/MOA left, you just dial your turret X mils/MOA up and Y mils/MOA right. Its accurate, just as accurate as basing a correction off of a scaled target's scoring ring.
Its easy to do the math if all you're doing is shooting on a square range that has distances that are nicely divisible by 100. In many target shooting disciplines they size the rings on the targets so that they work out well with the angular units of the turrets (MOA) at that distance, so they don't need to do the math. When you use the reticle, you're doing exactly the same thing the target shooters are doing with their scaled target rings, except you're doing it with the reticle. The advantage of using the reticle is that it doesn't matter what the distance is or what unit its in (234 yards, 572 meters, 10043 feet... doesn't matter), and it doesn't matter what the size of the target is or what it looks like. The reticle takes care of it. If your reticle says you missed X mils/MOA down and Y mils/MOA left, you just dial your turret X mils/MOA up and Y mils/MOA right. Its accurate, just as accurate as basing a correction off of a scaled target's scoring ring.
Depends on the industry. Target shooters are predominantly MOA because they historically have been, so their target rings are scaled in MOA (even on meter ranges). Tactical/military uses mils because the math is faster to do under stress. Hunters... who cares, the vast majority don't dial for a shot. If they do, its a BDC on the dial.
Target shooters use what? Overwhelmingly mil.
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/09/11/best-long-range-scopes-what-the-pros-use/
MOA is a perfectly fine unit to use, but I have been told that mrad is the way to go by a number of experts both in practical and competition shooting.
Here is a good article to help a buyer make up their mind:
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/
I personally fine that since we deal in M and Km for distance, I find it easy to shoot like that too. I can estimate 750m much easier than 750 yards. ( or any other value in yards... I likely couldn't estimate 15 effectively)
I also do construction and know imperial values very well, so I can and have used both. It is all personal preference.
Last edited:
Unless you get a mil-dot scope with mil adjustments on the turrets, this is usually only on higher end scopes as the mil-dot recticle was a sales gimmick on lower-middle range
Precision Rifle Series mentioned in that article is Tactical UKD (Unknown Distance) shooting, not target shooting. It's meant to simulate situations a sniper or designated marksman would face: unknown distances, unknown target sizes, no wind flags, no sighter shots, moving targets, multiple targets at different distances, position shooting, etc... Scores are based on hits AND time. Mil is definitely the way to go if that is the type of shooting you want to do. You will also want an FFP scope because you'll get hammered trying to run an SFP scope in those matches. Unfortunately, we don't have any of those types of matches in Canada. You will need to go down to the US to shoot them.
Makes no difference which system of measurement you prefer. Its just as easy to use yards with mil/mil FFP as it is to use meters. I use yards for distance and MPH for wind and moving targets, and all of my scopes are in mil.
When we talk about target shooting, we are talking about things like F-Class where the distances are know and divisible by 100, there are wind flags, sighting shots, shot makers, known sized targets, etc... Those shooters are predominantly MOA and SFP.
If you're into pistol shooting, think of it this way: PRS is more like IDPA/IPSC while F-Class is more like PPC/Bullseye.
Last edited:
Here is a good video No Fear in Accuracy took at the last ORA precision match that shows the bullet swirl really well.
With a good brake, you see pretty much exactly what it looks like in the video, but with a tiny amount of muzzle jump.
In the PRS matches talked about in that link above, you are usually on your own (no spotter). And they shoot out past 1000 yards in some of the matches. The distances are mostly random, unknown to the shooter, and seldom evenly divisible by 100. That swirl and the bullet splash (if there is one, might not be if there is vegetation behind the target) is all you have to go by to make any corrections. This is why tactical shooters use brakes (or suppressors in the US). Its so that they can spot their own swirl. They then use the reticle to make the correction. The reticle is like having a grid that is always in your sight picture, that you can just read and use the value directly with your turrets.
With a good brake, you see pretty much exactly what it looks like in the video, but with a tiny amount of muzzle jump.
In the PRS matches talked about in that link above, you are usually on your own (no spotter). And they shoot out past 1000 yards in some of the matches. The distances are mostly random, unknown to the shooter, and seldom evenly divisible by 100. That swirl and the bullet splash (if there is one, might not be if there is vegetation behind the target) is all you have to go by to make any corrections. This is why tactical shooters use brakes (or suppressors in the US). Its so that they can spot their own swirl. They then use the reticle to make the correction. The reticle is like having a grid that is always in your sight picture, that you can just read and use the value directly with your turrets.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Bed the rifle and work up quality ammo using match bullets. Find out what the mechanical limits of the gun you have is... Make sure it will hit the highest scoring ring at the maximum required shots. Factory barrels can warp badly as they heat up.
For optics, confirm that the tasks are for the game you want to play. Front AO scopes will be a royal PITA if you have to move and shoot at varied distances.
Side focus scopes range from don't work to fantastic. New scopes start in the high hundreds to around $1k with Sightron leading the charge at this price point. From there, you typically double in price and here NF is the best. Then it goes up another bunch to S&B and March. I have left out a number of scope brands on purpose...
A factory rifle can do superb work in the LR game as long as the barrel doesn't warp during the number of shots required. But a "cheap" scope leads to failure. Whatever optic you choose, test it agressively on target. MANY will not track reliably - cost doesn't always mean better... see my website in TECH section for the process I use to test.
Get out there and have fun... it will be very clear, very fast what steps you need/want to improve your performance.
Jerry
For optics, confirm that the tasks are for the game you want to play. Front AO scopes will be a royal PITA if you have to move and shoot at varied distances.
Side focus scopes range from don't work to fantastic. New scopes start in the high hundreds to around $1k with Sightron leading the charge at this price point. From there, you typically double in price and here NF is the best. Then it goes up another bunch to S&B and March. I have left out a number of scope brands on purpose...
A factory rifle can do superb work in the LR game as long as the barrel doesn't warp during the number of shots required. But a "cheap" scope leads to failure. Whatever optic you choose, test it agressively on target. MANY will not track reliably - cost doesn't always mean better... see my website in TECH section for the process I use to test.
Get out there and have fun... it will be very clear, very fast what steps you need/want to improve your performance.
Jerry
