Need help deciding between MOA and MRAD

jonyork

jonyork

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Location
Ottawa
Hi Folks,

This year I have decided I will upgrade my optics from the cheapo stuff that came with rifles as a combo package to something a bit nicer. Everyone's scope at the range is so much cleaner and sharper than mine, and I find I don't need nearly as much magnification to see the target clearly.

I've got my eye on the Diamondback Tactical 4x12-44 FFP scope for a B22 FV-SR and a BCL 102 MK7. My range currently only reaches out to 200, and I've tried this scope out a few times and like it.

I understand a big faux-pas is when the reticle and adjustments aren't in the same system (like, why the hell would this ever be done?) and these scopes don't suffer from that.

My first foray into a reticle with somewhat of a ranging/precision reticle is a tasco 6-24 varmint which is in Mil Dot, but I kinda gave up on it as it's adjustments are in MOA (again, why?) and it made everything very much not fun to try to convert on the fly.

So in short, I would like to get into the precision game, and playing with reticles for adjustment in a repeatable/predictable way.

I do hunt, so these scopes could, and probably will play double duty.

I am leaning towards MRAD, but my assumptions for that is 1- I do think in metric and I think this makes it a bit easier, 2 - I believe the reticle may be less cluttered this way?

Thanks for all the help, I greatly appreciate it!
 
MRAD is the present and the future. MOA is yesterday's news. All of the math associated with long-range precision shooting is much easier using the MRAD system where everything is calculated in orders of 10. Do yourself a favour and go with MRAD. Mils are far more precise than degrees....
 
Bartok5 said:
MRAD is the present and the future. MOA is yesterday's news. All of the math associated with long-range precision shooting is much easier using the MRAD system where everything is calculated in orders of 10. Do yourself a favour and go with MRAD.
Click to expand...

x 2
 
I watched a YouTube video on the subject and the guy, clearly working in a gunshop, stated that probably 80% of PR shooters use MRAD.
I even saw a video of a US soldier saying that he preferred MRAD as meteric was easier to work with.
I have both but the better scopes have MRAD except for my Bushnell Forge, I bought MOA because it had a better reticle.
I am no expert on the topic, many mornings Crayola colours me stupid.
 
I like your choice of scope, as it's mine also... thanx to the good folks at Vortex who described it to me as "MRAD is decimals, MOA is fractions."

I know which I prefer when doing math in my head. I bought the book and got the author to autograph it.
 
if you want to get into PRS type games, go with MRAD

if you want to get into F class, Bench rest or other paper punching games, go with MOA

either scope adjustment, you should really understand what MOA means and how it scales with distance. often in the PRS game, you will hear drops and drifts being discussed in MRAD but target sizes in MOA.

At the end of the day, both are just units of measure... and if you know how to manipulate the math, you can make correct adjustments

Jerry
 
douginont said:
I watched a YouTube video on the subject and the guy, clearly working in a gunshop, stated that probably 80% of PR shooters use MRAD.
I even saw a video of a US soldier saying that he preferred MRAD as meteric was easier to work with.
I have both but the better scopes have MRAD except for my Bushnell Forge, I bought MOA because it had a better reticle.
I am no expert on the topic, many mornings Crayola colours me stupid.
Click to expand...
80% is almost certainly on the low side.
 
Doesn’t matter which, its all personal preference. The only thing that matters is that your adjustments are the same as the reticle ie:mil/mil or moa/moa. Both systems are simply a ruler measuring.

Bartok5 said:
Mils are far more precise than degrees....
Click to expand...
Not true. Each “click” of an moa adjuster is typically .25 inch/100m and each “click” of a typical mil adjuster is .36 inch/100m. Moa adjusters offer a more precise adjustment.
 
Recce21 said:
Not true. Each “click” of an moa adjuster is typically .25 inch/100m and each “click” of a typical mil adjuster is .36 inch/100m. Moa adjusters offer a more precise adjustment.
Click to expand...

I was not referring to the fractions of each unit of measure that a typical acope "click" adjusts. Rather, I was referring to the fact that as a unit of measure, there are 6400 mils in a circle vice 360 degrees - hence the mil is more precise than the degree. That would be why the Army uses mils for direction measurement rather than degrees....
 
Bartok5 said:
I was not referring to the fractions of each unit of measure that a typical acope "click" adjusts. Rather, I was referring to the fact that as a unit of measure, there are 6400 mils in a circle vice 360 degrees - hence the mil is more precise than the degree. That would be why the Army uses mils for direction measurement rather than degrees....
Click to expand...

And a circle has 21600 moa. This game can be played for a while, doesn't really mean one system is more precise than the other.
Kristian
 
Bartok5 said:
I was not referring to the fractions of each unit of measure that a typical acope "click" adjusts. Rather, I was referring to the fact that as a unit of measure, there are 6400 mils in a circle vice 360 degrees - hence the mil is more precise than the degree. That would be why the Army uses mils for direction measurement rather than degrees....
Click to expand...

turbo_bird said:
And a circle has 21600 moa. This game can be played for a while, doesn't really mean one system is more precise than the other.
Kristian
Click to expand...

Exactly........:rolleyes:
 
In terms of real results one isn’t really any more precise than the other. As mentioned you might be able to get a more refined zero with MOA with typical adjustments. With MRAD you have numbers and tenths, with MOA you have numbers and quarters. If your scope has 1/4 MOA clicks you can round your dope to the nearest .25, I write it like 12-1 = 12.25 or 12 + 1 click, it’s not that difficult. It’s all quarters which is much easier than trying to add halfs and quarters and eighths and sixteenths and thirty seconds like you might do in woodworking or carpentry. MRAD math is easier to back into the distance to target if you are estimating it off the target size but that is still only as good as your estimation of the target size. If I was buying a new tactical scope I’d go MRAD because that’s what everyone else is running for the most part so it would be easier to sell/trade and you’re talking the same units as everyone else.

Also neither is really metric or imperial, they’re both measurements of angle without a real unit. 1MOA @ 100yards is 1.047”, not 1”. It’s close to a match but not quite. MRAD is based on 1/1000 so yes it’s 1m @ 1000m but it’s also 1yrd at 1000yrds or 1” @ 1000”. At the end of the day they both do the same thing with different numbers and neither will be nice round numbers at 678yards or some random distance like that.
 
TRDYamahauler said:
In terms of real results one isn’t really any more precise than the other. As mentioned you might be able to get a more refined zero with MOA with typical adjustments. With MRAD you have numbers and tenths, with MOA you have numbers and quarters. If your scope has 1/4 MOA clicks you can round your dope to the nearest .25, I write it like 12-1 = 12.25 or 12 + 1 click, it’s not that difficult. It’s all quarters which is much easier than trying to add halfs and quarters and eighths and sixteenths and thirty seconds like you might do in woodworking or carpentry. MRAD math is easier to back into the distance to target if you are estimating it off the target size but that is still only as good as your estimation of the target size. If I was buying a new tactical scope I’d go MRAD because that’s what everyone else is running for the most part so it would be easier to sell/trade and you’re talking the same units as everyone else.

Also neither is really metric or imperial, they’re both measurements of angle without a real unit. 1MOA @ 100yards is 1.047”, not 1”. It’s close to a match but not quite. MRAD is based on 1/1000 so yes it’s 1m @ 1000m but it’s also 1yrd at 1000yrds or 1” @ 1000”. At the end of the day they both do the same thing with different numbers and neither will be nice round numbers at 678yards or some random distance like that.
Click to expand...

But people only shoot at nice distances like 100m/y, 1000m/y.

What kind of savage would you have to be to shoot at 678 yards? :p
 
Bartok5 said:
I was not referring to the fractions of each unit of measure that a typical acope "click" adjusts. Rather, I was referring to the fact that as a unit of measure, there are 6400 mils in a circle vice 360 degrees - hence the mil is more precise than the degree. That would be why the Army uses mils for direction measurement rather than degrees....
Click to expand...

The Army uses Mils because it became the NATO standard post WW2. Not only because it standardized land ops among the NATO armies but because of millradians relationship to the mathematical foundation of the Unit Circle. Different countries with different languages all speak universal mathematical theorem. Not because it is more accurate than degrees. That's an intellectually lazy way of looking at the difference between MOA and mils which is more complicated and more interesting than that.
 
Recce21 said:
........That's an intellectually lazy way of looking at the difference between MOA and mils which is more complicated and more interesting than that.
Click to expand...

Huh. I've been called a lot of things in the past 55 years, but "intellectually lazy" is a new one. Being fully retired, I think that it is probably more accurate a descriptor these days than I'd care to admit! My Wife would undoubtedly agree with you....

Besides which, math and geometry were never my strong suit. That"s why I became an nfantry soldier and not a.gunner....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom