MOA or MRAD at the ranges?

thirdeye462 said:
Yep. Completely agree here, and glad you mentioned this! I was speaking more about how I visualize distance in my head bc of what I was brought up with rather than associating moa with imperial and mrad with metric. That is indeed a fallacy that I came to realize after reading up on both systems.

Thx for the scope suggestions too, btw! I'll start with your recommendations and work from there!
Click to expand...

Folks always say MRAD is not metric because it is a (edit: dimensionless) angular measurement, but if you google milliradians outside of gun message boards you will see that it is a unit within the International System of Units, which is what the metric system is officially called. Just like the milliliter is a metric unit of volume and the millimeter a metric unit for length, the milliradian is a (wdit: dimensionless) metric unit for angular measurment.

I totally agree that it doesn't really matter that milliradians are a metric unit... but technically they are what they are. 😀
 
Last edited:
gorby said:
Folks always say MRAD is not metric because it is an angular measurement, but if you google milliradians outside of gun message boards you will see that it is a unit within the International System of Units, which is what the metric system is officially called. Just like the milliliter is a metric unit of volume and the millimeter a metric unit for length, the milliradian is a metric unit for angular measurment.

I totally agree that it doesn't really matter that radians are a metric unit... but technically they are what they are. 😀
Click to expand...
If it measures things based upon meters and the things related to them, then yep, I suppose it'd be hard to say it isn't metric
 
gorby said:
Folks always say MRAD is not metric because it is an angular measurement, but if you google milliradians outside of gun message boards you will see that it is a unit within the International System of Units, which is what the metric system is officially called. Just like the milliliter is a metric unit of volume and the millimeter a metric unit for length, the milliradian is a metric unit for angular measurment.

I totally agree that it doesn't really matter that radians are a metric unit... but technically they are what they are. 😀
Click to expand...
Ryan Cleckner's book "Long Range Shooting Handbook..." has a great chapter on this. Lots of Interweb info on it too, but Cleckner's summary is excellent.
 
1/10 o a MIL = 0.36" ; 1/4 of an MOA = 0.26" ; 1/8 of an MOA = 0.13
This defines the accuracy of your scope, depending on the turret "clik values". I use MOA since it gives more "Fine Measurements" for target 'holds'. BTW, I only shoot out to ca 200-yds. - all my local range has.

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR&q=moa+vs+mil

MOA and Mil are angular measurements.

athlonoptics.com+1
 
Last edited:
The rule-of-thumb that 1 MOA is an inch at 100 yards is just an approximation, but has actually damaged the MOA for long-range shooting as it turned out some manufacturers were actually calibrating against an inches ruler at 100 yards! Others were working with true minutes of angle (60ths of a degree) and if your ballistic calculator said X number of MOA and that many clicks put you somewhere else you had a problem.

Meanwhile MIL/MRAD/milliradians simply by being a base-10 system does play nicely with other parts of the metric system.
 
Buck1950 said:
1/10 o a MIL = 0.36" ; 1/4 of an MOA = 0.26" ; 1/8 of an MOA = 0.13
This defines the accuracy of your scope, depending on the turret "clik values". I use MOA since it gives more "Fine Measurements" for target 'holds'. BTW, I only shoot out to ca 200-yds. - all my local range has.

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR&q=moa+vs+mil

MOA and Mil are angular measurements.

athlonoptics.com+1
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing, Buck! I'll be taking a look at each of these tonight. Much appreciated.
 
I was born and grow up with millimetres and fully DIN / ISO = metric system, and my background was in manufacturing and fabrications engineering.
When we arrived to Canada I had a very stressful first couple years to stop converting and finally get comfortable with ANSI and inches.
Fast forward to my first Tier1 long range target scope, I was researching it to a very last dime to get it almost for peanuts, arrived to me from UK.
And happened to be a MOA scope SFP.
Soon enough I realized that I can't care... I am shooting fixed distances anyway. Based on several zeros calculating clicks from Strelok.
My next scope also I researched a lot for action shooting, sheiss happened and arrived also from UK. MDR reticle = Mill Dot Rapid with a prime lens and side parallax.
This one covers more unknown distance ranges, I made a dope card with Strelok (based on couple confirmed zeros)... I don't think that many people would be comfortable with that card :) .
And btw, in the last half dozen years I swap-trade-replaced about 15 or more scopes until I finally developed my own preferences. What I have currently all these are keepers ;) .
So, pretty much ... what is your game? Get a best scope you can afford, and start learning it. Don't worry MOA or MILL or MRAD.
 
Last edited:
I think that people with lower powered scopes have a concern constantly calculating MOA/MIL/MRAD. And for that same reason they ended up getting another high power glass in a spotter for much more extra $ ,,,,, and always there and back, read the offset - calculate - clcik the turret.

1 click 1/8 MOA @ 100 is what exactly? How many clicks I need to do if I am away half M**?
All BS. Lets just call it - you like toys and that placebo feels soo gooood :)

Get a higher power scope in a first step and skip that spotter. Not saying will be cheaper but if you find a good deal...
With my 10-50x60 I can see .22 holes comfortably crisp @ 200 and 308 holes @ 500 in a decent grey day - unless raining on the black target face ;) .
I have not test seeing the holes at longer distances yet.
 
thirdeye462 said:
Hi all,

CGN newb with a newb question here. Asking because I'm in the homework stages of acquiring my first firearm and kit for the range, and, with that, also researching scopes. I'm comfortable with both MOA and MRAD systems in theory so either is fine with me.

But, for all you range shooters out there, what in your experience has been the most common system among everyone these days?

Asking because I think I would like to choose what others are likely using, especially if I end up pairing with a spotter and vice versa in yhe future.

I don't plan on hunting; just benchrest, NRL Hunter, and long-distance shooting.

Thanks everyone for your insights here!
Click to expand...
If you are not planning on competing in Fclass or National Course , MRAD is fine .
Fclass target rings are in MOA Measurements, and 1/8 MOA is more precise than MRAD, that is why the vast majority od Fclass shooters in the World use MOA turrets.
Many long range shooters use a spotter to gauge hold offs or to judge mirage , Leaving their rifle scopes set for the distance they are shooting at

Cat
 
gorby said:
Folks always say MRAD is not metric because it is a (edit: dimensionless) angular measurement, but if you google milliradians outside of gun message boards you will see that it is a unit within the International System of Units, which is what the metric system is officially called. Just like the milliliter is a metric unit of volume and the millimeter a metric unit for length, the milliradian is a (wdit: dimensionless) metric unit for angular measurment.

I totally agree that it doesn't really matter that milliradians are a metric unit... but technically they are what they are. 😀
Click to expand...
While we’re splitting hairs; the Mils we use shooting aren’t real milliradians in the first place. While we use the 1/1000 ratio thats only approximate, much like using 1” per 100 yards is just 1.045” rounded off when approximating MOA. A real radian is the angular measurement when 2 radiuses of a circle are spread by the same distance around the arc of the circle and a milli-radian is 1000th of that. The curve got ignored and NATO did some rounding off cause everyone’s head was hurting by then and the guys that actually used them didn’t care because they knew that one mil in their scope was the distance between the top of a man’s head and his nuts at 1000 yards and 2 mils was the same thing at 500 yards. 1.5 mils is 750 snd 3 is 333.

So while you make a good case for millradian being a metric unit we don’t shoot with milliradian anyway. We use HTN dot reticles, (a technical term I just made up)😂
 
Last edited:
Alex_Zues said:
If it measures things based upon meters and the things related to them, then yep, I suppose it'd be hard to say it isn't metric
Click to expand...
It doesn’t measure in meter’s, you could use 1 yard in 1000, or one fence post in 1000, or a car length in 1000 car lengths. Doesn’t matter. It’s still right and still wrong at the same time.😃
 
Dogleg said:
While we’re splitting hairs; the Mils we use shooting aren’t real milliradians in the first place. While we use the 1/1000 ratio thats only approximate, much like using 1” per 100 yards is just 1.045” rounded off when approximating MOA. A real radian is the angular measurement when 2 radiuses of a circle are spread by the same distance around the arc of the circle and a milli-radian is 1000th of that. The curve got ignored and NATO did some rounding off cause everyone’s head was hurting by then and the guys that actually used them didn’t care because they knew that one mil in their scope was the distance between the top of a man’s head and his nuts at 1000 yards and 2 mils was the same thing at 500 yards. 1.5 mils is 750 snd 3 is 333.

So while you make a good case for millradian being a metric unit we don’t shoot with milliradian anyway. We use HTN dot reticles, (a technical term I just made up)😂
Click to expand...

This is awesome, didn't know this and enjoyed reading and learning. Splitting hairs is part of the fun.
 
Dogleg said:
It doesn’t measure in meter’s, you could use 1 yard in 1000, or one fence post in 1000, or a car length in 1000 car lengths. Doesn’t matter. It’s still right and still wrong at the same time.😃
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the MRad was designed to be 1meter at 1km, 10cm at 100m, etc. Basically if you took metric measurements and applied them to arcs. You can measure whatever you want, but the increments are tied to metric units
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom