MOA or MRAD at the ranges?

T

thirdeye462

New member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Toronto, ON.
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!
 
I used to be all about MOA, I learned on it and still use it for conversing about range aspects.

Lately as I’ve grown, I’ve shifted to MRAD, I find using MRAD better for fine tuning, calculating distances and calls.

That said, learning in MOA was a valuable tool in understanding ballistics and it’s relatively easy to get your head around (especially if you work in a trade that’s on imperial measurement)

I’ll probably continue to reference MOA when talking targets and groups, or if I’m just plinking, but I do all my work and fine tuning and my Dope in MRAD.

Not sure if that makes sense, or if I’m right or wrong for it, but I’ve gotten results.

Edit; to the grit of your question, I think universally you’ll find more people fluent in MOA at a casual level if it’s a communicative aspect. I’ve yet to meet anyone who shoots MRAD who doesn’t understand MOA, but the opposite hasn’t been true IMO.
 
MRAD is the world both government and sporting uses, MOA is American Sporting use Only. MOA is only around because Americans still use imperial in day to day, but everything in the government use is metric and they are trying hard to push out the remnants of die hard imperial like 15 years ago.

If you are starting off fresh, go metric and MRAD no question about it.
 
Some of it is discipline-specific and it's easier if your scope has the same clicks as everyone else on the line.

0.1 MIL is bigger than 1/4 MOA and then there are 1/8 MOA scopes, so the MIL folks need fewer clicks to get to an elevation but are more likely to have to fudge a fractional click holdover as they refine aim on a multi-shot target. At very long distance (F Class for example) a 1/8 MOA scope gets you closer on your first shot. But PRS is a MIL game.

In the field, rules of thumb are a MOA is an inch at 100 yards while a tenth MIL is a centimetre at 100 metres, so whether you're better at estimating imperial or metric enters into it, and I understand there are people outside Canada who only know one system or other.
 
Thanks all!

Very helpful here, especially regarding the idea of "speaking" MOA while shooting MRAD. I'm of the generation that grew up Imperial while learning metric, so this idea resonates with me.

Mrad seems to be the preference from what I'm hearing, but I agree that knowledge of both systems is part of good fundamentals.

I just want to make the best, most practical choice for the (Canadian) range - and when dropping 3k-5k for a scope! (mein Gott!)
 
OP

Probably mostly depends on your age. Do you think of sizes of things in inches or centimetres. If you think in inches then MOA, if you think in cm then MIL. Realistically you should be able to function in both as both are pretty common in Canada.

MosinMan13 said:
I’ve shifted to MRAD, I find using MRAD better for fine tuning, calculating distances and calls.
Click to expand...
You know that 1/10 mrad is coarser than 1/4 MOA.
 
thirdeye462 said:
Thanks all!

Very helpful here, especially regarding the idea of "speaking" MOA while shooting MRAD. I'm of the generation that grew up Imperial while learning metric, so this idea resonates with me.

Mrad seems to be the preference from what I'm hearing, but I agree that knowledge of both systems is part of good fundamentals.

I just want to make the best, most practical choice for the (Canadian) range - and when dropping 3k-5k for a scope! (mein Gott!)
Click to expand...
I'm the same - taught in metric all through school, but grew up with a metric-hating grandfather who talked about it like it was some sort of left-wing curse...

MRAD makes infinitely more sense. I am rebuilding my kit, and I throw around MIL vs MOA in my head too. Yes, MOA is about 1" at 100yds, but it's not exactly. On the other side of the coin is the fact that 0.1mil is bigger than 1/4 MOA, or 1/8 MOA... I dunno.....

Something to consider is that if you are going to shoot with a partner, what do they use?? Might they have a spotting scope with a ranging reticle that you'd want to match with?? Doing the conversions in your head is not fun, or easy.

I would definitely not recommend mixing your scopes MIL and MOA.... I did, and it was a pain in the ass.

SRS
 
I Dont Care About You said:
You know that 1/10 mrad is coarser than 1/4 MOA.
Click to expand...

I’m probably just not the best at consolidating my thoughts efficiently but basically what I was trying to imply, or rather what I should have just said, is I find MRAD simpler at longer distances (doing the calculations) rather than MOA which I find easier than communicate and read when I first started out and at shorter distances where granted you get a finer increment.
 
thirdeye462 said:
I don't plan on hunting; just benchrest, NRL Hunter, and long-distance shooting.
Click to expand...
New to shooting, starting from scratch, and wanting to shoot those disciplines… MRAD is the way.

I started with all MOA, but after my first MRAD scope switched completely over. And have no use for a MOA scope these days… And that’s coming from a guy who works in Imperial measurements 95% of the time at my day job. ;)
 
Last edited:
I Dont Care About You said:
OP

Probably mostly depends on your age. Do you think of sizes of things in inches or centimetres. If you think in inches then MOA, if you think in cm then MIL. Realistically you should be able to function in both as both are pretty common in Canada.


You know that 1/10 mrad is coarser than 1/4 MOA.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Yes, I visualize distances and measurements in Imperial more intuitively than I do metric; but, I can switch to metric when I need to.

>>You know that 1/10 mrad is coarser than 1/4 MOA.

Yep, (something like 3.4 MOA per 1 mil, I think?), and that's precisely what was holding me up on this choice: MOA being a more precise unit of measure than Mils.

That said, surely one can be precise enough with Mils; otherwise, it wouldn't exist, I suppose, lol.
 
thirdeye462 said:
Thanks all!

Very helpful here, especially regarding the idea of "speaking" MOA while shooting MRAD. I'm of the generation that grew up Imperial while learning metric, so this idea resonates with me.

Mrad seems to be the preference from what I'm hearing, but I agree that knowledge of both systems is part of good fundamentals.

I just want to make the best, most practical choice for the (Canadian) range - and when dropping 3k-5k for a scope! (mein Gott!)
Click to expand...
First, forget about MOA is imperial and MRAD is metric, it is not the case. Both are angular measurement not distance. You can use MRAD with imperial units for target size and distance measurement. The advantage of MRAD is easier to work with base 10 units.
MRAD (Milliradian's) is about an angle which length is 1/1000 of the distance at the target.
People normally think MRAD is easy to remember as 1mil at 100meter is 10centimeters=0.1meter(ratio of 1000). You could also think this way using imperial measurement, 1mil at 100yard(3600inches) is 3.6inches and at 1000yard, 1mil would be 1yard(36inches)
For MOA, normally the adjustment is 1/4, it's approximatelly 1.047inch at 100 yards. You have to figure out if the scope and its reticle match or not and whether they are using 1.047inch or rounded to 1inch, because you would need to deal with 5% compesnation at long distance.

The main reason you want to get a SFP MOA scope is for F-class, which target size is in MOA.

For that price range, you could consider, Vortex Gen3 Razor 6-36, Kahles k328 or k525, Nightforce Atacr 7-35. But there are also some good options at cheaper price with good performancet to start with.
 
MosinMan13 said:
I’m probably just not the best at consolidating my thoughts efficiently but basically what I was trying to imply, or rather what I should have just said, is I find MRAD simpler at longer distances (doing the calculations) rather than MOA which I find easier than communicate and read when I first started out and at shorter distances where granted you get a finer increment.
Click to expand...

skwerl said:
MRAD , Because 10 x Any thing is Easier than 3.14 WT? X ? = ?
...skwerl
Click to expand...
Everyone seems to be focussed on the calculation at the scope. Nobody seems to be considering the correction needed at the target.

Miss the target by approximately 2 feet at 600 yds. MOA is an easier correction to make than MIL because to correct 24 inches you will have to convert from MOA to MIL anyway.

If you have a MIL reticle and can estimate the correction in MIL then a MIL turret is def the easiest. If your spotter doesn't have a MIL reticle in the spotting scope then you will be limited to miss distance estimations in feet.

I started on MOA turrets with MIL reticles and so got used to thinking in both systems. I have recently converted to MIL turrets and MIL reticles because I also have a spotting scope with a MIL reticle. This is the best way but it requires a spotter who can make corrections in MILs.
 
Hey ''I Don't Care''

The best system is ''your'' system , it works
well for you

I don't measure any thing in Imperial or SAE. , don't convert.

Been living Metric since ..... too old to convert any how.

thnkz for the thought man ... skwerl
 
sonichanxiao said:
First, forget about MOA is imperial and MRAD is metric, it is not the case. Both are angular measurement not distance. You can use MRAD with imperial units for target size and distance measurement. The advantage of MRAD is easier to work with base 10 units.
MRAD (Milliradian's) is about an angle which length is 1/1000 of the distance at the target.
People normally think MRAD is easy to remember as 1mil at 100meter is 10centimeters=0.1meter(ratio of 1000). You could also think this way using imperial measurement, 1mil at 100yard(3600inches) is 3.6inches and at 1000yard, 1mil would be 1yard(36inches)
For MOA, normally the adjustment is 1/4, it's approximatelly 1.047inch at 100 yards. You have to figure out if the scope and its reticle match or not and whether they are using 1.047inch or rounded to 1inch, because you would need to deal with 5% compesnation at long distance.

The main reason you want to get a SFP MOA scope is for F-class, which target size is in MOA.

For that price range, you could consider, Vortex Gen3 Razor 6-36, Kahles k328 or k525, Nightforce Atacr 7-35. But there are also some good options at cheaper price with good performancet to start with.
Click to expand...
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom