Moa or mrad new to it

[I Dont Care About You]

Mrad is metric - much faster for mental calculations as it's all 1/10 and 1/100. If you're a Canadian carpenter you may disagree. If you're a scientist you may agree.

Most people have a pretty good handle on inches and feet. No, it's not a base ten system but we all know how it works. I see no difference between the two with respect to mental calculations. For those of us older than 30 yo trying to figure out how long 13 centimetres is, is a big problem. It mostly comes down to what you are used to or comfortable with, thus one is not better than the other.

The decimal system and the standardization of it in elr circles.

I might ask you, why not?

Standardization has FA to do with mental calculations ... try again.

Why not? Because I grew up with the imperial system and have used inches my entire life. I have worked as a machinist and I don't do metric at all because, while I know roughly how big a millimetre is, I have no concept of how big 18 millimetres is or how big 0.25 of a millimetre is.

MOA is not superior to Millard and the opposite is also true.

FWIW I have old school scopes with MOA turrets and MIL reticles and I also have newer scopes with Mil turrets and Mil reticles.

 

[Kevin32]

Most people have a pretty good handle on inches and feet. No, it's not a base ten system but we all know how it works. I see no difference between the two with respect to mental calculations. For those of us older than 30 yo trying to figure out how long 13 centimetres is, is a big problem. It mostly comes down to what you are used to or comfortable with, thus one is not better than the other.



Standardization has FA to do with mental calculations ... try again.

Why not? Because I grew up with the imperial system and have used inches my entire life. I have worked as a machinist and I don't do metric at all because, while I know roughly how big a millimetre is, I have no concept of how big 18 millimetres is or how big 0.25 of a millimetre is.

MOA is not superior to Millard and the opposite is also true.

FWIW I have old school scopes with MOA turrets and MIL reticles and I also have newer scopes with Mil turrets and Mil reticles.

1 moa is 1.047" at 100y. That can throw off precision shooters at long ranges and adds to mental math. But yes I agree. If your mind is imperial, use MOA. If your mind is metric, use Mrad. Me, I grew up in both Norway and Canada. I can switch. But use MOA.

 

[270WSMXBolt]

This is a fairly new one but tons of comparisons to be found that list pros and cons of both and why.

 

[Longstud]

Conversion factor is 3.438

MOA to MIL multiply by 3.438

MIL to MOA divide by 3.438

You may want to revisit this??

 

[jimbo14]

I understand moa way better also, I work with inches every day lol. But might as well learn how to adjust mrad

You’ll be good.

Shooting PRS or ELR, you’ll range the distance, (or someone tells you), and put it into your ballistic calculator. Kestrel or software on your phone. It’ll tell you what it thinks is the scope setting, mils or moa, your choice.

After that is about corrections and either you watching the impacts or misses yourself, or your spotter (for ELR).

I’m good at math, but I’d rather “go left 1.4 mils” rather than some integer and fraction moa. Decimals are easy to adjust in the moment for most people.

Side note for rimfire PRS: you’ll be with a great group of people. Very welcoming and helpful. I hope you enjoy the sport!

 

[Longstud]

1 moa is 1.047" at 100y. That can throw off precision shooters at long ranges and adds to mental math. But yes I agree. If your mind is imperial, use MOA. If your mind is metric, use Mrad. Me, I grew up in both Norway and Canada. I can switch. But use MOA.

You do realize that at 1000yards the error is 0.47". Theres not many that would be able to shoot to this level and the ones that can will definately be aware of this

 

[old303]

At 1000 yards, a single click of a 1/10 MIL scope is 3.6", a 1/4 MOA scope is 2.5", and a 1/8 MOA scope is about 1.25". So the F Class shooters chasing the elusive V Bull at that distance and having time to fine-tune between shots will want the smallest increments. But PRS shooters usually dealing with less distance and needing to dial for targets on the clock will want to count fewer larger clicks so MIL is the advantage there.

For rimfire PRS the other big thing to watch out for is a parallax setting that lets you see crisp targets as close as 25 yards. For a lot of scopes, life begins at 50.

 

[Boomfix]

You may want to revisit this??

You may want to revisit this??

Thank you.

 

[Sniffer]

At 1000 yards, a single click of a 1/10 MIL scope is 3.6", a 1/4 MOA scope is 2.5", and a 1/8 MOA scope is about 1.25". So the F Class shooters chasing the elusive V Bull at that distance and having time to fine-tune between shots will want the smallest increments. But PRS shooters usually dealing with less distance and needing to dial for targets on the clock will want to count fewer larger clicks so MIL is the advantage there.

For rimfire PRS the other big thing to watch out for is a parallax setting that lets you see crisp targets as close as 25 yards. For a lot of scopes, life begins at 50.

1/8 MOA is the way to go for F Class in my opinion.

For most applications however MIL is probably a better fit.

 

[beltfed]

I'm genuinely baffled by the recommendations for one or the other - why would anyone limit themselves to one form of measurement when both are so prevalent?
I'd recommend learning and getting comfortable with using both.