MOA or MRAD???

Actually it could be argued that you do move a single point. The single point being the averaged impact point of the group or rather the point that best centers your 5 shot group.
For the same rifle a change in scope from MOA to MIL should not adversely effect the rifles ability to group. All other things being equal if the rifle is capable of a 10inch 10 shot group at a 1000yrds, it will be capable of that with either scope.
Let's say that the group is evenly distributed in the vertical and horizontal. The POI of the crosshairs should be at the center of the group. As you make adjustments with the scope to move the center of your group to your actual target. The group size should stay consistent, the proximity of the center of the group to the target is limited by the granularity of the turrets.
It is obvious that the finer the granularity the closer you can get the center of your group to the target point.
What HD seems to be saying is from a fixed firing point sometimes the MIL 1/10 does not always work out worse than 1/4 MOA. The adjustments to place you group center on target are better suited to the MIL Scope granularity for that particular firing solution. The worst that your MIL point of aim will ever be of your MOA point of Aim is 2 inches vertically and 2 inches horizontally. The groups would distribute around these points as they normally would regardless of the scope in use.
 
you can’t fault the scope for a grouping capability of the gun, the mechanics of the scope will only move it a "single point" on the target , the grouping capability of the shooter/gun does the rest. HD has it right in his explanation/graph providing the info put in the graphs is correct the average difference is only .28” @ 1000yrd which is not much at all.
 
Mystic Precision said:
Do this test cause it makes things far easier to visualize.

Draw a 10" circle on a large piece of paper with the center marked. Cut out a clear plastic circle that is 4" across - yogurt container lid would be perfect material.

Put that disc into that 10" circle anywhere. This is your start location so draw around that disk with a pen so you can start there again.

Now put a mark anywhere on that 4" disk.

NOW HERE IS THE MAGIC - move that point on that 4" disk in 2.5" steps until you have that point on the center of the 10" circle or as close as you can. Yes, there will be many locations where you simply cannot hit center in 2.5" steps. Call 1" from center good enough

Now repeat but put that dot somewhere else.

Depending on where that disk is on that 10" circle AND where you put that point on the 4" disk, moving 2.5" steps can have some huge difference in final location of the 4" disk.

Just keep repeating with radom start points and if you mark the final location on that 10" circle, you quickly see that you can overshoot the 10" circle very easily.

Meaning, when the orig starting point on the 4" disk is on the center of the 10" circle using 2.5" steps, part of the 4" disk is OUTSIDE THE 10" CIRCLE.

You have now put the rifle group OUTSIDE your scoring circle desired. If the next shot drops into the fringe of your rifles grouping, you drop a point even though it was a perfect shot.

And the best part, this will cause you to over adjust the other way to now try and center what is a fringe shot. Guess what, you blow out the other side. Repeat until you go insane or your 15rds of torture is over.... or you catch a lucky break and follow up shot cluster in the same side of that 4" circle as your start point.

Repeat with 3.6" steps. Then compare with 1.25" steps. Then even smaller steps of say 1/2" (not possible but wow, would we love it)

Shooters tend to assume that any shot impacts in the dead center of their group but in fact it can land anywhere within the accuracy grouping of that rifle - ANYWHERE IN THAT DISK.

The 4" would represent a well tuned competition rig at 1000yds (imagine the fun with a 6" or 8" disk which is more typical of "accurate" rifles). The 10" circle of course represents our MOA 5 ring.

Add in wind and other conditions and instead of a circle, you would have a football shaped group varying in shape depending on the direction, intensity and how good you are at doping the air.

Repeat but now using a shape that is 6" wide and 3" tall.

You aren't moving a point in space..... you are moving a group.

Try it and I hope it makes more sense to you.

Jerry

PS, in most cases, the right thing is to simply hold off a bit instead of touching the dials.
Click to expand...


After considering this for a bit, visualizing it and comparing it to my own experience running the "coarser" scope against finer ones; my conclusions are some of the assumptions this is based on do not reflect reality.

1) Its based on the assumption that corrections are only being made one click at a time. Until you've established the bounds of your group, you have just as much chance of over-correcting with the finer resolution adjustment as you do with the coarser one. As you note, the shot may fall anywhere in the group. The guy with the finer resolution scope can just as easily over-correct, he just uses more clicks to do so.

2) It assumes that you are not using any method of centering your group (shot plotter, etc...). Some people do, some don't. If you are, once the group bounds are established, you can hold just a shade off if need be. I commonly do this...

3) It assumes the shooter is never holding off, yet you've noted that is usually the best thing to do... and probably what many shooters do more often than not.

4) It doesn't consider the effects of the wind and other things relative to that resolution. In other works, you're not considering the signal-to-noise ratio. Added resolution has no effect if its lost in the noise.

It's a nice exercise, but when I look at the results of the deliberate 800 yard/meter matches I've shot in PR, my partner and I have won just as often with our FFP mil/mil scopes as the other top teams (well known F'ers) using 1/4 and 1/8 MOA SPF scopes. And the team running the 1/4 MOA scopes are not doing any worse than the ones running the 1/8 MOA scopes. Yes, our targets are different (rectangular scoring zones that allow for more vertical deviation) and the distance is slightly less, but that doesn't change the fact that the points are being dropped due to wind (with is almost never a constant value). Making those scoring zones smaller, or a different shape, or going out 100 meters further is not going to change that.

When you add real world conditions, that finer resolution gets lost in the noise. Its a perceived advantage, that rarely translates into a meaningful difference in real life. At least that has been my experience shooting against guys who are running it...
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I always find it funny how dogmatic people get about FFP vs SFP and MIL/MOA. And extremely knowledgeable people too! Kombayotch vs Mysticplayer (Mystic Precision for you noobs)??? Goodness! How's a guy to know which of these extremely knowledgeable gents to listen to? I feel bad for the new guys that don't have the experience to make an informed decision and have to decide who to listen to.
 
BUM, listen to both :)

As I said in a previous post, it is not a right or wrong choice. Just depends on what you want, how you plan on using it, and the tasks chosen.

Fork vs Spoon. They are both utensils but.....

F class will have needs that don't agree fully with Benchrest. Tactical rifle different then IPSC 3 Gun different then Service rifle.

My point is shooters need to understand the application NOT the label, and choose based on end results not popularity. Sometimes the most popular choice IS the right one. Other times, it isn't for that shooter.

Then you need to shift through the widely different specs of the scope themself. I think this is far more important then generalities like FFP VS SFP.

One type of FFP could be wonderful where another completely different in design and not so good to use.

Glad that is has stired up some conversation and put some shooters to think about their gear.

Jerry
 
kombayotch, we do agree on most points and reviewing my previous posts will highlight our simularities.

Different tasks will need different tools. Once the right tool is chosen, shooter skill determines the end result as it should.

A pair of shoes never won the Olympics but its design can certainly be an asset.

NO right or wrong, use the gear that suits your end needs and preferences. Some gear will help certain tasks.

But shooters should understand more about what their gear actually does... shooting more wouldn't hurt either.

That is truly when good decisions get made.

Jerry
 
Haagen_Dazs said:
BULLs**t.MRAD is based off of the 1:1000 ratio meaning 1 mil (10 clicks) at 1000 yards is 1 yard, or at 1000 meters it's 1 meter, or at 1000 inches it's 1 inch, or at 1000 miles it's 1 mile.* There is no metric or imperial BS to angles in general.* Just because an MoA is roughly 1" at 100 yards doesn't make it imperial.* At 934 meters, one click with an MRAD scope is 0.0934 meters or 9.34cm.* At 934 yards, one click is 0.0934 yards or 0.0934*36 inches.* It's obvious that using meters for ranging makes it easier for math which is why MRAD gets confused as metric sometimes.There is no real reason why I pick MRAD units for my optics, but I do.* I like the idea of the 1:1000 ratio and it's what the military uses which, again, means nothing really.The major con against MRAD is that the 1/10 MRAD adjustments are coarser than the 1/4 MoA adjustments, meaning 1/4 MoA at 100 yards is about 0.25" where 1/10th of an MRAD is about 0.36".* If you are worried about 10cm click values at 1km ranges, than go MoA, or better yet 1/8 MoA adjustments.* However, because you've picked FFP (bravo on that), I doubt that'll be an issue (reticle thickness becomes more of an issue at long ranges).Your main concern is the purpose, budget, and most importantly, matching the reticle hashmarks to the turrets (why there are so many mil dot scopes with MoA adjustments is beyond me).* If you are shooting pop cans from 3km away, get SFP and 1/8th MoA adjustments.* If you are hunting (even at long ranges) or don't expect to get 1/2 MoA precision out of your rifle, going FFP and MRAD is nothing to be afraid of.Also,Sorry Jerry but I wouldn't go so far as to call them way too coarse.* At 1000 yards, one click (1/10th of a mil) is 10cm or 3.93" whereas 1/4 MoA at 1000 yards is about 2.63".* That means the MRAD scope is about 1.3" more coarse (actually more like 1.3" divided between 2 clicks so 0.65").* Now, if you're getting 1/2 MoA precision at 1000 yards, that's still about a 5" grouping, more likely to be a sideways elipse too.* Centering that group on the vbull to +/- 2.54"/2 with the MoA scope or +/- 3.93"/2 with the MRAD scope seems like peanuts imo.* Basically, the MoA scope will allow you to get up to 0.65" closer to your target at 1000 yards.And to the OP, read this:http://www.mil-dot.com/media/1027/the_derivation_of_the_range_estimation_equations.pdf
Click to expand...


That is great info Glad to see people sharing knowledge, not just opinions and BS.

The PDF link on Mils and MOA priceless; I had always wondered how and why the Military used Mils, totally makes sense now.


Thanks
 
caustic said:
Disagree, the strong point of ffp has to do with holdovers and windage without having to ensure you are on the right mag setting, like you do in sfp or slowing your follow up shot down with the math you have to use in sfp if you are not on the correct mag setting.

I have no problem using ffp to 900m I haven't yet shot past that but I can imagine no issue with ffp at extended ranges.
Click to expand...

This.

MRAD is based on Radians, MOA is based on Degrees. Both are angular measurements, and both can be equally effective. It's scope designers that give one an advantage over the other.

Forget about range estimation. Wind correction, shooting at running game, and elevation holdover are the benefits of FFP, IMO. Range estimation is the least of my worries with the capabilities of today's LRFs.
 
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from MOA to tenths of a mill radian.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from table saw to radial arm saw.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from inches to metric tape measure.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from immediate execution to reverse Polish.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from QWERTY keyboards to Dvorak.
And a 36C bra to me is an 80D to a European.
 
Clark said:
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from MOA to tenths of a mill radian.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from table saw to radial arm saw.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from inches to metric tape measure.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from immediate execution to reverse Polish.
I am 61 years old and I am not going to convert from QWERTY keyboards to Dvorak.
And a 36C bra to me is an 80D to a European.
Click to expand...

Thanks?? For letting us know.

Shawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom