MOA or MRAD???

xopher said:
Mrad is metric and Moa is imperial

Mrad will have finer adjustments (1 click = 1/10th Mrad) vs (1 click = 1/4 Moa)

Remember you're going to be using this scope. Don't be pressured to use a certain style just because some military organization uses it.

IMHO, counting 1/10th clicks is my easier than 1/4 or 1/8 hahahahahah.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely wrong!
This is also the reason you have to be careful about what you read on these forums. There are many so called experts that love to "teach" when they themselves don't know what they are talking about.

The best thing to do is educate yourself first. Google MOA and MRAD and you will find tons of articles written that explain exactly the theory and numbers behind these units of measurement. Some of it is very dry(a cure for insomnia in fact) but it is a must if you want to understand this concept.

Both Jerry(Mystic Precision) and Peter Dobson are very knowledgable people and a wealth of information from reputable sources.

One thing that was not mentioned was FFP scopes usually have very fine crosshairs which many people don't like because they can be hard to see for some.

The bottom line is that you need to see what will suit your style of shooting the best.
If you are shooting tactical, field or weekend warrior target shooting, you may prefer MRAD.
If you plan on shooting competitive longrange the odds are you will prefer MOA.

Having said all of that Haagen Dazs made some very good pionts. Read his post again, it echoes my sentiments EXACTLY!

I personally prefer MRAD in FFP and would not even consider anything else, I am the guy who hunts, target shoots(of the weekend warrior type) and this setup suits me the best with the rifles I have.

BTW Sightron offers scopes which comes in .05 MRAD. Very fine adjustments.
 
roberti11 said:
MRAD and first focal plane is for rapid estimation of distance to a target at any magnification.....
Click to expand...

Here is an experiment that you can try.
Go to a known distance range.
At a distance well beyond the point blank range of the rifle, set up a post of known height, at a known distance. Distance should be far enough that an accurate estimation of distance would be necessary for a high probablility of a solid first shot hit.
Carefully study it through the scope. See how closely you can match the mildot based range estimation with the acutal known distance. You already know the distance, see if the mildot derived estimate matches.
See if the estimation is repeatable.
Repeat with the known height post, but at unknown long range. Estimate distance a few times, then determine what the actual distance was. Compare the estimates with the actual.
Keep a record of how long it took to obtain each estimate.
Now try it with an object of unknown height which is not stationary, and which is only visible for a brief period.
 
skypilot said:
It makes no difference which one you pick/learn. It's like learning miles vs kilometers.

I'm not a fan of FFP unless you are under a couple hundred yards. It is great for tactical use inside about 250-300 yds, but not so great the longer distance you shoot. I would get matching reticle and turrets for sure tho. For me it's easier to see a miss with a mil dot reticle of say .5 mils below the crosshair and holdover .5 mils or come up (5) .1 mil clicks. However I learned on a mil dot. reticle/moa turret

If you get a MOA reticle make sure the turrent is MOA and not IPHY unless of course the MOA reticle is IPHY. The turrents should be marked .25moa or .25"

The math will get easier regardless of what combination of turrets and reticles you end up choosing.
Click to expand...


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.
 
HD, MRAD clicks are way too coarse and so is 1/4 min clicks at LR for precision shooting.

If you got into F class shooting, you will quickly learn that you are not moving a point on the target but the GROUP CENTER which may or may not be centered on the shot that was just indicated.

I use a 1/4 min click scope but would rather get a 1/8min click.

The best solution right now is 1/8 min clicks which is still pretty coarse.

ideally we would have 1/10 min or even smaller value clicks.

At 1000yds, each 1/4 min clicks can have a far more dramatic affect on your group center then "2.5 inches".

caustic, this is the precision rifle forum. We all shoot at known distances at targets that don't move..... much :)

For Service Rifle or run and gun LR matches or "Sniper matches", there can be benefits to the FFP and coarser adjustments.

BUT.... with the advent of MOA reticles (hash marks spaced in MOA not MRADs), the MOA turrent matches the reticle well.

SO you can use your reticle for scaling, range estimation and quick elev/windage calc/adj.

Yes, you will need to keep a note on the mag to ensure proper subtension but that's about it.

Jerry
 
You guys are forgetting about the zombies!

FFP will be my next scope. S&B, maybe NF if I "cheap" out.

I have a Bushnell 6500 elite "tactical" right now (SFP) on my Savage 10FL, I'm pretty "meh" about it after owning it for a few years...
 
Mystic Precision said:
HD, MRAD clicks are way too coarse and so is 1/4 min clicks at LR for precision shooting.

If you got into F class shooting, you will quickly learn that you are not moving a point on the target but the GROUP CENTER which may or may not be centered on the shot that was just indicated.

I use a 1/4 min click scope but would rather get a 1/8min click.

The best solution right now is 1/8 min clicks which is still pretty coarse.

ideally we would have 1/10 min or even smaller value clicks.

At 1000yds, each 1/4 min clicks can have a far more dramatic affect on your group center then "2.5 inches".

caustic, this is the precision rifle forum. We all shoot at known distances at targets that don't move..... much :)
For Service Rifle or run and gun LR matches or "Sniper matches", there can be benefits to the FFP and coarser adjustments.

BUT.... with the advent of MOA reticles (hash marks spaced in MOA not MRADs), the MOA turrent matches the reticle well.

SO you can use your reticle for scaling, range estimation and quick elev/windage calc/adj.

Yes, you will need to keep a note on the mag to ensure proper subtension but that's about it.

Jerry
Click to expand...

oh right... that does make a difference if but i didn't notice if op state if was for f class type shooting.
 
Mystic Precision said:
At 1000yds, each 1/4 min clicks can have a far more dramatic affect on your group center then "2.5 inches".
Click to expand...

I know you have alot of experience with competitive target shooting and I'm not doubting that you know what you're talking about, but that made no sense. How does a 1/4 MoA adjustment change the point of impact any more or less than ~2.5" at 1000 yards? It's just math.

If you want to move your shot to the right by 6.4" at 1000 yards let's say, that would be 2.44 1/4MoA clicks or 1.78 1/10mil clicks. Sure, the 1/4MoA adjustments should get you closer, but like I previously said, no more than +/- 0.65" at 1000 yards.
 
What kind of LR shooting do you want to do? If it's for a target rifle that will only see use on a range, then you should follow the advice of those doing that kind of shooting (F-Class). But be aware that there are more kinds of precision long range range than just F-Class. In Canada, when you say "long range", most people think F-Class or some form of known distance target shooting where you have all of the time in the world to make your adjustments or aim at your target. It's mainly because of our restrictive range rules... that's all they know or have gotten to shoot. The closest thing to long range tactical shooting we have is DCRA Precision Rifle. And even that still involves known distances and spoon-feed targetry of known dimensions.

If you intend this scope for a tactical rig, then take the time to understand why there is a migration towards mil adjustments and FFP for that application. MOA and mil will both work, however, if you look at all of the new high end tactical offerings, they are mostly all in mil. If they are offered in MOA, its an afterthought, and you won't see 1/8 MOA. Its because you won't see the difference in any kind of field conditions, shooting off of a Harris or similar bipod and a small bean bag. Even the difference between 0.1mil and 1/4 MOA is lost in all of the other noise (wind, mirage, etc...). It works out to about 1.1 inches at 1000 yards. 1/8 MOA is pointless unless you're shooting off of a rest or a $300 F-Class bipod with a huge and impractical rabbit-ear bag under the stock. Yes, it can be more precise, but the kind of set-up you need to take advantage of it has no practical field use.

You can get finer mil adjustments, btw. March makes the 5-40xFFP with 0.05mil adjustments.
 
ivo said:
One thing that was not mentioned was FFP scopes usually have very fine crosshairs which many people don't like because they can be hard to see for some.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse poor design with the technology itself. A well designed reticle will have thicker bars that become visible at the lower magnification, and are used in place of the thinner inner ones at lower magnification. FFP is still young and many of the manufacturers new to it don't understand how its used or how to implement it correctly.
 
Haagen_Dazs said:
BULLs**t.



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...


Haagen Dazs,

First, I have to say that I am a FFP - MIL/MIL guy, any time, all the time for the simple reason that I do not compete in F-Class or Benchrest tournaments.

But for splitting hairs, I can take on just about anybody, so don't get upset because I am leaning heavily on your side here.

At 1000 yards, one click (1/10th of a mil) is 10 cm or 3.93" whereas 1/4 MoA at 1000 yards is about 2.63". Well, not quite. At 1000 yards, one click (1/10th of a mil) is not 10 cm but it is 3.6" and, yes, 1/4 MoA at 1000 yards is actually about 2.63". So, that means that the MRAD scope is about 0.97" coarser (actually more like 0.97" divided between two clicks so 0.485").

Centering that group on the vbull to +/- 2.54"/2 with the MoA scope ... Now, where does that 2.54" come from ? You mean 2.5", I guess ?

In the end, 0.485" at 1,000 yards is not that much. After some cogitation, I think that I can live with that ...

Snowy Owl
 
Haagen_Dazs said:
I know you have alot of experience with competitive target shooting and I'm not doubting that you know what you're talking about, but that made no sense. How does a 1/4 MoA adjustment change the point of impact any more or less than ~2.5" at 1000 yards? It's just math.

If you want to move your shot to the right by 6.4" at 1000 yards let's say, that would be 2.44 1/4MoA clicks or 1.78 1/10mil clicks. Sure, the 1/4MoA adjustments should get you closer, but like I previously said, no more than +/- 0.65" at 1000 yards.
Click to expand...

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.
 
There's enough reading here to make the skull hurt. I really can't see me shooting in f class but I want to use it for hunting and just rec long distance shooting.
 
You wanted to know.....

It is even more important with hunting grade rifles and less accurate ammo/bullets to really understand this concept.

Once you see it and can visualize what is happening with your grouping, you will have a far better understanding on the limitations to accurate fire at LR.

And that a miss might actually still be a correct shot within the grouping size of your rifle ie don't adjust your POA to correct.

Also, have you strive for far more accurate set ups.

Try this test with a 10" disk and try and hit that 10" circle.

Not easy at all.

Jerry
 
great thread. Correct me if im wrong, but despite being courser - the mrad ffp scope would have the advantage in speed of calculating a ld shot hunting at unknown or guestimated distances and target sizes - would it not?
 
kombayotch said:
Don't confuse poor design with the technology itself. A well designed reticle will have thicker bars that become visible at the lower magnification, and are used in place of the thinner inner ones at lower magnification. FFP is still young and many of the manufacturers new to it don't understand how its used or how to implement it correctly.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused whatsoever, nor do I think this will change! In fact I think the fine crosshairs are by design, after all these scopes are built for long range precision shooting. Building a scope for this purpose with thicker crosshairs would completely defeat the purpose! It's tough to get a precise POA when the crosshairs are covering the target.

I think the manufacturers and their R&D departments know exactly what they are doing. Is it a coincidence that USO, Premier Reticles, S&B all build their FFP scopes this way? I think not.
 
rtracer13 said:
great thread. Correct me if im wrong, but despite being courser - the mrad ffp scope would have the advantage in speed of calculating a ld shot hunting at unknown or guestimated distances and target sizes - would it not?
Click to expand...

Depends on the sizing of the reticle used.

If the reticle covers that target, how can you range it?

If the hash marks are course, how do you get precise subtension.

The MRAD/FFP mildot, picket fence, xmas tree reticles are all about putting lead on a larger target - somewhere. Close enough is good enough.

wounding can actually have its benefits....

For LR hunting, this is exactly what we don't want.

Can FFP reticles be sized to work well and properly, you bet. But many manfs don't seem to want to put in the effort or costs to do the proper laser engraving.

Jerry
 
Snowy Owl said:
At 1000 yards, one click (1/10th of a mil) is 10 cm or 3.93" whereas 1/4 MoA at 1000 yards is about 2.63". Well, not quite. At 1000 yards, one click (1/10th of a mil) is not 10 cm but it is 3.6" and, yes, 1/4 MoA at 1000 yards is actually about 2.63". So, that means that the MRAD scope is about 0.97" coarser (actually more like 0.97" divided between two clicks so 0.485").
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right, I got mixed up! 1 MRAD at 1000 yards is about 9.14cm, whereas at 1000 meters, it's 10cm. So at the end of the day, the MoA turrets will get you up to a half inch closer to the target than the MRAD ad 1000 yards.... :jerkit:
 
ivo said:
I'm not confused whatsoever, nor do I think this will change! In fact I think the fine crosshairs are by design, after all these scopes are built for long range precision shooting. Building a scope for this purpose with thicker crosshairs would completely defeat the purpose! It's tough to get a precise POA when the crosshairs are covering the target.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are...

Only the center portion of the crosshair needs to be fine, since that is all that you see at high magnification:

image-FML-24x.jpg


When you crank down the magnitication, that center part shrinks as you noted earlier. If the entire crosshair is the same thickness and thin, or the outer bars are not thick enough or too far out, at lower magnification the reticle becomes unusable (especially on dark backdrops). If you make them too thick, they cover too much at high magnification. With a well designed crosshair, they will make the bars a lot thicker on the parts of the crosshair that you only see at low magnification.

image-FML-3x.jpg


You then have a crosshair that is visible and usable at low magnification without having to resort to illuminaton. At the distances where you're going to use the low end of the magnification range, reticle hashes and a super fine aiming point are not generally required.

Many of the cheaper FFP scopes fail in this regard. They do silly things like make the reticle too thick at the center in order to try and keep it visible at low magnification..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom