IF you know the exact size of the object, and if it is stationary long enough, and if you can precisely bracket the object, then you might be able to get an estimate of range accurate enough to set your elevation close enough to get a hit. Will you be able to get an accurate enough hit to justify taking a shot at a game animal?
MOA or MRAD???
- Thread starter Katana
- Start date
IF you know the exact size of the object, and if it is stationary long enough, and if you can precisely bracket the object, then you might be able to get an estimate of range accurate enough to set your elevation close enough to get a hit. Will you be able to get an accurate enough hit to justify taking a shot at a game animal?
He's talking about a guesstimated distance (not calculated/measured), and using the reticle for the holdover. He isn't talking about long distances here. Within a few hundred yards, yes, you could estimate the distance, and use the reticle for an accurate shot on a large animal.
Hunters routinely do this with their duplex reticles, with only a vague notion of their load's trajectory, and no one seems to bat an eye. But mention using a reticle that is accurate over the magnification range and in the same units as known and verified dope and suddenly it's an unethical shot...
If you're using it within a resonable distance, in situation where you would hold holdover with a reticle that does not have ranging features, or ones that are not accurate at all magnifications, then yes, it will provide an advantage. It will be MORE accurate.
OP,
I found this video very helpful when figuring out Mils.
Understanding Mils (Milradians):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5AGsHSIsVo
I found this video very helpful when figuring out Mils.
Understanding Mils (Milradians):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5AGsHSIsVo
I should mention that kombayotch is an outstanding shooter who uses mildot scopes very effectively.
Using the reticle for a rapid holdover while hunting can make sense.
I just question the practicality of using it for precise range estimation at longer ranges.
Using the reticle for a rapid holdover while hunting can make sense.
I just question the practicality of using it for precise range estimation at longer ranges.
Unfortunately, you are...
Only the center portion of the crosshair needs to be fine, since that is all that you see at high magnification:
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.
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..
If the shooter cannot see the reticle on low magnification the the shooter should visit his optometrist.
I have never had a problem seeing my crosshairs in field conditions and for the situation where I would have a problem seeing the crosshairs I guess I would have to "resort" to illumination, after all almost every single high end scope has it for that reason.
I have both a USO in 3.2-17 and Premier Reticles 5-25 and have no issues seeing the crosshairs whatsoever. My next rig will probably wear another USO or S&B which I have also looked through. I would strongly suggest that if someone can't see the crosshairs in their scope they should probably go SFP or get out of the shooting sports all together.
- Location
- Halifax, NS
How coarse 1/10MRAD clicks actually are:
Jerry,
After reading through your experiment I do understand what you're talking about and it does make sense. 1/4MoA adjustments will get you closer than 1/10MRAD adjustments will (most of the time). What I'm trying to figure out is just how bad MRAD adjustments are compared to MoA. Because I went to school for engineering and not arts and crafts, I let Excell do the work for me.
Whether you're shooting F-Class or pop cans, you will shoot, see where your shot hit, see where you want to hit, decide on how much adjustment to use based on your rifle's precision (usually divide miss distance by 2 or take 2nd shot at same Point of Aim). After all this, we all come to the same conclusion: adjust X.X clicks horizontally and X.X clicks vertically.
What I did was simulate a required adjustment for 0.25" to 10.00" at 1000 yards and applied the rounded click adjustment. Even the 1/8MoA adjustment won't get you exactly on target most of the time and there will be some error in PoA and PoI or group center.
I graphed the results as well as averaged to difference between the MoA and MRAD miss distance for comparison.
Here's a refined picture for 0.1 MRAD or 3.6" at 1000 yards:
As you can see, it is a repeating series. There are certain required adjustments where 1/10 MoA will bring you closer to your PoA than 1/4 MoA and even closer than 1/8 MoA when an adjustment of about 3.6" and 7.2" is required (where the required adjustment equals 1 or 2 tenths of a mil).
So, basically, by going with a 1/10 MRAD adjustment scope instead of a 1/4 MoA one, you are only going to be off by an average of a quarter inch at 1000 yards due to scope adjustment coarsness (if that's even a word).
Hope that helps!
Jerry,
After reading through your experiment I do understand what you're talking about and it does make sense. 1/4MoA adjustments will get you closer than 1/10MRAD adjustments will (most of the time). What I'm trying to figure out is just how bad MRAD adjustments are compared to MoA. Because I went to school for engineering and not arts and crafts, I let Excell do the work for me.
Whether you're shooting F-Class or pop cans, you will shoot, see where your shot hit, see where you want to hit, decide on how much adjustment to use based on your rifle's precision (usually divide miss distance by 2 or take 2nd shot at same Point of Aim). After all this, we all come to the same conclusion: adjust X.X clicks horizontally and X.X clicks vertically.
What I did was simulate a required adjustment for 0.25" to 10.00" at 1000 yards and applied the rounded click adjustment. Even the 1/8MoA adjustment won't get you exactly on target most of the time and there will be some error in PoA and PoI or group center.
I graphed the results as well as averaged to difference between the MoA and MRAD miss distance for comparison.
- 1/4 MoA vs 1/10 MRAD: 1/4 MoA will get you on average 0.28" closer to your PoA than 1/10 MRAD will. Extreme differences are 0.97" advantage to 1/4 MoA and 0.97" advantage to MRAD (depending on the required adjustment, see graph).
- 1/4 MoA vs 1/8 MoA: 1/8 MoA will get you on average 0.27" closer to your PoA than 1/4 MoA will. Extreme differences are 1.29" advantage to 1/8 MoA and 0.00" advantage to 1/4 MoA
- 1/8 MoA vs 1/10 MRAD: 1/8 MoA will get you on average 0.55" closer to your PoA than 1/10 MRAD will. Extreme differences are 1.32" advantage to 1/8 MoA and 0.35" advantage to MRAD (depending on the required adjustment, see graph).
Here's a refined picture for 0.1 MRAD or 3.6" at 1000 yards:
As you can see, it is a repeating series. There are certain required adjustments where 1/10 MoA will bring you closer to your PoA than 1/4 MoA and even closer than 1/8 MoA when an adjustment of about 3.6" and 7.2" is required (where the required adjustment equals 1 or 2 tenths of a mil).
So, basically, by going with a 1/10 MRAD adjustment scope instead of a 1/4 MoA one, you are only going to be off by an average of a quarter inch at 1000 yards due to scope adjustment coarsness (if that's even a word
).Hope that helps!
Last edited:
WTF? I personally don't care which reticle or scope you use/prefer, nor should you feel "bad" for using it. Weather you can afford a particular scope is none of my business. If you have taken my post as ridiculing someone or a group of individuals, you have completely missed the point. What I was suggesting was that if you can't see a FFP reticle, you need to get a SFP.
If you can't put a FFP reticle on target, get a SFP reticle. If you still can't put that reticle on target, you are a liability to those around you and yes, GET OUT OF THE SHOOTING SPORTS(I don't want to be anywhere near you when you have a firearm in your hands).
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
HD, you are still not including the group size in the calculations or at least I don't see it.
You are moving a single point - the position of the bullet impact vs where you want to go.
The assumption is that the follow up shot will land EXACTLY in the same location as the primary shot in your group. You have a group size of ZERO. This assumption is incorrect or the odds are very very small.
The next shot, all things being perfect, will land somewhere in that group which may now be somewhere outside the intended target.
Do the disk thing cause an engineer would visualise this in a big hurry. To actually model this would be a massive program cause there are many more variables that I haven't even bothered to add to the mix.
The only point we both agree on is even 1/8 min clicks is too coarse for LR precision shooting if you want to dial exactly to POI. This we already know but there is nothing being engineered to improve this and the scope makers I have talked to have no desire to retool or at least figure out a solution.
1/4 min is workable. Anything coarse just makes it far more difficult.
If your targets are big and impact anywhere is ok, then even 1/2 min clicks is workable (some military scopes are that coarse). But reduce the size of the object and you will quickly appreciate the finer optics adjustment.
With present tech, you will still need to hold off in some instances because there is no scope adjustment that will get it right.
Jerry
You are moving a single point - the position of the bullet impact vs where you want to go.
The assumption is that the follow up shot will land EXACTLY in the same location as the primary shot in your group. You have a group size of ZERO. This assumption is incorrect or the odds are very very small.
The next shot, all things being perfect, will land somewhere in that group which may now be somewhere outside the intended target.
Do the disk thing cause an engineer would visualise this in a big hurry. To actually model this would be a massive program cause there are many more variables that I haven't even bothered to add to the mix.
The only point we both agree on is even 1/8 min clicks is too coarse for LR precision shooting if you want to dial exactly to POI. This we already know but there is nothing being engineered to improve this and the scope makers I have talked to have no desire to retool or at least figure out a solution.
1/4 min is workable. Anything coarse just makes it far more difficult.
If your targets are big and impact anywhere is ok, then even 1/2 min clicks is workable (some military scopes are that coarse). But reduce the size of the object and you will quickly appreciate the finer optics adjustment.
With present tech, you will still need to hold off in some instances because there is no scope adjustment that will get it right.
Jerry
FFP is an advantage on moving objects, and especially if the objects that are moving are at different distances or require increasing or decreasing power constantly.
It is very functional inside 100-300 yds in realworld tactical use. Especially if you are not on terra firma and your distance to target is constantly changing.
Doesn't sound like you could really take advantage of those features target shooting. SWFA sells a really nice FFP for about $700 in the US but they don't sell here.
If you can, go to a Range, try one all the way out to the target line @ 1000yds and see if the FFP reticle blocks/covers the V at any standard target range.
No matter what reticle or turret you buy you will learn it well just like everyone else has.
It is very functional inside 100-300 yds in realworld tactical use. Especially if you are not on terra firma and your distance to target is constantly changing.
Doesn't sound like you could really take advantage of those features target shooting. SWFA sells a really nice FFP for about $700 in the US but they don't sell here.
If you can, go to a Range, try one all the way out to the target line @ 1000yds and see if the FFP reticle blocks/covers the V at any standard target range.
No matter what reticle or turret you buy you will learn it well just like everyone else has.
- Location
- Halifax, NS
Jerry,
I know there is some confusion because in the graphs I put the words "shot missed by" or whatever. What I ment to say was "point of aim missed by". There is no assumption of zero group size in what I did because what I did was not concerning individual shots, but the point of aim of the barrel. Yes, I am moving a single point; that point being the center of the imaginary group.
Please read this again:
Your rifle's group size has nothing to do with your scope turrets adjustment values. Your group size or precision will increase the amount of confidence or accuracy of your determined shot correciton value, but it has nothing to do with what units your clicks are in.
Let's say shooter A and shooter B are both in a match. Shooter A shoots tighter groups than shooter B does. This means that when shooter A and shooter B have to make a correction after loosing a point on the 1st shot, shooter A's correction should be more accurate than whatever shooter B's correction is.
The bottom line I'm getting at is that at the end of the day, both shooter A and shooter B came up with their own unique shot correction of X.X clicks up/down/left/right.
Now, let's say shooter A and shooter B both come up with 3.6" down and 2.6" right. Let's also say shooter A is using a 1/4 MoA scope adjustment and shooter B is using 1/10 MRAD adjustment. Shooter A decides to adjust 1 click (2.6") down and 1 click (2.6") right. Now shooter A should be on target horizontally, but he's off by about 1" too high. Shooter B does the same correction of 1 click (3.6") down and right but with his MRAD scope. Shooter B should be on target vertically but off by about 1" to the right.
Make sense?
Sorry, but I didn't even say that. You can only rarely dial 'exactly' to PoI as the graphs dictate. Having 1/8 MoA turrets mean you will have a better chance of being able to dial to exactly PoI but it doesn't mean having 1/10 MRAD adjusments makes you unable to correct for a shot at 1000 yards.
I know we're both coming from two different ends of the field. You're the guy with all (and I do mean all) of the experince and I'm just looking at it mathematically. I'll stick with my MRAD scope and you your MoA
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Jerry,
...Yes, I am moving a single point; that point being the center of the imaginary group.
Who says that shot is in the center of your group?
I know we're both coming from two different ends of the field. You're the guy with all (and I do mean all) of the experince and I'm just looking at it mathematically. I'll stick with my MRAD scope and you your MoA
HD, empirically, what you are saying might work in a single point world. But shooting doesn't work that way.
We move groups not single points on target. The location of that shot can be ANYWHERE in your group.
Someday when winter hits and you have nothing else do to, draw the circle, cut a lid, see for yourself.
If you really want to give your brain a strain, instead of just putting a mark on the disk, push a pin through that disk into the circle below. Now rotate that disk 360degrees on that pin, marking the extreme circle the disk now makes.
THAT is the extreme of your real world group size - can be as much as double your mechanical group SQUARED.
Now move that.....
Gives you a great understanding of why precision LR shooters go to such extremes in load tuning AND confirming their zeros. Why the highest levels of accuracy are needed.
And why scope adjustments matter so much.
Anytime you are heading into the OK Valley, lets' go out shooting and we can put some real world experience to the numbers.
It is not right or wrong but understanding any devices limitations is very empowering.
YMMV
Jerry
MOA is so easy to use. These posts nailed it.
Anyone use 1/8 moa ? and opinions vrs 1/4 MOA ? is 1/8 necessary past 1000 ?
Ive got a new NXS 250 with 1/4 moa adjustments. I over looked 1/8 when i bought it. sometimes i wonder if i should have bought 1/8 clicks.
Anyone use 1/8 moa ? and opinions vrs 1/4 MOA ? is 1/8 necessary past 1000 ?
Ive got a new NXS 250 with 1/4 moa adjustments. I over looked 1/8 when i bought it. sometimes i wonder if i should have bought 1/8 clicks.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
The further you shoot, the smaller the scope click you want.
Jerry
Jerry
Pretty much summed it up right here!
