MRAD vs MOA

kombayotch said:
Anything can be made to work, its just a matter of how efficient you want to be. If you're shooting at your own leisure, it doesn't matter. But when you're trying to be as efficient as possible under the clock... There is a reason that the shooters in US matches have overwhelmingly went a certain way, and the opposite way one would expect a country where people "think in inches" to go. I'm sorry, but it isn't just preference. Reality on the ground after more than a decade of those matches shows shooters using one system consistently outperforming the ones using the other system. And, everyone was using the other system a decade ago. If there is no difference, why the mass migration? Why change from something you know if there is no advantage? Why stick with it after you try if there is no advantage?
Click to expand...

Further to the above:

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/10/24/best-tactical-scopes-what-the-pros-use/

The top three scopes (S&B PMII 5-25, Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27 and Bushnell ET XRS 4.5-30) used by "the best competition precision rifle shooters" last year were mil/mil scopes. While MoA variants for the S&B can be custom ordered, the Vortex and Bushnell are purely mrad based scopes.

In fact, as you work down the list, they are virtually all mil/mil models.
 
Back in the day, when the big migration to FFP started down south in PRS style matches (long before the PRS itself was even conceived) USO was everyone's darling due to the customization options and features like EREK and illumination that few others except S&B had. They always offered both mil and MOA, yet these Americans PR shooters (who hate all things metric) still migrated to mil. Why would they do that if there is no advantage?
 
kombayotch said:
Anything can be made to work, its just a matter of how efficient you want to be. If you're shooting at your own leisure, it doesn't matter. But when you're trying to be as efficient as possible under the clock... There is a reason that the shooters in US matches have overwhelmingly went a certain way, and the opposite way one would expect a country where people "think in inches" to go. I'm sorry, but it isn't just preference. Reality on the ground after more than a decade of those matches shows shooters using one system consistently outperforming the ones using the other system. And, everyone was using the other system a decade ago. If there is no difference, why the mass migration? Why change from something you know if there is no advantage? Why stick with it after you try if there is no advantage?
Click to expand...

Because scope companies don't always understand the products they manf vs the needs of the end users.

At the beginning, there was Mildot reticles and INCH clicks... how dumb was that? But it WAS the standard for decades.

Then some radical made the dots become hash marks and "changed the world" or at least brought us to 1960's Russian tech. But it was still mrad/moa or worst yet - mrad/inch clicks. Almost all of these were housed in SFP tubes.

Eventually, those in tactical competitions found a way through military suppliers to have a MRAD (mildot) AND MRAD click scope AND FFP... life was better. The fact that all MRAD clicks started life with base 10 vs 4 or 8, is a small miracle. The math is far more complicated but who bothers with the math... see, click, hit.

A very few companies that supplied LEO and Mil end users started to capitalise on this demand and made a "killing". Some open minded companies jumped on the FFP band wagon, then went so far to match click and hash reticle spacings.

For us, all of this is obvious but obviously, not so for scope manf.

Competitors used the best solutions which were FFP - MRAD/MRAD because there weren't any MOA/MOA FFP scopes to choose even if they wanted to buy one. What few I can think of were MOA/inch clicks which have that recurring error the further you go. Even now, very few companies have true MOA clicks vs inch clicks.

And they have never really made an effort at FFP scopes.

The MOA heritage is one of point blank hunting... 1/4" (INCH) was far easier to explain to the masses using 1" grid targets. Now if we had MOA grid targets.... how different the world could be?

So, the tactical sport changed and now the "standard" is FFP/MRAD-MRAD.

I shake my head every year when I hear the latest greatest offered by scope brands ... do any of these engineers actually go out and shoot a rifle or visit a sport or ... watch YOUTUBE?

So k, the tactical sport is fully immersed in MRAD. They talk in MRAD, they now have MRAD scopes with the features they actually want, and the business with enough brains to supply are making a "killing".

BUT, it doesn't change the fact that MOA or MRAD is simply a unit of angular measure. If the scopes are identical except for the unit of measure, they can function in exactly the same way in the field.

The fact that a sport has overwhelmingly choosen a unit of measure doesn't negate the effectiveness of the other.... except the vast majority of scopes DO NOT work.

Not a unit problem... its a scope problem... or at least, what the manf decide we should use.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
I believe those shooters choose MRAD due to the direct lineage with MILDOT reticles something they grew up using.

All that has happened is the dots have been replaced by lines and the clicks built to match. The mildot training carries forward and many shooters of the past had direct training with mildot scopes - moa, inch clicks or what have you.

You will find that the LR hunting community is still very immersed in MOA in their optics and in their communication. Many still use SFP scopes. It's their tech heritage...

Jerry
 
There was always an MOA/MOA FFP option, right from the beginning: US Optics. In the early 2000s, that is what everyone was buying. It was that or S&B, even for mil. So, yes, its the base 10 that is the deciding factor. Our brains can process it faster, same with the smaller numbers that are almost always smaller than 10.

Things like holdovers... you're not always doing this with the turrets set to zero. If you have a bunch of targets close in distance, you may set the elevation to a whole value somewhere in the middle (say 4.0 mils) and then hold over and hold under the difference.

Edit: An example:

In the US (PRS) style matches, you're usually engaging multiple target in the same string. The targets are going to be at different odd distances, you will be given a fixed amount of time, and will often have to change positions during that time. The time you are given will usually only allow you the chance to shoot at all of the targets if you're very efficient. So, you want to minimize the number of times you have to break position to look at a turret or knob. This costs you valuable time. So, you're generally using some combination of dialing and hold over and hold under. You can mix and match reticle holdovers with turret adjustments in an FFP scope with matched reticle and turrets and you can do it at any magnification. You will almost always be adjusting your magnification to locate the targets for the optimum FOV. Things seldom work well on the highest power. But, you can do this while looking through the scope with FFP since the magnification doesn't need to be at a specific value. You don't have to break your cheek weld and then be forced to located the target again (huge time waster). Wind is usually held off with the reticle to save time in everything but shots requiring high precision. This can also be done at any magnification in an FFP scope.

Lets say you had 5 targets and they required the following elevations: 0.4mil, 3.2mil, 3.7mil, 4.3 mil, and 6.1 mil. If you were given 60 seconds to shoot all of these targets twice, and had to change position for each target, a good approach might be:

Hold 0.4mil high with the reticle, with the turret set to 0.0mil for the first target,
Set the turret to 4.0mils and hold 0.8mil under for the second target, 0.3mil under for the 3rd target and 0.3mil over for the fourth target.
Set the turret to 6.1mils and hold center if the target looks very small or hold 2.1mils over without making another turret adjustment if it seems more generous (they're often different shapes, sometimes shaped like an animal) or if you're running out of time.

You're often making these decisions on the line while shooting because, while you may have been given the distances in advance, things may play out differently than planned once you're into the stage and actually see how things are set up. Sometimes there's an incline or a decline to the shot that you have to compensate for. Working with the small numbers, and the base 10 increments makes it very easy to change or calculate things on the fly.
 
Last edited:
Wow lots of great info. From my reading, research, your all's input I think I will be going with a MRAD system as I much prefer multiples of 10. However now, I am unsure if I want a vortex or a Sightron.
 
kombayotch said:
...

Edit: An example:

In the US (PRS) style matches, you're usually engaging multiple target in the same string. The targets are going to be at different odd distances, you will be given a fixed amount of time, and will often have to change positions during that time. The time you are given will usually only allow you the chance to shoot at all of the targets if you're very efficient. So, you want to minimize the number of times you have to break position to look at a turret or knob. This costs you valuable time. So, you're generally using some combination of dialing and hold over and hold under. You can mix and match reticle holdovers with turret adjustments in an FFP scope with matched reticle and turrets and you can do it at any magnification. You will almost always be adjusting your magnification to locate the targets for the optimum FOV. Things seldom work well on the highest power. But, you can do this while looking through the scope with FFP since the magnification doesn't need to be at a specific value. You don't have to break your cheek weld and then be forced to located the target again (huge time waster). Wind is usually held off with the reticle to save time in everything but shots requiring high precision. This can also be done at any magnification in an FFP scope.

Lets say you had 5 targets and they required the following elevations: 0.4mil, 3.2mil, 3.7mil, 4.3 mil, and 6.1 mil. If you were given 60 seconds to shoot all of these targets twice, and had to change position for each target, a good approach might be:

Hold 0.4mil high with the reticle, with the turret set to 0.0mil for the first target,
Set the turret to 4.0mils and hold 0.8mil under for the second target, 0.3mil under for the 3rd target and 0.3mil over for the fourth target.
Set the turret to 6.1mils and hold center if the target looks very small or hold 2.1mils over without making another turret adjustment if it seems more generous (they're often different shapes, sometimes shaped like an animal) or if you're running out of time.

....
Click to expand...

Since the PRS sport is going to chat in MRADs, doing the mental gymnastics is silly BUT if you wanted to...

0.4 = 1.44mins
3.2 = 11.52mins
3.7 = 11.32mins
4.3 = 15.5mins
6.1 = 22mins

I ran those to compare distance vs drop of my set up which is a 6XC at 3000fps with a 105 gr bullet. All rounded off for easy math and given the size of the targets, doesn't matter

With 100yds zero...
1.4 mins - 200yds
11.5mins - 600yds
13.3mins - 660yds
15.5mins - 715yds
22mins - 880yds.

I know this is just by luck but the LR stuff is pretty much 2 mins apart and all are way far enough away I would not need to change my mag from 17X. Reticle spacing is 2 mins at 17X. You could easily fudge the hold if the MOA value was between the hash lines.

So if I got this stage, start with 100yds zero and aim high of center...or dial in 1.5 mins.

dial to 13.5mins when moving to next shot

1 line above center for next target (600yds)
center for next target 660yds
1 line below center for 715yds

Likely dial to 22mins for final target as it would be best to hold center that far out to judge winds and such. Don't count clicks, just dial to the number value on the turret.

So MOA or MRAD, the concept and applications are identical.

PRS suggests they provide targets that are in the 2 to 4 MOA range (yes, they do speak in MOA sometimes which I find comical). So they are BIG targets and with quality scopes, you are going to see it. Huge mag, I just don't see being all that important... wide field of view, Yes, I see that being very important.

For now, I am going to play with the Sightron STAC 2.5-17.5 - 56mm scope. For shots beyond 200yds, I really don't see the need to drop mag even with movers. The field of view is very large so I suspect I am going to be at full mag pretty much all the time. Or mid mag which is 9.5X. In most Sightron scopes, the tab on the mag ring is in the mid mag range so just move till that tab is vertical.... done

If there are close stages that require lower mag, you certainly aren't going to need to play with drops... aim and shoot. Given the vids I have seen, I really think these type of matches need 2 mags - low or high. I am unsure when you would want to play with mag as it wouldn't help with ranging stuff anyways if using FFP (would if using SFP).

Certainly no issue seeing a 2MOA sized target as far as the event will want to shoot.... even at 1 mile.

If I had to dial, I would think in half mins or quarters - this is easy given our years of comfort in our monetary system. A 1/4 more or less is not going to change the hit rate on such a large target. Your ability to get a steady shot off and dope the winds and control your breathing and gear and motions and, and , and will have a far greater effect.

YMMV...

Jerry
 
You don't really get the same appreciation for it reading it online and having time to process it as you do trying to do it in real time on the firing line. The two have been compared hundreds if not thousands of times over on the Hide, and the same question always comes up in the end, but can never be answered. More people show up at matches with MOA scopes (many of them being FFP), but few end up near the top or in the Finale. This has been true year after year. If there really is no difference, then statistically the ratio of MOA to mil scopes at the top should be the nearly the same as the ratio of them in your pool of shooters. But, it isn't. Why not if there is no difference?

Concept and application may be the same, but execution time is not... that is reality. That is what the results have shown year after year.
 
kombayotch said:
You don't really get the same appreciation for it reading it online and having time to process it as you do trying to do it in real time on the firing line. The two have been compared hundreds if not thousands of times over on the Hide, and the same question always comes up in the end, but can never be answered. More people show up at matches with MOA scopes (many of them being FFP), but few end up near the top or in the Finale. This has been true year after year. If there really is no difference, then statistically the ratio of MOA to mil scopes at the top should be the nearly the same as the ratio of them in your pool of shooters. But, it isn't. Why not if there is no difference?

Concept and application may be the same, but execution time is not... that is reality. That is what the results have shown year after year.
Click to expand...

Excellent posts! MIL has always been my preferred but your explanation really drives home the advantages.

TW25B
 
Simple test:

Tell me how many 0.25 MOA clicks in 18.75 MOA?

Tell me how many 0.1 mil clicks in 5.4 mil?

Which can you answer faster? What does your brain process faster tenths or quarters?

When you're about to run out of time and you need to hold over the difference between your current turret setting and the next needed elevation to get off one more shot and get one more point before the clock runs out, which can you calculate faster in that split second? The extra points add up...
 
I don't count clicks and wouldn't regardless of the click value. I don't for F class either.

If I need 18.75 min, I dial 18 mins (+18 numbers) and I can figure the 3 clicks equal 3/4 pretty darn fast. If we had to shoot in the dark, I can just as easily forget what comes after 25 whether they are 1/4 min or 0.1mrad clicks. Since I currently compete only in daylight, I will not worry about this just yet.

What I feel is a huge aid in the PRS/tactical scope is a elevation turret with a huge amount of travel PER revolution.

WAY too many MOA scopes have some silly number of MOA per rev like 8 or 12 or 5. The worst scopes I have seen catered to SR BR.. the turrets actually had 7.5 mins per revolution. Yes, each revolution, all the numbers on the knobs had different values. But for a scope that would never see more then 7.5 mins of change... worked just fine for decades.

It takes way too long and way too much math to remember where you were, what you need to add and where you need to go. Again, it is a SCOPE problem

10mins is at least functional BUT for courses of fire where you will go 2 to 3 revolutions... not ideal

The USO ERBK (or something like that) made a huge amount of sense to me when I was testing it. 1 rev from 100 to 1000yds... that is smart.

Whether I like Vortex or not, their specs certainly have been designed by someone who has either used or listened to those in this sport. 25 MOA or 10MRAD per rev for the Razor Gen II IS a big deal. (Sightron SV now has 20mins per rev so at least heading in the right direction)

Given that the vast marjority of shooting is inside 1000yds, ONE revolution gets it done (or at worst, 1 plus a small amount). And for those super long stages, another partial rev gets me where I need to go. THAT makes sense, that is fast and easy to use. Don't have to remember which hash mark is what or how many revs you have made.

If I need 18.75 mins, I dial to the NUMBER 18 on my dial and go 3 more clicks... send it. THIS is what will make an MOA scope competitive. NOT 2.5 revs and I have to remember that the 4 is now a 6 but not if I go one more rev where it becomes something else. That is tech designed for shooters with may more time and do not need to change under stress.

I am in no way saying that the PRS sport is going to change to MOA.... that boat has sailed. What I am saying is that after a very long time, the MOA scope manf are slowly catching up to what they produce in mrad settings.

I believe that until the MOA scopes offer the same utility as the MRAD scopes, MRAD will dominate. When MOA scopes catch up, if they ever, then is simply a unit question and there will be camps for both.

One of the top tactical scope brands still make their knobs go the "wrong" way... but then they think ours turn the wrong way :)

Jerry
 
kombayotch said:
You don't really get the same appreciation for it reading it online and having time to process it as you do trying to do it in real time on the firing line. The two have been compared hundreds if not thousands of times over on the Hide, and the same question always comes up in the end, but can never be answered. More people show up at matches with MOA scopes (many of them being FFP), but few end up near the top or in the Finale. This has been true year after year. If there really is no difference, then statistically the ratio of MOA to mil scopes at the top should be the nearly the same as the ratio of them in your pool of shooters. But, it isn't. Why not if there is no difference?

Concept and application may be the same, but execution time is not... that is reality. That is what the results have shown year after year.
Click to expand...

Do the same SHOOTERS end up in the final 10?

From the vids I have seen, that looks pretty much to be the case. So if the top 10 shooters, who seem to always be the top 10 choose purple stocks.... is that the best colour for a stock?

What is being debated has more to do with the quirks of the scope then the units of the clicks. As my post above stated, an MOA scope adjustment that gets you lost often is not helping your scores. Make the same set up in MRAD and you will have the same complaint.

How many MRAD scopes have less then full MRADs per rev? How successful would a scope with 7.5 MRADs per revolution be?

Look at the Vortex PST and HST products....

Vortex PST 4-16 FFP - 12 mins per revolution. OUCH! That is not going to be user friendly in the least. The MRAD version 5 MRADs. Which do you think you can screw up faster?

It's a SCOPE problem

Jerry
 
Last edited:
It's not about counting clicks, that's just an example that shows the difference with a simple math operation because those simple math operations add up. The reality is that you often have to do little quick calculations to make tweaks and adjustments on the firing line in the interest of saving time. Splitting between dialing and holdover, scaling elevation to adjust for inclines and declines, adjusting a mover lead to account for an angle, etc... Things like the adjustment formula for correcting the rifleman's rule for high angle shooting is less complicated in mils. Rifleman's rule is for angle shooting. Rifleman's rule says you use the horizontal distance instead of slope distance for elevation when shooting on an incline or decline. You find the horizontal distance by multiplying the slope distance by the value on your cosine indicator. It works ok for short distances and angles that aren't very steep. To improve it, they created the Improved Rifleman's Rule. With the IRR, you look up your elevation adjustment for the slope distance and multiply that by your cosine indicator. Works a little better, but still not great for steep angles and long distances. So, to make it more accurate, you need to correct the IRR.

For mils: Corrected Elevation = IRR - 0.1mil for every 10 degrees over 10 degrees.
For MOA: Corrected Elevation = IRR - 0.25 MOA for every 5 degrees over 20 degrees.

The mil formula is easier to figure out. These are little things, but little things all add up...

I wouldn't say the boat has sailed is the correct metaphor. Every year new shooters get into the sport and every year the ones using MOA still outnumber the ones using mil. Many of them go with MOA after convincing themselves that is makes no difference using analysis that is based on the square range shooting they have experience with. They know that it will be different for them, they will make it work just as well. Well, the results don't show that happening. So maybe the boat is always launching, hitting an iceburg, sinking and then being rebuilt in a different configuration is more accurate.

Putting all that aside, the lack of standardization you mention should really be reason enough to steer someone in the other direction...
 
I had never heard of most of the guys in the top 10 5 years ago... There has definitely been a changing of the guard to some extend. Many of the guys I used to see at the top of match results are now further down the list.

You might want to look at the specification for the new Nightforce ATACR F1s if you think 12 units per revolution is a bad number. Doesn't bother me... that is more than enough to get you past 1k even with a 308.
 
Last edited:
What's a cosine indicator? ..... Just kidding but stuff I wouldn't never think to put on my scope

As I have said from the start, if the MOA scope manf had kept up with shooting sports as opposed to an antiquated model based on PBR hunting, we wouldn't have this debate. But they are still a mess so another tech takes over.

Lots of newbies show up with less then ideal scopes for the same reason.. those that sell the stuff don't understand the application cause most don't play. And really, how many scopes truly excel at the PRS game regardless of the click value?

Quick calculations... wow, I am sunk. I don't care if I am working in MOA, MRADs, or whatever, under stress, it all goes for a dump. Given ALL the variables that happen and ALL the variable I can add as a shooter, all I want is a firing solution where the amount of error is less then the target I am shooting at. No more, no less.

Being right to the last 0.1 click but wobble 2 MOA cause they got me on some crazy shooting position I am not used to, isn't going to help my scores. Or taking another 10 secs to do the math, instead of sending a rd, adjust and hit... and then move to the next target.

I believe that the top shooters understand, perfect is a huge waste of time.

Understand the amount of error in any situation. Understand that you and everyone is likely going to miss. Hedge your bets so that with the error, the impact zone is smaller then the target... SEND IT!

This is not a game for perfection.. It is a game of percentages.

If you want perfection, come shoot F class with me.

Then we can talk 1/8 min clicks all day long :)

Jerry
 
kombayotch said:
I had never heard of most of the guys in the top 10 5 years ago... There has definitely been a changing of the guard to some extend. Many of the guys I used to see at the top of match results are now further down the list.

You might want to look at the specification for the new Nightforce ATACR F1s if you think 12 units per revolution is a bad number. Doesn't bother me... that is more than enough to get you past 1k even with a 308.
Click to expand...

12 MRADs... no biggie

12 MOA... big biggie.

I feel that within 1 rev of elevation for all typical distances is a good thing. Precious few scope come close. 20 to 25 MOA per revolution is a step in the right direction. 10 to 12 MRADs... done.

I think a huge change in the "guard" has to do with the physical demands of this sport. Climbing over barracades.. squeezing through tunnels..hopping from position to position.. dragging dummies around... this is all Young shooters stuff.

Watching some shooters huffing and puffing in the Texas heat with their rifle and pack going from stage to stage.... no sir, dragging a rifle on the ground is not good practise regardless of how durable your scope is!

Then there were some shooters that looked like they would do well in the Ironman triathlon. Who do you think will have an advantage in a stage or two?

GAP GRIND... WTF?

Like IPSC... the more gymnastics and endurance play into the sport, the more the "old guard" is going to drop in the standings.

At some point, when does it stop being a shooting sport and more a "running" sport.

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