You guys are reading way too much into this lol. I see it as this. If you are using one quarter inch clicks to move your reticle a quarter of an inch at 100 YARDS(imperial system yes?) that, to me, is imperial. If you are using 1cm clicks to move your reticle 1cm at 100 METERS(metric system yes?) that, to me, is metric. The true meaning may be something else but for the sake of the shooting sports and military sniping, this is how everyone sees it. Am I wrong?
Why chose .1 milliradian scope over 1/4 MOA
- Thread starter aheppner
- Start date
chrisward3
Regular
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
the only thing "metric" about the mil system is that it uses base 10. It can 1m at 1000m, or 1yd at 1000yds, 1cm at 1000cm, etc...
While MOA is a finer adjustment, I find it easier to do mental math with the mils. Im also an ex-Forward Observer in the artillery, and mils are the go-to measurement.
While MOA is a finer adjustment, I find it easier to do mental math with the mils. Im also an ex-Forward Observer in the artillery, and mils are the go-to measurement.
victor1979
Member
- Location
- Grande Prairie
Its east yo do the math in your head with the on to one thousand ratio, thats why I prefer MRAD adjustments.
Pretty much the way I see it. Oh, and one other thing, you and your spotter need to speak the same language as the turret knobs.
There is an element that is missing in this thread, and that is that MRAD scopes tend almost always be FFP. There are a few SFP ones, and for those yes, it would make sense to think about it that way. But, with an FFP scope, why do you need to think about how big 0.1 mils is at whatever distance? It's completely unnecessary. Your reticle tells you what the offset is, it makes absolutely no difference if the targets are in another unit or at an odd distance. You don't need to know the size of the target, that's the beauty of it.
The only time you need to think about a linear distance is for ranging, and the equation is the same for yards as it is in meters. The unit you use for target height will be the unit your distance will be in (unless you add an additional conversion factor to the formula).
Distance (units) = (height of target in units)/height of target in mils) x 1000
Distance (yards) = target height in yards / height in mils x 1000
Distance (meters) = target height in meters / height in mils x 1000
So, why would I still chose mil over MOA when you can get an MOA/MOA FFP scope? Because there is no standard for MOA reticles. The reticle sub-tensions may be 1 MOA, 2 MOA, 3MOA or 5 MOA depending on the manufacturer. On mil scopes (the higher magnification ones you would use for long range), there is always a 1 mil sub-tension. It may get subdivided further, but you will always find 1 mil hash marks. This matters when you start switching between scopes. Its another potential for error when you're relying on the reticle for your corrections, leads and other things. The difference between 0.25 MOA and 0.1 mil is ~1.1" at 1000 yards. Its negligible.
Thats strange, because when I asked my buddy (the one who just won the BSWNs) if he thought the 1/8th MOA in his March helped, he said: "No, it's completely unnecessary, 1/4 MOA is more than enough". He didn't dial for wind, he held off. He said that by the time you dialed in your new value, you had probably already missed your window on the condition, and that was what was probably getting a lot of people.
Last edited:
Maybe we should start a "Metric vs Imperial" thread? Or a "What really is Metric and Imperial" thread?
I just had to jump in here because I find it funny... But making the argument that MOA is non-subdivided into either category just because it has angle in the name is just as silly an argument as calling Miles "Miles of Distance" and making the same statement. Yes, it is just a measurement of angle... more specifically it is an imperial measurement of angle; hence minutes. Did you know that France actually came out with a metric clock?! So yes... the concept of seconds, minutes, and hours is an "imperial" concept.
I'm not bashing either... I'm actually fairly undecided on which is better. Imperial is so much easier to do more complex math in your head. Metric's ONLY advantage is that you can move a decimal around... personally I think we should go to a base 16 system (hex). You would still be able to move a decimal around (factors of 16) and we ONLY use base 10 because we have 10 fingers.
Ah well, thanks for the chance to rant. If a moderator doesn't like this could you please move it to a more suitable place rather than deleting it?
Last edited:
Correct; mils are no more or less metric than degrees/minutes/seconds.
The "artillery" mil, of which there are 6400 to a circle, is the NATO standard. Presumably, most western rifle scopes use this measurement. The rule of thumb that 1 mil spans 1 unit at a distance of 1000 units is a close enough approximation for most purposes. Interestingly, the Russian/Soviet mil is 1/6000 of a circle.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Targets are sized in MOA globally so target shooters will use MOA as their adjustment value of choice.
It is THE convention when chatting with LR shooters that aren't in uniform.
The "MRAD" system is simply a base 10 version of the Mildot from post WWII. Todays reticle trade dots for lines which are vastly easier to measure with. They are exactly the same thing.. and an angular measurement. It is not Metric per se.
As long as the reticle and click use the same value, there is no benefit to either for field shooting. Just make sure your rangefinder and ballistics info use the same units as the scope... been there, been confused
If you are target shooting and the clicks do not match the target, it is a pain to try and center the group. At 1000yds, we demand 1/8 MIN clicks (1/10 would be even better) because it becomes increasingly difficult to use the scope to center a group when click values increase in value.
When a shooter decides on the style of shooting, the parts get really easy.
Jerry
The issue comes when you are in a competition faced with a match that requires you to crawl up to a firing point and range and engage a number of torso sized steel plates at unknown distances say 50-1000m. No rangefinder, just a calculator and spotter. Fastest time wins, and every miss will gift you with a time penalty. Time starts now, BEEP. in such a case every little click is less important than just accurate enough to ring the bell. But that is why I have been converted to Horus type reticles.
Last edited:
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
If Scope manf actually listened to what F class shooters would want, we would have 1/8min elevation (1/10 min would be heaven) and 1/4 min windage.
It would be FFP (yes, I said it) but scaled so that the lines from 30 to 45X were very thin. SFP thin
Elevation would be 45mins but windage of 60 to 80.
Reticle hash marks would be similar to the Sightron LRMOA except that there would be a 1MOA tick to go with the 2MOA taller line.
This would be my FTR scope.
As for adjusting groups 1/8 min, given how amazingly tight OPEN guns can now shoot and how little they can now drift. Adjusting 1/8 min clicks for windage is viable.
The sport is evolving way faster then some products can keep up...
Jerry
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Most brands of scope now offer some form of hash mark or Christmas tree reticle. The Horus is a Christmas tree reticle to me.
When a HIT is plenty good but speed of engagement is critical, then the needs and tech changes. You move from SFP dominance (fixed range slow fire) to FFP where bolder "see it, shoot it" needs become dominant.
For run and gun games, whether the units are MOA or MRAD would make little difference. As long as you are comfy with the math that each require, the process is the same and the limits the same.
If the game sees reticle choice as the main advantage, then what the turrets do is of even less importance. If you never dial your scope, click value doesn't matter. In fact, exposed turrets wouldn't be needed and would solve packaging and snagging issues.
Now if the game provided tasks that favored one unit style over the other - targets were sized to favor the math of one unit style, then obviously you go with what is your advantage. Paper targets are MOA so why use MRAD?
So the sport and tasks dictate the best widget to use.
I don't see how that would affect the OP's question?
Jerry
If the emphasis of the sport is on practical shooting, it makes absolutely no difference what unit the target is in. Using features of the target for shot corrections/leads/etc... is very poor practice in real life because targets are not uniform in size or at known distances. They may be on the range you are practicing on or shooting a competition on, but they are not in real life. I have been to matches where the organizers scaled a standard target to different sizes to drive this point home.
Using target features to calculate correction is something you do with SFP because of the limitations of the technology. Doing it with FFP is like hooking up a horse to your car because you're used to horse and buggy. You end up with a situation that is less ideal than using the horse and buggy or driving the car. One of the first things you have to train a new FFP user to do is to stop thinking about how big the clicks are at whatever distance, and simply rely on the reticle. Things become far easier for them when they take that leap of faith. They realize that trying to drive the FFP like an SFP (using target features for reference and doing math) was what was making things more difficult for them. They learn to focus on the target's center and rely on the reticle for all of the corrections, measuring instead of calculating. The size of the target and the units it is in are completely irrelevant if you're driving the scope the proper way.
Last edited:
Well said!
Radians and degrees/minutes/seconds are both used in SI. Radians may be defined in terms of base units (an arc 1m long with a radius of 1m has an angle of 1 rad) and D/M/S are accepted on the basis of widespread use.
Gradians are sort of the red-headed stepchild of angular measurement.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I have been lucky enough to attend a fair number of competitions and have come to believe that good competitions have a mix of matches.
Competition like nature should punish the specialist.
Competition like nature should punish the specialist.
The competitions where they had re-scales the know sized targets was a perfect example of that. EVERYONE missed the first shot due to the ranging error created by ASSUMING the target was of a certain size. The shooters who relied on their reticles for corrections, got on target quickly. Those that continued to try and make corrections based the size of the target features took many more shots before they realized what was going on. One shooter was about to drop out of the competition because he thought his scope had stopped tracking.
Nature does not spoon feed you the targetry...
This makes the most sense......depending on what unit of measurement you are most familiar with, you feel the need to calculate the measurement so you can visualize it. This is even more evident when you are shooting paper with a specific grid size. Thinking this way you might as well have a standard duplex type reticle cause as long as you can see your target you can count your grid lines and calculate your 'clicks'. If you are field shooting with varying and unknown distances and truly using your reticle this type of calculating will mess you up and make it way harder...use your reticle to 'measure' and make your adjustments according to what you measured on your reticle....of course this is assuming you are FFP or on your ranging magnification of your SFP.
If you are SFP and there is a lot of mirage on a given day making you shoot distance at a lower magnification.....good luck LOL!!
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
k, if the target is of varying unknown size and you are shooting on an unknown distance course, how do you range with a reticle?
Assume targets are not overly large and distances not always short.
I fully understand the use of the reticle to "measure" the miss and correct but how do your develop the initial firing solution with a chance to connect?
Seems there are too many variables for the shooters to figure out????
Jerry
Assume targets are not overly large and distances not always short.
I fully understand the use of the reticle to "measure" the miss and correct but how do your develop the initial firing solution with a chance to connect?
Seems there are too many variables for the shooters to figure out????
Jerry
