-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
PRS Talk MOA or MRAD
- Thread starter NndMojoman
- Start date
Bottom line is if you are doing math formulas in the field for your wind you are already well behind the 8 ball.
This isn't a discussion on what everyone is doing in competition, thanks for trying though. We're dealing with theory and fundamentals, which from the looks of it, you get yours strictly from word of mouth lol
it started as a discussion about what everyone was doing in competition in the Precision Rifle Series sub forum....until you came in goin full retard and derailed it all
Yeah, at the very least I'm exposing that this sub is quite literally, the blind leading the blind. Can't fix stupid. Don't be surprised when in 5 years tops, PRS shooters in the US switch to moa
If you think that the 4.7% error means that you're off by an inch or half an inch at 2000 and 1000 yards (btw, you'd be off by 2" at 1000 and far more at 2000 yards based on typical elevation holds of ~30 MOA for 1000 yards), then you're dumber than you claim I am. The difference, as I specifically mentioned, is important when you're using it to get a range estimate.
If your target's actual range is 1500 yards and your estimate is 4.7% off, you're fucked. You'll have an estimated range of either 1,432 yards or 1,570.5 yards, depending on which way you make your 4.7% error. If you dial 1,500 yard dope on a 1,432 yard (or 1,570 yard) target you're going to miss the target by a lot, no question about it. It won't be a miss by half an inch. It'll be a miss by multiple feet.
You don't understand the metric system nor do you understand milliradians if you honestly still think MRAD is a metric unit of measurement.
1 MRAD at 100 meters = 1/10 of a meter. 1/10 of a meter = 10 centimeters because 1 centimeter = 1/100 of a meter. The reason it appears to work nicely with the metric system is because everything in the metric system is based around multiples of 10 instead of stupid multiples of 12 or 3.
1 MRAD at 100 yards = 1/10th of a yard. There is no error here. It's abso-fucking-lutely identical regardless of the unit of measurement you use. Until you get this through your cro-magnon skull you'll never be capable of math that involves trigonometry because radians are fundamental there and this entire question (MRAD vs MOA) is one of trigonometry.
What joyful entertainment! Just throw a bone to the junkyard dogs and watch. No disrespect to anyone, however, even though I shot benchrest years ago, I didn't have to worry about MOA/MRAD. Just dialed the correction to move cross hair to point of impact. I wasn't trying to learn to be a sniper. That said, reviewing the multiple inputs from the field, I have to say that I believe that Skookum and the MIL/MRAD crowd win the debate. If I decide to compete in Precision, I'd buy and learn MIL/MIL/FFP. Additionally, from what I can gather, MOA is going the way of the dinosaur.
Alright, fair enough. I didn't realize this and thanks for explaining that, sorry for the heated words.
Alright we're clearly talking about different scenarios.
yea im sure...after reading all your ground breaking info, im already scrambling to switch
I find it humorous and all the attention is placed on ranging. Especially in light it’s not how they are used for the majority of the disciplines or even today.
I wonder if Cluster understands what happened to small long range targets under mirage conditions and what type of distance effects are the result.
If so he’d take the very least important part and stop acting like it matters for either mraid or moa.
PLRF
I wonder if Cluster understands what happened to small long range targets under mirage conditions and what type of distance effects are the result.
If so he’d take the very least important part and stop acting like it matters for either mraid or moa.
PLRF
No worries, that's just what I've been trying to explain for a while. MRAD is not metric, it's universal. The relationship exists for all possible linear units of measurement, which is why it's used almost exclusively in mathematics.
I do appreciate the apology, and I'll offer my own for getting frustrated when trying to explain that in different ways that might be better understood.
In terms of practical application, the biggest reason to buy and MRAD scope for PRS is because everybody else uses one and will be familiar with the lingo so that they can more easily assist you with elevation and windage corrections. Having to range targets using the reticle happens, but it's not incredibly common.
At my local matches new shooters are always allowed to have help and everyone on the squad spots for them with one person usually giving them an idea of how far they should correct for their next shot if the shooter needs it. They call that out in MRAD, but things get fuzzier when the new shooter uses a MOA scope since it's a bit tricky to divide by 3.438 in your head to convert between the two so at that point the shooter only gets ballpark estimates.
^ speaking of this we are running a positional workshop this Saturday for new shooters. Yep we do our best to help using 3.5 in our heads but it is slow.
Sunday’s match we’ll put a coach in a with the new shooters and help convert if needed.. New, we are going to give more time on each stage to shooters who are new —
I know a bit off topic..
Sunday’s match we’ll put a coach in a with the new shooters and help convert if needed.. New, we are going to give more time on each stage to shooters who are new —
I know a bit off topic..
Hey funny thing is, this debate was even discussed on the precision rifle blog: MIL vs MOA: An Objective Comparison
Maybe I couldn't drive my point home well enough, but I think this article does a good job of articulating what I've been trying to say.
Again, my apologies for the heated words to everyone. Like I said, we're all trying to get closer to the truth and (hopefully) become better shooters in the process.
Maybe I couldn't drive my point home well enough, but I think this article does a good job of articulating what I've been trying to say.
Again, my apologies for the heated words to everyone. Like I said, we're all trying to get closer to the truth and (hopefully) become better shooters in the process.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
If you go back and really read that article again, you will notice all discussion relates to trajectory or milling.
Trajectory is just a number, 10 is no easier or harder than 36. As has been pointed out already about milling, nobody mills as a primary method of range estimation.
BTW, if you DID want to use MOA for range estimation, his equation is wrong. If using inches and MOA, the constant is 95.5. If you are using the size of the target in MOA at 100 yards it would be 100.
What gets only a passing mention, again, is wind. In fact, he mentioned how surprised he was when some one preferred MILs for wind even when they were using MOA for trajectory.
I've read probably 10 other articles similar to this one. They are a major reason people show up here either misinformed or confused.
Trajectory is just a number, 10 is no easier or harder than 36. As has been pointed out already about milling, nobody mills as a primary method of range estimation.
BTW, if you DID want to use MOA for range estimation, his equation is wrong. If using inches and MOA, the constant is 95.5. If you are using the size of the target in MOA at 100 yards it would be 100.
What gets only a passing mention, again, is wind. In fact, he mentioned how surprised he was when some one preferred MILs for wind even when they were using MOA for trajectory.
I've read probably 10 other articles similar to this one. They are a major reason people show up here either misinformed or confused.
Last edited by a moderator:
And they are mainly written by guys like Litz who live and or cut their teeth in benchrest or similar type targets that are actually scaled in MOA.
As some of these amassing shooters move to events like KO2M, taking benchrest/Fclass processes with them, you can see the teams that are handicapped by communication. Their using parts of gongs or other linear measurements. These same shooters would have greatly benefitted by fast “corrections” ie u26.5 L1.6 or similar in MOA. That way they would have had a much greater chance of squeezing another in the same wind value as the previous shot.
So much like some of the agreements listed in this thread, reading articles even from icons does not make using the linear argument correct nor all of their information.
The Hide could be tough, it tends to weed out the funk as it really isn’t a dominated by bunch of me too personalities -
Here is the point @Rob01 was making and it is worth repeating. If he wins a match or anyone does, it is not because they used one angular measurement over the other. In positional shooting it really is the Indian- However, being squared away in every other department really helps.
While I say that in one breath, I’ll Say this in another; When the Vudoos came out, guys like Rob01 and myself, (putting words on his mouth) sure felt like we were cheating in the NRL22 matches.
PS we also running a NRL22 this Saturday in Central California. Hit me up if you want to attend!
Nope. You need to get out of your basement and go shoot some practical courses of fire.
Have you ever spotted/corrected fire for another shooter? If so, are you one of those retards who insist in giving the correction in inches instead of angular units?
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
You can say that again! I showed up here about 2 years ago or so. I started talking about the BC wind method and got dogpiled. It was like I had just walked into a party at someone else's house and pissed on the livingroom rug. It seemed like I was taking on the entire Hide!
It had been discussed on here before, I sure as hell didn't invent it. I thought it was common knowledge. Frank of course had mentioned it a bit, but I had to go way back to some fucking prehistoric threads to find any reference to it.
Then came the discussions in the epic wind threads and the podcasts....and all of a sudden, I wasn't a heretic anymore!
I am glad I stuck it out.
Which is better? Easy, the answer is both. If you can wait a little bit, a solution is in the works.
Nightforce is going to release their new MORAD 5-25x scope soon. Also a rumor that Vortex has one in the works, but not sure what magnification they are making.
The Nightforce overlays both reticle types and has 6 turrets on the body to adjust either in MOA or MRAD. There are two parallax adjustment knobs. One for yards and the other for meters.
The reticle for MOA is in blue and MRAD is in black.
I'm looking forward to seeing a full Sniper's Hide video review that goes through all the details once it is on the market.
Nightforce is going to release their new MORAD 5-25x scope soon. Also a rumor that Vortex has one in the works, but not sure what magnification they are making.
The Nightforce overlays both reticle types and has 6 turrets on the body to adjust either in MOA or MRAD. There are two parallax adjustment knobs. One for yards and the other for meters.
The reticle for MOA is in blue and MRAD is in black.
I'm looking forward to seeing a full Sniper's Hide video review that goes through all the details once it is on the market.
You can say that again! I showed up here about 2 years ago or so. I started talking about the BC wind method and got dogpiled. It was like I had just walked into a party at someone else's house and pissed on the livingroom rug. It seemed like I was taking on the entire Hide!
It had been discussed on here before, I sure as hell didn't invent it. I thought it was common knowledge. Frank of course had mentioned it a bit, but I had to go way back to some fucking prehistoric threads to find any reference to it.
Then came the discussions in the epic wind threads and the podcasts....and all of a sudden, I wasn't a heretic anymore!
I am glad I stuck it out.
Lol- weren’t you talking about running the actual BC formula?
You’re a fast math mind and can do it. But most of us are still just running mil wind, came from same routes, just super simplistic dumbed down version & it only works to about 900, before we need to toss another .1 and start using a bit of dope to make the mods. What we did wasn’t smart, just noticing over several years that if you tweak FV wind you get the mph where .1 increases show up about every hundred.
The thing I remember was saying it is impossible to do real math or use a formula on a clock.. I don’t think anyone thought your math was wrong
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
No, I didn't start talking about some of the tweaks for speed and altitude until later. I started out just talking about the "down and dirty" quick method.
In retrospect, if someone had never been exposed to it, and was hearing it for the first time from some "nobody" that just joined, I can see how it would sound like voodoo. My mistake was thinking that it was much more widely known.
I learned it from Dan Flowers back in 2000. I met him when we were both members of the Watauga Gun Club in Boone, NC. He has been my best friend and my hunting and shooting mentor for 18 years now.
Dan Flowers was one of the primary advocates of the "BC / MIL" method's acceptance into the training doctrine of the Sniper School at Ft.Benning back in the mid to late 1990's. (No, Todd Hodnett didn't invent it. Just as @Lowlight has said, TH never saw an idea he wouldn't steal for his own).
I have been using it since 2000, and took it's acceptance for granted. That was my mistake. I could have been much more tactful at bringing the conversation around had I known the reaction I would get. But like I said, I'm glad I stuck it out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Me too..
BTW TH's influence in the reticle design and well as Tubb's attempt to simplify wind, is anything but simple. They both attempt to fix something that is not broken.
The illumination knob turns off either reticle like the Swaro STR, so you only have to look through one; or you can have them both on. As a premiere PRS Sponsor will be showcased before Shot at a the Cresson Texas PRS Finale 12/2.
Nice leaked photo
I missed that detail when reading over their marketing packet, good catch. Makes the whole thing a much better value proposition for the proposed price point.
I only have limited details, but I'm sure one of the forum dealers who has a business relationship with Nightforce can get more info on the product.
Edit: Maybe @CSTactical can weigh in.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
If it's not a joke it's going to be the biggest flop and laughing stock NF has ever had.
I’m actually trying to get out of the bay area to make it up to your shop now. I just called and he has both the Minox and Kahles in stock!!Our first batch of ten is nearly sold out, call us to pre-order yours meow!
I hope to leave Oakland by 130We are here! But please don't as to see our prototype Nightforce MORAD
Wow, I was under the assumption that they were asking the beta testers to use those neoprene scope covers with the ends cut out to keep pictures from circulating.
We are here! But please don't as to see our prototype Nightforce MORAD
Thanks for all the time yesterday. I appreciate the Hide discount...
I've been through so many high $ scopes, it is of course all splitting hairs. While the funky thing we saw yesterday is very real, I don't think someone who doesn't adjust the reticle the way that I do (Infinity, nondescript white wall or sky @Max) might notice the what we saw. The glass is very, very nice, but I'd still appreciate if you can PM me the Reps # so I can confirm if what we noticed is normal for that optical setup.
Again THANKS FOR ALL THE TIME and the scope!
Similar threads
