-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
PRS Talk MOA or MRAD
- Thread starter NndMojoman
- Start date
I'll deny it.
1 mil subtends 1 yard at 1000 yards
1 mil subtends 1 meter at 1000 meters
1 mil subtends 1 inch at 1000 inches
Milliradians have nothing intrinsic to do with meters nor are they incompatible with imperial length measurements
You simply are just not understanding how this works.
It works exactly the same way with a scope that has reticle subtensions and turret adjustments in MOA
It's retarded to not be equally fluent in both.
Just the same, it's as easy to drive a car with a metric speedometer in Canada as it is to drive one with a mph speedometer in the US
Just the same, it's as easy to drive a car with a metric speedometer in Canada as it is to drive one with a mph speedometer in the US
The argument for MILS is just because it's the most commonly used system for positional rifle matches. If you ask someone what their wind hold was, they'll answer "4 tenths" or something like that. It's also not an arbitrary division of a circle like minutes of angle are.
If you use MOA and someone else uses mils, then you have to do additional math to get help or give help.
MILS is not at all related to the metric system, just like how MOA isn't all that related to the english measurement of yards. It's a happy coincidence that 1 MOA spans 1.047" at 100 yards and 10.47 inches at 1000 yards, not a design goal of the measurement unit.
MILS are designed so that 1 mil will span a distance equal to 1/1000th the length of the radius (distance between you and the target). There are 2 * pi radians in a circle, where an angle of 1 radian spans a circumference with length equal to the radius of the circle. Technically the distance spanned isn't linear, because it's a circumference measurement, but at the distances we shoot at they're one and the same for all practical purposes (this portion is true for both MOA and Milliradians).
The pre-fix "milli" just means you're dividing the unit of measurement by 1000. Therefore instead of 1 radian representing a curve with a length equal to the radius of the curve, 1 milliradian represents a curve with a length equal to 1/1000th the radius of the curve. Therefore 1 MRAD = 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 meter at 1000 meters, 1/10th of a yard (3.6 inches) at 100 yards, 1 foot at 1000 feet, and so on.
If you use MOA and someone else uses mils, then you have to do additional math to get help or give help.
MILS is not at all related to the metric system, just like how MOA isn't all that related to the english measurement of yards. It's a happy coincidence that 1 MOA spans 1.047" at 100 yards and 10.47 inches at 1000 yards, not a design goal of the measurement unit.
MILS are designed so that 1 mil will span a distance equal to 1/1000th the length of the radius (distance between you and the target). There are 2 * pi radians in a circle, where an angle of 1 radian spans a circumference with length equal to the radius of the circle. Technically the distance spanned isn't linear, because it's a circumference measurement, but at the distances we shoot at they're one and the same for all practical purposes (this portion is true for both MOA and Milliradians).
The pre-fix "milli" just means you're dividing the unit of measurement by 1000. Therefore instead of 1 radian representing a curve with a length equal to the radius of the curve, 1 milliradian represents a curve with a length equal to 1/1000th the radius of the curve. Therefore 1 MRAD = 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 meter at 1000 meters, 1/10th of a yard (3.6 inches) at 100 yards, 1 foot at 1000 feet, and so on.
Its off the topic, but I have to throw this in because it is being way over used IMHO. All of this talk on sharing wind calls needs a reality check.
Unless a previous shooter is going to give you a wind call in MPH, then their data may well prove useless to you. See what happens when someone shooting a 6 Creedmoor or 6.5 PRC tells you to hold 3/10ths when you are shooting a 6.5 Creedmoor or even better a .308!
Reality is, unless they have the exact same External Ballistics as your shooting, then their call is going to being off to some degree. Which then forces you to try and figure out what kind of a correction factor that you are going to have to apply to get a proper solution.
I just watched 400+ shooters run through a match stage where they were shooting 1,000-1,200 yard targets, and I watched more shooters miss targets because they made the mistake of using a "bad" shared wind call.
Sorry, but a proper shared wind call from a previous shooter should be in MPH, not in MIL or MOA!
Unless a previous shooter is going to give you a wind call in MPH, then their data may well prove useless to you. See what happens when someone shooting a 6 Creedmoor or 6.5 PRC tells you to hold 3/10ths when you are shooting a 6.5 Creedmoor or even better a .308!
Reality is, unless they have the exact same External Ballistics as your shooting, then their call is going to being off to some degree. Which then forces you to try and figure out what kind of a correction factor that you are going to have to apply to get a proper solution.
I just watched 400+ shooters run through a match stage where they were shooting 1,000-1,200 yard targets, and I watched more shooters miss targets because they made the mistake of using a "bad" shared wind call.
Sorry, but a proper shared wind call from a previous shooter should be in MPH, not in MIL or MOA!
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Let me put it to you this way...if I had an MOA scope that adjusted in 1/10 MOA increments (it certainly is doable), would it now become metric? If I had a MIL scope that adjusted in 1/4 MILS (again, very doable) would that make it something else again? You are conflating and relating systems that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I can use MOA with meters just as easily as using MILS with yards.
The happenstance that 1 inch is CLOSE to 1 MOA at 100 yards is accidental. If you rely on that, then you will not even realize there is a 4.7% error with every single click put on the gun.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice "cherry picked example",
- Who the hell is dialing 36 MOA on a regular basis? I would have to shoot a .308 out to 1,000 yards to get that kind of a correction. Do the math for 20-25 MOA which is probably a lot more realistic, and all of sudden that big difference in clicks is NOT there.
- Wasn't it convenient how you ended up on that "Massive 10" in your example! So now what happens when that correction turns out to be 9 & 3/10? You now have to try and find that tiny ass 3/10 hash mark among all of those other tiny 1/10 hash marks!
What might actually matter:
Markings - How easy it to read whatever kind of markings that you have? I would personally rather have to count/find the (3) 1/4 MOA hash marks that are between a full MOA, then try and count/find the (9) 1/10 hash marks that are between a full MIL. Some manufacturers put a bigger hash mark at the 5 /10, but that still gives you more hashes to count between that point and full number.
Spacing - How far apart are the clicks/hash marks? In the effort to get more into a single rotation, some manufacturers have crammed them so close together that they are about impossible to tell apart, and that is with both MOA & MIL.
I am lot more worried about being able to see and feel my adjustments, then I am whether or not I am dialing MOA or MIL!
Wind corrections, in terms of mils, are still very useful if you consistently shoot with the same group of shooters (such as at local club matches) to help you gain experience.
I'm somewhat new to PRS (started out this past January), but one of the biggest things that helped me improve was to talk about wind and wind holds with other shooters that I see regularly. I know what they shoot, and they know what I shoot (in terms of velocity and bullet). I calculate (based on wind at the shooting position) and estimate (based on what I can see downrange) my wind hold and then compare that to the other shooters. If I'm estimating that my final wind hold will be .5 MRAD, but a shooter with a 6XC is shooting the same bullet as me 200 fps faster and had to hold .8 MRAD to get a hit then I know I'm missing something and need to look more closely to try and figure out what I missed to make my estimate wrong since their bullet will drift less than mine. It's been instrumental in helping me learn through the year at a faster pace than I would have otherwise.
I don't think the number of clicks has anything to do with it, but it's not that uncommon to dial past 10 MRAD or 36 MOA on a long range stage in a match. I've had to dial nearly 15 mils using a 6.5 Creedmoor that shot 147 ELD-M's at 2900 fps at the long range stage for the Rocky Mountain Mayhem when the wind through the crevices also helped push the bullet down a bit extra on the nearly 1,500 yard target. If all your shooting is within 1,000 yards you won't hit the 10 MRAD mark at all really, but beyond 1,000 you start to dial a lot more in a hurry (my 1 mile dope using 147 ELD-M's at 2,676 fps out of my Savage with a 6,000ft DA is 22.5 MRAD).
My son picked up a nice Votex razor hd2 moa/moa on the cheap
Because the new prs owner could not deal with it in comps.
Personally I can shoot any scope and prefer moa for 200 yards and less.
The op is getting into comps, think it benificial to drive on the same side of the road.
Because the new prs owner could not deal with it in comps.
Personally I can shoot any scope and prefer moa for 200 yards and less.
The op is getting into comps, think it benificial to drive on the same side of the road.
I had to have that exact conversation with my brother about just rounding 1 MOA to 1 inch and how big of an error that is. He told me "if I round it down, then I'm only off by .47" at 1000 yards". So I had to explain to him how at 1000 yards with a .308 165gr Sierra Game King shooting at 2700 fps, you're roughly looking at 42 MOA (current conditions at my location). At a 4.7% error...the difference is roughly 2 MOA at 1000 yards, not .47" (given that I did my math correctly while trying to get things done at work...even if the math is wrong the premise of the margin of error is still sound). The reason is the error compounds for every click you put on the gun, and the further you shoot the larger the error appears. So even if you calculate everything else perfectly, you'll be lucky to clip the bottom of the plate. This is why trying to use a linear measurement to correlate to an angular unit of measure is a horrible idea. Think is MILS or MOA. Pick one and stick with it, but don't try to think in inches/centimeters or yards/meters. Learn to think in MILS or MOA and either system will work for you, just make sure the turrets and reticle match. When it boils down to it, it's all personal preference in which system you run, but I will reiterate to learn to think in MILS or MOA.
1MOA @ 1000 yards is 10.47 inches, so if you generalize this to "1MOA @ 1000 yards is 10 inches", you're off by half an inch (.47"), this is arguably negligible. I'm not sure how you're getting 2MOA at a 1000 yards or how you're factoring in the percentage, but 2MOA @ 1000 yards equates to 20.94 inches...pretty big error.
Last edited:
I'm guessing he's referring to someone who is taking a shot at 1,000 yards and knows they need to aim 439.74 inches above the target at that range (42 MOA) and dials 44 MOA as a result of the confusion about 1 MOA = 10 inches at 1000 yards instead of 10.47 inches.
That said I don't know of anyone who keeps their dope based on linear measurements, nor do I know of any calculator that provides linear measurements for drop that doesn't also provide the proper angular measurement.t
So you're all telling me that instantly knowing how many inches 1MOA is at any yardard is not useful? I mean you could say the same thing for MILs. At any distance in meters, you can instantly know how many centemeters a tenth of a MIL is. None of you can think of a senario that this could be useful?
Last edited:
It might be useful but for what? In the context of shooting it is not relevant because you have the angular measurement that is needed to make the shot right in front of you...
Alright, so if we can agree that in certain scenarios it can be useful, if you're going to pick a system why not pick the one that might be useful in unforeseen situations...
Otherwise, you're just using it because the herd is using it.
It would be useful in using it to range targets, but its a tough skill (I understand its only reasonably accurate to about 800 yards) and if you have a rangefinder or known range then its moot...
In the sense that most shooters in PRS are using it and communicating in mils then yes the majority of the herd is using mils. It seems that you are a moa fan and want positive feedback for moa. MOA is another option but in no way more/less superior to mils. The "herd" is using mils because it is working better/faster/whatever for them. If you want to use MOA because it is better/faster for you, nobody is going to tell you that you are wrong. We are all here expressing our personal experience and opinion. In that vein I will tell you that even though I was a fan of MOA, going to MILS made my shooting experience better because I quit doing the mental math trying to figure out how large an object was and just started thinking in MILS. It gets you past the calculating and lets you focus on shooting. And just to make the point, you could think in MOA and accomplish the same thing. Thinking in .1 increments has been much easier than thinking in .25 increments for me.
Edit: Find someone with a MIL based scope and go shooting with them, or find somebody on the range and try it out. Hands on is very enlightening, you may find you are ready to join the herd.
In the sense that most shooters in PRS are using it and communicating in mils then yes the majority of the herd is using mils. It seems that you are a moa fan and want positive feedback for moa. MOA is another option but in no way more/less superior to mils. The "herd" is using mils because it is working better/faster/whatever for them. If you want to use MOA because it is better/faster for you, nobody is going to tell you that you are wrong. We are all here expressing our personal experience and opinion. In that vein I will tell you that even though I was a fan of MOA, going to MILS made my shooting experience better because I quit doing the mental math trying to figure out how large an object was and just started thinking in MILS. It gets you past the calculating and lets you focus on shooting. And just to make the point, you could think in MOA and accomplish the same thing. Thinking in .1 increments has been much easier than thinking in .25 increments for me.
Edit: Find someone with a MIL based scope and go shooting with them, or find somebody on the range and try it out. Hands on is very enlightening, you may find you are ready to join the herd.
I first learned on MOA so I tend to stick with that. If I learned on Mil first then I would stick with that. IF I could do it over again I would still stick with MOA, it's easier for me to learn for some reason. I've shot plenty of Mil reticles and like them but I always tend to lean towards MOA. If it makes you feel better, can't go wrong either way.
That's fine, however, you can't give me a single reason, other than 'because it's popular', why MILs would be better than MOA. I just gave a reason why MOA is better than MILs when dealing with yards, or conversely, why MILs are better when dealing with meters. Don't get me wrong, if we were in the UK, i'd be defending MILs...
You're right, I didn't give you a single reason, I gave you several reasons.... If you've read the posts in this thread and still haven't received a single reason your mind is made up. Enjoy your MOA, it works.
Your moa is better with yards/mils are better with meters concept is flawed however. It is also spelled out for you in the many posts above with explicit detail.
And if nothing else, thanks for keeping the thread hot, its been the most interesting one of the day
Your moa is better with yards/mils are better with meters concept is flawed however. It is also spelled out for you in the many posts above with explicit detail.
And if nothing else, thanks for keeping the thread hot, its been the most interesting one of the day
I'm confused, so you apparently gave several reasons, yet here you're saying they are equal. Which is it? You're contradicting yourself...
Lol guy... nobody has to give you a reason for anything...nobody here says mils or moa is the end all be all shoot what you got. OP asked a question we gave reasons to the OP for why we choose one or the other. Most of us have been saying that you knowing that 1 moa is 10.47" at 1000 yards is irrelevant because I can shoot and correct without that knowledge. As to your .47" comment not being a big deal sure if you do everything else including reading the wind fundamentals etc etc... sure you may still hit the target center mass. I was trained and continue to train that my first shot is the only shot I will get and it better be exactly where I intended it to go and I don't have the margin of error to allow for any extraneous variable stacking to blow my shot.
Sure I learned to range estimate even called in artillery using range estimation from my reticle in training but never in a live situation why? Because we have a flipping range finder.... sure when the equipment goes down knowing how to range is useful but guess what? It only works if 2 of the 3 variables are KNOWN...if if you know how many moa/mils are in your scope you either have to know how big the object you are trying to range is in real life IE the average width of a man is roughly 20" or .5 of meter through the shoulders or you know exactly how far something is and what to calculate how big that object is...but guess what I can do that in mils too and either way I bet I am off by 10% so having another 4-5% error is not going to help things in your argument.
Having spent a small chunk of my life shooting professionally in the sense I was getting paid to do it, I will tell you I am faster with mils especially when I am tired and have not slept in two days...I can remember my 1000 yard dope is 9.7 mils a hell of alot easier than 33.25 will also tell you that I can shoot moa just fine too and have rifles that house both units of measure
I see here, this is my fault for trying to exchange ideas with you like you are a rational being when obviously you are a troll... I will reiterate the following reasons just for the sake of argument in case you are actually trying to understand:
-0.1 is easier to do than to do 0.25 adjustments
-military use is currently mils
-when surrounded by other shooters/spotters using mils, the common element aids ease of communication
-I find MILS are superior for my own use
There are several reasons, pick your favorite. As I stated earlier I am speaking from personal experience and opinion so what I consider superior is just that, my opinion. You are free to have your own. What is not opinion is the fact that moa has nothing to do with imperial measurement/yards and mils have nothing to do with metric/meters. Both MOA and MILS are units for measuring angle and as such they both accomplish the same thing, you can walk or ride a bike to the same location.
Peace out, I'm done with this one.
-0.1 is easier to do than to do 0.25 adjustments
subjective, you're just used to it.
-military use is currently mils
mils are more popular, i get it
-when surrounded by other shooters/spotters using mils, the common element aids ease of communication
mils are more popular, i get it
-I find MILS are superior for my own use
subjective, you're just used to it
Like I said, other than popularity, can you provide any other substantial argument?
subjective, you're just used to it.
-military use is currently mils
mils are more popular, i get it
-when surrounded by other shooters/spotters using mils, the common element aids ease of communication
mils are more popular, i get it
-I find MILS are superior for my own use
subjective, you're just used to it
Like I said, other than popularity, can you provide any other substantial argument?
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I will give you one, the wind math using mils is easier.
I'll not go into the particulars here, since most of us are well aquainted with the BC method of wind calling. But it just so happens that it is easy to figure out what wind pushes your bullet 0.1mils per hundred yards. Making the estimation very simple and precise.
Most who are calling wind in MOA don't do it in units smaller than 1/2 MOA, and most use 1 MOA because the markings on the reticles aren't any more precise than that anyway. So, in all practicallity, you can effectively call wind in a unit that is 1/3 the size.
That really is the major difference. The BC method of wind calling is superior to any other method, and that method requires MILs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Milliradians are more useful even in the scenarios you outlined. Picture this:
Your target is 2 yards tall, and at an unknown distance. How will you figure out distance between you and the target?
If you use a MRAD scope it's easy. Measure the height of the target in mils. Divide 2000 (because it'll be 1 mil tall at 2000 yards, thanks to how MRAD works) by that number. Tada, you've got your range.
If you use a MOA scope it's harder. The calculation to figure out the range at which the target is 1 MOA tall is a bit more complicated than multiplying by 1000, but a 2 yard tall target will appear to be 1 MOA tall at 6,877 yards (because 72 inches at 100 yards is 68.768 MOA). Then you can just divide 6,877 yards by the height of the target in MOA and you get the range.
Which system would you prefer? One that allows you to use easy mental math to create a range estimate for in your head within seconds, or the one you have to bust out the calculator or spend additional time on to get close?
MRAD makes quick mental math easier, regardless of the units of measurement you're using for linear distances. 1 MRAD is 1 inch at 1000 inches. 1 MOA is .29089 inches at 1000 inches. 1 MRAD is 1 mile at 1000 miles. 1 MOA is still .29089 miles at 1000 miles. MRAD is a far more elegant solution because radians were created for the sole purpose of making math easier (because they're universal) and more elegant while degrees were created arbitrarily.
To understand a little of the mathematical reasoning behind this, I recommend you take a look at this nice description of why we use radians as told by a mathematician (link: http://www.askamathematician.com/2014/10/q-why-radians/). It basically boils down to the fact that when you use degrees (1 MOA = 1/60 of a degree) you are just applying an unnecessary constant multiplier that complicates things and makes your numbers look nasty in the end.
There is always someone relatively new that joined up and tries like hell to make their POV the best. I am not sure, maybe it is because they feel they need to justify their purchase or inability to see that something else is better once learned..
But really I think I am starting to believe these guys are reincarnations of BUDDLY or at least his relatives.
But really I think I am starting to believe these guys are reincarnations of BUDDLY or at least his relatives.
Alright, this is actually a sound argument and I'm glad someone finally brought some substance to the discussion. I just want to say that I'm not here to stir the pot or troll. I like having discussions like this because it gets us closer to the truth, and that's what we're all after. For those that are quick to write off what is being said here as words of a novice, you're either ignorant or a moron, I'm sorry but it's true. If you can't contribute anything of value to the discussion, but you just have the urge to say "burn the witch," you're stupid (not pointing fingers at the guy above me...)
That said, I disagree with what you (ThePretzel) said and here's why:
First, your specific example was derived backwards. You made the mil system work for a very specific instance. You're not taking advantage of the synergistic properties between MOA/yards and MIL/meters. Your example would actually be more effective when dealing with the metric system. So in a way, you proved my point.
Second, if you can't quickly divide 70 (as in 70 inches, about the average height of a man) by one through ten and can't get relatively close, you suck at math.
Third, because of the synergistic properties of MOA/yards and MRAD/meters, anyone with a highschool diploma could understand how to derive range estimates given a target size. Your example only works for a target size of "two yards." What if you're in a country where the average height is 5'2"? What if your target isn't a man, but a steel plate of 12 inches? This is where your quick math example breaks down. Taking advantage of MOA/yards and MRAD/meters, you can quickly derive range estimates regardless of target size, as long as it's known.
For example, using MOA, if a 12" target is 2 MOA in your scope? 600yards. So simple a caveman can do it. The same thing applies for MRAD/meters...
^ your correct you are smarter than everyone.. Are you really thinking the value to all this is ranging???? Distance ranging today is about as low on the list as it gets...
Get out and shoot something where you need to communicate like a field match
BTW No one ever said you were a novice.. I said "someone relatively new that joined up" Much like Buddly (maybe you are him) then argue whatever, especially scope based, stuff into the dirt.
The thread completely derailed.
Get out and shoot something where you need to communicate like a field match
BTW No one ever said you were a novice.. I said "someone relatively new that joined up" Much like Buddly (maybe you are him) then argue whatever, especially scope based, stuff into the dirt.
The thread completely derailed.
And I never said I was smarter than everyone...wtf? If you actually read anything I posted, you would know that I think both of these systems are equal except both have their own advantage when dealing with different units of measure, specifically range finding.
This is why you're precisely wrong, and why it's pointless to continue to post here. There is no synergy between MOA and yards, and Milliradians works the exact same regardless of the unit of measurement you're using. You refuse to accept this.
I gave you a mathematician explaining precisely why radians, as a unit of measurement, does not care what the hell you use for your linear measurements because it all works out to be the same in the end. MOA/degrees does not work the same, because 360 degrees was chosen completely arbitrarily and will require a conversion factor regardless of the units you use (INCLUDING yards).
Actually, if you bothered to read what anyone has written, you'd see this is precisely where the quick math example excels.
12" target, you estimate it's size to be 1 MRAD tall. This means it's 12,000 inches away from you. 2 MRAD tall? It's 6,000 inches away from you. 1/2 MRAD tall? It's 24,000 inches away from you. Convert that to whatever unit you decide to use for your dope, whether it be meters, feet, yards, or even fathoms if you so desire.
5'2" target, or 62" inches. You estimate it to be 1 MRAD tall, meaning it's 62,000 inches away from you. Again, convert to whatever unit you decide to use for your dope.
You're only adding extra steps, which is multiplying by an arbitrary constant, when you try to use MOA instead of MRAD. This is what you refuse to understand despite everyone trying to explain it to you.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
There is no synergy between MOA and yards. The MOA measurement will always be 4.7% different. In your example for instance, 12 inches is not 2 MOA. The resultant error makes you figure 600 yards when it is actually 573 yards.
But nobody uses milling as a primary source of range determination anymore, so the point is moot. The real advantage, as I mentioned before is wind math.
I would love to hear your MOA wind calling method though.
Last edited by a moderator:
^ it is a simple process he takes a 6mph .1mil gun in a 9mph FV
Then times .1 mil x 3.4377 - so at 500 1.71885MOA for base wind then needs to dived it by 2 for the 3mph value .859425MOA then add them 2.578275.
So now what is 2.6 moa again?
Let’s do that for 3 distances under a 90 second stage.
That’s “just” as simple as mils all done in your head.. ops wait the wind just changed lol
PS making no claim to the MOA numbers, it is hard enough for me to take add .1 mil every 100 yards (to about 900) in my head for base wind.. like, 500= .5 base wind + 1/2 = .75 Crap, between clicks- I’m screwed
Then times .1 mil x 3.4377 - so at 500 1.71885MOA for base wind then needs to dived it by 2 for the 3mph value .859425MOA then add them 2.578275.
So now what is 2.6 moa again?
Let’s do that for 3 distances under a 90 second stage.
That’s “just” as simple as mils all done in your head.. ops wait the wind just changed lol
PS making no claim to the MOA numbers, it is hard enough for me to take add .1 mil every 100 yards (to about 900) in my head for base wind.. like, 500= .5 base wind + 1/2 = .75 Crap, between clicks- I’m screwed
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Alright, if you can't accept that ONE inch equals ONE moa at ONE hundred yards and that ONE tenth of a mil equals ONE centimeter at ONE hundred meters and that you can extend this out to any distance, then you're beyond help. End of story.
Oh hey guys 'ThePretzel' says there's no synergy between these systems so I guess we should just take his word for it, even though it's staring at us in the face. haha I hope you apply better logic throughout your daily life man, I really do.
Oh the BC wind formula...you mean the one that uses METERS to get a proper mil holdover? This one? https://www.tacticalclassroom.com/bc-wind-drift-formula/
exactly my point.
The level of stupidity in this forum amazes me...
EDIT: and yes there is a slight (4.7%) error of accuracy when dealing with moa and yardage, but this is negligible and beside the point. Does this same error exist with mrads and meters? nope! that my friends is called synergy, and to this end, I would argue that mils and meters are actually more accurate. But that's not what any of you guys are saying.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Ha!
The more you type, the more you show that you don't know how any of this works. The BC method works just as well for yards AND meters, all that is required is a small adjustment in the basic wind used. Guess what, it also works for kilometers per hour, you just use the G7 BC in place of the G1 BC. You know what they all have in common? 0.1mil drift per 100 units of measure, which MILS makes very fast to do accurately on the fly.
I'm still waiting to hear your favorite MOA wind method. BTW, I know you are trolling, I just wanna see what MOA method you come up with, 'cause I seriously doubt you understand any of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
This post is definitive proof you have no clue what you're talking about.
I have specifically stated MRAD doesn't give a fuck about the units of linear measurement you use. I have proved it with mathematical diagrams and relatable examples. What is your response to all this? "NUH UH! MRAD only synergizes with the metric system!"
1 MRAD = 1 yard at 1000 yards. 1 MRAD = .1 yards at 100 yards.
1 MOA = 1.047" at 100 yards. The fact that you think 4.7% off is not significant shows that the longest distance you've ever shot at is about 500 yards, tops. At beyond 1000 yards this 4.7% difference is HUGE, especially if using it to range a target.
The level of cluster fuck amazes a lot of folks.
Most just wont say so because they're trying to be polite!
I have been acused of a lot of shit, much by my wife, but polite is not one of it.
Get bent cluster.
Most just wont say so because they're trying to be polite!
I have been acused of a lot of shit, much by my wife, but polite is not one of it.
Get bent cluster.
To the op.
Sory for the general abandon of useful input for your situation.i
Some just like to argue.
You can use iether moa or mrad but the resonable consensus is if you intend to shoot prs
Mrad is the most popular way to fit in, if bench probably moa.
Both work, and mrad is quick to learn if you have a mentor.
My son just got a vr gen 2 in moa, I want it to shoot lr not comp.
I think for comp he should have went with mrad but he got it cheap
From a prs shooter that needed mils instead to compete well.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Last edited:
You don't need mils to compete well in PRS matches. You can do just as well with MOA. Comes down to shooter and not scope angular measurement. Pick one, learn how to use it and practice. That is how you compete well in matches.
hahah dude, you're utterly retarded. If you think a half inch is relevant at a 1000 yards...let's go further, if you think an inch is relevant at 2000 yards, you obviously have not shot out this far. Give me a break.
What about the amount of error when dealing with MRAD and meters? Oh yeah, that's right there is no error...but you seem to ignore that fact every time you post don't you? Tell me genius, how do you explain that there is no error between one tenth of a mil and centimeters AT ANY RANGE?
Last edited:
That's because it depends on a specific CONSTANT that you manually have to define for your gun and if you define it for yards, then yes, it works.
Ever heard of the British Wind Drift Formula? Works just as well...
https://www.tacticalclassroom.com/british-wind-drift-formula/
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Well...no shit. Since that is what I said, I'm honored you agree. What do you think a "basic wind" is?
I'm intimately familiar with it. Why don't you tell me how it works, and about your experience in using it with high BC bullets?
Okay, funny thing is, I bet you're still using the constants that were defined in meters without even realizing your mistake. The further out you go, the larger the error becomes so I bet you're not doing a whole lot of long distant shooting.
Hah is that where we're at now? A pissing match? You guys are funny. You remind me of flat-landers. If someone comes along and distorts your perceived reality, you freak out. I can't believe we're arguing about 1 moa equals 1 inch and 100 yards...really? Every noob shooter knows this. Why don't you guys accept it? Furthermore, MRAD and meters are even more synergistic...maybe you guys didn't know this. I'm not sure, but it's looking that way
Cluster FYI Wind/
What a lot of guys are doing with mill wind has nothing to do with all of the formulas you’re cruising the internet for. It’s far more simple, But it does illustrate where you’re getting your information from.
What a lot of guys are doing with mill wind has nothing to do with all of the formulas you’re cruising the internet for. It’s far more simple, But it does illustrate where you’re getting your information from.
Similar threads
