Rifle Scopes Vortex viper pst 2 MOA VS MRAD

[mjac2147]

I shoot MOA. I have attended the Barrett long range 1 & 2 courses out to 2500Y (MRAD 300 PRC) and open range day (X4) at the ATF range in Georgia where there are a lot of really excellent shooters (X50+ a day) with top of the line equipment. Most shoot MIL - when I ask why most say that is the way they were taught - no advantages/disadvantages. I am seeing more & more converts to MOA. The scope I see most (MOA) is the Vortex Razor EBR2-C.

400 yards
1 MOA = 4 inches = 1 inch per click
1 MIL = 14 1/2 inches = 3.6 inches per click (1 click is the whole margin of error +/- for sub-MOA shifts)
Which one looks like a more precision system for your precision rifle?

 

[D1gger]

I think the part that MOA guys don't get is that MIL shooters don't think in inches. At all.
It's not 3.6 inches at 400. It's 1 click or 1/10th MIL.
The only English measurement that is used is yards. And if they set the range up in meters, you just change your calculator to meters and dial the MILs indicated

 

[mjac2147]

Good point - I do think in inches/feet/yards just like my elementary teacher taught me to do and my electronics (range finder, ballistics app, etc..) are set up that way. How do you dial correction if you do not have an expected distance you expect the POI to change (inches/CM) per click whether it is 1/4 - 1/10th, etc...?

 

[D1gger]

Personally, I don't dial windage, I hold, and I just use the hash marks to make the adjustments.
The shooting I do is mostly PRS and Long Range Challenge type, and I'm far from the best. But we are just going for hits, not bulls.
I've never been in a position where I needed 1/2 of a tenth. And If I were, I would just hold for that-if that makes sense.

 

[Oldmauser]

MOA.

 

[beetroot]

MOA. It's slightly more precise in terms of clicks at longer distances than MRAD or Mil.

Something those metric cucks fail to understand

 

[buster2765]

I use both, I grew hunting with MOA, when I started shooting long range I switched to Mil. Not because Mil was better, I just though it was cool. I range with a rangefinder not with the reticle & as far as doing the math who does math anymore. I enter data and wait for the solution. To me 2.5 in vs 3.6 in @1000 is more precise.

 

[Oldmauser]

Mils vs. MOA: Which Is The Best Long-Range Language?

Mils and MOA are both useful angular units of measurements, but is one better than the other? Find out more about the essential long-range measurements.

gundigest.com

Frank is a MIL-fan, but his line of arguments is not always universally true.
"But a reticle with 1 MOA hash marks is not as fine as a scope with 0.2-mil lines in it. You now have to break up an already small 1 MOA into quarters. "

 

[DairyDictator]

Something those metric cucks fail to understand

If the difference matters to you then you're probably using 1/8th MOA or 1/20 mil clicks anyway. (BR or F-Class)

 

[dustingaunder]

Good point - I do think in inches/feet/yards just like my elementary teacher taught me to do and my electronics (range finder, ballistics app, etc..) are set up that way. How do you dial correction if you do not have an expected distance you expect the POI to change (inches/CM) per click whether it is 1/4 - 1/10th, etc...?

If I’m looking at a target and I want my poi to change, I don’t care how far that actually is. It‘s some number of mils and measurable with my reticle. Who gives a shit if 1 mil is 3” or 30”? It doesn’t matter, it’s 1 mil.

 

[mjac2147]

"If I’m looking at a target and I want my poi to change, I don’t care how far that actually is. "

Pure Genius.....

 

[Northernjets]

"If I’m looking at a target and I want my poi to change, I don’t care how far that actually is. "

Pure Genius.....

Said the guy that can't even do math. 1 mil at 400 yards is 14.4 inches. One click is 1/10th of a mil, or 1.44 inches at 400 yards. Not 3.6". None of that matters because one doesn't correct by calling a correction in a linear measurement. If I see a miss, I don't convert mils/moa to inches/cm and then back again. The reticle is a calibrated ruler 3 inches from my face that is measured in mils or moa, not inches or centimeters.

 

[mjac2147]

I was referencing a 1/4 of a MOA or MIL.

I do correct my groups by how many inches they are off and use those round clicky things on top and the side of my scope to match for the next group so I can concentrate on my basic shooting skills (breathing, release,etc...) and not constantly distracted trying to hold off/over as I change distance or compensate for varying winds.

 

[308pirate]

Frim my experience, MRAD , or MIL works best when ur measuring ur range in meters. Tac scopes in MIL are usually graduated in tenths: 1 click is 0.1 MIL which is exactly 1 cm at 100 meters. If u follow that. Then 10 clicks is 10 cm at 100 meters, 20 cm at 200 meters, etc. MIL scales are common in military applications. Most civilian ranges will measure in yards rather that meters so I find MOA more useful. MOA tac scopes r typically graduated in quarter MOA (minutes of angle) such that 1 clickis 1/4” at 100 yds so 4 clicks = 1” at 100 yds. Mathematically, 1 MOA is abt 1.047” at 100 yds but it’s close enuf to call 1”. 1MOA is 2” @ 200yds, etc. Google MIL vs MOA. You’ll probably get a much better explanation than this. Yes u can convert from one to the other easily if ur familiar with both. I’m just saying what I find most convenient. YMMV.
Cant help u on the reticle.

OP, please ignore the post I quote.

It displays a significant level of ignorance regarding the use of reticles with stadia lines representing angular measurements.

In other words, the need to know what liner distance is subtended by an angular measurement (in minutes of arc or milliradians) is completely unnecessary using the type of reticle that you are asking about.

Those who continue to insist that it's easier to use MOA adjustments and reticles when the distance to target is measured in yards, or that it's easier to use milliradian adjustments and reticles when the distance to target is measured in meters, simply do not understand this topic as well as they think they do.

 

[308pirate]

I do correct my groups by how many inches they are off

 

[308pirate]

400 yards
1 MOA = 4 inches = 1 inch per click
1 MIL = 14 1/2 inches = 3.6 inches per click (1 click is the whole margin of error +/- for sub-MOA shifts)
Which one looks like a more precision system for your precision rifle?

 

[308pirate]

How do you dial correction if you do not have an expected distance you expect the POI to change (inches/CM) per click whether it is 1/4 - 1/10th, etc...?

 

[308pirate]

"If I’m looking at a target and I want my poi to change, I don’t care how far that actually is. "

Pure Genius.....

He's talking about the linear distance between point of impact and point of aim

You

Again

 

[mjac2147]

Gmac is spot on - you sound like a rifle range cowboy - all theory and technical terms. I see you all the time at the ELD ranges - you are the ones who talk trash - can't hit anything past a 1000Y - can't correct and turn up missing while nobody notices.

 

[Boatninja]

For the love of all that is good in this world....

Before you go mil or moa, go to the search function.... This is the most dead horse beaten topic on this whole site.....

Also, we need you to post a pic of your field gear before we go any further. Thanks!

Beaten to death but everyone still replies to it and I personally think the search function leaves something to be desired, you can find the thread easier by googling and goog sends you back here to the right thread. This site and many others are going to be flooded with dumb-asses like me quarantined with nothing better to do.

 

[Rerun7]

That’s weird... my search function on here seems to work just fine... Here are the results from just the first page.

 

[308pirate]

Gmac is spot on - you sound like a rifle range cowboy - all theory and technical terms. I see you all the time at the ELD ranges - you are the ones who talk trash - can't hit anything past a 1000Y - can't correct and turn up missing while nobody notices.

You have no rebuttal so you resort to ad hominems

 

[mjac2147]

Thanks - here is my main ELD gear.
Barrett MRAD (300PRC/6.5CM/338LM) - Vortex Razor EBR2C MOA - Barrett AM30 suppressor - MPA grip
Mounted on PIG tripod w/Arca Swiss adapter & 52mm sunfoto ballhead

 

[308pirate]

Thanks - here is my main ELD gear.
Barrett MRAD (300PRC/6.5CM/338LM) - Vortex Razor EBR2C MOA - Barrett AM30 suppressor - MPA grip
Mounted on PIG tripod w/Arca Swiss adapter & 52mm sunfoto ballhead

No one gives a shit about your gear.

You don't even understand why we don't use linear measurements to adjust from a miss. I can only think of three reasons why:
1. You slept through that part of the lecture
2. They didn't cover it (doubt it)
3. It's math beyond your ability to understand (most likely)

 

[mjac2147]

No one gives a shit about your gear.

You don't even understand why we don't use linear measurements to adjust from a miss. I can only think of three reasons why:
1. You slept through that part of the lecture
2. They didn't cover it (doubt it)
3. It's math beyond your ability to understand (most likely)

I posted a pic per request.
Bring your "linear measurement" and the rest of your RRC (Rifle Range Cowboy) BS including your collection of "soldier of fortune" and "shooter" magazines to the 2500Y unknown distance range and we will let the RSO give us 5 random targets by number and you get 3 minutes. 1 minute to range with reticle only and 2 minutes to get a hit (steel) on each IPSC target.
You will time out trying to get more rounds in your gun and I will be smiling at you with about a minute 30 seconds on the clock (average).
“He who can does; he who cannot, teaches.”

 

[308pirate]

I posted a pic per request.
Bring your "linear measurement" and the rest of your RRC (Rifle Range Cowboy) BS including your collection of "soldier of fortune" and "shooter" magazines to the 2500Y unknown distance range and we will let the RSO give us 5 random targets by number and you get 3 minutes. 1 minute to range with reticle only and 2 minutes to get a hit (steel) on each IPSC target.
You will time out trying to get more rounds in your gun and I will be smiling at you with about a minute 30 seconds on the clock (average).
“He who can does; he who cannot, teaches.”

Ah, the tried and true "my penis is bigger than yours"

 

[dirthead1]

"If I’m looking at a target and I want my poi to change, I don’t care how far that actually is. "

Pure Genius.....

So what is your process for determining a correction after a miss? Scenario, you fire at a target and miss to the right. You see where the miss impacted the ground behind the target. Do you try to guess how far right that was in inches/feet, then do math based on the distance to target to figure out what MOA or Mil adjustment to dial into your scope? Or do you use the reticle to measure the poi vs poa and apply that distance to your correction?

 

[Diver160651]

I get so tired of the mil ranging argument. It is incredibly inaccurate on either system once mirage is up, visibility is somewhat impaired, or if the target size is small, and the distance is far. Worse yet, when you have combinations of all these things.

If someone does not understand the physics of the statement above, they certainly should not be contributing the reticle ranging discussion in the first place.

Reticle ranging is a legacy skill at best. Reticle ranging was needed when PLRFS were not available, and engagements short maybe 200-600 on large targets like a 30" tall IPSIC to train for 70" tall humans. Let's take that 30" tall IPSIC at 400 yards; it's in 7.16 MOA/2.08Mils. So it works fine because it can soak up ranging errors, not so much if your target was 1-2 MOA and the distance even further.

Anybody trying to make the "I think in inches" arguments is buying the scope for the wrong reasons. Anyone thinking you can range an IPSIC accurately at 2500Y is nuts.

 

[D1gger]

To the OP-you can see people are pretty passionate about this topic-bottom line is to pick one and go with it.
if you shoot with a group, and they have all gone one way or another, it would be best to go with them for consistency sake.
Otherwise, just pick one and go shooting-

 

[dirthead1]

To the OP-you can see people are pretty passionate about this topic-bottom line is to pick one and go with it.
if you shoot with a group, and they have all gone one way or another, it would be best to go with them for consistency sake.
Otherwise, just pick one and go shooting-

This 100%. Just pick one. They both work just fine. Just learn to use it the correct way. The #1 thing is to stop thinking in linear measurements at the target. For instance, if you miss and say to yourself, "I missed about 3 inches left, and am shooting at 250 yards, so 3 inches at 250 yards is x.x moa/mils, you are making it WAY too complicated. No matter if you use mils or moa, just measure with your reticle and apply that correction. Distance to target does not matter and no math involved. People try to over complicate by thinking moa is inches and mil is metric, it's not. They are both angular measurements that work equally well. Just pick one and learn to use it the proper way and you'll be fine.

 

[308pirate]

This 100%. Just pick one. They both work just fine. Just learn to use it the correct way. The #1 thing is to stop thinking in linear measurements at the target. For instance, if you miss and say to yourself, "I missed about 3 inches left, and am shooting at 250 yards, so 3 inches at 250 yards is x.x moa/mils, you are making it WAY too complicated. No matter if you use mils or moa, just measure with your reticle and apply that correction. Distance to target does not matter and no math involved. People try to over complicate by thinking moa is inches and mil is metric, it's not. They are both angular measurements that work equally well. Just pick one and learn to use it the proper way and you'll be fine.

But we're "Rifle Range Cowboys" if we do that.

Mr I Went to Barrett Rifle School said so.

 

[Rerun7]

This thread has made me decide that I am just gonna remove my scope and start point shooting.

Problem solved.

You may now go back to posting “which scope should I get” threads because there aren’t enough of those... ?

 

[NewsShooter]

If like me you are used to inches and yards go MOA.
If you are a into that metric BS then go MILs.

It doesn't really matter which you choose, but this argument never made sense to me. Your measuring with the reticle in your scope, at 500 yards you can't tell me the difference between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch, or .1 mil and .2 mils. Doesn't matter what the units are on the reticle as long as they match the turrets. Shoot, impact is 12 quarks left according to the reticle, adjust 12 quarks right and shoot again.

 

[mjac2147]

But we're "Rifle Range Cowboys" if we do that.

Mr I Went to Barrett Rifle School said so.

I'm guessing you don't have any numbers on your turrets? who needs them "I just shot 3 inches left at 250 yards" why would I need to do math to figure out what number to turn my "clicky things" to for correction. Just keep banging away till the two meet - screw physics & math. As a matter of fact I am not even going to zero my scopes in going forward. I will just remember where the POI was on my reticle and correct from there on all distances and windage - that is precision shooting.

We spent hours in class figuring out ranging solutions, correction (MILS & MOA) and recording & discussing DOPE (numbers/math) so you would understand the fundamentals and what effect those "clicky things" have on your accuracy and be prepared (knowledgeable) when you got to the range and continue to improve. The reticle was used for live time holdover/off compensation for environment/wind.

 

[dirthead1]

I'm guessing you don't have any numbers on your turrets? who needs them "I just shot 3 inches left at 250 yards" why would I need to do math to figure out what number to turn my "clicky things" to for correction. Just keep banging away till the two meet - screw physics & math. As a matter of fact I am not even going to zero my scopes in going forward. I will just remember where the POI was on my reticle and correct from there on all distances and windage - that is precision shooting.

We spent hours in class figuring out ranging solutions, correction (MILS & MOA) and recording & discussing DOPE (numbers/math) so you would understand the fundamentals and what effect those "clicky things" have on your accuracy and be prepared (knowledgeable) when you got to the range and continue to improve. The reticle was used for live time holdover/off compensation for environment/wind.

So again I'll ask...... Do you use your reticle to measure for your correction, or do you use a linear distance and math to determine your correction?

 

[308pirate]

"I just shot 3 inches left at 250 yards" why would I need to do math to figure out what number to turn my "clicky things" to for correction.

LOL You just don't get it and apparently never will.

 

[spife7980]

I'm guessing you don't have any numbers on your turrets? who needs them "I just shot 3 inches left at 250 yards" why would I need to do math to figure out what number to turn my "clicky things" to for correction. Just keep banging away till the two meet - screw physics & math. As a matter of fact I am not even going to zero my scopes in going forward. I will just remember where the POI was on my reticle and correct from there on all distances and windage - that is precision shooting.

We spent hours in class figuring out ranging solutions, correction (MILS & MOA) and recording & discussing DOPE (numbers/math) so you would understand the fundamentals and what effect those "clicky things" have on your accuracy and be prepared (knowledgeable) when you got to the range and continue to improve. The reticle was used for live time holdover/off compensation for environment/wind.

Shut the fuck up, you god damn retard.

 

[_Raining]

I get so tired of the mil ranging argument. It is incredibly inaccurate on either system once mirage is up, visibility is somewhat impaired, or if the target size is small, and the distance is far. Worse yet, when you have combinations of all these things.

12" target at 700 yards would result in mil reading of .476.

If you milled it at .5 MILs, you get 666.48 yards.

My 6.5 Creedmoors 700 yard elevation is 4.8 mils, it is 4.5 mils for 666.48 yards.

If I milled with .5 MILs and shot at a 12" target at 700 yards with a 666.48 dope, the center of my rifles cone of fire would be 7.56" low.

If the rifle was capable of .5 MOA at 700 yards then that is a 1.83" +- of center.

I would be aiming at the center of the 12" plate so the center of my cone of fire would be 6 - 7.56 = 1.56 inches off the bottom of the plate. So only the extreme edge of my cone of fire would nick the bottom of the plate (1.83 - 1.56 = .27").

AKA, at just 700 yards with a near 2 MOA target you need to be able to resolve the difference between .5 and .476 mils using your scope to be able to center up your group on that plate, a .024 mil difference causes almost all shots to miss.

Then we have to remember then unless you are playing a game (steel targets of known size), you don't know the targets size in most cases (animal, man) so you have to add error in target size into the equation.

I am not saying it isn't worth knowing but I agree with you, it is inaccurate and you need to know your own limits for what ranges you can accurately hit the target. It seems like a, get close enough to then measure your miss with the reticle to correct and make a second round hit or I can just use a fkn LRF and up my hit % drastically.

 

[_Raining]

Range in meters = target size in mm / mils measured in reticle.

150mm target measured at 1 mil = 150m. Math so simple a common core 3rd grader could do it.

What in the fuck... Do you live in the US? I am not a gambling man but I would bet you will find very few places in the US that will give you target size in millimeters. Plugging in the value in a calculator or using an analog device like truemiller or mildot master is going to be faster then you trying to convert inches to millimeters and dividing that number by some damn mil reading.

Target size 22", Mil reading .65, go ahead and do that math in your head. 22 * 25.4, ok we can do this... 254 + 254 + 50.8 that's 558.8... ok now divide that by .65... uh yea. Unless you spend your time learning mathematical tricks for dividing by fractions in your head I would rather just line 2 numbers up on a sliding scale or type 22 and .65 into my phone to get the value.

 

[308pirate]

@mjac2147 have you heard of this concept: use the ruler 3" in front of your face to measure your misses?

If you haven't, get your fucking money back from Barrett.

If you have, do you understand what it means and how to do it?

 

[Diver160651]

12" target at 700 yards would result in mil reading of .476.

If you milled it at .5 MILs, you get 666.48 yards.

My 6.5 Creedmoors 700 yard elevation is 4.8 mils, it is 4.5 mils for 666.48 yards.

If I milled with .5 MILs and shot at a 12" target at 700 yards with a 666.48 dope, the center of my rifles cone of fire would be 7.56" low.

If the rifle was capable of .5 MOA at 700 yards then that is a 1.83" +- of center.

I would be aiming at the center of the 12" plate so the center of my cone of fire would be 6 - 7.56 = 1.56 inches off the bottom of the plate. So only the extreme edge of my cone of fire would nick the bottom of the plate (1.83 - 1.56 = .27").

AKA, at just 700 yards with a near 2 MOA target you need to be able to resolve the difference between .5 and .476 mils using your scope to be able to center up your group on that plate, a .024 mil difference causes almost all shots to miss.

Then we have to remember then unless you are playing a game (steel targets of known size), you don't know the targets size in most cases (animal, man) so you have to add error in target size into the equation.

I am not saying it isn't worth knowing but I agree with you, it is inaccurate and you need to know your own limits for what ranges you can accurately hit the target. It seems like a, get close enough to then measure your miss with the reticle to correct and make a second round hit or I can just use a fkn LRF and up my hit % drastically.

Now the truth is - we must add this to your example - What size does a 12" target measure in any reticle, in heavy mirage. Everyone seems to discount this little gem

BTW I am including a reticle only stage, using small plates in our sold-out UKD match. Believe me, use a range finder

 

[_Raining]

Now the truth is - we must add this to your example - What size does a 12" target measure in any reticle, in heavy mirage. Everyone seems to discount this little gem

BTW I am including a reticle only stage, using small plates in our sold-out UKD match. Believe me, use a range finder

As well as any angular issues, tilted towards or away from you. And if you use width then it can be angled slightly also. Although IIRC it is cosine and it takes a significant angle to have a large effect but then again it only takes a small % in miscalculation of ranging to cause a miss at longer distances.

 

[WestDesertPRS]

What in the fuck... Do you live in the US? I am not a gambling man but I would bet you will find very few places in the US that will give you target size in millimeters. Plugging in the value in a calculator or using an analog device like truemiller or mildot master is going to be faster then you trying to convert inches to millimeters and dividing that number by some damn mil reading.

Target size 22", Mil reading .65, go ahead and do that math in your head. 22 * 25.4, ok we can do this... 254 + 254 + 50.8 that's 558.8... ok now divide that by .65... uh yea. Unless you spend your time learning mathematical tricks for dividing by fractions in your head I would rather just line 2 numbers up on a sliding scale or type 22 and .65 into my phone to get the value.

Yes...and I know how to use the metric system!

I know that my 6" steel is 150mm, my 8" steel is 200mm, my 1/2 IPSC targets are 225mm wide and my full size IPSCs are 450mm wide.

I merely pointed out that it is simpler math for anybody who understand the metric system and is interested in ranging with a Mil reticle. I use a LRF. I don't rely on my reticle to range on a normal basis but its still something I know how to do. I can also (as I pointed out earlier) navigate with a topo and a compass even though GPS exists.

 

[mjac2147]

@mjac2147 have you heard of this concept: use the ruler 3" in front of your face to measure your misses?

If you haven't, get your fucking money back from Barrett.

If you have, do you understand what it means and how to do it?

Actually yes I do get it now - makes perfect sense - sorry for the misunderstanding - I will go get a 3 inch ruler and tape that f'er to the back of my "non linear optical measurement device" you keep squawking about. I bought a scope with turrets on it that moves the NLOMD (Non Linear Optical Measurement Device) in precision amounts for me so never thought about this scientific wonder you have introduced into the science of precision shooting. Tape or tie-wraps? Wanna get this right.

 

[spife7980]

Actually yes I do get it now - makes perfect sense - sorry for the misunderstanding - I will go get a 3 inch ruler and tape that f'er to the back of my "non linear optical measurement device" you keep squawking about. I bought a scope with turrets on it that moves the NLOMD (Non Linear Optical Measurement Device) in precision amounts for me so never thought about this scientific wonder you have introduced into the science of precision shooting. Tape or tie-wraps? Wanna get this right.

Does that scope have a reticle? If so and if it has subtensions and isnt just a duplex then that is the fucking ruler you nitwit

See this? This is the ruler

Notice the units are in mils (or moa if you wanted to choose that version) and not any linear-measurement-at-a-prescribed-distance? Thats because they are in angles and angles dont change with distance. So converting it to distance is only creating work where none existed previously.



So instead of thinking you are smart, realize that you are an idiot who is arguing about something that he doesnt understand (which is clear to everyone else in the thread).

 

[_Raining]

I know that my 6" steel is 150mm, my 8" steel is 200mm, my 1/2 IPSC targets are 225mm wide and my full size IPSCs are 450mm wide.

OK got it, so it only works for your targets and you would be fucked if you went to an UKD match or needed to shoot an animal whose height you know in inches. Again, converting to mm is the easy part... diving by fractions is the hard part. And again, anyone with a MOA scope and a mildot master will be able to range faster then you and your mental math.

 

[WestDesertPRS]

OK got it, so it only works for your targets and you would be fucked if you went to an UKD match or needed to shoot an animal whose height you know in inches. Again, converting to mm is the easy part... diving by fractions is the hard part. And again, anyone with a MOA scope and a mildot master will be able to range faster then you and your mental math.

If this was an UKD match I wouldn't care what size the target was...I would just dial the correction automatically generated from my AB calculator when my LRF sends the range via Bluetooth and take the shot. This never was some kind of question about whether or not it was better to rely on modern technology vs marginally accurate range estimation based off the reticle. Range estimation is a skill that likely rarely used, but it can still be useful to at least understand. Its also helpful to have a grasp on the measurement system used by 95% of the planet.

 

[WestDesertPRS]

Actually yes I do get it now - makes perfect sense - sorry for the misunderstanding - I will go get a 3 inch ruler and tape that f'er to the back of my "non linear optical measurement device" you keep squawking about. I bought a scope with turrets on it that moves the NLOMD (Non Linear Optical Measurement Device) in precision amounts for me so never thought about this scientific wonder you have introduced into the science of precision shooting. Tape or tie-wraps? Wanna get this right.

Dude....the distance to target doesn't matter. If your impact is 1.7 mils to the left of point-of-aim (as measured with your reticle) then you would dial 1.7 mils of correction and take your follow-up shot. The exact same way works for MOA. It doesn't matter. You just measure how far off using the reticle and dial that much correction on your turret.

 

[308pirate]

Actually yes I do get it now - makes perfect sense - sorry for the misunderstanding - I will go get a 3 inch ruler and tape that f'er to the back of my "non linear optical measurement device" you keep squawking about. I bought a scope with turrets on it that moves the NLOMD (Non Linear Optical Measurement Device) in precision amounts for me so never thought about this scientific wonder you have introduced into the science of precision shooting. Tape or tie-wraps? Wanna get this right.

Holy shit you're dumber than I ever thought possible

LOL

 

[_Raining]

If this was an UKD match I wouldn't care what size the target was...I would just dial the correction automatically generated from my AB calculator when my LRF sends the range via Bluetooth and take the shot. This never was some kind of question about whether or not it was better to rely on modern technology vs marginally accurate range estimation based off the reticle. Range estimation is a skill that likely rarely used, but it can still be useful to at least understand. Its also helpful to have a grasp on the measurement system used by 95% of the planet.

You literally said "If you ever want to use your reticle to do any ranging then mil is easier to use than MOA."
Which is the dumbest shit ever. I don't think anyone disagrees that a LRF is superior but you are the one that brought up ranging with a reticle. The only real time someone needs to range with the reticle is if they are playing a game and the match director says you can not use a LRF or if your LRF dies or the batteries in it dies. In which case a dude with MOA and a slide rule will range faster then you and your mental math. MIL being better for mental math is retarded. Even if you were used to metric and knew by heart the size of animals in mm or if your match director gave you target size in mm and your ballistic calc or dope chart was in meters, it is still difficult to divide by random ass fractions.

It is plain and simple. MOA VS MRAD:

1. If you shoot with a group of people who all have MOA then it is better to get an MOA scope so you can communicate corrections quickly and vice versa for MRAD.

2. If you want a big boy scope and want a Christmas tree reticle then you are forced to go MRAD for the popular scopes. (Nightforce MIL-XT, ZCO MPCT2, ZCO MPCT3, TT Gen 3 XR, Kahles SKMR3, S&B GR2ID, Minox MR4).

3. If you are afraid scope manufacturers still get it wrong and give you a MOA turret with IPHY reticle or vice versa or are afraid to get a IPHY/IPHY scope and are too lazy to check the scope travel yourself then go MRAD.

4. You are incapable of dividing by 2 for a .5 MOA gun MPH formula. This is the only mental math you should be doing (wind MPH), not for ranging with the reticle.