-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Vortex viper pst 2 MOA VS MRAD
- Thread starter Qwkcrss
- Start date
When thinking of mils would it help if it were presented that 1 MRAD = 3.6 inches at 3600 Inches?
Dthomas.... If you read what I wrote I never said it works better,, I said it's the way I think. I would have first converted it to moa, and then I would have converted it to mil. If I am going to convert it to moa (and moa and mils work the same way) why should I then do one more step-- no matter how easy the math is?
If instead of "first converting it to moa" why not convert it to mil?
You can multiply it by 4 but not 3?
But really the question should be "WHY THE FUCK ARE ANY OF YALL CONVERTING ANYTHING?!?!?!?!?!?!"
You can multiply it by 4 but not 3?
But really the question should be "WHY THE FUCK ARE ANY OF YALL CONVERTING ANYTHING?!?!?!?!?!?!"
Point is, you can do either and it doesn’t matter which.
It’s a bad habit to “think” in anything when dealing with angles. Just because you do it, doesn’t make it a point worth bringing up.
Educate yourself better and evolve.
I ran a MOA/SFP scope for years.
had a little chart for 6x and 12x subtentions.
18x was 1 to 1 and 24x had every tick being 1.5 moa.
that simple graduated cross was pretty effective.
Mils and FFP really spoiled me though
That’s what I’m getting at. It’s a bit of legwork upfront. But then it’s back to just using the reticle as a ruler.
Basically anyone screaming about it owns an optic they don’t fully understand how to use.
Probably why Mils was so easy to change to.
I don’t think in inches or feet at targets anymore.
I think in reticle tick marks whatever they may be.
Your low 6” doesn’t mean shit if your target size is unknown and the distance is 734 yards.
Tell that person your half a mil or 1.75 moa low and it’s a no brainer.
My humble beginnings.
The tricky chicken at 880 yards at my old gun club with my first training wheels scope.
Last edited:
I am agreeing with everyone here- saying that they both work the same. YES, use your reticle to make corrections... I understand that. I sighted my last gun in perfect with 1 shot.... bore sighted it.... shot. Oh, I'm 7.5moa left and 3moa low. Dialed it in.. Ok, I then verified it with some groups so maybe not 1 shot. And I use the reticle for corrections on misses also.
Everyone admits that they work the same way... but then moa is devalued on this site.
Everyone admits that they work the same way... but then moa is devalued on this site.
Newish here too and to LR shooting. I come from a SI / Metric background and it was instinctual for me to go to a base 10 system. When I took my LR class it was split about even. Shooting beyond 500 yrds alone sucks. So I would check in with your range buddies. If they all have spotting scopes with MOA graticules and shoot in MOA and you show up with mils, it will make it harder to shoot together. Not impossible. Just more complicated than it needs to be. Something to think about if you see this as a social sport.
Basically its only devalued due to aesthetics, aka personal preference. Math is math, it doesnt change. How we interact with it does though.
6.5 mils is nicer to look at and communicate and process than 24.9 moa.
Especially when 24.9 would have to be rounded up to 30 or down to 29.75 (or 29 3/4) for what you would actually dial.
The wind mph gun short hand works well for mils, not so simple for moa. Same answer, just not as pleasant to get.
Its just little piddly crap like that which is driving the mil over the moa here, no naturally inherit superiority.
Go to an fclass forum and there will be lots more people on moa, they dont have to change as quickly or as frequently so the marginal benefits of mil are moot there.
As someone with more years in the moa world than Mils I’d rather not go back to moa.
Smaller numbers to deal with.
Cleaner call outs.
Super easy to get a clean wind mph factor for bullets.
Lol. No one devalues moa here. Unless it’s smoa or something like that.
What doesn’t fly on this site is introducing linear values or claiming you use one or the other based on the unit of linear measurement you prefer.
What doesn’t fly on this site is introducing linear values or claiming you use one or the other based on the unit of linear measurement you prefer.
Dthomas,
Ok, I am genuinely asking this- with no intention of being a dick or trying to insert some unrelated info-
The reason I stay with moa and use it "based on the unit of linear measurement that I prefer" is because of hunting scopes. I have hunting scopes with just a duplex or wind plex. A couple have custom turrets (which I admit aren't always the best- but pretty handy). When I was developing the info for the turrets I shot a group at 800 yards- measured in inches how low I was. Because its the measurement I prefer I know that 1 moa is 8.4 inches at 800yrds so I can easily adjust how much come-up i need without "ruler" in the scope. I admit it is very hard to guess how far you missed something with just a cross hair- but I know I would have a much better chance making an adjustment in moa.
Yes, Mils get you to the exact same spot. And once you have the info would be no different- but on scopes that only have a duplex it makes sense to me to chose based off what I am familiar with. And then to stay with that on other scopes for consistency.
But if I am looking at that wrong I am more than willing to evolve.
Ok, I am genuinely asking this- with no intention of being a dick or trying to insert some unrelated info-
The reason I stay with moa and use it "based on the unit of linear measurement that I prefer" is because of hunting scopes. I have hunting scopes with just a duplex or wind plex. A couple have custom turrets (which I admit aren't always the best- but pretty handy). When I was developing the info for the turrets I shot a group at 800 yards- measured in inches how low I was. Because its the measurement I prefer I know that 1 moa is 8.4 inches at 800yrds so I can easily adjust how much come-up i need without "ruler" in the scope. I admit it is very hard to guess how far you missed something with just a cross hair- but I know I would have a much better chance making an adjustment in moa.
Yes, Mils get you to the exact same spot. And once you have the info would be no different- but on scopes that only have a duplex it makes sense to me to chose based off what I am familiar with. And then to stay with that on other scopes for consistency.
But if I am looking at that wrong I am more than willing to evolve.
I think Frank devalues it because he is very passionate about the IPHY thing. It seems like at one point there was a scope with IPHY turrets and MOA reticle and that has spoiled MOA for him. Plus all the dumb people saying MOA is more precise or that the only difference between IPHY and MOA is half an inch at 1000 yards not realizing it stacks for every MOA in the dope chart. At least that is the impression I got from listening to the podcast.
Am I missing something or are almost all the Alpha scopes only in MILs for their Christmas tree reticles?
If so, that and group communication are the biggest reasons to go MILs.
The wind MPH thing seems to work for .5 MOA (divide distance by 2) plus the biggest hiccup is going to be multiplying the fractions. Turning 600 yards into .6 or 600 yards into 3 is easy, sure turning 700 into .7 is slightly easier then 700 into 3.5 but multiplying that by: (13 MPH wind/gun MPH) is what is gonna cause a brain stutter; at least for me.
I am not aware of any new scopes with miss-matched IPHY/MOA turrets/reticle but then again I never researched FFP scopes in MOA.
Your way of doing it with your hunting optic works in mils or moa.
You could take the same 8” and know that it’s .3 mils.
Zero to do with what tape measure you used growing up.
SmartDonkey not to be a dick, but..
Ok, kidding, really though, using a duplex when game is far enough away that you need to do as you describe, is the wrong tool to start. Wind at your example distances is much more important than we often are willing to admit.
If you are jumping game or shooting close, a duplex or illuminated FFP scope (acts like a duplex at min mag) is fine. But your 800 yard with a duplex example, in a hunting situation, is not in any way the best tool for the job. Then making future concessions based on that current scopes limitations and situation, is circling the toilet.
Yep, people have taken game far with duplexes, but I have also seen many hunters make horrific long-range shots in the wild. I hunt long-range and would never be without my subtentioned scopes.
Ok, kidding, really though, using a duplex when game is far enough away that you need to do as you describe, is the wrong tool to start. Wind at your example distances is much more important than we often are willing to admit.
If you are jumping game or shooting close, a duplex or illuminated FFP scope (acts like a duplex at min mag) is fine. But your 800 yard with a duplex example, in a hunting situation, is not in any way the best tool for the job. Then making future concessions based on that current scopes limitations and situation, is circling the toilet.
Yep, people have taken game far with duplexes, but I have also seen many hunters make horrific long-range shots in the wild. I hunt long-range and would never be without my subtentioned scopes.
Last edited:
Thanks, I was trying to stay away from that flame argument.
But yes. If you’re using a sfp duplex to shoot 800yds in 2020, you’re doing it wrong.
Not to mention, if you are driving or walking to the target to take a measurement (if you’re guessing from behind the optic, that’s all kinds of bad), you have plenty of time to do the math for mils. Not like someone is saying “quick, 8” in mils, 2 seconds, go!!”
You do realize that 1 mil = 3.6 inches per 100 yards, right?
Wait wait wait.....1 mil = 3.43 MOA. That's even easier.
And if you just want to get in the ballpark you can even shorten it to 1 mil = 3 MOA
There I saved you the extra step.
Last edited:
308pirate - I'm so disappointed - just a couple of days ago you said anybody who references distance in inches/cm/yards/meters, etc... was a complete moron.
Now you are quoting distance in inches and using math to demonstrate the relationship between mil & moa.
So using your "precision guidance" at the end that 1 mil = 3 moa - that would put me 4.3 moa (43+ inches) off at 1000 yards which is twice the width of an IPSC target - we are really getting into some precision instruction here.
"me shoot - me hit dirt - me adjust reticle to where dirt move - me shoot hear twang - me happy - me precision shooter"
I think we told you to STFU and take your idiotic posts elsewhere. Didn't we?
Who is "we"? are you talking about the group of Mil shooters who roost on these posts and try to bully everyone - especially newcomers - that this is "their" site and you don't tolerate anybody trying to express a different opinion?
I'm thinking that last post must have hit a nerve - no logical reply - just STFU
We don't have a problem with differing opinions. We have a problem with idiots spouting off with wrong facts.
You're the new guy. Maybe learn something here first by reading. All but 1 of your 15 posts is in this thread.
[QUOTE="mjac2147, post: 8393924, member: 137216"
"me shoot - me hit dirt - me adjust reticle to where dirt move - me shoot hear twang - me happy - me precision shooter"
[/QUOTE]
Really?
Who sits on their computers and writes shit like that?
This guy not only deserves his ban, but a place on the podium of stupid posts.. @lowlight please get the REALL stupid marksman forum going.
I'd love to have some of these posts in a place that new users must read before they join. Maybe then, people can see being a dick isn't the same as asking a dumb question. Most of the users getting banned are just acting like idiots
I already banned him,
You guys are the ones getting into dumb conversations with idiots
Leave me out of your shit, use the report button, I don't want to be part of these endless, mindless discussions with people who have no facts other than, "But I think in Inches"
Stupid is as stupid says, when they say stupid, walk away can't have a conversation if nobody is responding to them
You guys are the ones getting into dumb conversations with idiots
Leave me out of your shit, use the report button, I don't want to be part of these endless, mindless discussions with people who have no facts other than, "But I think in Inches"
Stupid is as stupid says, when they say stupid, walk away can't have a conversation if nobody is responding to them
Maybe we need to boil down the facts of the matter and make an MOA vs MIL sticky post that is locked so nobody can comment
It needs to be complete, but textbook, as in no fluff
Minute of Angle = 1.047"
Inch Per Hundred Yards = 1"
Millliradian = 3.6
Converter = 3.43
1/4 MOA = .26
1/4 IPHY = .25
1/10th Mil =.36
.05 Mils - .18
Shit like that ...
Angles vs Linear
Stuff that can be used to shit down the idiocy with some people
It needs to be complete, but textbook, as in no fluff
Minute of Angle = 1.047"
Inch Per Hundred Yards = 1"
Millliradian = 3.6
Converter = 3.43
1/4 MOA = .26
1/4 IPHY = .25
1/10th Mil =.36
.05 Mils - .18
Shit like that ...
Angles vs Linear
Stuff that can be used to shit down the idiocy with some people
Phil V says it best on modern day sniper podcast. If you have 17 dimes how much do you have? 1.70 If you have 17 quarters how much do you have?..........................Exactly. Even if you can do the math in your head it's faster for most to think in dimes than quarters. Both are just angular measurments. both work. Furthermore there are wind formulas like figuring what mph your gun is to quickly and accurately address what call to make. In the end both will work. One is just better for most.
there you go, repeating the same shit wasting everyone's time,
I am sure we can find this very post above me repeated 10x here
we get it, but then again we are not the problem
I am sure we can find this very post above me repeated 10x here
we get it, but then again we are not the problem
People for whatever reason cannot grasp that its a cone going in all directions. In no way is it linear. Furthermore they nor their rifle system is accurate enough to shoot the difference between a tenth mil or quarter minute.
What does 17 have to do with anything? Is someone calling out corrections in clicks? wtf
It's not about 17, it's about fractions vs base 10
Fractions are harder to work with vs Base 10 systems
Fractions are harder to work with vs Base 10 systems
It’s an example of how it’s easier for systems that are base 10. And it’s a valid argument.
Let’s be honest, the metric system in general makes more sense. Standard is full of random numbers.
Just an arbitrary number pulled out of his head. Phil V was just pointing out that it's generally a lot quicker running calculations in one's head in base 10s vs 1/4s. Ex: converting 17 dimes to a monetary value of $1.70 is easier/faster than converting 17 quarters to $4.25. Was in one of the podcasts.
Practical rifle wise, yes. Get into f class and benchrest, they can start seeing the difference on paper. But they also use 1/8 adjustments. And moa because of the targets. If it were in mils, they would be using .05 adjustments.
We call adjustments in tenths all the time. You call wind by the mph? When I spot someone and I see an impact I call it by its measured value in tenths, so yes clicks, in my case. Hopefully the shooter can spot his own impacts. I don't hear anyone saying " nope you held 6mph instead of 10". When making a first shot I'll determine the best wind call I can with every bit of information I have. But after that first reference to what the mph is everything after is in correction, which is in tenths.
I should've been clear. I'm not talking benchrest or F class. I'm talking about testing the shooter not the 10k investment. Practical marksmanship either prone or positional, but especially prs when time is of the essence.
That was Phil's point, Franks point, and mine vicariously. Base 10 is most certainly the easiest. Apologize if I wasn't clear. Sorry Frank I know it's been said a ton. I didn't mean to step on toes, it just drives me crazy when guys over complicate this subject.
Some people get spun around the axel, thinking 1/4MOA provides a finer and more useful solution to .1mil systems. For Practical shooting sports, there is no difference and another myth. But it seems to be to yet another reason new shooters to a precision rifle, gravitate to MOA.
At the POI, the difference, between 1/4MOA and .1mil, is the only graduation in play. Even then, we have to assume that in some cases, the final drop solution and POI might match closer to the .1mil, than the 1/4MOA. In that case, what system provided a more accurate adjustment?
At the POI, the difference, between 1/4MOA and .1mil, is the only graduation in play. Even then, we have to assume that in some cases, the final drop solution and POI might match closer to the .1mil, than the 1/4MOA. In that case, what system provided a more accurate adjustment?
When idiots want to make the 1/4" is finer than 1/10th Mil, just have them post a picture of their groups, that will shut it down
you have jackasses that might be shooting 5/8s inch groups claim it's better because it's finer, yet they can't manage sub 1/2" so who cares,
Just use a group shot photo to debunk them
you have jackasses that might be shooting 5/8s inch groups claim it's better because it's finer, yet they can't manage sub 1/2" so who cares,
Just use a group shot photo to debunk them
Exactly my point. The bullet diameter hole its punching is larger than the difference between the two measurements. It's tenth of an inch difference. Even if your rifle stacks them in the same hole the difference is less than can be perceived. Both work and neither is more accurate than the other. But one is simpler for most to articulate both in their head and to others that also speak that sheet of music.
I get that but a ballistic calculator is going to give you 32 or 32 1/4 or 32 2/4 or 32 3/4. Only an idiot would set the calc to give them clicks.
The only real math is ranging and wind MPH. For ranging you run into multiplying/dividing by random garbage regardless of MOA or MIL and a slide rule or premade chart is going to be much faster. Or just use a LRF, even better if it is linked to a ballistic calc.
Wind MPH is going to be MIL find the MPH which lines up with .1 per 100 yards. For MOA it is going to be find the MPH which lines up with .5 MOA per 100 yards.
For me, 5 MPH with MILS. 7 MPH with MOA.
23 MPH wind at 400 yards:
Mental Math Mils = .4 * (23/5) -> 20 / 5 = 4 + uh..... .6 -> .4 * 4.6 = uhhh 1.6 + .2 something hold 1.8 MILs
Mental Math MOA = 2 * (23/7) -> 21 / 7 = 3 + uh.. .2ish -> 2 * 3.2 = 6.4 MOA
Actual according to BC 1.7 MILs, 5.8 MOA
Using calculator to do math: 1.84 MILs, 6.57 MOA
As we can see, both are flawed because it isn't exactly .4 MILs for 5 MPH at 400 yards or 2 MOA for 7 MPH at 400 yards.
If we set BC to 1/20 MOA we get 1.25 MOA for 5 MPH AKA .364 MILs so we lose .036 MILs for every 5 MPH we try to account for. And 7 MPH is actually 1.8 MOA so we lose .2 MOA for every 7 MPH we try to account for.
None of this mental math is all that easy but never once did I need to take a large integer and divide it by 4 and get the remainder. The hardest part is dividing actual wind MPH by gun MPH and I would argue that multiplying by .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9 is going to be harder then multiplying by .5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.6, 4, 4.5 but even that doesn't matter all that much because the gun MPH is a rough estimate that will be flawed a little at each distance and that flaw will be exacerbated by how high the wind is.
Look, I have a S&B PMII H2CMR (MIL) and a TT 252P (Gen 3 XR MIL) and a Kahles K1050 1/8 MOA I use for F Class. I stand by MILs is better for PRS because most shooters are going to use christmas tree reticles and they are going to spend big bucks on scopes and all those high dollar scopes only have christmas tree reticles in MILs and thus everyone around you will be communicating in MILs so just get MILs. But being able to divide 17 by 10 and get the remainder faster then 17 by 4 has fuck all to do with anything.
I am not even answering your bullshit,
I did not come in here to debate you, or your incorrect mental math, you aren't;t even doing the wind correctly
Just go away before I escort you out
I did not come in here to debate you, or your incorrect mental math, you aren't;t even doing the wind correctly
Just go away before I escort you out
You call tenths because you have a ruler that measures in tenths. There is nothing stopping you from using a spotting scope with MOA reticle and call MOA adjustments to a shooter using a MOA scope.
5 MPH Gun = 400 .4
23MPH Wind x5 = 2.0 take a .1 off for 23 instead of 25, you have 1.9
done, didn't need any ballistic calculator and the by the time you took it out I already shot
23MPH Wind x5 = 2.0 take a .1 off for 23 instead of 25, you have 1.9
done, didn't need any ballistic calculator and the by the time you took it out I already shot
I concede, you are right, that is much better then what I was trying to do. Would this be correct for MOA?:
7 MPH Gun = 400 2
23MPH Wind x 3 = 6 add a .25 for 23 instead of 21, you have 6.25
After the initial math you really just look at the target,
If you have a .5 or 2 MOA wide target, who cares about the .25 or .1 for that matter,
If the target is wide enough, you can forgo the fine-tuning number, just shoot it.
If you have a .5 or 2 MOA wide target, who cares about the .25 or .1 for that matter,
If the target is wide enough, you can forgo the fine-tuning number, just shoot it.
I find it mildly amusing that you (and others) refer to US imperial as 'Standard".
While we are at it can we please address the issues of Fahrenheit and putting the month first in the date.
