Which is better for squirrel hunting mrad or moa or is it more of a preference since all shots will likely be well under 100yds with a m4 impact. 25 that I'm thinking about ordering specifically for squirrels? Thanks
Other MOA VS MRAD
- Thread starter Dustin
- Start date
2 different systems same purpose. For us metric guys mrad is the obvious choice. Think in the long distance world more and more are going mrad. Any way to use it for holdover or wind you will need a first focal plane scope.
Personally all but one all my scopes are mrad.
Personally all but one all my scopes are mrad.
Upvote 0
@Dustin I don’t think it’s a question of which is better. I think it’s more of a preference. MOA and MRAD are units to measure angular distance if my memory serves me correctly. They are on different metric systems similar to how yards and meters are. Use which ever works for you. The reticle style is what’s more important. As long as the subtentions (dots or hashmarks) are spaced incrementally enough and visibly for you to see and practice memorizing or recording your holdover/holdunder points for distance then you will be fine for squirrel hunting. You also want to be sure that the lines in the reticle are thick enough to see in second focal plane and clear and thick enough to see at various magnifications in first focal plane scopes. I prefer illuminated reticles when squirrel hunting in the woods because it’s tough for me to see a black reticle against a squirrel in the shadow of the tree canopy. The ability to illuminate the entire reticle with red light greatly improves my ability to line up a shot. It’s even better when the illumination brightness can be adjusted to where it’s not too dim or too bright to be seen or obscure my target. I hope this helps you some.
100 yards? Are you talking about tree squirrels or ground squirrels?
Last edited:
Upvote 0
All the above is right! Also, some brains understand MRAD easier while others MOA, my pea brain understands MOA more easily. Google both and see which you understand better or easier.
Upvote 0
Whichever system you choose, please consider getting MIL reticle to MIL turret click values and MOA reticle to MOA turret click values. It makes adjustments much easier. It doesn't really affect holdovers or hold offs. In the military we used artillery mils (rounded up for easier math, 6400 mils to a circle). 1 meter at 1 kilometer was a mil for us.
Upvote 0
Milliradians, (MRAD or Mil) and Minute of Angle, (MOA) Trivia
MOA vs MRAD Reticles | An Official Journal Of The NRA (shootingillustrated.com)
(Best with a 6 pack of Beer)
MOA vs MRAD Reticles | An Official Journal Of The NRA (shootingillustrated.com)
(Best with a 6 pack of Beer)
Formula for circumference of a circle = Diameter, (D) x Pi, (Pi = 3.14159.)
There are 7200” in (D) diameter of a 100 yard circle. (100 x 36” x 2 = 7200”)
Circumference of a circle at 100 yards = 22,619.448”, (7200” x 3.14159 Pi.)
1 MRAD & 1 MOA is an angular numeric calculation at a specific distance or range to the target. Shots are measured center to center.
6,283.185 Milliradians (MRAD) = 1 CIRCLE (Pi 3.14159 x 2 x 1000 = 6,283.185, mathematical.)
6,400 Milliradians = 1 CIRCLE, (NATO rounded MRAD.)
21,600 Minutes = 1 CIRCLE, (360 degrees x 60 Minutes in 1 degree = 21,600 minutes)
1 MOA = 1.0471975” at 100 yards, 22,619.448”/21,600 Minutes, (1” rounded.)
1 MRAD = 3.6” at 100 yards, 22,619.448”/6283.185 MRAD, mathematical.
1 MRAD = 3.534” at 100 yards, 22,619.448/6400 MRAD, NATO.
1 MRAD = 10 cm at 100 meters. (2 x PI x 1000 = 6283.185 MRADs in a circle). 100 meters = 10,000 cm x 2 = 20,000 cm in diameter of 100 meter circle. 20K x PI = 62,831.85/6,283.18 MRADs = 10 cm; for (1 MRAD at 100 meters = 10 centimeters).
Scope settings MOA or MRAD.
It also depends on what your scope's notion of 1 milliradian is, because the NATO milliradian differs from the mathematical definition of a milliradian.
A mathematically accurate radian is that part of a circle where 2 * PI radians is a full circle, and a milliradian, (MRAD), is 1/1000th of a radian, so a full circle is equal to approximately 6283.185 milliradians (2000 * PI).
But the NATO definition of a milliradian for use in ballistics is that a full circle is split into 6400 NATO milliradians.
Anyway, the difference is not very large, with mathematically accurate MRADs, 1 MRAD is 100 cm @ 1000 m, with 1 NATO MRAD, it is 98.2 cm @ 1000 m. For this reason, if your scope uses mathematically accurate MRADs, 1 MRAD is about 3.44 MOAs, but if it uses NATO MRADs, then 1 MRAD is 3.375 MOAs.
The distance of the reticle's movement per click is tan(angle) * distance, however, at longer distances this is not exactly equal to the change in point of impact, because of the difference between changes to the line of sight and changes in the bullet's trajectory.
degrees = MOAs / 60
MOAs = degrees * 60
degrees = MRADs / (PI * 1000) * 180
degrees = (MRADs / 6400) * 360 [with NATO MRADs]
MRADs = (degrees / 180) * PI * 1000
MRADs = (degrees / 360) * 6400 [with NATO MRADs]
MOAs = MRADs / (PI * 1000) * 10800
MOAs = (MRADs / 6400) * 21600 [with NATO MRADs]
MRADs = (MOAs / 10800) * PI * 1000
MRADs = (MOAs / 21600) * 6400 [with NATO MRADs]
Upvote 0
Tree squirrels I hunt w dogs and alot of the time I'm a flat or 2 below them causing a bit longer shot
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
The only real advantage moa has over mil is the finer click adjustment that is standard for the industry. 1/4 moa is approx 0.250" at 100yds, and 0.1 mil is approx 0.36" at 100yds. Everything else is more simple with mil for most people, but functionally they are the same. Just an angle of measurement and a unit we use to explain trajectory and accuracy etc.
Upvote 0
As long as it’s FFP, and the turret matches the reticle, then it doesn’t really matter.
I far prefer MIL to MOA, as I like to think in .1 vs .25, but that’s just me.
I far prefer MIL to MOA, as I like to think in .1 vs .25, but that’s just me.
Upvote 0
I’ve been shooting both for a long time. I definitely prefer MOA. Recently fell in love with a particular scope. Loved it so much I had to get another for one of my other hunting Impacts. All they had was MRAD. So I bought it. I can live with it but in hindsight I just should have paid more and got another MOA from another vendor. Oh and by the way, I’ve been a solid metric guy since the early 1990’s and I was in the military. Still prefer MOA scopes.
Upvote 0
I use both interchangeably, at my practical pesting and plinking distances as it pertains to airguns? Simply? Inconsequential…
Upvote 0
This same discussion came up over lunch with a couple buddies yesterday. The analogy I used was this:
It doesn’t really matter what units of measurement a tape measure is in (inches, cm, cubits, parsecs, whatever) you can measure things with that tape, and then go cut your board to that exact measurement.
You don’t even necessarily need to convert it to a system of measurement you’re familiar with…. just read the tape measure (reticle) and reapply the measurement where necessary (turret).
It doesn’t really matter what units of measurement a tape measure is in (inches, cm, cubits, parsecs, whatever) you can measure things with that tape, and then go cut your board to that exact measurement.
You don’t even necessarily need to convert it to a system of measurement you’re familiar with…. just read the tape measure (reticle) and reapply the measurement where necessary (turret).
Upvote 0
I used MOA for many years and was okay with it. MIL was something I didn't want much to do with. Went to the range with a friend who is former military and he broke down MIL measurements for me in real time. Since I shoot long range (PB & airgun), my frustrations were solved. Now I'm hooked on Mil.
1 click on a scope is far more drastic at long distance in MOA than it is in MIL. Hunters benefit from MOA since it's easier to judge a target's size as long as you have an FFP reticle.
Application and personal preference is all it boils down to.....
1 click on a scope is far more drastic at long distance in MOA than it is in MIL. Hunters benefit from MOA since it's easier to judge a target's size as long as you have an FFP reticle.
Application and personal preference is all it boils down to.....
Upvote 0
I agree that it really does not make any significant difference. I prefer to use the system I understand without doing conversions in my head. For me that is MOA. But I have MRAD scopes I just have to remember one click is not .25 inches at 100 yards it is .36 inches. I don't sight in airguns at 100 yards so I have to convert that to something like 1/16th at 25 yards or .12 incues for Mrad at 33 yards to make adjustments. But usually I just put the crosshairs back on the center of the target and click over to my point of impact. That gets me at least close. Repeating it refines it further.
FFP works well as long as you can see it at the magnification you hunt with. I like 6-24 scopes so I can target shoot at 30 yards with them and my FFP Arken has a reticle that is nearly invisible at 6X, it's minimum power. 6X is what I usually start with hunting but I may increase it on a challenging shot. I am not going to hit anything if I can't see the reticle, however. Turning on the lighting helps. But a better solution for me is to just use a SFP acope. I sometimes write the number of hash marks to hold over on a sticky note inside the occular flip up scope cap at 6X and sometimes a higher power too. That makes it easier for me and works for either FFP or SFP. FFP you don't need to cover different magnifications, however.
FFP works well as long as you can see it at the magnification you hunt with. I like 6-24 scopes so I can target shoot at 30 yards with them and my FFP Arken has a reticle that is nearly invisible at 6X, it's minimum power. 6X is what I usually start with hunting but I may increase it on a challenging shot. I am not going to hit anything if I can't see the reticle, however. Turning on the lighting helps. But a better solution for me is to just use a SFP acope. I sometimes write the number of hash marks to hold over on a sticky note inside the occular flip up scope cap at 6X and sometimes a higher power too. That makes it easier for me and works for either FFP or SFP. FFP you don't need to cover different magnifications, however.
Upvote 0
As others have said, it doesnt really matter. There are about 3.5 MOA to one MIL. One MOA is just over an inch at 100 yards. One MIL is 3.6" at 100 yards or 10 cm at 100m. You're probably going to plot your holdover in terms of dots anyway and the dots will likely also have subdivisions, you're really talking about about maybe 1/10" difference in holdover between the two at 100 yards.
What really matters is that the reticle matches the turrets. MOA reticle and MOA turrets=good. MIL reticle and MIL turrets=good. MIL reticle and MOA turrets=bad.
I don't think that either FFP or SFP are significantly better or worse than the other either. FFP is nice in that your holdover is always the same, but then again at the lowest power you won't be able to see the dots to use your holdover anyway. SFP gives you a better view of your reticle, but you have to use some simple math if you want to use holdover at different powers.
What really matters is that the reticle matches the turrets. MOA reticle and MOA turrets=good. MIL reticle and MIL turrets=good. MIL reticle and MOA turrets=bad.
I don't think that either FFP or SFP are significantly better or worse than the other either. FFP is nice in that your holdover is always the same, but then again at the lowest power you won't be able to see the dots to use your holdover anyway. SFP gives you a better view of your reticle, but you have to use some simple math if you want to use holdover at different powers.
Upvote 0