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
I don't really understand that either. In my own experience
1 click on an MOA scope is usually 1/4 MOA or about 0.25" at 100 yards.
1 click on an MIL scope is usually 1/10 MIL or 0.36" at 100 yards.
1 click on an MOA scope is usually 1/4 MOA or about 0.25" at 100 yards.
1 click on an MIL scope is usually 1/10 MIL or 0.36" at 100 yards.
Upvote 0
I am a metric guy for a life, introduces to inches and yards first time back in 96 and still I cannot get used to why the ANSI measuring system can get soo complicated.
MOA is straight forward for me, MRAD is for Americans.
MOA is straight forward for me, MRAD is for Americans.
Upvote 0
If you grew up using the metric system, and I gave you a ANSI tape measure (or visa versa)… and you needed to cut a board to a particular length:
Would you measure the board at 72”, then convert that in your head (or do the math on paper) to 182.9 cm, and then go cut the new board?
No, you’d go to the new board, draw the tape to your 72” mark, and cut…
Same is true with a reticle in a scope.
Measure with the reticle, adjust with turret.
Impact is .7 mil high, and .4 mil left (as measured with your reticle). Simply adjust down .7 mil and right .4 mil…. Regardless of distance or linear “click value”.
You NEVER need to “convert” anything.
Y’all are thinking linear measurements, when using an angular measurement system.
Would you measure the board at 72”, then convert that in your head (or do the math on paper) to 182.9 cm, and then go cut the new board?
No, you’d go to the new board, draw the tape to your 72” mark, and cut…
Same is true with a reticle in a scope.
Measure with the reticle, adjust with turret.
Impact is .7 mil high, and .4 mil left (as measured with your reticle). Simply adjust down .7 mil and right .4 mil…. Regardless of distance or linear “click value”.
You NEVER need to “convert” anything.
Y’all are thinking linear measurements, when using an angular measurement system.
Upvote 0
I already chimed in early in this thread, but let me add this. If you have an older style super simple unmarked reticle (simplex or duplex crosshairs) then there could be a difference in application based on whether you think in imperial measurements or metric measurements. This is because you are not measuring your deflection and elevation changes with a simple crosshair reticle, you are estimating them based on the size of the target. So for this application if you think in yards and inches then MOA is they way to go for you.
Upvote 0
Grew up with MOA. Learned to use MIL for work. They are interchangeable, for me. I just need to know what type of scope it is, and then adapt. It is sort of like speaking English, or German.
Upvote 0
Yeah…..
There’s the measurement system the whole world uses….
And there’s the measurement system that Back-to-Back World War Champs use!
Choose wisely…..
Upvote 0
The whole metric vs imperial thing is incredibly stupid in regards to MOA vs MIL.
First off, virtually no one outside of STEM academia uses radians in daily life. It doesn’t matter if you use metric measure or not, you don’t say I need you to cut that board at pi/4. In our daily life we all use degrees. Degrees are based on a 360 degree measurement because it’s the number that’s most mathematically divisible, not because of the length of a kings thumb or what the Kabbalah said was lucky.
Second, a MIL isn’t even metric or SI. It’s a military/industrial approximation of a milliradian that’s been rounded to a number that’s easier to work with since radian measure actually expresses everyday measurements as irrational numbers that can’t be expressed in decimals. And that rounded MIL, it’s not even a fixed/defined quantity. It’s whatever they decided to approximate a milliradian to on that day.
First off, virtually no one outside of STEM academia uses radians in daily life. It doesn’t matter if you use metric measure or not, you don’t say I need you to cut that board at pi/4. In our daily life we all use degrees. Degrees are based on a 360 degree measurement because it’s the number that’s most mathematically divisible, not because of the length of a kings thumb or what the Kabbalah said was lucky.
Second, a MIL isn’t even metric or SI. It’s a military/industrial approximation of a milliradian that’s been rounded to a number that’s easier to work with since radian measure actually expresses everyday measurements as irrational numbers that can’t be expressed in decimals. And that rounded MIL, it’s not even a fixed/defined quantity. It’s whatever they decided to approximate a milliradian to on that day.
Upvote 0
For me being mostly a "Hold Over" shooter, It comes down to the shape or lets say "Lay Out" or configuration of the retical.
I find a "MIL" retical pending design potentially gives / has far more hold points over a MOA type.
Thus in Spades !!! I prefer and use Mil-Rad / Mil-Dot on my air guns.
I find a "MIL" retical pending design potentially gives / has far more hold points over a MOA type.
Thus in Spades !!! I prefer and use Mil-Rad / Mil-Dot on my air guns.
Upvote 0
Scopes generally don’t use the rounded “military” milliradian. These days, MIL scopes use true milliradians. So let’s quit bringing the “military” milliradian into the argument.
As far as MIL vs MOA: To me, they are not metric or inch. They are both units of angle. Radians vs degrees. A MIL scope uses milliradians (1/1000 of a radian). An MOA scope uses minute of angle (1/60 of a degree). My calculator can work in degrees or radians. So I can work in either.
I prefer the finer increments of MOA these days, especially for my higher magnification scopes that I click. Up to 16x, I have no problem using SFP MIL-DOT reticles.
There is also the “shooter’s MOA”. That’s not an angle. It’s 1” change at 100yds. It’s close enough to the tangent of a true MOA so that many shooters use them interchangeably. Though that strategy won’t hold up for precision shooting.
For my FFP scopes, I always want matched turrets and reticles. For my holdover MIL-dot SFP scopes, I actually prefer having mismatched turrets and reticles. Shooter’s MOA turrets and MIL-dots make a good combination for that type of scope.
As far as MIL vs MOA: To me, they are not metric or inch. They are both units of angle. Radians vs degrees. A MIL scope uses milliradians (1/1000 of a radian). An MOA scope uses minute of angle (1/60 of a degree). My calculator can work in degrees or radians. So I can work in either.
I prefer the finer increments of MOA these days, especially for my higher magnification scopes that I click. Up to 16x, I have no problem using SFP MIL-DOT reticles.
There is also the “shooter’s MOA”. That’s not an angle. It’s 1” change at 100yds. It’s close enough to the tangent of a true MOA so that many shooters use them interchangeably. Though that strategy won’t hold up for precision shooting.
For my FFP scopes, I always want matched turrets and reticles. For my holdover MIL-dot SFP scopes, I actually prefer having mismatched turrets and reticles. Shooter’s MOA turrets and MIL-dots make a good combination for that type of scope.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
.25 Wildcat, 34 JSB at 900fps, 2.75” sight height.
SWFA Mil-Quad:
SWFA MOA-Quad:
You be the judge as to which you want to use for “holdover”.
Personally, I dial for elevation, and hold for wind. Dialed for 72 yards here with the .30…. 1.5 mil, with a .5 mil wind hold to the hay shed.
SWFA Mil-Quad:
SWFA MOA-Quad:
You be the judge as to which you want to use for “holdover”.
Personally, I dial for elevation, and hold for wind. Dialed for 72 yards here with the .30…. 1.5 mil, with a .5 mil wind hold to the hay shed.
Upvote 0
I don't want to ask you have you ever been to Home Depot?
Next time you have some lumber close to your reach, take out that measuring tape - with both metric and inch scale in same tape - and measure that 2x4 or 2x6 and keep going... that is not 2 inches by 4 inches but it is metric stud...btw
Upvote 0
No such thing as a “Metric Stud”…. all the Studs are here in America. Except for Tom Aspinal… that dude is a Stud for sure!I don't want to ask you have you ever been to Home Depot?
Next time you have some lumber close to your reach, take out that measuring tape - with both metric and inch scale in same tape - and measure that 2x4 or 2x6 and keep going... that is not 2 inches by 4 inches but it is metric stud...btw
Upvote 0
Well, during covid time I finished my basement mans' cave, over $30K in material invested. Not my trade renovating, ,and I had plenty of time studying the wall/framing work. You can always grab a metric tape and just measure the 2x4 dimensions for yourself...no matter you in US or Canada, HD is a company. I didn't said those are metric studs, but closer in mm then to 2" x 4"
No need to be sensitive if you are not right
Upvote 0
Everything is closer in mm then full inches… The American lumber measurement system is given as nominal dimensions, based on their rough cut, pre-finished size.
But yes, the metric system is superior to imperial in probably every practical way.
But yes, the metric system is superior to imperial in probably every practical way.
Upvote 0
Interesting how a conversation can change from a scope for squirrel hunting to lumber dimensions.
Upvote 0