MOA vs MRAD Vortex Viper PST

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by Jeremybj, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. Jeremybj

    Jeremybj Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    321
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Hey everyone,

    I am looking at a putting a FFP 4-16 Viper PST on a future elk/moose hunting rig. My question is, is it easier to range with MOA or MRAD or is it all the same as long as the reticle and turret match? Any thoughts would be helpful. Thanks. FYI, all my scopes right now have adjustment in 1/4MOA clicks, but I don't have ranging reticles or anything like that.
     
  2. matt_3479

    matt_3479 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    I just purchased one of these for my
    Elk and moose rifle. I choose the moa only cause I know it and it was easier for me to learn
     

  3. CapDog

    CapDog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    207
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    If you are programmed in inches and yards go MOA. If you can think in meters and centimeters go MILRAD. Both are much easier to use if you use the units of measure they are designed around. If you don't you will have some goofy math to do that usually requires the use of a calculator.

    Personally I have found 1 MOA hash marks to be easier and generally slightly more accurate than the typical 0.5 MIL hash marks in Mil scopes.
     
  4. Hntbambi

    Hntbambi Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    156
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    The MOA proponents say it's more accurate using 1/4 MOA than .1 MRAD as its a smaller increment.

    The MRAD proponents say it's quicker to calculate in MILS compared to MOA or Shooter MOA.

    IMO it does not matter. Both are proven and dependable. Pick a system and stick with it. Ranging with a scope is rather difficult. Unless you know the size of the object, it's really a crap shoot on how accurate the measurement is. Even knowing the size is not easy. I use the training tool called the Shooter Ready simulator computer game that gives many different scenarios with different sized targets and you range them with the reticle. It takes practice as well as regular practice to get accurate.

    I went with MOA. I think MOA and while hunting I use a laser range finder.
     
  5. RFtinkerer

    RFtinkerer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    That's entirely incorrect, mils are not based around metric; rather, around 1/1000 of the radial distance, an angular measurement. That's why it's easier to range in mils for either yards or meters: You know a person is around 2 yards tall, so you take 2/mils measured*1000 and get the range in yards. Or, a person is about a meter from their crotch to head, so take 1/mils measured * 1000 and get the range in meters. Or whatever else the target size is, use that as a base--the target plate I have is 18 inches, exactly half a yard, so I use 0.5/mils measured * 1000 and viola, my range.

    Personally, I went with the mil/mil version and could not be happier, even though my prior scope was 1/4 MOA adjustments. Mils are easier to learn, IMO. I would never use MOA anymore, it's not exactly an inch; the only benefit I could go to is IPHY (inch per hundred yards). That's because it's easy for me to estimate in inches on the target...but why, I ask, when you can use the reticle to measure? I've never zeroed the scope as fast as I did this one. One shot, measure in the reticle, adjust and shoot a group. Tweak. That's all she wrote.

    Mil/mil is the way to go, IMO.
     
  6. joseph

    joseph Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,238
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
  7. CapDog

    CapDog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    207
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    I would agree with simplistic, but entirely incorrect? Not exactly. 1.0 MIL is equivilant to 10cm at 100m. The 0.1mil clicks found on most mil based scopes is 1cm at 100m. Like you stated it is an angular measurment, the departure from it's start increases, just like MOA. So at 200m 1.0 MIL equals 20cm, 30cm at 300m etc. A 0.1mil click would be 1cm, 2cm, 3cm etc.

    I'm 5'11" tall so 71" or 180cm. If you were to range me using a MIL scope and come up with 3.0 MILS the formulas would be as follows:

    71" x 25.4 / 3.0mil = 601m

    180cm / 3.0 mil x 10 = 600m

    Using your 18" steel target

    18" x 25.4 / 3.0 = 152.4m

    46cm / 3.0 x 10 = 153.4m

    If you were using an MOA scope to come up with ranges in yards it would be:

    inches/size of object in MOA x 100

    Using a measurement of 12MOA with the above known object sizes:

    71/12 x 100 = 592 yards

    18/12 x 100 = 150 yards

    I can do the second formulas for MILS and the MOA to yards in my head or very quickly on a scratch pad, as they are just moving decimals around.

    From a simpltons point of view having used both systems, if you think in inches and yards I would go MOA if you think in centimeters and meters MILS may be your best bet.

    As far as scope adjustments you can do your same zeroing scenario with an MOA/MOA scope
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2011
  8. CS T

    CS T Official LRH Sponsor

    Messages:
    1,248
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    [FONT=&quot]Whatever one you go with you will be fine. I personally prefer the MIL system because it is based on system of 10s. I know how to range with both system and for me I’m more accurate with the MIL system on objects past 500yds. To get a really good reading with the MOA system you will need to use 1.047 not 1. If you think about it now days the LRF are a lot more accurate and work really well at distance so using the RET for ranging is not a big deal.
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Mike @ CST
    [/FONT]
     
  9. RFtinkerer

    RFtinkerer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
  10. RFtinkerer

    RFtinkerer Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Well, maybe I overreacted with "entirely incorrect", I just get tired of seeing the mil system as being stated as a metric measurement, when it's not. It can be used with either yards or meters. Or cubits, light years, whatever radial distance you use to measure with, there it is... 1/1000th of that radial distance. I range in yards, so I convert my target size to yards.
     
  11. joseph

    joseph Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,238
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    That was my point. Vortex can make a custom turret that will eliminate the programs you use to enter the "dope".

    Range the target turn the custom turret to the distance, hold for the wind and shoot. Very fast and accurate. :D

    joseph
     
  12. CS T

    CS T Official LRH Sponsor

    Messages:
    1,248
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
  13. lightwind

    lightwind Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    109
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    I range with a rangefinder (and carry extra batteries). Less confusion and guessing. I am used to thinking in inches instead of cm so I like the MOA. Yes, I know I can assume .36" per click at 100 yards - but why? Why not 1/4" per click at 100 (actually slightly over 0.25)?

    I actually have both and don't get confused but I am more comfortable with inches. I suppose if my targets were laid out in cm boxes instead of inch boxes and my range was set up at X*100 meters instead of X*100 yards I would be better off with the mill. But they are not either (because I grew up using the inches and the guys who marked off the range did also).
     
  14. ZSteinle

    ZSteinle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    920
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    off the subject but what is perplexing to me is that the Mil PST scope is 5 mils per revolution which would come out very close to 15 MOA. Why does the MOA PST have 12 minutes per revolution. This is the only thing i dont like about my 4-16 PST, other than that its awesome for 650 buckskins