I think you meant to say that MIL was based on Pi. MOA is based on a simple Trigonometry calculation using angles and triangle geometry. With a known adjacent side distance (distance to target) and a known angle (measured in 1/60th degree), you can calculate the length of the side opposite the angle using a trig Tangent function. Tangent being the relationship between the opposite side of the right triangle over the adjacent side. if my old Math serves me right the 100 yard effect of a 1 MOA shift would be (100)XTan (1/16)=target impact change (in yards). which yields .0290yds or .0872 ft or 1.04719 in. That is why one MOA is 1.04" at 100 yards. Its all triangles these days!! For most of us we just round this off to 1" at 100 yards.
MRAD vs MOA. Which one?
- Thread starter MTbackwoods
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I think you meant to say that MIL was based on Pi. MOA is based on a simple Trigonometry calculation using angles and triangle geometry. With a known adjacent side distance (distance to target) and a known angle (measured in 1/60th degree), you can calculate the length of the side opposite the angle using a trig Tangent function. Tangent being the relationship between the opposite side of the right triangle over the adjacent side. if my old Math serves me right the 100 yard effect of a 1 MOA shift would be (100)XTan (1/16)=target impact change (in yards). which yields .0290yds or .0872 ft or 1.04719 in. That is why one MOA is 1.04" at 100 yards. Its all triangles these days!! For most of us we just round this off to 1" at 100 yards.
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
not true.
A/C Guy
Well-Known Member
If you compare NightForce's prices when they first came out to Zeiss and Swarovski and compared the quality and the glass used, the NightForce products were way over priced. But they sold like hot cakes because they were tacticool. The market is still full of over priced under performing scopes that get a premium because the majority of consumers buy for the tacticool feeling. A standard black scope by Zeiss is less popular than and FDE or other tacticool color even though the Zeiss is better and many times costs the same or less. Market share of the true thoroughbreds of scope makers is down among the majority of consumers because the majority want to look cool.
NightForce has improved, this is not to say they can't compete now.
NightForce has improved, this is not to say they can't compete now.
If you're gonna shoot prs, get a mil scope as that is what 99% of prs guys are shooting. It will make dialing and calls a lot easier being the same as everyone else. If not, you need to be proficient at converting mils to moa on the fly.
Last edited:
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
Irrelevant for the topic at hand. And SFP mrad and MOA scopes from NF we're the same price.
Glass clarity is not the lone driver of optics expense.
BrentM
Well-Known Member
Yeah it is. Good lord man, look at the prices at any retailer. I just looked a midway and optics planet, even though I already knew the answer and hey right there it is...…. geezus
A/C Guy
Well-Known Member
Another good article, hopefully this will clear up some of the confusion:
https://bestgunscope.com/mrad-vs-moa/
https://bestgunscope.com/mrad-vs-moa/
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
Any scope that comes both ways is the same price. There is no premium for mrad. Look at vortex and NF. Identical MSRPs.
While I have owned and use both for hunting and competition, I personally prefer MOA/ SFP for hunting/Benchrest competition, and MIL/FFP for PRS/tactical competition. For comparable top quality glass/mechanicals, the MIL/FFP will generally cost +25% more. I'd rather invest the difference into glass with an MOA/SFP for LR hunting use. IMO, MIL/FFP offers advantages over MOA for PRS(faster turret/reticle adjustments and easier match communication). Learning the math with both systems is not difficult, with each having it's own attributes. Just my view. At the end of the day, either system can get the job done, and personal preference will be a major factor in choice.
BrentM
Well-Known Member
Well that's bs. I didn't say MRAD was more. I said FFP are more expensive given exact same spec. F1 vs F2 on every site I looked at more. I am sure someone can find a deal out there if they searched long enough but if you choose a retailer for a scope you will pay more, generally $100 more, and that is a fact. It has been this way forever, continues to be, and even blogs are written to discuss why FFP scopes are more. In the end this is a bit of a stupid argument since everyone seems to know this except you.
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
So what exactly is BS about what I said? Be specific.
it was literally said that MRad costs more because it's usually in FFP. They come both ways. Nobody was discussing FFP vs SFP but you. Sorry about your luck.
It's Just a number.
Shooter MOA: 1 MOA = 1" @ 100 Yds
1 MIL = 3.6" @ 100 yards
Derived from an angular unit of measure.
I shoot both. Ballistic program spits out my hold and on MF w MOAR reticle just dial the number (My friends rifle).
All 6 of my current LR scopes have TREMOR2 or TREMOR3 reticles which are MIL. The Christmas tree reticles work well in LR and ELR shooting especially when correcting for misses. The wind dots in TREMOR's make shooting the the wind a breeze (ha, ha)
My spotting scopes have HORUS reticles in them also which makes it easier for calling shots for other people shooting MIL.
A lot of your higher end scopes are catering to military contracts which are all using MIL these days and most of your sniper teams using TREMOR3 or H59's. It's the convention because HORUS was a MIL guy and the reticles are very effective.
these scopes tend to have Top Tier Glass and Turret mechanisms do to the conditions they are expected to perform in and as such are priced accordingly. Contrary to popular belief the more expensive scopes provide the lowest profit margins to the manufacturers. They make their money off the lower price point scopes often using "life time warranties" as an additional selling point.
Shooter MOA: 1 MOA = 1" @ 100 Yds
1 MIL = 3.6" @ 100 yards
Derived from an angular unit of measure.
I shoot both. Ballistic program spits out my hold and on MF w MOAR reticle just dial the number (My friends rifle).
All 6 of my current LR scopes have TREMOR2 or TREMOR3 reticles which are MIL. The Christmas tree reticles work well in LR and ELR shooting especially when correcting for misses. The wind dots in TREMOR's make shooting the the wind a breeze (ha, ha)
My spotting scopes have HORUS reticles in them also which makes it easier for calling shots for other people shooting MIL.
A lot of your higher end scopes are catering to military contracts which are all using MIL these days and most of your sniper teams using TREMOR3 or H59's. It's the convention because HORUS was a MIL guy and the reticles are very effective.
these scopes tend to have Top Tier Glass and Turret mechanisms do to the conditions they are expected to perform in and as such are priced accordingly. Contrary to popular belief the more expensive scopes provide the lowest profit margins to the manufacturers. They make their money off the lower price point scopes often using "life time warranties" as an additional selling point.
XSIVSPD
Well-Known Member
I go with moa mainly because it's easier for me to measure targets (rack width) without having to convert CM to in in my head. If I wasn't interested in measuring things, or if thinking in metric had an advantage for a situation, I'd use mils/mrad. There also seem to be more options there than in moa
