Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
MOA vs MRAD Vortex Viper PST
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RFtinkerer" data-source="post: 526007" data-attributes="member: 34460"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Mil/mil is the way to go, IMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RFtinkerer, post: 526007, member: 34460"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
MOA vs MRAD Vortex Viper PST
Top