Newbie Shooter no experience MOA vs Milrad

[CleanShot]

Hello

I'm a total newbie shooter and I was looking at what I should start off with given I'm working with a clean slate. I have been internally debating MOA vs Milrad as well as other topics FFP vs SFP (topic for a different day). At first I was of the opinion that anyone starting out should learn Milrad instead of MOA. But now I'm thinking if you're an American shooter used it the Imperial system of measurement MOA is the way to go. I think in inches not millimeters and most new MOA reticles let you measure just as well as you would with a Milrad reticle.

What am I missing here? Why should I use one over the other?

Thanks!

 

[Greyfox]

In my view, you will likely have an easier time with MOA in being able to correlate the scope adjustment to inches at any given range and calculate distance and target size with the reticle. You will also have more eqipment options (scopes and rangefinders) available since MOA calibration is more widely available. Based on the surveys on this site, MOA is used by approximately 75% of the shooters. I'd speculate that the bulk of the MiL shooters are military trained and/or participate in tactical shooting where MIL based course standards are prevalent.

 

[rcoody]

In my view, you will likely have an easier time with MOA in being able to correlate the scope adjustment to inches at any given range and calculate distance and target size with the reticle. You will also have more eqipment options (scopes and rangefinders) available since MOA calibration is more widely available. Based on the surveys on this site, MOA is used by approximately 75% of the shooters. I'd speculate that the bulk of the MiL shooters are military trained and/or participate in tactical shooting where MIL based course standards are prevalent.

I would agree!

but you will probably get flamed

 

[FEENIX]

I have both and it boils down to personal preference; don't complicate it -- pick one, make your cheat sheet or use your ballistic apps and get used to it - practice, practice, practice ...

There's also MOA & MIL calculators apps like >>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.technicianfry.easymoa.paid&hl=en

Good luck!

 

[Greyfox]

I would agree!

but you will probably get flamed

Probably....Ironically, I was a happy user of MILS for several years and wouldn't die on either hill. I do think the OP would be better served with MOA based on his comments..

 

[CleanShot]

Probably....Ironically, I was a happy user of MILS for several years and wouldn't die on either hill. I do think the OP would be better served with MOA based on his comments..

Out of curiosity what in my comments lead you to that. Because I'm more attune with the imperial measurement system?

 

[FEENIX]

Out of curiosity what in my comments lead you to that. Because I'm more attune with the imperial measurement system?

Last 2 sentences of 1st paragraph of #1.

 

[geo4061]

+1 Greyfox. MOA!

 

[Greyfox]

Out of curiosity what in my comments lead you to that. Because I'm more attune with the imperial measurement system?

Yes, that, plus the fact that you are a new shooter.. With all the skills that will need to be mastered, why complicate the process. This doesn't stop you from adopting Mils in the future. IMO

 

[CleanShot]

That's what I thought but honestly if someone told me how big is 4" I can show them in an instant. How big is 100mm would take me some thinking. My other fear is most of the ranges by me have target stands setup in X yards not meters. So I'd wind up working with 3.6" (~9cm) instead of 10cm to get 1 MRAD which almost defeats the purpose.

I feel like if I'm out on the field I'm likely to be with someone with an MOA spotting scope not MRAD and I'd have to also do conversion. Lastly the market for MOA if for any reason I want to resell the scope is larger.

I really want to want MRAD but I feel like maybe that's the academically but not practically correct decision.

 

[CleanShot]

Yes, that, plus the fact that you are a new shooter.. With all the skills that will need to be mastered, why complicate the process. This doesn't stop you from adopting Mils in the future. IMO

Yeah I am already overwhelmed. I'm about to start reading the 42 page FFP vs SFP thread to overwhelm myself some more.

 

[406precision]

It's all just numbers and weather or not your brain works best in inches or tenths. We run both in comps I really prefer mil as the adjustments are usually faster and in single digits. Hunting I'd say whatever floats your boat, but if everyone you shoot with runs moa and your the odd duck with mil it's gonna make spotting and giving corrections a pain.

Jordan@406

 

[7magcreedmoor]

Angle are angles, whichever method you use to measure them. You hit the nail on the head with the inches/yards/moa being a comfy (and purely coincidental) fit for shooters. We know that it isn't really one inch per hundred yards, but it does seem easier to think that way (as long as your turret and your dope are calculated in TRUE moa). I like MOA, I can work with MIL. Go with whatever you are most comfortable using.

 

[FearNoWind]

Go for MOA and never look back.
For many years I refused to use a scope. I was raised to believe that real shooters didn't need scopes. That open sights separated the real shooters from those who needed a crutch. Then .... my eyes refused to work with open sights. The choice was obvious.
My initial research convinced me I needed a MilDot scope. Especially for long range. Heck, if it was good enough for the military it was good enough for me. WRONG ....
I ended up judging the distance between dots at 3.6 inches x distance and using Imperial calculations for ranging. I still have a MilDot scope. I still use it once in a while and I still do the 3.6 inches x distance calculations in my head. Not a good thing.
I much prefer my MOA scopes. Makes my life much easier .....