#10MinuteTalk

Up North we love the card game of Euchre and no challenge is greater than “Going alone” without your partner across the table. In this episode, Jimmy takes a chance and “Goes alone” with Mark out of the office to discuss MOA vs. MRAD for beginners in 10 minutes. If you’ve been looking for your first optic or even have been shooting for quite some time but are caught up by modern scopes and all the extra choices to make between MOA and MRAD, give this podcast a listen to get your bearings. Bottom line - don’t make it more complicated than it is. In the end, regardless of what you choose, they’re both going to be doing the same thing and it really just comes down to your own personal preference of which form of angular measurement you want to live with. Got more thoughts on MOA vs. MRAD you’d like us to devote more time to? Let us know!
As always - let us know if there are any topics you'd like covered on the Vortex Nation podcast by asking us on any one of our social media platforms and using #VortexNationPodcast.
Follow Vortex Nation Podcast on Instagram:
vortexnationpodcast

[@kentgoldings]

I apologize for the necro-posting. I've been working my way through your back catalogue. I find your podcast to me insightful and entertaining. You guys clearly know your stuff. I've been rifle shooting for a number of years and I got to long-distance shooting a few years ago when a 1,000 yard range opened nearby. I shoot about twice a week. I still consider myself a novice. However, my real expertise is not shooting. It is a Mathematics. I have a Ph.D. in Math and save been a Math professor for the last 24 years. I want to make a few comments about the difference between MOA and mRAD. I shoot using both. Your comments in mRAD and MOA were spot on. They function similarly and people should not stress about using one or the other. Nevertheless, conversions using mRAD are not that inherently complicated. Calculations using mRAD are made complicated by baggage brought by the shooter. Degrees, minutes, and seconds and Radian measure are both angular measure. However, Radians is considered to be more natural. Nobody uses degrees for advanced mathematics. There are reasons why degrees have advantages for building and navigation. But, Radian measure is objectively more useful for higher math. The chief reason for this is due to trigonometry. If an angle is very small, the sine and tangent of the angle are approximated closely by the Radian measure of the angle. In theory, one only needs to divide the desired linear adjustment by the range to the target to get the desired angular adjustment. For example, 100 meters is 10000 cm. So 1 cm at 100 m is 0.1 mRAD, usually 1 click. Suppose you are shooting at a target that is 375 meters away and your impacts are half a meter low. You want to adjust your aim 50 cm. Round 375 to 400 and use the 4. Divide 50 by 4 and get 12.5. Adjust 13 clicks. This actually works out to just shy of 50 cm, but the scope can not get any closer using 0.1 mRAD clicks. What makes things so complicated? 1 Imperial Units - Using radian measure involves converting inches to yards on the fly. This involves multiplying of dividing by 36. This is a mess. 2 Thinking in MOA - Shooters brought up using MOA adjustments tend to think in MOA. The 1 inch = 1 MOA approximation is never more than 5% off. Shooters will approximate the angle in MOA and convert it to mRAD. This is a horrible idea because 1 MOA is 1/60 th degree and 180 degrees in 3.1415926.. Radians. The conversion is a mess. Using an mRAD scope while thinking in MOA is a bad plan. A good rule of thumb is that 1 inch at 278 yards is 0.1 mRAD. But, you can see the advantage is using metric units here. In the end, shooting experience out weighs any mathematical mumbo-jumbo. Shooters should keep shooting, work on the fundamentals and use the system that works best for them. I believe that if you shoot enough using a particular platform, you don't need to think about the actual numbers. You build up an instinct for the number of clicks. Also, shooters should use the reticle for fine adjustments. I mounted a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 MRAD to my CZ 455 with a 30 MOA scope base. I shoot it regularity out to 300 yards. This give me a lot of practice reading the scope. I put the same model scope on my 6.5 PRC for shooting out to 1,000 yards. I rarely find myself worrying about dialing in the proper adjustments. Thanks again. I'll keep watching.

[@luckyboyyt8582]

This is a great comment. Thanks for sharing. I'm really interested in using mrad reticles rather than moa.

[@dylankellywashere]

Your comment is the best explanation I've seen on KZbin in the difference between MOA and MRAD. I did 8 years as an artillery scout, artillery uses mils for units of measurement. MRAD for me after learning it is my preference.

[@BrianCx]

Most criminally underrated comment, thank you for posting this!

[@Nostradamus_Order33]

So, is 1 MOA the same as .254mRad ?

[@kentgoldings]

@@Nostradamus_Order33 There are Pi radians for every 180 degrees. It’s not a convenient conversion.

[@rich1958]

This video confused me more. I think using examples of each would have helped. For example, your shooting X yards or meters, you need to adjust Y, so you you calculate this way with MOA and that way for MRAD.

[@richardofoz2167]

Hi Rich. I'm not surprised it confused you. Problem is, he putout an instructional video on a subject he didn't understand himself. Big mistake. Hope you find someone more knowledgeable to help you. It's really quite simple and powerful, but as well as learning the principles, you need to understand the limitations involved, and I've yet to see a video that does a decent job of either, despite looking at many. Good luck!

[@Tenpennycustoms4958]

Check out Ryan Clekner. He explains it well

[@timl8302]

MOA & Milrads are angular measurements. The issue with your question is load specific (bullet drop.). 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1.047 // 2.094 at 200 yards. Most scopes in the USA uses the 1/4 MOA click system (basically 1/4 inch at 100 yard). Milradians is more metric. 1 Mil = 1cm at 10m // 10cm at 1000m. .1mil click system (10 clicks to make 1 mil.). Another vote for Kleckner.

[@user-gu1hl2kx2k]

its mRAD, not MRAD. M is the prefix for mega, which means million

[@timl8302]

@@user-gu1hl2kx2k OK, my bad, milli =.001one thousandths

[@markchester7584]

Simply put it’s metric vs imperial. MOA at 100yds = 1.04”, at 1000yds = 10.4” MRAD at 100m = 10cm, at 1000m = 1m. MOA works with fractions (usually 1/4” occasionally 1/8” per scope click) at 100yds. MRAD works in 1/10’s = 1cm at 100m per click. It’s not a 100% perfect explanation but it didn’t take 10mins and it’s usually enough to get a preference.

[@bkmonc]

I think most of the confusion happens because 5 out of 4 people suck at math. The best thing to do it go shooting with someone like kent. Make a shot. Let kent do the math. Make adjustment. Impact! Lol. I really do think the subject is over complicated. Enjoyed the video.

[@samuraidaddy]

Thanks Jimmy…appreciate the time and effort!

[@sfcampbell19]

I really think it would help to address some of the benefits that each have over the other, but how they can coincide when necessary... for example: - MOA can easily compensate for *_known_* distance by directly correlating to drop _at_ that predefined distance - MRAD/MILs can actually approximate distance (when unknown) if you can relate the size of the object to MILs - If you approximate distance in MILs but assess your DOPE in inches, the inches (approximate MOA) can be calculated back to MILs I don't think either one will ever "win out" over the other -- they're like man-vs-woman, or nature-meets-engineering... If shooters can learn how to balance the two together they have more capability overall.

[@timl8302]

Your seem to be confusing this with first vs second focal plane. FFP can be used to determine distance&/or size. Second can only do it at max magnification (or the mag determined by manufacturer). MOA vs Mil is more Imperial vs metric.

[@danielboggan2479]

@@timl8302MOA and mild has nothing to do with metric

[@The10thManRules]

With a BDC optic, a ballistic app, and a laser range finder, the unit of measure doesn't matter. As long as everything is calibrated, you're good.

[@Patrick-857]

BDCs don't make any sense to me. How can they be trusted when you have such a vast range of rifle and ammo combinations? I guess as a target shooter I get my knickers in a twist about any kind of imprecision. Close enough isn't good enough for me, but maybe it is for other disciplines.

[@samuelpope7798]

MRAD is my choice for all of my scoped rifles. But I am comfortable using MOA for mechanical sights.

[@50calprepper]

Put the thing on the thing and press the thing!

[@ultrahighgain412]

If you have ever taken math beyond basic algebra you are probably familiar with these terms even though you might not realize it. These are just two different methods of dividing up sections of an arc (circle). If you’re familiar with the DEG/RAD function on your calculator, you’re already familiar with these concepts, even if applying them to sighting in your optic is new to you. There are 360 degrees in a circle...and 60 minutes per degree. There are 2(Pi) radians in a circle...and 1000 milliradians (angular mills) per radian.

[@sap2568]

This video made it easier for me, thx

[@laffilmfest3759]

Great info.....thank you!!

[@VortexNation]

Glad you found it helpful :)

[@timbattaglia3649]

I've stuck with MOA. I tried MRAD and just confused myself. Everything i have is in MOA

[@timl8302]

MILRAD is metric. 1mil =10cm at 100m. 10cm at 1000yards. I went MOA too.

[@bassboy99091]

believe it or not I have both MRAD and MOA scopes because I have friends who shoot both and on a range day i can switch up scopes or rifles and make calls for either but my preferred is MOA just because that is what i first learned on back when i was a kid in the mid to late 70s I have taught myself MRAD because as I said friends and family who are ex- military that where taught in MRAD

[@primarchechs7139]

When possible match your reticle to your adjustment turrets (at least with exposed/target turrets). Nothing more annoying than shooting a mil reticle and then make an adjustment using 1/4 MOA clicks after running the math.

[@benkanobe7500]

VERY helpful!

[@johngriffin5446]

I'm American and the reason there is a system other than imperial is because metric is base 10 making it a much better system. I use metric for woodworking, screw 1/16th and conversions.

[@sharpen-up]

Modern ballistic apps are also great to count distance in imperial or metric and display solutions in MOA or MRAD or both, so you can mix and match

[@jward9637]

How far off is the reticle on my Viper XLR when I use the 6 or 7 MOA hold over? (At 6 or 7 hundred yards)

[@VortexNation]

That depends on a lot of things - are you trying to use the 6 or 7 MOA line for a 600 or 700 yard BDC perhaps? It doesn't really work that way unfortunately. What caliber are you shooting? For example, an average 6.5 Creedmoor might need 6 MOA of holdover or compensation to get to just 365 yards. 7 MOA would only get you to around 400 yards.

[@richardofoz2167]

How far off is your reticle? About 4 or 5 inches, probably. Check your eye relief. You could get a nasty cut. I have to say, that's a novel use of reticles for optical ranging!

[@cletustollery6914]

Excellent videos. From a construction guy of 40 years..... try watching a video on carpenter measurement to engineering scale for surveying purposes..... That was a disaster for me. It's VERY hard to get used to a "new system". BUT, as a first time buyer of an AR 15 scope, I'm a bit confused. Always been more of a shotgun hunter in the midwest from pheasant to deer. Any wisdom is appreciated.

[@skyofstorms]

Don't worry as long as you're sighted in at 25-50 yards, you'll be fine out to 300 as long as you shoot well. If you're hunting deer, use OTM/hornady eldm?x rounds and stay within 200 yards or less and mind your angles for vital shots. Past that you start to lose too much energy for reliable 1 shot kills on larger animals. 5.56 can go out to distance but you don't need to worry too much until you start to hit 500+ meters, and at that point you may want to step up to a more powerful caliber anyway.

[@gpearce11]

Much like imperial vs metric, I feel like you're best bet is to just use what you've always used before, but if you've never used either I'd recommend MRAD. While MRAD isn't just "metric MOA" it does use a Base 10 system (like metric), so it should, theoretically, be easier to learn (just like metric is easier to learn and understand than imperial). However, if you're already used to MOA you'll just find yourself converting MRAD to MOA in your head, so just get what you're used to.

[@mr.excitement689]

I’ve found a deal on a viper pst 2 in mrad, but I don’t know squat about mrad. Is it just as simple to dial in adjustments as moa optics? Will save me 70 dollars.

[@earlycuyler2295]

Go mrad. It might be a " new " system... But the math is MUCH easier.

[@primsolllineguy8689]

I always like to start with a compliment and I will. Most of your videos are really informative. That said this one was not in fact it would confuse a new shooter. I am a Metrologist ( I teach measuring). The first thing I would explained to a new shooter is that any rifle has a signature. Assuming everything is bedded all torque settings are correct and we are at 68 degrees, the rifle will shoot based on the aforementioned and never change! The purpose of the optic is to overlay a crosshairs or red dot at that location at whatever yardage you prefer normally specified by the ammunition manufacturer based on twist, and barrel length. Once a new shooter understands that the centerline of the chambering is as close to the centerline of the barrel we have a really good starting point. With so many variables such as heating of the barrel and wind as well as BC that rifles signature will not change unless you change one of the aforementioned variables. With MOA the calculations differ from the metric methodology. Shoe a example of say a 204 Ruger zero at 200 yards. Then explain both systems and let the shooter see what he/ she feels more comfortable with. You can also give an example of a cold bore shot, the rifle being held firmly as you adjust your elevation and windage to the center of the hole created by the signature shot. This is of course the two shot sight in. I prefer MOA because I hunt and seldom shoot over 400 yards. I offer up my commentary very respectfully for a new shooter will make many costly mistakes unless a forums like yours educate them starting from the basics.

[@guloguloguy]

THANKS FOR THIS DISCUSSION, (...BUT, YOU NEED TO SHOW SOME DRAWINGS/PHOTOS/CHARTS.... )

[@TheMotoMonkey]

Really it comes down to whether you think more in/ measure with feet, inches, and yards (MOA) or centimeters and meters (MRAD). If you are more accurate or better at guessing range, distance, height, etc. in one form that's the one you should use. If you are shooting and say the target is 500 yards out and hit 6 inches low use MOA. If you say it's 450 meters away and hit 15cm low use MRAD. The reason the military and police use MRAD isn't because it's better, (actually MOA adjustments are more accurate) but for cross communication reasons in-between agencies. That way if the FBI, LA SWAT, secret service are helping protect someone and working with a German, French, English, Spanish, etc. Security force they aren't speaking in different terms and measurements in a crisis. Same with a scenario where navy seals or marine snipers might be working with an SAS team or something like that.

[@alexzamora6700]

I use both.. I understand them both. Neither is better than the other .

[@wangsworld9454]

False info. By the time you get dialing your scope to hit a target at 900 yards, I would have already dialed my MRAD scope and have hit the target before you could even get done making your clicks...MOA is for FUdds

[@alexzamora6700]

@@wangsworld9454 maybe for a slow ass like you. Lol. And I don’t mean physically 😂

[@chuckfinley3152]

This is ignorant, you're literally turning the turrets the same amount

[@glock907]

Since I think in inches, but am looking at an MRAD scope. If 1 moa aT 200 yds is 2” what is the MRAD at 200 yrds

[@VortexNation]

The real thing we should get from this talk is that if you have an MRAD scope, you should try to get used to using the reticle inside the scope, which should also be in MRAD, to measure the target, or your bullet's impacts in relation to where you were aiming, and then make the appropriate adjustments into your turret based on that. If you shoot a shot at 200 yards and the bullet doesn't impact where you were aiming (Something we all experience when sighting in) then just hold the reticle up over the target and measure the difference. If the reticle says you're "2 MRAD" to the Left and "1.5 MRAD" high, then just dial 2 MRAD to the right and 1.5 MRAD down and you should be all set. If your scope is FFP, you can do this measurement on any magnification. If it's SFP, it will likely be calibrated to make this measurement on the highest magnification. But to answer your question directly, even though we really don't like converting angular units of measure to linear units, 1 MRAD at 200 yards equates to approximately 7.2 inches on the target.

[@05Tcat]

@@VortexNation I agree with the notion of avoiding mixing linear and angular measurements, and to keep it simple by just utilizing the reticle as a ruler to calculate POA/POI. And when we start doing this, the comparison between MOA and MRAD becomes less relevant, and the amount of information in the reticle becomes more important. for instance, compare your new EBR-9 reticles... the MOA version has more "empty space", which creates a bit more guess work, where as the MRAD version has more data points to measure your misses from.

[@VortexNation]

@@05Tcat Well we're actually comparing apples to oranges here with the EBR-9 MRAD and MOA. The MRAD variant of that reticle is just a straight up MRAD reticle with no "BDC" element at all - the measurements are all in consistent MRAD increments. The MOA model is actually a BDC reticle where the increments of the hashmarks and dots correlate to the ballistics of a specific cartridge (5.56) so that's why some of them appear to be further apart. That said, there is still finer measuring features at the bottom of the BDC portion of the reticle for vertical measurements and plenty of hashmarks on the horizontal stadia for measuring as well. Not to mention the fact than 1 MOA is a finer increment than 1 MRAD, so you actually can get even finer and more precise measurements out of the MOA in that case than the MRAD model.

[@05Tcat]

@@VortexNation Oh yes, I stand corrected.. bad comparison. going back to just comparing MOA/MRAD, eliminating caliber specific BDC from the discussion. MOA and MRAD both effectively accomplish the same thing. What's more important is how much information the reticle has. more points to measure from means more precise and measurable adjustments. having an MRAD reticle with more windage, elevation and ranging points to measure from would be more useful than having an MOA reticle with fewer of those features, even though MOA is a slightly finer unit of measure. and on the flip side, if both reticles had the same amount of information on them for windage, elevation, and raging capabilities, the accuracy advantage MOA has over MRAD would be negligible for 99% of its users. In conclusion, I wouldn't focus on comparing MOA vs MRAD as much as I would focus on how independently a given reticle's info can tell you the correct POA for the desired POI.... I can travel 60MPH or 100KPH, but the more detailed my roadmap is, the more quickly and confidently I can get there.

[@richardofoz2167]

@steve assman Great name! Considering that the great simplicity of mrad measurement is the 1000:1 ratio between range and target size, it will be seen that 1 mil at 200 yards is 7.2 inches (7200 inches / 1000), so the height of 2mils is twice that. However, you should bear in mind that you're asking the wrong question. The purpose of optical ranging (whether by moa or mrad) is to estimate an unknown range from the dimensions of a known target, rather than the reverse. If you already know the range, why look for the target size?

[@daporter84]

They both measures the same thing what does it matter if I'm dialing up 3.4 mils or 11.6 moa? Just turn the turret to the right number hold left edge of target and send it

[@dave9116]

I normally like your 10 minute talks but I'm afraid you missed the target (pun intended) on this one. What you are talking about only addresses how to change your point of aim for a second shot which which puts you behind the curve for most shooting situations beyond simply hitting a paper target off the clock. Not so much for a hog at distance. See Ryan Cleckner's NSSF series for a better explanation.

[@Josh-mk7ok]

hey guys! is the strike eagle capable of handling the abuse from 6.5 creedmore? ive been told its rated for 556 only

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

I have one on my .30-'06 bolt gun and it's holding zero like a boss.

[@Coyote-wm5op]

Lol maybe I should’ve gone mrad since I was an artillery gunner

[@JAKDRZR]

I use moa and always will because I know it and I don’t comp shoot so when I am long range I can take my time.

[@vicpal57]

Great job Jimmy! Some comments: MAKE sure the optic you buy has the reticle (MOA or MRAD) that is the same as on the turrets! I know of a couple of very popular optic manufacturers that confuse the buying public. It’s like having an American car that the fuel gauge is in liters and the speedo in mph. Yikes! Think about this: the tick marks on a reticle is nothing more than a common RULER. Open your old desk drawer, pull our your decades old wooden 12” ruler from grammar school, and apply those graduations to the marks within your MOA reticle. Or … if your so inclined … get a metric ruler and the same system applies to your MRAD reticle - this time in a measurement based on the metric system.

[@ericwilliams2317]

For the love of me, I struggle with the MRAD / MILS concept. I use metric measurements at work, but ask me my weight and height and I'll tell you in Ft -ins & Lbs (or Stone & pounds in the UK) and our road speeds are still in MPH. We buy 'pints of beer, Pounds of potatoes for instance, but our gasoline comes in Litres........... I was young when we in the UK switched from Imperial measurements to Metric, so I can use both well. You have to have a 'split personality' to live here. (But I still don't get MILS!)

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

I'm Greek but was raised in the United States. It can be a bit confusing at times, but it ain't rocket science. If you can remember your math from about 5th grade, you can easily do conversions that will hold at any reasonable range.

[@Patrick-857]

Mils are the easy one.

[@ericwilliams2317]

@@Patrick-857 i guess it's what you're used to. I shot T/R or Target Rifle with 1/4 moa back sights and adjustable front sights on the muzzle for a lot of years, so thats what I understand - with scopes too. Especially as a quarter moa is a finer adjustment than .10 mil

[@Patrick-857]

@@ericwilliams2317 I switch between both with ease, but find MOA irritating because I think in metric. I'm stuck with MOA now because my shooting discipline is dominated by 10-50x60 scopes with 1/8th MOA clicks. I much prefer MRAD scopes but I don't have the money for a Delta Stryker with 0.05 MRAD clicks right now, and it's really not much of an issue, I just hate it when I have to do any math involving MOA.

[@ericwilliams2317]

Jf you're used to it. After shooting Target Rifle for many, many years (moa adjustable foresight and 1/4 moa adjustable rear sight) that's what works for me. Besides, 1/4 moa (let alone 1/8 moa) is a slightly more finer adjustment than say .10 mils. Still, we all work together, that's the main thing eh 😉👍 @@Patrick-857

[@losoj30]

So mil is better for long range, because it's easier to adjust your optic. Moa is better, because the adjustments are more fine.. mil requires less turret changes, but moa better.. did I di that right?

[@wangsworld9454]

Just go MRAD, you will have a horrible time shooting with someone whos not an MOA Fudd lol MOA is for people who sit at a bench and shoot off their sled to hit paper maybe 5 times a year lol

[@1bobharvey]

Knowing dope in inches for a given rifle is just easier for me to picture in my head for shots without adjusting a turret. To be fair I have measured things in inches my entire life building things ect so it just makes more sense to use the same measuring system for shooting as an American. If I know my drop is 6" at a given range holding over 6" from my intended point of impact seems intuitive for taking good shots when there may be no time to dial a turret. I have never used MRAD but as far as I understand it is far less granular than moa since 1 moa is roughly 1" per 100 where mrad is like 6" or something. As well most people know the possible group they can shoot with a given rifle in MOA (this is a sub moa or 2 moa rifle ect) but I have never heard anyone describe a rifle as a 1 or 2 MRAD gun. So why would you want to have to do a math conversion between the 2 in your head to try and figure out if you can consistently hit the size of the target zone at a given range. For example if I know my rifle with a given load can shoot .5 moa at 100m and I want to hit a 6" target at 500m then I know my group should be roughly 2.5" at that range and if I miss it is my fault. If I wanted to hit the same 6" target with a gun that is 2 moa at 500m my group would be roughly 10" and 40% of the time a perfect shot will miss due to the inherent characteristics of that rifle and it will not work at that range for that size target. That 2 moa rifle may be terrible for shots on deer past 300m where the group would get larger than 6" on a perfect shot, but is far accurate enough to down a moose at 500 with a nice broadside shot and a 10" group. I would have to do a whole lot of mental math or learn a entirely new way of picturing size to come to the same conclusion in MRAD and it seems like a case of over complicating my life for no real upside other than using the new hotness.

[@david25876]

First Focal Plane scope makes this even simpler. Maybe this was said already.

[@MrSoonermadman]

First time scope user trying to decide on MOA v MRAD. I thought I wanted MOA… now I’m back to square one, and don’t know sh*t…….

[@godofm3tal1]

When you get into 1/8 moa adjustments though... Mrad is really only a better method of communication between spotter and shooter and even that is splitting hairs. Anyone can use either but if you're used to moa or can get used to it, it is the more finely adjustable measurement and as such easier to use for extreme ranges when you need to flick a gnat off a flys ass.

[@VortexNation]

True, but most of the scopes with 1/8th MOA adjustments are designed for very specific and often times specialized applications. With the more common increment being 1/4 MOA, it's still smaller than .1 MIl, but unless you're a really excellent shooter, the difference would be difficult for many to actually tell just based on their own variance in accuracy as a shooter. Maybe something we can talk more about in another future episode!

[@godofm3tal1]

Vortex Nation Podcast oh i dig it. and you're right 1/8 is pretty infinitesimal for most people. but it's just a showing of what's possible with moa that isn't with mil. i think mil has gained more popularity due to its more common military usage. everyone wants to be gi joe. but unless you've grown up on it and that's what you understand the most from the start, i can see no reason to intentionally tread down that path without a really good reason. it's marginally better to verbalize between shooting teams but not that big of a deal. for me, breaking down my hits and misses into inches rather than some strange unit of measurement only really practically used in shooting especially when there are higher resolution options just doesn't make sense.

[@richardofoz2167]

@@godofm3tal1 I suspect you're right about many shooters fantasising about playing at army snipers, but why do you suppose the military went to mrads? They're pretty rigorous with the functional specs of their equipment, and I'm pretty sure they didn't do it just to lead the fashion with sniper wannabes. To my mind, the great advantage of mrads is the simplicity with which it can be used to estimate ranges, considering that there is a simple 1000:1 ratio between range and target size. If your object is - as it should be - to estimate an unknown range from the known (or approx) size of your target, the process is simplicity itself. Determine the size of your target and multiply by 1000, and then adjust for your target size in mils. Example: Your target measures 12 inches (or 30 cm) and it covers 1 mil in your scope. Distance? 12,000 inches, or 1000 feet. If your target is 30 cm, it's 30,000 cm away, or 300 metres. I your target covers less or more than 1 mil in your scope, it must be further or closer than that. If it's less, it's further away. If it's more than 1 mil, it must be closer. So your formula is as simple as this: actual target size X 1000 / mils covered. That's mrads in a nutshell. It's ultra simple, accurate and can be used whether you think in inches, metrics, or anything else. Once you get that notion into your noggin, why would you use anything else?

[@godofm3tal1]

@@richardofoz2167 there are ranging/sizing reticles and calculations for moa scopes as well. as i stated, MRAD an easier method of communication which would make it a huge bonus for military use seeing as how everything they do is painstakingly communicated constantly. that, and the fact that the rest of the world uses a metric system that Americans do not, means they probably are better served using equipment and training that allows them to transition to foreign provided equipment if needed (or even communicating with foreign forces) without skipping a beat on knowledge of how to use it. it's a specialized system that's inferior in many ways outside of its metric-like universal translation. but anyone operating overseas is going to appreciate those differences on the whole. but for anyone operating recreationally, stateside, who understands what an inch is and wants a more accurate measurement system that makes sense in real, generally used increments (inches) MOA is hands down the best choice. MRAD at that point is just a choice/option and the only reason i can see anyone actually using it is to "play commando" or be different for the sake of being different. some guys love to revel in bragging about having shit nobody else knows how to use. 🤷🏻 but that's a silly reason to adopt a piece of tech.

[@godofm3tal1]

@@richardofoz2167 as for ranging things in your head, again, if that's something you really require (which most don't) then MRAD might be for you. but consider that it's not that difficult to estimate a range well enough for practical use just by estimation of where it is in relation to you, but recreational shooters almost always know the range of the target they're shooting at and hunting scenarios on the super majority happen within 500yds or less (often under 300 yards) and any rifle worth it's salt at those ranges should be shooting within an inch or three anyways and doesn't need precise calculation to achieve. it's when you're trying to pop a head at 1500 yards and you only have one shot to get it right, that you need to calculate the dog shit out of your targets range and wind speed and all that other stuff that's super critical and you may not have access to a calculator with you because your chopper went down and took out your spotter and threw everything but your rifle out the door on its way down. shit like that is why military makes everything a certain way. that, and they know half the grunts they bring up through basic are morons and everything they do is designed for the lowest common denominator to understand.

[@mr.speedyboib.s4589]

I only use FFP MRAD.

[@ronws2007]

I live in 'Merica. The targets at the range are in inches. I think in MOA. MRAD is also good. I just don't have a problem with math. Known size of target X 95.5 and divide that by the number of MOA in the reticle. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. Also, notice that Jimmy, by himself, keeps the 10 minute talk pretty close to 10 minutes. Just saying.

[@tyler9881]

MOA is finer and easier to understand just go with that

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

For all but the snipers among us, multiply MOA by 3.4 to get MRAD.

[@bobparvin9773]

It's 3.438

[@su3095]

What I find frustrating is that we see accuracy being rated using MOA (e.g. sub MOA rifle), scope bases are in MOA (e.g. 0 or 20 MOA), ring heights are typically in inches. Why not keep it simple and use MOA for scope measurements too (e.g. 1/4 MOA per clicks) rather than odd number in mils. Not sure why military use mils over moa. I wonder if NATO has something to do with it...

[@VortexNation]

MOA is an angular measurement. When determining ring height it will be a linear measurement. There are rings/mount with MOA built into them which cants the optic towards the barrel of the gun.

[@Patrick-857]

Because MRAD is just better and faster.

[@chainbenwa2713]

MOA all da way!!

[@Patrick-857]

@@chainbenwa2713 MRAD is superior for most use cases where dialing is involved.

[@Patrick-857]

Americans holding the rest of the world back as usual. MRAD is superior. Especially when you combine it with the metric system. The math is stupid easy, 1 MRAD=1/1000th of the distance to target in whatever unit you choose to use.

[@rgthomson1]

Its beyond me how America use inches yet the military uses mrad and all i want here in the UK is SFP and MOA and its getting harder to get a decent scope like this, the market has been pushing MRAD and FFP and most dont really need this

[@adamx7312]

1/4 MOA = .0042 degrees VS .1 MRAD = .0057 degrees

[@richardofoz2167]

Not so. One moa is 1/60 degree, and a quarter of that is 0.0042 degree. A radian is 57+ degrees, so a milrad must be 0.057 degree. The question here is: why are you even bothering with such numbers? Can't do you any good, friend.

[@adamx7312]

@@richardofoz2167 Read my conversions more carefully. I did not give a conversion for 1 milliradian, I gave a conversion for POINT 1 milliradians. See his statement at 8:15 . Since many in the USA could likely be more familiar with Degrees, I provided some additional data so a first-time scope buyer would better understand just how small these increments actually are.

[@richardofoz2167]

@@adamx7312 So sorry for missing the barely visible decimal point, but you prove my point. You should read my comment more carefully too. I don't care about your maths for one ten thousandth of a degree. and neither should you. If you want to know how to use mrads for optical ranging, get those irrelevant fine details out of your head. Your only concern should be the 1000:1 ratio between range and target size. Your approach is what scares many people off mrad ranging - they don't like the maths involved. Thanks though for pointing out my error. I'll clean my glasses next time. Will you address your error too?

[@tonysmith742]

eBay has Mia and mead scope rulers now

[@checkmate058]

Moa is angular. 1/60 of 1/360th of a circle.

[@VortexNation]

MRAD is also angular. It is 1/1000th of a radian.

[@checkmate058]

@@VortexNation yes but there was a line that sayd "moa is more liner"

[@VortexNation]

@@checkmate058 MOA is more easily converted to a linear measurement for many people because 1 MOA is very close to 1 inch at 100 yards. This is of course primarily targeted towards our US audience. Were we measuring in Meters and Centimeters then it would be the opposite. But as was mentioned right off the bat - both MOA and MRAD are angular units of measure.

[@checkmate058]

@@VortexNation oh my mistake

[@user-gu1hl2kx2k]

@@VortexNation 0.1 mrad equals 1 cm at 100 m

[@truthwillsetyoufree85]

I prefer MRAD. There's really not much difference. Just what I like I guess.

[@DS-gd1xw]

MOA all day

[@wjjohns04able]

Danny Snyder No offense but I’ve been reading a lot that MOA is dead. I don’t have any experience with either. Would you mind explaining why? Thanks.

[@MarylandWearAndCarry]

@@wjjohns04able 'Merica. How many degrees in a circle? 360. How many minutes in a degree? 60. How many second in a minute of angle? 60. Next we'll be told that for the sake of simplicity we are going to change the degrees of a circle to 💯. To be honest millradians are for people that aren't that good at doing math in their head. Everyone can't walk and chew gum at the same time. So to give the mathematically challenged the opportunity to shoot precision rifles we have simplified things. No child left behind.👍

[@corybrown4667]

david chilton I wouldn’t listen to this guy for reasoning on MRAD vs. MOA. Nobody is picking MRAD because they can’t figure out the math in MOA. I would argue that knowing what one MRAD is at various distances requires more difficult math than knowing that one MOA is close to an inch per 100 yards.

[@MarylandWearAndCarry]

@@corybrown4667 Sorry to muddy the waters. It was an attempt at comedy. I'm keeping my day job.

[@corybrown4667]

david chilton Ha. I was probably just too dumb to get it.

[@luisarroyo6594]

Nice basic explanation .

[@kenlangille9050]

many video showing bullet drop with moa &correction but mrad all i see is people showing how to figure out distance from target size never go into bullet drop & mill corection

[@VortexNation]

Bullet drop is complex stuff and unless you're a ballistician, all you need to do is get a good chronograph, know what projectile you're shooting, do a little testing at the range and plug the information you get real-time into your ballistics calculator and let it do the work. From there, doing the Mil corrections is just a matter of shooting, making sure you shoot good shots, and having a spotter use a reticle to give you corrections by comparing where they see the bullet impact to where you were trying to hit and utilizing the reticle's hashmarks to tell you how much you need to correct.

[@philiplucky7170]

Typically MOA

[@fickedyodad2137]

Circles (globe) are measured in radians. Radians are a superior system.

[@joostprins3381]

Im waiting for the day the US is going metric.

[@motorcarclassics2922]

Short answer is just go MOA.

[@richardofoz2167]

Short but dumb. SO dumb. Sorry friend, but you said it yourself.

[@wangsworld9454]

More like the idiot FuDd would say while he cant hit shit past 300 yards lol

[@DD-gi6kx]

I find it odd how much talk there is about mrad vs MOA...especially when people talk pros and cons...they are just two different measures of angle, and conversion is that 1 mrad = 3.4 MOA....or 0.34 MOA is exactly 0.1 mrad...its just like debating the pros and cons of measuring in feet or yards nothing magic here

[@NielsonRichard]

You compared 22-250 to white claw with your helicopter headset. you can't be trusted.

[@randybeeson3424]

HAH?

[@jelle_smid]

Why does the world have 2 units of measure? Well the world has one, the US has a second.

[@somedayzo6]

Get over it. Go USA 🇺🇸

[@TundraTex]

English vs. Metric has absolutely nothing to do with degrees vs Radians.

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

Myanmar and Liberia, plus some instances in the U.K. The analogy that comes to mind is, what side of the road you drive on.

[@highdesertkatz7790]

So if most hunters are using moa. Why do you guys offer your razor lht 50mil objective in mils and not moa if that was what the scope designed for? Hunters! I dont get why that was done and frankly vortex just lost my $1,000 for this foolishness... I literally watched this video only because that scope is only offered in mils with the 50mil objective.... so frustrating. So many times has vortex messed up a genius scope with silly bs. Another example is the hs-lr 6-24. Why would you offer it in only ffp? I ended up getting the 4-16 just for the sfp but even then I found out its 1/2 moa adjustments rather than 1/4..... it's like the idea starts as a million dollar idea but somewhere in the process you got tooo drunk or high and mess it all up every time....

[@wangsworld9454]

LMAO, get with the times dude. This isn't 1993. Its not like you are taking a shot past 300 anyways haha

[@highdesertkatz7790]

@@wangsworld9454 lmao 612yds was my last elk 1 shot. Of course it didn't happen with a vortex tho. Picked up a luepold vx-5hd 4-20x52. Such a better scope! Even the vx-5hd 3-15 is a way better sope and optional reticles.... boo vortex got the same warranty too but unlike the vortex I prolly will nvr have to actually use it. Infact I've had to send 3 vortex products in for warranty work before this video..... gold ring luepold is also made in the USA so yet another reason to support them over vortex.

[@wangsworld9454]

@@highdesertkatz7790 LMAO spoken like a true FuDd

[@highdesertkatz7790]

@@wangsworld9454 what ever you say dude.... get a life

[@bruceeckstein9311]

You are absolutely right...details, details, details...so confusing.

[@SpetsnazBear-3710]

I humbly offer this...to make it even more simpler ... MOA is Imperial: Measured in inch/foot/yard. MRAD is metric: milimeter, centimeter, meter. Simple. Have a nice day. Which to buy... THATs personal preference. How does one like to measure things, then maybe stick to something one is comforatable with... Cheers. "Eucher" :-)) you must live near near Ontario. Take Care

[@jarjarlol]

1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards

[@SpetsnazBear-3710]

That didn't help, but 'Thanks for playing'.

[@jarjarlol]

@@SpetsnazBear-3710 mrad isnt metric. Thanks for playing

[@SpetsnazBear-3710]

@@jarjarlol Get a clue. Its measured in metric. The metric prefix milli- (from Latin mille meaning "one thousand") and the radian. METRIC.

[@TundraTex]

A Minute of Angle is 1/60th of a degree and a milliRadian is 1/1000th of a Radian. These are measurements of angle not distance. And neither are metric. A prefix does not make a unit of measure english or metric. Using your logic, a "mil" in machining dimensions would be metric, but it's not metric. A mil is 1/1000th of an inch - which as you know is an Imperial unit of measure.

[@Patrick-857]

I can explain the MOA vs MRAD in one word: Americans......

[@Actuary1776]

I knew this was going to be bad. You can’t do MRAD MOA in 10 minutes.

[@VortexNation]

How so? We did another 10 minute episode following this one up on how to convert these units to linear units of measure down range, but even then, it doesn't need to be complex. They're two different methods of measuring the same thing. There are people using both from entry level shooters, hunters, shooters, competitive shooters, Mil/LE.

[@Actuary1776]

Vortex Nation Podcast Yeah, you can dumb it down to “don’t think just do this” which is fine, but the average shooter can’t really digest angular units of measure in such a short time frame. Memorizing a rule is quite different than understanding where the rule came from.

[@VortexNation]

@@Actuary1776 What memorization needs to happen? All the information is right there in front of a shooter in their reticle or in their ballistics calc on their phone right next to them on the bench. Sure, you can learn all the ins and outs of how it works, why it works, memorizing every potential equation - that's more than a step beyond beginner level though, and for someone just trying to navigate what the differences between the two even are, this is all the info they need.

[@Actuary1776]

Vortex Nation Podcast Well I would disagree. I think reticles and calculators have their place, but you didn’t describe MOA or MILs at all in the video. Before I’m expected to behave like a monkey and simply follow a program it’s nice to understand the mechanics. One day my calculator is going to fail, or something is going to be different in my environment that doesn’t lend itself to relying solely on estimates stamped into my reticle. This is what I mean by not being able to adequate address MOA vs MILs in 10 minutes, you simply can’t do it. The fundamental definition of MOA and MIL is that they are angular units of measurement - and yet that was never even mentioned.

[@VortexNation]

@@Actuary1776 You must have stopped listening right after 2:30...?

[@uploadvideeos]

Mouthful of crap still never got to the point

[@SomeDude.1117]

MRAD 100%. Simpler, with more straightforward math. And as a Chemistry major, metric system is always superior to imperial.

[@richardofoz2167]

Sorry, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. Moa scopes have always been more popular in the US because most Americans are just too damn lazy to think it all through, and so they fall back on the old trusty American rule of thumb about inches at 100 yds, despite it being wrong by 5%, which can be significant. How many people I've heard on these forums saying they'll stick with what they know, or with moa because it's more "American". So it is: both lazy and wrong.

[@corybrown4667]

I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but you are an arrogant douche bag.

[@corybrown4667]

Also MOA is not wrong, it is exact. Are you too lazy or too stupid to figure that out? Maybe you aren’t smart enough to do the math and you need something that’s really easy for your puny non American brain to comprehend. Get over yourself.

[@richardofoz2167]

@@corybrown4667 Haha! Thanks for letting me know. No doubt you're saying that because your tender American feelings are offended. Well, facts don't care about your feelings. Your petulance doesn't change the fact that the American habit of relying on 1moa as being 1inch at 100 yards is both lazy and wrong by 5%. In fact, 1 moa at that range is 1.047 inch, which may not sound much, but if you're ranging with that in mind you will be wrong by 5%, before any other errors, and that can easily cause a terrible wounding or a complete miss. Sorry, mate, but if I'm arrogant for telling you the truth, then so be it. You're wrong, I'm right, and you're the one who will have to get over it. LOLOLOLOL

[@richardofoz2167]

​@@corybrown4667 Hahahahaha!!!! Hi there Cory! You back for more? OK. Yes moa IS exact and accurate if you use it properly, but what is neither exact nor accurate is the lazy American habit of relying on a convenient approximation for ranging purposes. Have you realised yet that 1moa is NOT exactly 1inch @100 yds? Look it up if you have to. It's not hard, even for my "puny non American brain". Hahaha! Actually, I am American, by birth and upbringing, but I don't usually like to admit it because unlike so many of our/your countrymen I actually paid attention at school, while you were preening in the mirror and ridiculing the smart kids who worked harder than you. Fortunately I had an opportunity to escape Yankland Wankland before it affected by brain too much, and I grabbed the opportunity with both hands. Never regretted it for a moment, particularly when I encounter people like you. But hey! Thanks for gettting in touch, and I hope you get over your little sulk soon. Bye bye! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

[@haroldkahl4610]

@@richardofoz2167 There is nothing wrong with being lazy if it means you are doing something in the easiest way. It would be stupid to do otherwise. For most of us, the difference between 1 inch and 1.047 inch at 100 yards is insignificant. It is much smaller than the smallest adjustment available on the scope. It is an easy calculation to look at a target shot at 100 yards, measure the center of the group relative to point of aim, and adjust the point of impact accordingly. Naturally, you can do the same with a mil rad scope, it would just take a little more arithmetic.

[@andrewnewton9137]

If you think in Inches/Yards use MOA, If you think in cm/metres them MRAD

[@richardofoz2167]

Mrad is just as relevant with inches and yards as with cm and metres. and it's both easier and more accurate. What's not to like?

[@wangsworld9454]

LMAO, WRONG!