MOA vs. MRAD in Scope Adjustments

[@jwdonal]

By far the most clear and concise way that I have ever heard this explained. Bravo.

[@DLN-ix6vf]

agree 110 %

[@Reaper-3000]

With one ear

[@mikethompson7406]

Little disappointed in this video. I was really getting interested with this guy and then all of a sudden... THE VIDEO IS OVER! This guy is great!

[@aberhan]

I agree, I was hoping for much more in depth explanation.

[@willpeavy2971]

Why does it seem like this guy would be a great math teacher

[@itellyouforfree7238]

as a mathematician, i have to disagree. not mentioning that the "magic number" is 2000*pi is cringeworthy

[@Ryan.......]

@@itellyouforfree7238 Eh, depends on the purpose. I teach physics, math, and engineering courses. In this situation, I would mention that a circle is 2pi rad just as he mentioned that a circle is 360 degrees. However, for an audience that is using this information in a purely practical application in which for more of them these numbers are just numbers and for nearly all of whom their thinking about angles is and has always been exclusively in degrees, I don't see not mentioning the relationship to pi to reduce the practical educational benefit.

[@itellyouforfree7238]

@@Ryan....... They will forget the magic numbers the very same moment they leave the classroom, unless they understand where they come from.

[@Ryan.......]

@@itellyouforfree7238 The intention here was not to have them remember the numbers.

[@itellyouforfree7238]

@@Ryan....... My first comment was intended as a reply to "Why does it seem like this guy would be a great math teacher". I do not believe his teaching method would be suitable for teaching math, neither to mathematicians, nor to engineers. I'm not saying that his teaching wasn't appropriate for this particular class. It's good enough to shoot deers or whatever

[@oneshotonekill5298]

Thank you for being a teacher, I'm trying to learn and you have shown me more in 5 minutes than I have learned in a hour with other people trying to explain the scope and math that I really suck at but you keep teaching there are many people like me that learn from people like you, thank you,

[@King66nb766]

0.1 mrad = to 1 cm @ 100 meters and 1 mrad =10 cm @ 100 meters and so on . For example @ 500 meters 0.1 click is = 5 cm. its a piece of cake no need to get confused Very easy to calculate MOA is better to use with inch measurements

[@colinsanders9397]

I learned MOA/MIL for marksmanship. When I started learning artillery planning I was introduced to MRADs and wondered why I ever used MOA! Lol

[@Hoppes99]

@@colinsanders9397 i like MRAD alot more also. i dont think in inches or cm when shooting. i think in MRADs lol

[@highland-oldgit]

Yes, it's quite frustrating clicking on a video like this and seeing that they are still trying to tie in MRAD with Imperial measurements when it makes much more sense to use metric.

[@HideSeek_Soje111]

@@highland-oldgit It's funny, because he never mentions meters or centimeters. Then he says MRAD has nothing to do with the metric system. Seems like it's based off the metric system to me.

[@highland-oldgit]

@@HideSeek_Soje111 You could argue that MRAD is not part of the Metric system, but like the sensible Metric system it's a decimal system and that's why they work together so well.

[@joshuagumm8485]

I've always used MOA. I got a MRAD on good deal and this guy just cleared up so much confusion for me.

[@Crt5]

How was the adjustment to mills now that it’s been a year?

[@3CODKing]

not the guy you asked the question too, but i did the same thing and honestly i have a much easier time with mrads rather than MOA, also if you havent yet, i would recommend picking up a book called The Long Range Shooting handbook by Ryan Cleckner@@Crt5

[@GiainhVietMy]

this old man looks serious - I gave him a thumb up after 5 secs.

[@camelshark69]

Same here! He speaks with conviction.

[@DustyGamma]

Opposite experience for me. I usually like part way through if I'm enjoying a video, but I was so drawn into his presentation that I didn't remember to till the end!

[@1165slugman]

Once he said math I was screwed

[@dougww1ectebow]

He is serious. He's a Gunsite instructor. The best.

[@cruise2kx]

Same.

[@chrishenning8829]

I'm a machinist with a PCP Airgun. Obsessed with accuracy shooting groups at over 100yds sub MOA. Regulated .25 cal Taipan veteran. LOVE THIS!

[@sarahconner9433]

Work on breathing and trigger finger control..trigger pull at the near bottom of your exhale.. Watch Olympic single hole 10 shots at 25 meters

[@Acheco]

THANK YOU PROFESSER SMART GUN! Seriously I have gone through 10 to 15 vids and you have explained everything i need to know. Every one else was either vaug or obsessed with rangging

[@jimmyc8019]

The absolutely best description of Mils and MOA, breaking it down to the reticle scale .

[@larryrankine8088]

Cory Trapp is one of the premier long range shooting instructors in the US.

[@dreci3001]

And here I am competing for the past 2 years with a Leupold Mk 4 scope with a TMR (mil reticle) and 1/4 MOA turrets. At my last competition with .22lr, I had to shoot 3 targets between 180 to 282 meters from 3 different positions (range changes), which after some mind boggling math session turned out a setting of 20 MOA up on the turret and -3 to +6 mils holdovers on the reticle. Great fun.

[@charlesludwig9173]

You should have just heldover/favored from reticle and not made any adjustment to dials. The dials in your case would just be used to get an ideal no-wind ZERO. That's what makes mil reticle and MOA dials mix so awesome. No conversions ever necessary when you have a range card synced to the mil scaled reticle.

[@emanueladamache7034]

as soon as I saw the 1911, I smiled. I've ordered my very first 1911 and I am just waiting for it to arrive. Excellent video!

[@hendrohadi]

the best video explaining the confusing world of MOA and MRAD

[@ronicard]

The simplest and most concise explanation of the difference between the two that I have seen. Great video!

[@wowguy3562]

They are both good and both work, damn thats what I needed to hear, so basically use personal preference

[@enriquerzarate]

Great... teacher. Never saw in six minutes such simplicity !!! Thank you.

[@rumsin300]

Excellent explanation just over 6 minutes. Very effective...earlier today, I just finished talking to a tech support gentleman at Vortex and he told me the same thing. It is all about preference..well described!! Thank you

[@nathandavies5407]

This is a discussion that negates any consideration for mathematical origin for radians, as the number of radians in a circle is actually that of 2 times Pi, as a radian is the angle that will give a length of circular arc equal to the radius, approximately 57.3 degrees. The MRAD system, whilst yes, being completely unrelated to the metric system, does allow for a simpler series of conversions thanks to its coincidental relation of 1/1000th measurement. It also just so happens that in the usage of the metric system with MRAD calculations with metric units you get a much more refined value of distance at target.

[@brianbumgardner8704]

Best and most concise explanation I've ever heard. Thanks

[@rarsenio1]

Thank you, the best explanation I’ve heard so far. I finally understood better the concept.

[@dr.piyushbajpai6497]

I am new to shooting & scopes but highly impressed by the way you explained such complicated thing in very simple way, please make more videos like this, God bless you.

[@The_Touring_Jedi]

just don't mess too much with your scope. Learning how to correct it once in a while is not a big deal and moa tactical scopes helps when on a range with various distances without messing with your scope is the best deal.

[@brianmoore1164]

A reasonable explanation, but you left out an important consideration. MOA scope reticles with MOA adjustment knobs are commonly IPHY (inch per hundred yards). Scope manufacturers do this to eliminate any rounding errors and make adjustments and use extremely simple, math free and easy for those of us who like feet and inches.

[@timdunn2387]

For the first time in 30 videos, I get it! Well done Sir. Excellent presentation.

[@toddbaker7672]

You as re freaking brilliant, thank you for being one of the 1st people to explain this correctly 👏

[@887Rabbit]

Awesome video. Really well explained. Could listen to this guy speaking all day whilst still not having a clue what the segments in MRAD represent. I'll stick to MOA I think. Much simpler

[@briangc1972]

Probably the clearest and best explanation of the two systems. The most important part is make sure that your reticle is the same as the turret adjustments. Either MOA for both or MRAD for both. Neither system is technically better. MOA is slightly more precise for zeroing the firearm, but neither will affect group size, just point of impact. Only the tacticool guys (keyboard commandos) will argue one is better than the other. Pick the reticle style that you like and go with that. An easy to use reticle that allows easy corrections for wind shift adjustments or holdovers is all that is really important.

[@colinsanders9397]

I switched from MOA to MRADs because the arty guys used MRADs in their firing solutions so it made things a little quicker. I'm going back to MOA as a civilian because nobody out here uses MRADs so MOA is easier to communicate.

[@d3ltaohniner261]

​@@colinsanders9397 MRAD dominates the precision shooting civilian sphere, MOA is still popular for casuals though.

[@adamrichardson6918]

Great video, and if you are a person with a short attention span, listening at 1.5 speed is wonderful!

[@whomagoose6897]

To do a quick conversation from M-rads to MOA's just multiply the M-rads by 3.44 to get a close result. Say if your spotter says to move windage 1 Mil. 3.44 x 1 = 3.44 then round to the nearest MOA on your scope. My scope has ¼-MOA adjustments. 3.44 is close to 3.5. Move the turret to 3.5 and shoot. Here is proof of the 3.44 calculation factor. For yards: 3.6 ÷ 2.047 = 3.438395415, round to 3.44. For meters: 10 ÷ 2.91 = 3.436426116, round to 3.44. Whichever distance measurement you choose, yards or meters, use 3.44 to convert. For those accuracy fanatics the difference between Mils or MOA's is less than the diameter of the bullet. Here's the proof of concept. Three clicks of a Mil based turret using yards for the measurement is 1.17" and one MOA is 1.047". 1.17 - 1.047 = 0.123. Less than the diameter of a .30 caliber bullet. Now for meters. Three clicks on a Mil turret is 3-cm. One MOA in 100 meters is 2.91-cm. Doing the math, 3-cm - 2.91-cm = 0.09-cm. Once again less than the diameter of a bullet. Been using a mixed system for years. The US Army did it this way for decades. I will say that a first focal plane scope has certain advantages over a second focal plane scope. But, not in all accounts.

[@charlesludwig9173]

Or just show up at range with a range card, making conversion unnecessary.

[@sharpandloud3422]

I think you might be the reason this video was made.

[@robertsalyers1351]

Yup, shut up and Shoot...LoL

I use the metric system and have a hard time using yards feet and inches, hence the milrad being a x10 incremental scale makes more sense to me, great explanation, thanks.

[@charlesludwig9173]

Well, if you were schooled in USA where object size is described in yards or inches then you would frame (see) both mils and MOA adjustment as inches or yards and that in fact is the case, since MOA and mils are always used to describe the distance in inches (not centimeters) a sight adjustment will make at target distance.

@@charlesludwig9173 you're totally right man

[@luxmid7486]

What are MRAD's and MOA's and why am i just hearing about them now, Jesus guides my bullets.

[@ChiIeboy]

Just don't piss off Jesus.

[@barrygrant2907]

Jesus may guide your bullets, but you still have to aim your rifle.

[@rudrashakti108]

With your knowledge base he would pretty much have to. Don't worry I'm in the same boat.

[@samueleketorp2628]

Good points adressed here. How a scope comes out of a factory with a mil-reticle and moa-turrets boggles me. I’d like to add that using mrads comes into its own when you start using meters rather than yards.

[@willybee3056]

That boggle me too. With the expense of the scope, and the acclaimed intelligence of the engineers, even the the most unaware would think that they would make the reticle graduations match the adjustments on the knobs? As long as there is no feedback in the market place, there is no need to change.

[@peterdrummond_]

Last 20 seconds were worth the whole video - also excellent and very helpful video, thank you

[@7thdangooglefu]

I was carving this up, like everyone else semi mocking this video, until I realized that this is probably the best video for the true novice.

[@davecormier7847]

This is the clearest and easiest explanation I've heard. Thanks so much

[@danietkissenle]

Yet he didn't ex plain that a randian is the length of theraidius wrapped around the circumference of a circle. An d that distance is divided into 1000 equal segments

[@exothermal.sprocket]

@@danietkissenle For the sake of the explanation, it wasn't necessary to get into the theory behind the systems. Important part is to show that this is all about two systems to describe angular adjustment.

[@charlesludwig9173]

For best results do mix mil scaled reticle with MOA windage and elevation control, whereby the reticle is used for range estimation and then used for a hold made known by range card. Use MOA windage and elevation controls to establish initial no wind ZERO and adjust windage as needed to counter wind from MOA Wind Constant formula. A mil reticle hold for wind can be made just discerning wind counter need in mils from a range card. The bottom line is no conversions from mils to MOA or MOA to mils is ever necessary. Here's everything anyone needs to know: MOA (minute of angle) and mil (mil-radian) are angular units of measurement. A MOA equals 1.047 inches per 100 yards, while a mil equals 3.6 inches per 100 yards. Sights and scopes move in MOA or mils and scopes may have a reticle scaled in mils or MOA, which is a means to estimate distance to target and use the reticle for a bullet drop compensation function. Common to all functions, the amount of MOA or mil adjustment made to the sight describes the distance in inches a sight adjustment will make at target distance. For example, a 1 MOA sight adjustment would move bullet impact approximately 1 inch at one hundred yards, 2 inches at two hundred yards, 3 inches at three hundred yards, and 10 inches all the way out to one thousand yards. Mathematical formulas must be engaged to find the amount of MOA or mil movement needed for bullets to go in direction where aimed; yet the math is easy. Here’s the simple in head math MOA formula to determine up/down sight adjustment needed; and, doing the math again, determine left/right sight adjustment needed. 1. First, think what the value of 1 MOA is at target distance: Distance to Target in Meters / 100 = Value of 1 MOA in Inches at Target Distance 2. Next, think how many of those MOAS will fit into inches of needed movement: Inches of Movement Needed / Value of 1 MOA in Inches at Target Distance = MOA Adjustment 3. Finally, figure out how many clicks to sight for needed movement: MOA Adjustment / Sight MOA Click Value = Clicks to Sight for Needed Movement So, let’s say you have set your target out to 100 yards, and you have produced a group which is 2 inches low and 3 inches right of the target’s center. In this scenario your scope’s windage and elevation adjustment controls have a .25 MOA value per click. First, figure out adjustment needed to sight control up/down movement: 1. 100 yards / 100 = 1 Inch 2. 2 Inches / 1 = 2 MOA 3. 2 MOA / .25 = 8 click turn of elevation control in up direction for needed vertical movement of grouping on target Now, repeat steps to figure out adjustment needed to rear sight drum controlling left/right movement: 1. 100 yards / 100 = 1 Inch 2. 3 Inches / 1 = 3 MOA 3. 3 MOA / .25 = 12 click turn of windage control in direction to move group left for needed horizontal movement of grouping on target Now, when Mils or MOA are scaled to a scope’s reticle, the reticle will have a bullet drop compensation function and can be used to discern target distance through range estimation formula. Here’s the MOA range estimation formula. Target Height in Inches X 95.5 / Target Height in MOA = Yards to Target Shooting at a target 44 inches in height appearing to be about 4.2 MOA the equation would look like this: 44 X 95.5 / 4.2 = 1000 Yards Now, here are the mil formulas: Target Height in Inches X 27.78 / Target Height in Mils = Yards to Target, or Target Height in Yards X 1000 / Target Height in Mils = Yards to Target Shooting at a target 36 inches in height appearing to be about 1 Mil the equation would look like this: 1 X 1000 / 1 = 1000 Yards Finally, the MOA Wind Constant formula is a means to understand sight adjustment or hold needed to counter wind. After the shooter has appraised wind value, for example, a 10-mph wind from a quartering direction would be said to have a 5-mph value, a simple formula will allow the shooter to adjust for the distance that the wind displaces the bullet, when the MOA constant for the cartridge/distance has been gleaned from a ballistics calculation. Distance to Target in Yards / 100 X Wind Value in MPH / Constant = Bullet Drift in MOA For Example, here’s the formula using the constant of 7 which is correct when shooting 5.56 M855 ammunition from an M16-A4 at 600 yards: 600 Yards / 100 X 5 MPH / 7 = 4 MOA Bullet Drift To get the drift in inches the shooter will take the distance to target in yards / 100 X Bullet Drift in MOA. Shooting at 600 yards, with wind appraised as having a 5-mph value, the formula would look like this: 600 Yards / 100 X 4 MOA = 24 Inches of Drift So, which mil or MOA formulas best support sight adjustment, range estimation, and wind counter speed and precision needs? Trial of both to discern the best balance of speed and exactness for all needs might suggest a mil scaled reticle for range estimation, while zeroing exactness and wind counter speed might suggest sight adjustment in MOA. In other words, pairing a mil reticle and MOA elevation/windage control.

[@sarahconner9433]

Wonderful explanation.... But I don't like mixed Scopes...I love both!! Just not mixed...and I like high power +24x

[@charlesludwig9173]

@@sarahconner9433 yeah, I understand how you could prefer not mixing for scenarios which are or are not going to require dialing for elevation or wind. If I am shooting in NRA LR I might prefer MOA Reticle and dials while PRS might suggest mils for reticle and dials. However the best outcome is ALWAYS mil reticle and MOA dials for ranging speed and aiming accuracy.

[@sarahconner9433]

@@charlesludwig9173 always is a strong word...I do like strictly mil reticle where the dots are exactly 1 mil wide.... However there are so many superior reticles in 2022 that mil vs moa is irrelevant...i.e. Horus and laser beam and others....a good shooter /sniper will succeed with human talent alone.... either way each of my weapons has a bullet cheat card on the stock.... Velocity, drop, drop rate, .. And honestly my Scopes are zeroed...i don't rotate the turret...i just aim at the drop point....if we can agree practice make you better and $5/cartridge is to FN expensive to get any practice on..

[@charlesludwig9173]

@@sarahconner9433 ALWAYS is appropriate because it is factual. Ranging in mils is easier in head math than ranging in MOA and zeroing is more accurate in MOA than mils. Once zeroed hold can be set via mil reticle quickly and wind favor can be calculated using in head MOA wind constant math for either favor in mils or dialing in MOA because the in head math produces an answer in inches. At any rate, mixing might not be possible for some these days since scope marketers have been pressed by a confused market to produce only scopes with matching units of measurement in dials and reticle. This trend began back in the mid 2000’s lead by NF. They simply succumbed to desires of misinformed novice shooters who were taking advice from gurus like the one posting this video. My opinion BTW is based on experience as a Military Rifle Instructor assisting the USAMU deliver the Squad Designated Marksman Course and shooting in US Service Rifle and Long-Range Competition.

[@sarahconner9433]

@@charlesludwig9173 your more qualified than me..... When you spend big money NIGHTFORCE , SCHMID BENDER ect... It has 0.1 mils/ click.... Convenient... Few civilians.. Me included have $3000 for a scope.... $200 Gun store Scopes are 1mil/ click ,1moa/click...I can't disagree with you...mil to mil is metric and base 10.. Easy head math... You do realize "Horus" and laser , Android phone Scopes/ rangefinders are better anyway... There are way Better reticle systems than mil or..or...or .. MOA

[@jdrseven]

So, MOA is the American way. All I needed to hear.

[@markp8295]

Yep. In metric. 0.1mRad is 10mm at 100m. Rounded well enough that other factors are the bigger issue at 1km.

[@BennyH11]

I find it baffling that manufacturers would produce an MOA reticle scope with MRAD knobs or vice versa. Is there any reason for this at all?

[@sarahconner9433]

Ya.. Dogshit

[@charlesludwig9173]

There are a multitude of reasons to have a mil reticle and MOA dials.MOA dials support a more accurate initial zero, as well as wind favors using the simple in head MOA wind constant math. The wind favor solution can be directly applied to windage dial or be converted to inches and applied to mil reticle from range card notice of inch favor need at distance in mils. The mil reticle is preferable to an MOA scaled Reticle since the range finding formula for mils is less math than the MOS formula, just known target size in yards times 1000 divided by target size in mils equals target distance in yards.

[@bmiranda2645]

Yeah it’s like measuring something built in metric using calipers that only read in inches, but you need to do math conversions to make sense with the metric tools you have.

[@BennyH11]

@@charlesludwig9173 Sorry this just doesnt stack us as logical, at to me anyway. Why does MOA support a more accurate initial zero? And why would the windage calculations be easier to do in your head than mils? Surely any decimalised focused system (like mils) is simpler?

[@anthonykaiser974]

​@@BennyH11 simple math that was given will tell you 1/4 MOA (0.26" @ 100 yds) is finer adjustment than 0.1 mils (0.36" @ 100) because those are the commonly manufactured scope adjustment click values.

[@monicareves3568]

this video was the easiest to understand and made me feel like i was in a class room with him.

[@trailertrashtactics]

Excellent and quick explanation. You sir earned another subscriber today

[@ghostmost2614]

Great Presentaion👍🏻 Question, why or who would produce an optic that the retical wasn't married to the turret?

[@shoechew]

+1 I'm confused by this as well.

[@basharathussain5565]

Finally I understand moa best mathematical explanation

[@kerngunther]

Well they had these type of sights for decades on Biathlon rifles and they are super precise. Adding an adjustable peep is of course another advancement that a biathlete does not need since they always shoot 50meters. Peep and globe fronts are the most accurate way to go for iron sights. well done!

[@taylorharris5601]

if it has a 1 to 1000 relationship then it has every bit to do with metric. The metric system is very uniform in that all numbers are divisible by 10 or are a multiple of 10. While using inches, feet, and yards is insanely arbitrary. What he also neglected to mention is that while at 100yards .1mil adjustment is .36in. at 100meters .1mil is .9998 centimeters. Which is far closer to an exact measure than the arbitrary MOA. 1mil then at 100 meters is 10cm. So you get 10cm (10 clicks) of adjustability. Versus 1MOA at 100 yards being 1in (4clicks) of adjustability. Communication of MOA adjustments is more difficult as well if you work as a team, a lot of the time it requires multiple turret rotations, and larger numbers to communicate and remember. Like a 29.3moa adjustment, while a similar adjustment would only be 8.5 on a mil scope. I wouldn't even have done 2 rotations on my mil scope, and the number is far easier to remember and communicate. This is why in the military we use mil's.

[@category-theory]

came here to say this! the part at the end when he said that made me spit out my coffee... I'm a mathematician so I was like wait... he understand HOW to use this.. but I dont know if he understands the why...

[@taylorharris5601]

@Log Splitta it is arbitrary. I take it you don't know what that means. 1foot is 12 inches. What the hell. 10millimeters is 1 centimeter. Wow divide by 10. Uniform. 3 feet is 1 yard or 36 inches? What the hell. 100 centimeters is 1 meter or 1000 millimeters. Wow, all divisible or multiples if 10. 1720 yards is 1 mile? Wtf again? While 1000 meters is 1 kilometer. Wow who would have thought divisible by 10. Doing range calculations with metric on the fly while a bad guy is running left to right is infinitely easier with MRAD than MOA. But MOA works. It does. The system can function just fine and you can get desired results. If you know your stuff MOA works. But when it comes down to it, MRAD is just makes more sense.

[@taylorharris5601]

@Log Splitta to put it in another perspective for you it works like this: with MRAD when you make a shot and you miss and need to make an adjustment that adjustment is always divisible or multiplied by 10 in some way shape or form. Like you need to go up 36cm at 100meters? Ok each click is .1mil so 10 clicks is 1 mil so go up 36 clicks or 3.6mil. Easy. See multiply and divide by 10. While MOA is weird. Need to go up 36 inches? Well each click is only 1/4 of an inch so 4 clicks is 1 MOA. So now 4 x 36 = 144 clicks or 36 MOA. With MRAD you are working with 1's and 10's and 100's. Easy math numbers. With MOA you are working with weird numbers especially as you go out to distance. Mil clicks progress with range uniformly. MOA progresses uniformly, but the click values of MOA do not.

[@skys-the-limit]

@@taylorharris5601 Your first post implied you get more "clicks" or adjustment with MRAD when you said that you get 10 clicks at 100 meters vs only 4 "clicks" at 100 yards with MOA. However, the difference in 100 meters vs 100 yards is significant so that's comparing apples to oranges. You only get 3 mrad clicks at 100yards or about 14 MOA clicks at 100 meters. It only makes sense to measure distance in the units your scope is measuring adjustment. More clicks per distance with MOA because it is more fine. MOA clicks also stay consistent with MOA at range. It will always equal 1/4 MOA (or maybe 1/8 if your scope is set for such). Same as mils are always .1 mil adjustments; the values just multiply with distance for how much that "click" graduates to by the time it gets to target.

[@taylorharris5601]

@@skys-the-limit the difference between 100 meters and 100 yards is only 9 yards. And yes i know all of that, but the point is the math is far more difficult. No matter what you say there is a reason militaries all over the world use MRAD. MOA works perfectly fine if you are ok with crazy turret rotations at longer distances, longer numbers to work with, and longer communication times. The fact of the matter is MRAD is far more simplistic, mathematically, than the arbitrary imperial system of measurement. And, no MOA does not stay consistent from 100 to 200 to 300 yards and so on. That is a common misconception.

[@Logan-dk8of]

if youre scope looking between two scopes with one adjusting in 1/4 MOA and the other in 1/10th MRAD, for precision shooting the MOA scope would technically be superior because your adjustment sizes are smaller, so you could potentially sight it in better (although your gun is probably too inaccurate for it to matter).

[@The_Touring_Jedi]

To be honest 1/10mrad is quite fine adjustment and it is all about the shooter not the gun. You can have the best scope out there and the guy next to you with 200$ scope can still beat you.I have seen people expression as I was blowing tight groups at 250 yards with "budget scope and rifle" as they say and guys going mad with 3-5 thousands bucks eqiupment.My adjustment against any 1/10 Mrad scope is my breathing technic and concetration. As I said it's more about the shooter then the scopes.

[@AlexSwan]

MRAD basically is metric… call it 1 to 1000 relationship if you wish but it certainly is way more metric than imperial. Mixing MRAD with imperial measurements like you did won’t do you any favours. It will only worsen the fractals you have to deal with. Once you start using MRAD in combination with metric measurements the advantages become clear. Much easier calculate things on the fly dealing with metric. MRAD and MOA might do the same but they certainly aren’t the same.

[@albertattwood8746]

Thank you for this, I’ll stay with MOA and make sure scopes purchased correspond.

[@brianfeeney9493]

Hello , Does this mean that My Vortex Scope that is 0.2 mrad is 0.72 “ at 100 yds ??? Thanks for the help ! 🇺🇸

[@TubTsovPhajEj]

Thank you for the great infos. I’m trying to understand the difference between the two before making a purchase on my next scope. So I guess I will be sticking to MOA as I always do. Once again, thank you!

[@GrampainBespokeDecorating]

best video i have seen yet

[@andy74108]

Thank you so much. If anyone wants the tldw as long as the reticle and knobs match mil to mil or mrad to mrad it doesn't really matter. Just different calculations.

[@karlfriedrich7758]

At the end, he said MRAD has nothing to do with metric. That's not true, Mrad is a (SI) unit and is used directly with the metric system. There's not much point using a Milliradian scope and ranging with yards and calculating drop in inches because yes, then it still seems imprecise. However, if you use metric for those measurements you see that 1 mil adjustment is 1cm at 100 metres. 2cm at 200m, 3cm at 300m and and so on. That's really easy and precise to quickly figure out holdover or clicks. If you know your bullet drops 10cm at 200 metres, you'd simply dial in 0.5 mil adjustment (5 clicks of 0.1mil) to get zero, since 1 MRad would be 20cm to at 200m you simply halve it. Easiest way to do it in the field to calculate your exact mil adjustment with complicated distances and ranges (if you already know your bullet drop at ranges), is drop the last digit from the range in metres and divide your drop in centimetres by that distance. E.g 950cm drop at 900m becomes 950cm ÷ 90 which is 10.5, therefore 10.5 mils of adjustment are needed (105 clicks at 0.1mrad a click). 458 cm of drop at 700 metres? 458 ÷ 70 = 6.54 mils adjustment (65 clicks) 1341 cm drop at 1000m? 1341 ÷ 1000 = 13.4 mrad (134 clicks) So on and so forth, with whatever distances you want, that formula holds true as long as you use centimeters for drop and metres for range. Of course if you don't have a dope sheet and are just going off previous hits, you just dial in the appropriate mils of drop and drift.

[@Bryan1483]

This is pure and simple. I like it.

[@willmoua1]

The real question is- why do some scope manufacturers insist on using a mil reticle & moa knobs and vice versa?

[@terrycapehart6303]

Now I was getting into this video and it cut short, oh well, have a blessed day sir anyway.

[@Llee00]

Very easy to understand, well done

[@donjohnson8627]

Are people REALLY not able to understand/work this kind of very basic and COMMON SENSE stuff out for themselves? Maybe so...I took a college class (once I had retired and just wanted to learn and to know stuff for my own edification since I already had a BS degree) and had to sit through classes where we were subjected to what was basically how to measure things with a ruler and how to add and subtract fractions and decimals! THIS WAS a class at AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL!!! When I asked the prof why we had to waste time wading through all this stuff that most people learned in grade school, he told me that MANY, MANY people that are high school grads and even current college level students couldn't do a lot of this stuff! AMAZING, when one considers that any and all of this stuff is part of daily life. Amazing huh?

[@rocknraptor3195]

No not really. Probably 90% of people can not read a tape measure or ruler correctly! Kinda funny & sad. Dad thought me when I was 6.

[@patu5798]

Great explanation. But why do you have a sidearm on for a class room lesson ?

[@brokenpencil57]

Why not? He also chose to have top shirt button open. What freedom means in a free country. Stop reading so much in just having this. I get your uncomfortable but don't put this on him. Maybe you're not in a country with actual freedom?

[@patu5798]

@@brokenpencil57 in my country private citizens can own and import machine guns unlike the US where you can’t import the latest and greatest for transferables… I don’t feel the need to carry a side arm. Maybe it’s you who isn’t living in a free country ?

[@TigerHoover]

I take it this whole course isn't freely available on KZbin is it?

[@ronaldduke6898]

thank you for a very clear explanation.

[@fuge74]

radians and MOA (or rather divisions of pi) are more of trigonometry thing. as a radian is standard divizion by the radius and radial circumference and a pi-angle is derived by the circumference and diameter. radians are often defined in terms of pi. use of mili-radians only relates to their base ten divisibility in simplifying calculations for more complex trajectories when used in compound with metric measurements such as with artillery which has an extreme arch and angled fire.

[@The_Touring_Jedi]

Correct, so in a simple words investing thousands in a scope for a range shooting to 800 yards is just waisting your money. I know this as a former artillery man. Investing in an average tactical scope shown in the video is more painless to your pocket, only if you know how to use it. Corrections on a usual range out there are overkill cause once done, it cost a money(bullets) to do reset again to a usual 100 yards targets.I like my "budget" Howa 1500 it makes other guys mad when they see what good shooter with average scope can do. Corrections are done trough mil dots on scope and not trough knobs which are set on default.👍

[@3CODKing]

from the long range (competition style) shooting videos i have seen its usually people are only ever adjusting the elevation turrets not the windage. im sure the same application applies to hunting aside from moving the elevation turret since being quiet is a necessity in hunting.@@The_Touring_Jedi

[@z06ix]

Good video, Im trying to figure out ---what is the moa at 8x, 10x, 12x, 15x, etc, etc, zoom at 100 yards given that at 6x zoom it is 1.50 moa? Im trying to figure out what the best reticle is? The dot at 100 yards at 6x is 1.50 moa.... This is a Second Focal Plane. Is there a formula? Thanks....

[@jokiejokes]

love it works great. just the right size

[@guestandsons]

Great video. Thanks for posting this.

[@xiong2moua]

Loved this video. Awesome explanation. Hit me in the heart.

[@victorlamothe6732]

Got a old weaver scope on a game after 308 horizontal a thin line vertical thick line just ends after it crosses the horizontal line should I target at the tip of this line like iron sites?

[@jimjensen1096]

That was some useful info. Basic and precise, a good jumping off point. Thank you.

[@andrewpoloni4197]

I'm kind of disappointed he neglected to mention that MRAD number is really 2 * PI * 1000. This is really all geometry at the end of the day.

[@Okidata29]

I thought so.. but his numbers are off then. it should be 6283.1 not 6283.4 even rounding should shouldn't give you four. To be fair though it's about .0048% off so their may be some reason

[@andrewpoloni4197]

@@Okidata29 Yeah, that's why I'm disappointed they just don't start with the geometry. It's good to see where all these numbers are *really* coming from.

[@johnsellers2999]

I just be so stupid cause I still don't quite get what he said or what you couple of guys are talking about. But I am going to keep trying to understand. I'm 60 yrs old and still want to take some math classes. I always wanted to be good at math but have been only a basic learner,by choice I guess because I never really put the time in. I should have studied more as a youth. Good comments and video though. It's just me I guess. Don't want to believe you can't teach an old dog new tricks

[@dilligafmofoker]

Isn’t this trigonometry? Not geometry.

[@bryanst.martin7134]

@@dilligafmofoker I would lean towards biplanar Triangulation. But that's just Ballistics.

[@beauwestcott2194]

If I could give this heat packing Santa two thumbs up I would 👍🏻👍🏻

[@chrismckenna482]

A very good teacher

[@eox555]

Yeah but , in a practical sense, knowing that 0.1 mil =1cm @100m and 1moa= 1" @100y shows Milliradian DOES work evenly with the metric system even if it's not based on metric system same as moa works better if you are used to think in inches and feet.

[@airsoftphysik4342]

it also works flawlessly in imperial, but only when you stay in the exact same measurement unit 1 mil = 1 yard @ 1000 yards the big plus of metric is that just like Mil it also is base 10, so doing conversions using these 2 systems is alot faster than anything else with MOA you still need to know the rough conversions between all the units, and know that at larger ranges you get a error that isnt there with mil.

[@DFOOSKING]

You aren't using imperial or metric if your using the system properly. It's not easier or harder. Its irrelevant. You aren't going to miss a target and then think how many inches left/down you are. Your .5 Mils low or 1.75 MOA low. That's it. Done. Do the inverse. Come .5 Mils or 1.75 MOA up. Inches has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the course of a solution. If your busy sweating how many inches are in a Mil or MOA at a given range....your bench racing for the sake of bench racing. Your path to a solution does not require that math at all. The further shove the point home....the system works without even knowing how far away the target is. Pretty hard to backtrack that stupid math when you dont even know the distance it is away. But thankfully if I'm 1 mil low at 1 inch or 1 kilometer away....its just 1 mil up. Done. Metric or Imperial is irrelevant.

[@garretgang8349]

Radians are an SI unit of measurement. Milliradians are derived from Radians, hence Milliradians are an SI unit of measurement (Also known as metric). MOA is derived from degrees which are an extremely ancient unit of measurement. And is the official unit of measurement for angles under the Imperial Measurement System.

[@chrisbanbury]

@@garretgang8349 Radians are only SI because that is what SI uses. A true metric angular system would divide the circle into 10 or 1000 units rather than 2*pi*1000 units. The same goes for metric time which uses 60s/60m/24hr etc.

[@nsboost]

More like 0.1mil is 0.9cm.. 10% off being “even” 😝

[@davideustache4119]

You kinda said MRAD was preferred for distance between 300/1000 meters. .300 Weatherby mag effective range 1100 yds/meters. Which would be your choice for Long distance Elk?

[@ForceMultiplier]

This guy is a legend...and no idea who he is.

[@JJGuccione]

Excellent explanation Sir - Thanks.

[@ianloughney9570]

This is a very good tutorial, and a lot of good info, but whoever told you that Mils are not metric was simply flat out wrong. Radians (and by extension milliradians) simply are the formal metric unit of angle. They're what's called a derived unit, and don't have a meaningful direct relationship to meters, but they are absolutely an SI unit.

[@jasonparker5746]

I prefer Mils because I am not sure how to estimate range with MOA’s using an MOA reticle. It’s pretty simple with MILS. One method: Height of target in yards x 1000/height in Mils= estimated range to target in yards

[@thewiseman6866]

Extremely clear and easy to understand explanation. Thank you. Too bad I failed every math class I ever had to take. Great info

[@DLN-ix6vf]

In life only a very small percentage of people should be teachers ; this guy is one !

[@playerguy2]

I believe the idea stems from 1MRAD being @ 1 kilometer being exactly 1 meter (unless rounded off) .. or 0.1y at 100y MOA feels less direct

[@richardofoz2167]

Actually, it refers to a milli-radian being exactly 1/1000 of a radian, so that if your 6 inch target covers 1 mil in your scope, the range is 6,000 inches, or 500 feet. Because 1 km is also 1000 metres, it also works as you've described, but it works with ANY measurement unit, provided you use the same unit for both target and range.

[@clenilma100]

the combination couldn't have been better. Shooting the zinc plated Daisy Precision MAX BB's ...

[@darren5956]

Love the background music.

[@medinahomar]

The point here is the best Scope to Hunting is first focal plane FFP with MiliRadiales Metric system. 100 % easy in the field. MOA is History

[@Buschwick]

MRAD scale was designed with ranging in mind. That's why it's such a weird number for the angular divisions.

[@xenomorphelv4265]

0.1 mil variation on your mil scope knob correspond to a 1cm drift @100m. milliradian system is on pair with the metric system.

[@syedirfanahmad9626]

Very nicely explained 👍

[@christoFlair777]

Excellent information!! Especially for a rookie like me🤓

[@mathieu9789]

Great video. Thank you Sir.

[@barrygrant2907]

MOA =course adjustment, MRAD=fine adjustment. Got it. Best explanation yet.

[@nsboost]

Your Backwards lol

[@anthonykaiser974]

1/4 MOA is 0.25" at 100 yards, whereas the 1/10 mil is 0.36"

[@anomalyp8584]

The only reason they still make the mil reticle/MOA turret, I thought, was that the MOA adjustments are finer but the mils are easier to read.

[@georgeholt8929]

Of course and when you use one of those bench rest scopes that have turret adjustments of 10 clicks per inch @ 100 yards, you can have more wiggle room when shooting at targets further or closer.

[@badgerm3837]

Actually, Radian is derived from the metric system and is therefore considered part of the "SI" system (metric). MRAD corresponds very closely to distances measured in metres (meters) and not so much yards.

[@hunterx2210]

I think I still need to go to academy for this

[@gaildimick1831]

Thanks a bunch, you got my vote

[@exothermal.sprocket]

The reason we round the exact number to something mentally meaningful, is because there's dozens of factors related to shooting the bullet that affect accuracy before any nuance of angular measurement can start to be quantified. It's really not humanly possible to demonstrate the difference until extreme long range, and all the other accuracy factors merely magnify at exponential rates anyway.

[@Mustafa-dm5co]

this man is just awesome

[@michaelw.urbansr.8617]

Very simple and easy to understand way of looking at it all! LOL I have never used a scope in my life and always just used irons! To this point i have never missed a target out to 400yards roughly!I'm talking about a 10 12 inch circle target and have never missed one completely after the 1st few shots from any rifle! But i am planning to buy a scope as things are getting thick and i want ot rid myself of targets befor they ever get close!

[@gamerdaddy8597]

Great instruction. 👏

[@tsafa]

The moa problem is with the dial itself and the numbers on it. moa scope is it going to get very confusing after a full Revolution. At 1200 yards I need 14 mils elevation. That an easy go go all the way and stop at 4 after the zero. With moa, I need 47. What am I supose to do after 24? Let me do something some math... 47-25 ... got it all the way around to the next 23. Mils all the way

[@rv-14ctrl]

I know this is an old video.... no it is not just a coincidence that there is a 1//1000 relationship and yes MRad or rather radians are the metric term used for angular measurements... one complete "turn" as you on a normal compass would call 360 degrees is in the metric system 2*Pi radians.

[@androoloo1697]

when you listen to the video with earbuds, the left side is him talking and the right is the music. INSANE!!!

[@skarn81]

There's music?

[@androoloo1697]

@@skarn81 yes maybe turn the volume up or im going insane

[@albertdebolt1122]

chose the correct setting on the speaker or headset

[@czaczaja]

It is indeed 100x easier to operate in base 10 than degrees and inches. It has been for hundreds of years