MRAD To MOA

[scope eye]

Is there a simple way to convert either way.

Dean

[Linebredrebel]

This helped me..........http://www.mil-dot.com/media/1027/the_derivation_of_the_range_estimation_equations.p df

[LoneWolf]

I use the strelok+ app it converts for you will even spit out a table for your adjustments. Very functional with a good optic.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2

[scope eye]

Thanks but my cell phone has a rotary dial.

Spanky

If I was 1 inch low @ 100 yards, how many MRADs would I have to go up.

[thomae]

The short answer is sort of.

Let me elaborate: There are actually several "approximations" of the angular distance of a milliradian that are used in scopes, and most manufacturers don't say what they actually use. Mathmatically, 1 radian is equal to 3437.74677078 arcminute, but sometimes manufacturers approximate that to 3000, or 3400, or even 3600 or something else. So to get a precise conversion is rather difficult.

However, for an "approximate" conversion, try this:
If you have a scope that has a Milrad reticle, and your adjustments are 1/4MOA per click, than it will take approximately 14 clicks to come up 1 milliradian.

So, as an easy approximation: 3.5 MOA ~1 milliradian (It's actually 1.018 milliradians) Personally, .018 milliradians is within my error range, so this works for me. YMMV.

Going the other way, 3 tenths of a milliradian ~ 1.03 minutes of arc, so if you have a milrad scope and want to move your poi a certain number of Minutes of arc away, think of each click (.1milliradians) as 1/3 minute of angle.

So to sum it up, here's the "close enough for government work" solution:
If your turrets are 1/4 MOA per click, than 14 clicks should move your POI approximately 1 milliradian.
If your turrets are 1/10 milliradian per click, than 3 clicks should move your POI approximately 1 minute of angle.

[thomae]

0.3

Thanks but my cell phone has a rotary dial.

Spanky

If I was 1 inch low @ 100 yards, how many MRADs would I have to go up.

[thomae]

Just went back and corrected some math errors in Post #4. Sorry.

[stangfish]

If your turrets are 1/10 milliradian per click, than 3 clicks should move your POI approximately 1 minute of angle.
This

[scope eye]

Does anyone have one of these, or know of someone who does.

Dean

[stangfish]

One of what? I have 3 mil mil scopes

[scope eye]

That answers my question, do you like them.

Dean

[stangfish]

To be honest, I wish I had stayed with MOA/MOA. I just don't have the time to relearn. Hopefully I will one day.

A mildot scope does you no good if you dont have mil turets. If you have MOA turrets you need a MOA based reticle...if you are going to range. I would add that a single power or FFP would make even better sense in that scenario. For paper; target dot or crosshairs.

[scope eye]

I think I will stick with MOA, for now anyways.

Dean

[LoneWolf]

I like it because it makes more sense to me. That's why I went with the MOA Scope.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

[J.Baker]

And this is exactly why I've always said the Mil-Dot/Milliradian system is utterly useless. Our brains don't automatically think "That person looks to be about 20 mil tall." If you need to have an app on your phone, a calculator, and/or a conversion table (aka Mil-Dot Master) to figure out how many clicks you need for the range of the target, the system is too complex and overly complicated to be practical.

The K.I.S.S. principle applies - stick with MOA!

[yobuck]

And this is exactly why I've always said the Mil-Dot/Milliradian system is utterly useless. Our brains don't automatically think "That person looks to be about 20 mil tall." If you need to have an app on your phone, a calculator, and/or a conversion table (aka Mil-Dot Master) to figure out how many clicks you need for the range of the target, the system is too complex and overly complicated to be practical.

The K.I.S.S. principle applies - stick with MOA!

im a firm believer in the kiss principle. i also believe scopes are an aiming device and rangfinders are a ranging device.
for hunting, ive grown to like mill dot type reticles as they allow for more precise hold over on follow up shots.
im very comfortable using minits or clicks for adding elevation as my mind can easily interchange that information.
how we arrive at getting the data to be entered, wether by a simple prepared chart or by an i phone or other device
is irrelevant to the scope issue in my opinion.

[seanhagerty]

I think from now on, I am going to stick to mil/mil and ffp scopes. All it took me was a single time using one to learn these things rock. I suppose I could use a MOA/MOA FFP also. Requirements are they have to be FFP and reticle and adjustments match.

[yobuck]

I think from now on, I am going to stick to mil/mil and ffp scopes. All it took me was a single time using one to learn these things rock. I suppose I could use a MOA/MOA FFP also. Requirements are they have to be FFP and reticle and adjustments match.


i hear these type comments on sites all the time. mind you opinions are what keeps the debate alive and well and im fine with all that.
but bottom line is they are simply opinions. same goes for the first focal plane versus the second focal plane situation.
theres a need to get from point a the zero, to point b the target. in most cases that requires moving the scope dials.
what rocks is hitting the target. what system you used to accomplished that isnt important. if one system appeals more than another
thats fine. but it dosent make it better other than for that individual.

[seanhagerty]

I agree with you. I shouldnt have said these were anything but m,y requirements.

[rotts4u]

I was firm on MOA turrets on all my scopes even though they had mil dot reticles. I was finally convinced to try mil mil and a FFP optics and WOW this is SO EASY. Forget all about inches and MOA at 100, 450 yards etc. Now I dont care anything about moa

If I am shooting on paper with a mil mil scope I simply measure (THROUGH the scope with the mil lines) the distance from the bullseye and then I turn the turrets. Boom I am in the black dot now.

Also using some easy forumlas I can also estimate range by measuring the target (estimated size of the target) through the scope and now that my reticle is in the FFP and a known size as measured with the reticle I can not calc range and therefore dope accordingly.

I "upgraded" all my MOA scopes to mil mil and ffp except one night force that is mil mil and sfp. I would personally never consider MOA again. I no longer have to worry about 1" =1 moa at 100 yards etc. I do everything through the scope and I dont care if its 1" or 5.5" at 278 yards the adjustments are right there in the reticle. Its SUPER easy