MRAD Vs MOA

[Cokeman]

I am looking at scopes and notice that some have the option of MRAD or MOA for the same scopes. Is one more popular than the other?

[gaijin]

Either format works.

MRAD is arguably "coarser" (there are 3.4377 MOA per mil), 1 MOA is roughly 1" @ 100 yds, 1 Mil is roughly 3.6" at 100 yds.

If you go with MRAD/MIL; for Gods sake get a scope with MIL adjustment, not MOA adjustments. Never understood why manufacturers would even produce a MIL scope/reticle with MOA adjust.

The people I shoot with use MIL/MIL system. If you have a spotter, both of you need to be using/speaking/familiar with the same system.
Hearing your spotter tell you- "come up 3 MOA" while you're using a MIL system/Mil adjust (or vice versa) is an exercise in frustration.

I use MIL Reticle with 1/10th MIL adjust on precision/distance guns.

[ST911]

I am looking at scopes and notice that some have the option of MRAD or MOA for the same scopes. Is one more popular than the other?

What kind of math do you like to do and how quickly can you do it?

[RKB Armory]

Choose whatever is cheaper. As you shoot more, you will probably develop a preference for one or the other. For someone new to the scope world, it really doesn't matter. I prefer Mils. because I used to be an artilleryman, and that is how we did it.

[Cokeman]

I’m looking at something like a Vortex Viper 1-6 and wondered if it would even be a factor either way.

[gaijin]

On a LPVO I’m not thinking it’s going to matter.
Doubtful you’ll be using DOPE/dialing come ups much.

[Failure2Stop]

I put this up on FB a while ago after something was making the rounds on the socials:

MILS versus MOA; What the f&@k does it matter?

Before dragging an unwilling reader into this word-soup, allow me to lay down some ground rules/points of commonality. If these do not apply or appeal to you, you will likely have a more entertaining and interesting time perusing kitten videos on youtube or telling kids to get off your lawn.
-The shooter is interested in hitting multiple targets at irregular and inconsistent distances between 100 and 1,600 yards/meters using a modern center-fire rifle with time as a significant factor in a positive result.
-The user agrees that a ballistic data computer or detailed ballistic data reference is going to be needed for real world conditions as detailed above.
-The user is employing (or is considering, interested in, or intending on) a reticle that is more complex than a simple "crosshair", with an angular reference of some kind present for the purpose of applying reticle "holds" rather than dialing elevation for each target range.
-If the reader is simply interested in shooting groups at known distances under generous time limits, very little of this is going to matter to you, and fine, simple reticles with fine adjustments are likely going to be advantageous for that application.

There was recently a really solid article published by a very knowledgeable individual on Mils/Milliradian ("Mils" henceforth) and MOA/Minute of Angle/Minute of Arc ("MOA" henceforth) from a shooter's perspective over at recoilweb. It did a good job of cutting through a bunch of internet minutia/myth about the two angular measurements most commonly used as a reference in shooting stuff; from measuring group size to explaining where a shot will land in relationship to the reticle at ranges past "point blank", and builds the foundation of the math behind the measurements. Before going further, I highly recommend reading the article penned by Ryan Cleckner if you have not already done so.
http://www.recoilweb.com/preview-moa-vs-mil-81625.html

As I skimmed the comments (it's a guilty pleasure), I realized that many readers/commenters did not have strong personal experience with the information as applied to a practical setting, or at least not outside of fairly simple application such as measuring group sizes or zeroing for a specific distance, and that there was a disconnect as to the "why" behind making a "choice" between the measurement types. That led to a whole host of contention and "us vs them" sides being taken, which seems to boil down to a simple distrust of the Metric system as a whole.

On that note, we might as well get to the subject:

A "Mil" is not a metric-based measuring unit. The user doesn't need to know what a meter is, how many milliliters are in a can of Heineken, or have to wear pointy dress shoes with slightly small suits. 1 Mil is, very simply, 1/1,000th of the distance from the observer and the point being observed. That distance can be measured in inches, yards, miles, meters, watermelons, beer cans, etc., & ad nauseam. The angle doesn't care what numbers are on your socket set or tape measure. The user doesn't have to care either; I only care about what enables me to make hits on targets quickly, consistently, and predictably.

The important bit about angular measurement and this decision is reticle reference, not measuring group sizes or getting a rifle zeroed. Take a minute and google "Tremor 3 reticle" images. At first sight many readers will recoil in horror, with the lingering thought of "IT'S TOO BUSY!!!" likely still in mind if they even bother to return to this article. This really is the crux of the matter. Every line, every dot, every number in that reticle is an important reference, but only if the user knows what those references are for. Don't worry, I'm not going to lecture about the reticle, I just want the reader to be able to reference the image as the reading goes on, as I'm going to bring you back to it to help you experience the application because I don't have the ability to give you good graphical references at this point in time.

Mils, and the incremental breakdown of the Mil in current reticles (see more below), are a "just right" angular measurement for small arms employment with targets that are about medium mammal size, inside the visual limits of the planet earth, with a magnification of 4x or more. It's the "Baby Bear" of reticle reference; not too fine and not too course as popularly presented in the leading reticle designs (Tremor 3 leading the pack at present in my opinion for my applications).

What makes a Mil reference "just right"? At around 5x and above a whole Mil is easy to see, and once a user get up to 10+ magnification that Mil/Mil sized object is positively huge. For a visual reference, an average male index finger is 30 Mils wide when viewed at arms length, pointed upward. That perceived size is what 3 Mils will look like at 10x magnification: huge. Most higher magnification optics will feature reticles with those Mil references broken down to 1/2 Mil, 1/4 Mil, or 1/5 (0.2) Mil increments, which can be readily discerned and applied in the low to higher magnification ranges. At over 8x, I find 0.2 Mil increments to be my favorite (see that Tremor 3 reticle referenced), allowing the user to hold and measure with 0.05 Mil accuracy (easier at higher magnification) with a little effort at high magnification in a stable position, and to 0.2 Mil precision in a rapid/hasty/low magnification situation; and really it's the incremental breakdown and magnification relationship that make the reticles work. Only having full Mil value references would be too course past about 350 yards/meters if the user is going to use a reticle hold to compensate for drop on a target that is anything less than extremely generous, especially if the range is not precisely known, and that's before even thinking about wind effect.

Why doesn't a MOA reference do the same? Technically, there is no difference at all with regard to the angular division, one could exactly replicate a Mil reticle but label it in MOA, which would result in a major division of 3.4377 MOA, with 0.68754 MOA increments, which wouldn't lend well to fast mental math with which to establish a target hold. Instead, those reticles tend to be broken down into 5 or 10 MOA major divisions, with 1 or 2 MOA increments, which tend to either crowd the reticle on target (especially with a busy/dark background), or require really high magnification for the shooter to easily discern the needed hold points, which reduces the utility of the reticle at lower magnification or forces the user to go with a second focal plane optic (not that 2FP optics don't have their place).

There is also a bit of mental simplicity with Mil holds; basically it's going to be a simple, "single digit number, point, single digit number", such as "0.7", "1.7", "5.4", or "9.5". Those exact same holds in MOA would be "2.4", "5.8", "18.6", and "32.7". Those numbers happen to be the holds for my 7.62 rifle at 200 meters, 300 meters, 575 meters, and 780 meters, respectively. It's a bit of a minor/individual user aspect, but when I'm cycling through targets and trying to remember 4 or 5 target holds while constantly mentally updating my wind hold at the relevant distances, the lower Mil numbers are easier to remember, easier to find quickly on the descending stadia, and easier to mentally alter/update without dumping the other holds I'm trying to remember. With Mil holds, I'm under 10 Mils of elevation out to 800 meters/875 yards (pretty much the limit of effective use for a .308 Win. anyway) which means that the vast majority of my shooting is going to be inside the sweet spot of easy numbers.

But what about all that stupid math of turning drop in inches to Mils? Isn't it easier to just eat the 0.047" cumulative error with MOA? Easy: there is no spoon. Just tell your ballistic calculator to output the drop in Mils. Provided that the adjustments of your scope are true and the reticle subtensions (measurements of the reticle features) are correct, whether you dial or hold, there will be no difference between the two. The simple fact of the matter is that success on targets relevant to this type of shooting require accurate range determination and detailed ballistic reference regardless of what spacing your reticle uses. In the event that the user is forced to apply a "best guess", a "Baby Bear" reticle at appropriate magnification for the conditions will enable the shooter to quickly measure the seen miss and apply or record the correction needed to achieve a hit.

A 0.2 Mil reference also builds in a little bit of leeway. The vast majority of rifles and ammunition combinations applicable to this type of shooting will reliably place rounds within a circle with a radius of 0.2 Mils (0.4 Mil diameter = 1.4 MOA) out to trans-sonic range, which is a fast indicator to the shooter if the target is a marginal target (smaller than 0.4 mils wide/tall) and therefore a bit more focus/refinement may be warranted than needed for a wide-open 1.5 Mil target. I really don't care very much about the actual physical dimensions of the target (unless I'm using the known dimensions for reticle-relationship distance estimation), I care about how big my group will be on that target, which further prevents me from chasing erroneous corrections that are actually landing within my estimated impact cone. This allows me to pretty easily accept my wobble zone; if my aiming point is staying inside 0.2 Mils of the target edges I am running my trigger pressure application process. If not, the process pauses until the aiming reference point is back where it belongs inside the target edge margin. If I'm not feeling confident in my range and/or wind, I can open that "pause point" up with a quick visual reference as well without getting overly constrictive on the "gas pedal" if you will. Now, there is nothing inherent to Mils that makes it superior to MOA for these points, but reticle design and ease of visual reference absolutely make the difference, and the 0.2 Mil indicators do it well when balanced favorably against magnification.

So the "F" what?
The point is that while the differences between Mils and MOA are basically moot, the way that a well-designed reticle displays the information is directly relevant to the shooter's ability to reference and process the information pertinent to establishing a point of aim during each solution of a complex problem. Every reticle that I am aware of that is not a BDC that does this well is Mil-based. It matters not if you prefer Imperial measurements, you're not going to be standing next to the target with a yard-stick, so whatever is in the reticle is going to become the measurement method applied.

[mack7.62]

Jack nailed it, Mil math is easier.

[markm]

When you pick Mil and shoot it all the time with your pal, and another buddy shows up with a new MOA scope that he thinks is Milradian, it's quite the goat rope.

When he dials (what he thinks to be) 3.5 mils on his MOA scope, you'd spot a lot of very low impacts.

[titsonritz]

I put this up on FB a while ago after something was making the rounds on the socials:

<snip>

I hope you don't mind, I'm going to share this, will include credit to you.