MRAD vs MOA: Which Do You Prefer for Hunting? Considering Zeiss Conquest V6 Purchase

Hey everyone,

I've been diving deep into the world of hunting optics, and I'm currently at a crossroads. I wanted to get your thoughts on the whole MRAD vs MOA debate. Which system do you prefer for hunting, and why? Do you find one easier to use or more precise than the other?

I'm particularly interested because I'm looking at buying a Zeiss Conquest V6 scope. It looks like an excellent piece of equipment, but it's only offered in MOA. I've noticed that many hunters start with MOA and then transition to MRAD as they gain more experience.

Has anyone here made that switch? If so, what prompted you to move from MOA to MRAD? Any advice for someone considering the Zeiss Conquest V6 but also thinking about the future possibility of switching to MRAD?

Meters or yards?
Providing your range finder can do either then it's just a matter of changing the units on your ballistic app.
I guess the only change which may take getting use to is wind calls. Mph to kph. I guess you could carry a cheat sheet. I'm just a hunter so if it's too windy I get closer or don't take the shot.
If the reticle on that scope suits you just stick to moa. The target won't know the difference

MOA

Use what the people youn hunt with use, same as yards vs meters.

If you hunt by yourself, use the one that makes sense to you. I went mil first and have gone to moa because that's what my mates use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7mmsaum

MOA

---

Grow up Andrew!

Sent from my SM-A556E using Tapatalk

Just pick one and run with it.
For hunting it doesn't matter.
Don't get caught up with mils is metric and moa is imperial cause that's bullshit.

If that's the scope you want then just buy it.
I run both mil and moa scopes, your ballistic calculator gives

both mil and moa out puts for meter or yard inputs.

MOA for years and to old and grumpy to change I dial so laser dial and shoot

mils..... was moa

And I am probably older and grumpier than deye223

If shooting nra targets, get moa.
If shooting tiny targets at long distances and need the finest adjustments , get 1/4 or even 1/8th moa scope depending on the game
You play.
Anything else mrad or moa works about the same

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lau lau

Just pick one and run with it.
For hunting it doesn't matter.
Don't get caught up with mils is metric and moa is imperial cause that's bullshit.

If that's the scope you want then just buy it.
I run both mil and moa scopes, your ballistic calculator gives

both mil and moa out puts for meter or yard inputs.

---

This.

Both are units of angular measurement (think a quarter of a clock face).

Best check what your scope actually dials out to via tall target. Some scopes won't even give a consistent click value!

Another thing to consider is your scope being made in increments of 1/4, half or 1 MOA per click. Almost all scopes in Mil are 0.1 although S&B made 0.05 mil clicks for a while.

One last thing, there is 'shooters MOA' (1 inch per 100 yards, not true MOA!), artillery Mils, NATO Mils, Warsaw Pact Mils...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Friwi

If shooting nra targets, get moa.
If shooting tiny targets at long distances and need the finest adjustments , get 1/4 or even 1/8th moa scope depending on the game
You play.
Anything else mrad or moa works about the same

---

Unless F-Class, ammunition/rifle/shooter dispersion will mean your 1/8 MOA click gets lost in the 'noise' of the system.

Most reliable method is holding off via appropriately segmented reticle (not a duplex)...!

most common moa scopes are 1/4 moa adjustment which is finer than the most common mrad scope adjustments (which are 1/10 MRAD afaik?

both are measures of angle and have nothing to do with yards meters or any other appropriate (or inappropriate) measure of length.

Greetings,
I really fail to understand why anybody is still working in the obsolete units almost 50 years after NZ changed to metric. Milliradians are not a metric unit exclusively but work better in base 10 measuring systems. That said I still weigh powder in grains for simplicity and my chronograph still reads in fps due to me being too lazy to change it. but all other measuring is in metric. Mils are a smaller unit than milliradians (mrad) due to use by the military but I believe that Leupold scopes at least are calibrated in mrad. Working as a draughtsman I worked in metric from the early 1970's so made the change to metric earlier than some. Metres and mrad for me.
Regards Grandpamac.

Attachment 253119

Moa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caberslash

Attachment 253119

---

Greetings,
Bryan has got mil mixed up with mrad. This is common in the US. 1 mil is 98mm at 100 metres where 1 mrad is 100mm. Most scopes should be in mrad rather than mil but I don't know that to be true. Mil is used in the military for gun laying where for convenience there needs to be an even number of units in a full circle.
GPM.

No mils in NZ but maybe the odd Moa still kicking around

I have a Z5 scope, I have it zeroed at 100 meters, the next dot (green) is 200 meters, the next dot (yellow) 300 meters and finally last dot (red) 400 meters.

Range finder is set in meters. So out hunting range animal, twiddle turret until desired dot or if say 250 meters then green dot and approximately half way to yellow and bang (lights out).

The base ten system is epic for a couple of things - quick drop and wind brackets. Have a google and see what you find. I was leaving a heap of capability and ease of use on the table with MOA.

MRAD can still be used with yards, in fact that’s how I prefer to use it.

As a quick example, with ‘quick drop’ I know my drops instantly out to 600yds for my 6.5cm.

200 = .5mil
300 = 1.2
400 = 2.2
500 = 3.2
600 = 4.2

467 = 2.8

It’s just minus 2 and plus 2

Mil all the way.
It is true that they are both angular measurements so both do the same thing, for the average hunter it doesn't matter at all as you'll just be using a LRF to range the target, dial your scope and shoot.

Mils has a few advantages over MOA though that won me over.
-The smaller numbers (Eg: 4.5mil vs 15.75 MOA) make dope charts less cluttered and quicker/easier to read.
-Turrets are often quicker/easier to read with the less numbers.
-Reticles with hold marks tend to make more sense (Eg the large hold marks are always 1Mil (with .5 or .2mil in between) where as MOA can be either 4, 2 or 1 for the main hashes and you need to remember what easy reticle uses).
-Quick drop forumlas (see Hunter Nicks post above) work much better with Mils than MOA.
-You can use the quick wind call "Gun Number" (you'll need to google it) much better with Mils than MOA.

If you want to count up to 10 then mil. it works better for my brain as I don't need to do the math when dialing the scope.

I.e., 2.8 mil is -2 clicks from 3.0 mil when dialing the elevation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beetroot

Mil all the way.
It is true that they are both angular measurements so both do the same thing, for the average hunter it doesn't matter at all as you'll just be using a LRF to range the target, dial your scope and shoot.

Mils has a few advantages over MOA though that won me over.
-The smaller numbers (Eg: 4.5mil vs 15.75 MOA) make dope charts less cluttered and quicker/easier to read.
-Turrets are often quicker/easier to read with the less numbers.
-Reticles with hold marks tend to make more sense (Eg the large hold marks are always 1Mil (with .5 or .2mil in between) where as MOA can be either 4, 2 or 1 for the main hashes and you need to remember what easy reticle uses).
-Quick drop forumlas (see Hunter Nicks post above) work much better with Mils than MOA.
-You can use the quick wind call "Gun Number" (you'll need to google it) much better with Mils than MOA.

---

So you struggle to count over 10! I love it :P ;)

Greetings again,
The US was introduced to the mil for artillery in WW1. They had turned up late and without much kit so they had to use mainly French guns. These were in a number of units including the mil of which there were 6,400 in a circle. There are 6,283.15 milliradians in a circle. After the war the US Artillery adopted the mil of 6,400 to the circle but the Infantry adopted a mil of 6,280 to the circle. You can trust the US to make things that should be simple more complicated. Hatcher wrote in his notebook that the infantry mil was scrapped around WW2 likely in the late 1940's. I note Hatcher referred to the milliradian as a mil as well so the confusion over the difference in the US is not new.
GPM.

In rifle shooting common usage MRAD and Mil are interchangeable terms in any practical sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gibo

So you struggle to count over 10! I love it :P ;)

---

I can count just fine, smaller numbers are easier to interpret quickly.

I had a Leupold with an Impact 29 reticle (in MOA) and the reticle was a complete nightmare. The combination of too many dots in the tree and them all being 2moa spacing meant using the tree was extremely difficult.
Never had that problem with any Mil tree reticle.

The only MOA scope I still use is a LPVO that I don't use very frequently, and I always forget if the hash marks are 4moa or 2moa hashes.
If it were Mil I wouldn't need to remember as almost without exception Mil reticles always use 1Mil hashes and then clearly show when it's different.

Most wind holds end up being less than 1 mil which is way harder to fuck up and hold on the wrong mark than 3.5 moa

MIL (MRAD) for me.
I need a drop chart, app or marks on the turret for MOA and also can't figure a quick wind hold method with MOA.
MRAD I can quickly figure drop and windhold in my head using the simple Speed drop and gun number values.
I. E. My 6.5prc 147eldm load is elevation speed drop factor is 1.9 & wind factor of 0.1mil per 10kph of wind per 100meters.
450m target, 10kph L-R wind is 2.6mil up (450m =4.5-1.9 =2.6) and 0.45mil left hold.
After 700m other adjustments are needed but I won't shoot animals that far and steel targets can't walk off...

I do use a vx-6hd in moa but I have a custom dial turret and use my ballistic app for reticle windhold. My old vortex viper ffp was alot faster for getting shots away when hunting without needing the app on the hill for the long shots.

as grandpamac explains there are several variants close to the mRad so check that your scope is actually millRad ie 1cm per 100m.

There is a similar problem with Imperial systems, that 1 MOA is not exactly 1 inch per 100 yd and the discrepancy is more than for cm/100m .

The third point to check is whether your rifle range is 100m or 100 yd - it could be either or often “more or less” so you specially need a range finder if testing the click value testing of your scope or doing “tall target” exercises.

Fourthly, if using or testing mildots and moa hashes on your reticle you need to check the units claimed by the manufacturer and test them on a known sized mark at a range findered distance. Personally, I find graduated reticles a waste of space unless the scope is first focal plane but that’s another argument …

Within quality mrad scopes, the only example that I'm aware of using a different size of mrad click is some march scopes many years ago. Everything else uses the same standard.

Both but I like mrad better. Simple numbers. We grow up on metric makes sense. Moa is also easy .

Both are simple I can't see the problem using either I have one of each.

Sent from my CPH2531 using Tapatalk

If you run lots get them all as close to the same as possible, if you have one take your pick. Mil is apparently easier maths, but once your table is set up you work off that and the way the scope's dials are configured has more effect on the useability I find. If you are hunting you do need to get a hunting compatible reticle with a FFP scope is the only thing I find with them. Especially with smaller targets...

I find metric / Mil easier eg smaller numbers to remember when dialing, for example a 750m shot 8.1mil is easier than 27.75moa and wind holds 1.3mil than 4.3moa then cut it back to 4.25moa because it’s in 1/4 moa clicks. Moa is ok if you got plenty of time and a single animal to contend with. Now am wishing all my scope were mil.

Greetings All,
I have been using a couple of mildot scopes for target shooting for some years. Initially this was for NZDA round and deer target shoots and more recently for F-class at 300 yards (275 metres). They are Bushnell fixed 10 power with a mildot reticle and exposed turrets in MoA. A bastard mix I know but they work well for me. With the deer targets the chest fits nicely bracketed with the dots which would give me an advantage if I shot better. The F-class target is a black blob 600mm in dia which fits nicely inside the inner ring of dots so this is how I aim. Once again considering my level of skill this works pretty well for me. There is a white spot 2 MoA above the target centre but I can barely see it. The scopes are fixed power so the second focal plane matters not at all. I think I bought the scopes for around $500.00 each and a third one was given to me.
This works as the rifle is only shot over that one range and a second rifle is set up for 600 yards. Any serious hunting is likely a lost cause for me now but just in case and for possible 1,000 yard target shooting a Sendero 7mm SAUM that I bought 20 years ago was wakened from its slumber in the safe and fitted with a Bushnell 6-24 scope which is FFP with mrad clicks and a mil based reticle. We will se how it goes.
Regards Grandpamac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LBD

mils..... was moa

And I am probably older and grumpier than deye223

---

Well I have 3 moa scopes but all the rest are IPHY