MRAD vs MOA

[thump_rrr]

Off topic but Id love to hear your opinion on the TT vs the S&B.

Both have great glass and perform well in low light.
After using a scope like the Schmidt & Bender with the the MTC (More Tactile Clicks) turrets, where every full mil is more of a clunk than a click, it’s hard to use anything else.
The Tangent turrets probably have the best feel and are the easiest to adjust with its tool less zero.

The reticle in the S&B is like an axe compared to the Tangent which is more like a scalpel.

Shooting the Tangent this weekend for the first time at any meaningful distance was great.
The eye box is pretty forgiving at maximum magnification. I didn’t have to think about the scope.
For me when I don’t notice a scope that’s when I know it’s good.

EDIT: One more plus for the Tangent Theta is that it doesn’t have any tunneling at any magnification.
The Schmidt & Bender does show tunneling between 5-7x magnification.
I never spend any time down there to care to be honest.

 

[Varminterror]

The Tangent Theta has 50moa per revolution.

Yours is a 1/4moa / click scope.

That’s pretty common - when we have 1/4moa vs. 0.1mil per click, the total elevation per turn of the turret is about the same. Why wouldn’t it be, right?

It’s the 1/8moa / click optics we were discussing above. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one with more than 80 clicks, 10moa per rev.

 

[thump_rrr]

Yours is a 1/4moa / click scope.

That’s pretty common - when we have 1/4moa vs. 0.1mil per click, the total elevation per turn of the turret is about the same. Why wouldn’t it be, right?

It’s the 1/8moa / click optics we were discussing above. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one with more than 80 clicks, 10moa per rev.

The S&B is 15moa per turn.
The Kahles appears to be 20moa per turn with 1/8 moa turrets

 

[Varminterror]

The S&B is 15moa per turn.
The Kahles appears to be 20moa per turn with 1/8 moa turrets

Pretty big difference from the common minimum 10mils/34moa or comparative upper end 15mils/52moa of the coarser adjustment models. Tools for tasks, the refined 1/8MOA and .05mil per click scopes tend to not have much adjustment capacity overall, and don't have as much capacity per rev - they're just not built to do the same jobs.

 

[thump_rrr]

Pretty big difference from the common minimum 10mils/34moa or comparative upper end 15mils/52moa of the coarser adjustment models. Tools for tasks, the refined 1/8MOA and .05mil per click scopes tend to not have much adjustment capacity overall, and don't have as much capacity per rev - they're just not built to do the same jobs.

The Schmidt & Bender has 0.25cm per click.

 

[Varminterror]

The Schmidt & Bender has 0.25cm per click.

Ok…? I’m not sure the pertinence here other than just stating scope specs.

.25cm/100m is just another way of saying 0.025mrad (1/4 of 0.1mrad). Yes, this is smaller than 1/8moa and smaller than 1/8 IPHY: 1/8moa is .131” per click at 100yrds, 1/8 IPHY is .125”, and .25cm/100m is .09” at 100yrds.

But the MT turret allows only 14 mils, with only 3.5 mils per turn, whereas their conventional 0.1mrad turrets (1cm/100m) offer 21, 27, 30.5, or 35 mils with 12-16mils per turn. Again… as stated a couple pages ago, the finer the adjustments, the less travel per turn, and the less total elevation available. It’s really pretty simple.

 

[thump_rrr]

Ok…? I’m not sure the pertinence here other than just stating scope specs.

.25cm/100m is just another way of saying 0.025mrad (1/4 of 0.1mrad). Yes, this is smaller than 1/8moa and smaller than 1/8 IPHY: 1/8moa is .131” per click at 100yrds, 1/8 IPHY is .125”, and .25cm/100m is .09” at 100yrds.

But the MT turret allows only 14 mils, with only 3.5 mils per turn, whereas their conventional 0.1mrad turrets (1cm/100m) offer 21, 27, 30.5, or 35 mils with 12-16mils per turn. Again… as stated a couple pages ago, the finer the adjustments, the less travel per turn, and the less total elevation available. It’s really pretty simple.

It was to counter the argument that scopes with MIL adjustments are more coarse than scopes with MOA adjustments. .36" vs ,25".

I understand that there are more revolutions required and less total elevation but the discipline that requires multiple adjustments within a single stage is quite different from something like benchrest where you are at a pre-determined distance trying to split hairs. The right tool for the job.

 

[Varminterror]

It was to counter the argument that scopes with MIL adjustments are more coarse than scopes with MOA adjustments.

I obviously have missed where anyone claimed mrad adjustments are inherently more coarse than MOA.

But it’s pretty well stated that the standard paradigm of .1mrad, which is .36” at 100yrds, indeed IS a more coarse increment than the standard paradigm of 1/4moa, .25” at 100, or 1/8moa, .125” at 100yrds… sounds a little like a smoke screen, and certainly there are more 1/4moa and .1moa scopes than any others, and more 1/8moa BR and F-class models on the market than .05 and .025 mRad options.

But it’s pretty fair to say 6ft is less than 9ft, whether we measure it in rods, meters, miles, or chains…

 

[Nature Boy]

It was to counter the argument that scopes with MIL adjustments are more coarse than scopes with MOA adjustments. .36" vs ,25".

That was me that made that statement. Up until you mentioned it, I was not aware that S&B made a 0.25 MIL scope. Can’t imagine the application where a scope with adjustments smaller than 1/8 MOA would be needed but if someone did I’m glad they’re making them. My guess is there’s not a big market for them

 

[InTheSwamp]

Radians are really an angular measurement that is independent of the measurement system. They come primarily out of mathematics, the unit circle and the definition of the fundamental trigonometry functions. One radian is defined as the angle subtended from the center of a circle which intercepts an arc equal in length to the radius of the circle. Defining the radians as the ratio of arc length over radius means radians are unitless and are useful and perfectly acceptable in SI (Metric) or US Customary or nearly any other measurement system we might use.

 

[joneb]

It's easy for me to imagine myself in the center of a sphere with a XYZ axis, and this is where MOA makes sense to me. Not saying radians don't make sense it's just MOA is easier for me imagine or comprehend.
I do have interests in astronomy so the degrees of angle are familiar to me.