• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Shooting at 200 yards.

Mountain said:
For a target you intend to hit and not retrieve, angular makes sense- military targets and steel plates for example. For paper punching games with scoring rings, good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is why I asked why MRAD is more accurate than MOA at greater distances. I understand estimating targets at distance to hit but when you are looking for a shot for score in the X ring how is one better than the other?
 
cathouse01 said:
Yeah, I see your point. Certainly once you're trying to correct, it would be simpler just to do everything in MOA or mils. But I think I lot of us have enough trouble just going to meters from yards, so it's hard to just start thinking completely in terms of angular measures since this is somewhat foreign to our normal daily experiences.
Click to expand...
but thats all that the scope are is an angular measurement and the units are irrelevant. I could go from MOA to MIL and back and shoot just fine. The only thing I would do is pick something my peers were using so we could work corrections in the same units especially if I have a spotting scope with that reticle in it.
 
SgtHal75 said:
Agreed. This is why I asked why MRAD is more accurate than MOA at greater distances. I understand estimating targets at distance to hit but when you are looking for a shot for score in the X ring how is one better than the other?
Click to expand...
one isn't more accurate than another in practice although the f class guys would tell you the MOA scopes have finer resolution than MIL. The guys who prefer MOA like to think of 1" at 100yds and so on and then if they miss by 4" at 200 they think ok that must be 2 MOA correction. I am saying skip the conversion to inches and say you missed by 2 MOA not 4" and measure that distance with your glass.
 
groundscrapers said:
one isn't more accurate than another in practice although the f class guys would tell you the MOA scopes have finer resolution than MIL. The guys who prefer MOA like to think of 1" at 100yds and so on and then if they miss by 4" at 200 they think ok that must be 2 MOA correction. I am saying skip the conversion to inches and say you missed by 2 MOA not 4" and measure that distance with your glass.
Click to expand...
Great point. That’s exactly how I say/think it. If I’m off by 6” at 300 yards. I just say to myself I’m off by 2 MOA and make my adjustment.
 
PatMcD said:
WTF are you guys talking about? Angular? Linear?
A guy is asking how to plug in a lamp cord and you guys are debating which university has a better electrical engineering program.
Click to expand...

The guy is shooting in 15 knot winds. He probably needs recommendations for meteorology programs.
 
SgtHal75 said:
Agreed. This is why I asked why MRAD is more accurate than MOA at greater distances. I understand estimating targets at distance to hit but when you are looking for a shot for score in the X ring how is one better than the other?
Click to expand...
Most (if not all?) higher end scopes resolve either 1/4 MOA or 0.1 MRAD, which is roughly 1/3 MOA. So your typical higher end MOA scope can resolve finer adjustments than its MRAD counterpart. Easy enough to argue that the 1/4 MOA is more accurate because it is a finer resolution than 0.1 MRAD / mils.
 
Mountain said:
Most (if not all?) higher end scopes resolve either 1/4 MOA or 0.1 MRAD, which is roughly 1/3 MOA. So your typical higher end MOA scope can resolve finer adjustments than its MRAD counterpart. Easy enough to argue that the 1/4 MOA is more accurate because it is a finer resolution than 0.1 MRAD / mils.
Click to expand...
the counter to that is the SD in your ammo is going to be greater than the delta in that resolution.
 
groundscrapers said:
the counter to that is the SD in your ammo is going to be greater than the delta in that resolution.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the ammo SD is somehow centered and not cumulatively added to your scope adjustments? I reject your counter. [laugh] (LOL our arguments are pretty much esoteric at this point and kinda nonsense for 200 yard shooting) And let's not forget accuracy of scope tracking. [rofl]
 
groundscrapers said:
but thats all that the scope are is an angular measurement and the units are irrelevant. I could go from MOA to MIL and back and shoot just fine. The only thing I would do is pick something my peers were using so we could work corrections in the same units especially if I have a spotting scope with that reticle in it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I probably am doing what @SgtHal75 said. When I'm correcting, if I have a mil dot scope, I really just automatically see in the scope where the round hit vs. where I aimed and just correct using the scope's markings. It's only when ranging that I start thinking in linear. Also, I have some traditional "crosshair" scopes with no hash marks and with those I tend to linearize my correction before translating them into clicks, though if I could get my brain to think angular, I could do that faster by just thinking in terms of clicks.
 
SgtHal75 said:
Great point. That’s exactly how I say/think it. If I’m off by 6” at 300 yards. I just say to myself I’m off by 2 MOA and make my adjustment.
Click to expand...
it is where i am - see anbout half foot off, so need a 2 moa correction, turret clicks are 1/4 moa, so, easy peasy, 8 clicks.
and with mrad scope brain just makes a nasty grinding noise and gets stuck. :)
strelok pro helps, as it shows this shit now per each rifle and i made tables show both moa and mrad, so have to open it up and use that cheat sheet.
 
And just to really irritate @groundscrapers, they actually offer scopes with "IPHY" (Inch Per Hundred Yards) turrets. They are supposed to correct for the fact that 1 MOA at 100 yards is actually 1.047 inches, but they sort of completely abandoned the idea of angular measurement. They idea behind them is for extremely long range shooting that 0.047 difference is enough to make a difference (hats off to Paul Harrell). Example, shooting the 6.5 Creedmoor 140 gr ELD Match at 1500 yards you have to compensate for a bullet drop of 942.3 inches. If you used the 1 MOA equals 1 inch per 100 yards (15 inches at 1500 yards), your correction would be 62.82 MOA (942.3/15). So on most scopes with 1/4 MOA turrets you'd dial in 62.75 MOA. But that would actually give you 985.5 inches of correction (62.75 X 15 X 1.047), 43.2 inches too much (over three and a half feet). The correct amount would be 60 MOA (60 X 15 X 1.047 = 942.3). With the IPHY turrets you actually would dial in 62.75. But I'm not aware of any ballistic calculators that work in IPHY, all the ones I know of are in mils or MOA so if you want a complete long-range firing solution, your much better off using mils or MOA.

ETA Actually I don't think there is any scope where you could "dial in" 62.75 MOA. If you're going for that range you'd be probably be using a 40 MOA rail and dialing in 22.75 or 20. And an interesting fact is that almost all rails are rated in MOA, even when using them with a mil scope.
 
Last edited:
paul73 said:
it is where i am - see anbout half foot off, so need a 2 moa correction, turret clicks are 1/4 moa, so, easy peasy, 8 clicks.
and with mrad scope brain just makes a nasty grinding noise and gets stuck. :)
strelok pro helps, as it shows this shit now per each rifle and i made tables show both moa and mrad, so have to open it up and use that cheat sheet.
Click to expand...
I think @groundscrapers is saying, if you have a scope with windage and range hash marks, you don't have to do any conversion. You just see you two marks off and correct for that. At least that what I end up actually doing.
 
paul73 said:
it is where i am - see anbout half foot off, so need a 2 moa correction, turret clicks are 1/4 moa, so, easy peasy, 8 clicks.
and with mrad scope brain just makes a nasty grinding noise and gets stuck. :)
strelok pro helps, as it shows this shit now per each rifle and i made tables show both moa and mrad, so have to open it up and use that cheat sheet.
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter whether its mil or moa at that point

You look for the splash/impact then can clearly see in your reticle how many hash values you're off from point of aim and correct by that amount of windage/elevation holdover for a fast follow up shot

There shouldnt be any math or adjustments of scope....just sent it.
 
cathouse01 said:
And just to really irritate @groundscrapers, they actually offer scopes with "IPHY" (Inch Per Hundred Yards) turrets. They are supposed to correct for the fact that 1 MOA at 100 yards is actually 1.047 inches, but they sort of completely abandoned the idea of angular measurement. They idea behind them is for extremely long range shooting that 0.047 difference is enough to make a difference (hats off to Paul Harrell). Example, shooting the 6.5 Creedmoor 140 gr ELD Match at 1500 yards you have to compensate for a bullet drop of 942.3 inches. If you used the 1 MOA equals 1 inch per 100 yards (15 inches at 1500 yards), your correction would be 62.82 MOA (942.3/15). So on most scopes with 1/4 MOA turrets you'd dial in 62.75 MOA. But that would actually give you 985.5 inches of correction (62.75 X 15 X 1.047), 43.2 inches too much (over three and a half feet). The correct amount would be 60 MOA (60 X 15 X 1.047 = 942.3). With the IPHY turrets you actually would dial in 62.75. But I'm not aware of any ballistic calculators that work in IPHY, all the ones I know of are in mils or MOA so if you want a complete long-range firing solution, your much better off using mils or MOA.

ETA Actually I don't think there is any scope where you could "dial in" 62.75 MOA. If you're going for that range you'd be probably be using a 40 MOA rail and dialing in 22.75 or 20. And an interesting fact is that almost all rails are rated in MOA, even when using them with a mil scope.
Click to expand...
that is what happens when marking gets involved in engineering.
 
peterk123 said:
What the heck. North. But wait there's more. Elevation I'm sure, has to be factored in a well. 4852 feet.
Click to expand...
IMHO the fine detail rabbit hole over such things as coriolis effect barely become relevant at 600 yards. It's pretty much nonsense at 200 yards, which is why everyone is kidding around.
 
Mountain said:
IMHO the fine detail rabbit hole over such things as coriolis effect barely become relevant at 600 yards. It's pretty much nonsense at 200 yards, which is why everyone is kidding around.
Click to expand...
Actually all of these really obtuse effects only become import with "dumb" artillery shooting out to 10 or 15 miles. They have some effect at Extreme Long Ranges (1600 meters plus). For example the "King of 2 Miles" competition. This year the final round of Ko2M involved shooting at a 48X60 inch target from 3,525 yards (2.0028 miles). Just to be clear 1 MOA at 3,525 yards is about 370 inches, so the target is about 0.13 MOA by 0.16 MOA. The winner (Justin Wolf) hit it on his second shot. He was shooting a Vestal custom .416 Hellfire with a 38.5 inch barrel and a Nightforce scope. But @Mountain is correct to say they are insignificant at under 600 meters. Very few of us are good enough shooters to worry about anything but range and wind, certainly at 200-300 meters.

ETA Just to put the Ko2M into perspective, it's like shooting at a 1.5 inch bullseye at 1000 yards and hitting it with your second shot.
 
Last edited:
cathouse01 said:
Actually all of these really obtuse effects only become import with "dumb" artillery shooting out to 10 or 15 miles. They have some effect at Extreme Long Ranges (1600 meters plus). For example the "King of 2 Miles" competition. This year the final round of Ko2M involved shooting at a 48X60 inch target from 3,525 yards (2.0028 miles). Just to be clear 1 MOA at 3,525 yards is about 370 inches, so the target is about 0.13 MOA by 0.16 MOA. The winner (Justin Wolf) hit it on his second shot. He was shooting a Vestal custom .416 Hellfire with a 38.5 inch barrel and a Nightforce scope. But @Mountain is correct to say they are insignificant at under 600 meters. Very few of us are good enough shooters to worry about anything but range and wind, certainly at 200-300 meters.

ETA Just to put the Ko2M into perspective, it's like shooting at a 1.5 inch bullseye at 1000 yards and hitting it with your second shot.
Click to expand...
97675C4D-CCCB-4990-BFB3-270E69D13801.jpeg
 

Similar threads

Shooting past 400 yards
Replies
10
Views
256
Mountain
Mountain
Washington school shooting: Students in lockdown at William Wiley Elementary as police rush to the scene
Replies
2
Views
156
MAGA99
MAGA99
Mall of NH shooting
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
hunt4riches
H
At least 3 injured in shooting at Southern California dental office
Replies
9
Views
240
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Interesting shooting video
Replies
2
Views
158
peterk123
P
Back
Top Bottom