moa vs mils, the forbidden thread

#251
Aftermath said:
TRANSLATED for the dipshits: ranges in this instance is NOT a place you go shoot your rifle. In this use @LeftyJason means differing yardages (if you use MOA) you are from the target. Or, if you use the MIL, differing meters from the target.











/s
Click to expand...

With that thought in mind, I gotta know what the hell Bushnell engineers were thinking when they built the software for the original 1 mile range finder. This is the one that looks like the Con-X but it doesn't have that capability.

If I set the readout to MOA, I get the distance in yards.

If I want my corrections in MIL, I have to also use fucking meters for distance measurement. Can't have yards and MIL come-ups.

Who the hell came up with that nonsense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cutout
#254
Mike Casselton said:
With that thought in mind, I gotta know what the hell Bushnell engineers were thinking when they built the software for the original 1 mile range finder. This is the one that looks like the Con-X but it doesn't have that capability.

If I set the readout to MOA, I get the distance in yards.

If I want my corrections in MIL, I have to also use fucking meters for distance measurement. Can't have yards and MIL come-ups.

Who the hell came up with that nonsense?
Click to expand...
Hello see (how the hell do you spell that) milli is Latin, therefore european, therefore metric.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Makinchips208
#255
LeftyJason said:
Not your fault. This happens basically every single time this topic comes up. It's normal. Hopefully we can help people learn the truth over time.
Click to expand...

308pirate said:
They call you tater salad?
Click to expand...

308pirate said:
They call you tater salad?
Click to expand...
Are you still on the loose the white coat folks are looking for you. You are still drunk turn yourself in and sober up on the other hand that might not serve humanity I hate to think what you are like sober.
 
#261
OK Children, Listen UP, I am Mr. Kirste, your teacher. I have a Masters Degree in Education with a specialty in SPECIAL EDUCATION, so maybe, just maybe we can put this issue to bed.

IMG_3827.jpeg


This is a scope reticle. Notice that it has a line running up and down and a line running sideways. On those lines are dots. You will notice that there are four dots on each line past the big green dot in the center.

IMG_3829.jpeg


This is the shape of a typical silhouette target that we shoot at

Note right target has reticle aimed at silhouette. Notice our shot (the red dot) was TWO dots on the scope reticle to the right,

So to hit the center of the target we FAVOR TWO Dots to LEFT

IMG_3831.jpeg


Notice now our shot has now landed in the center of the target. Has anyone mentioned INCHES, has anyone mention MILS,

Has anyone mentioned converting anything?

Now, if one is using this to sight in our scope, and our shot is landing two dots to the right, we turn our windage dial two MOA or two MIL to the left. (Depending on the type of scope we have). That will put our crosshair at the center of the target.

Please note that your scope may have dots or dashes. It may have a Christmas tree. If your scope has neither, it really is time for you to upgrade.

Can’t get any simpler.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: giveemshell2
#263
Dead Eye Dick said:
OK Children, Listen UP, I am Mr. Kirste, your teacher. I have a Masters Degree in Education with a specialty in SPECIAL EDUCATION, so maybe, just maybe we can put this issue to bed.

View attachment 8474906

This is a scope reticle. Notice that it has a line running up and down and a line running sideways. On those lines are dots. You will notice that there are four dots on each line past the big green dot in the center.

View attachment 8474909

This is the shape of a typical silhouette target that we shoot at

Note right target has reticle aimed at silhouette. Notice our shot (the red dot) was TWO dots on the scope reticle to the right,

So to hit the center of the target we FAVOR TWO Dots to LEFT

View attachment 8474910

Notice now our shot has now landed in the center of the target. Has anyone mentioned INCHES, has anyone mention MILS,

Has anyone mentioned converting anything?

Now, if one is using this to sight in our scope, and our shot is landing two dots to the right, we turn our windage dial two MOA or two MIL to the left. (Depending on the type of scope we have). That will put our crosshair at the center of the target.

Please note that your scope may have dots or dashes. It may have a Christmas tree. If your scope has neither, it really is time for you to upgrade.

Can’t get any simpler.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the approximate goosepower of the scope effect holds?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TriggerJerk! and Makinchips208
#266
Dead Eye Dick said:
OK Children, Listen UP, I am Mr. Kirste, your teacher. I have a Masters Degree in Education with a specialty in SPECIAL EDUCATION, so maybe, just maybe we can put this issue to bed.

View attachment 8474906

This is a scope reticle. Notice that it has a line running up and down and a line running sideways. On those lines are dots. You will notice that there are four dots on each line past the big green dot in the center.

View attachment 8474909

This is the shape of a typical silhouette target that we shoot at

Note right target has reticle aimed at silhouette. Notice our shot (the red dot) was TWO dots on the scope reticle to the right,

So to hit the center of the target we FAVOR TWO Dots to LEFT

View attachment 8474910

Notice now our shot has now landed in the center of the target. Has anyone mentioned INCHES, has anyone mention MILS,

Has anyone mentioned converting anything?

Now, if one is using this to sight in our scope, and our shot is landing two dots to the right, we turn our windage dial two MOA or two MIL to the left. (Depending on the type of scope we have). That will put our crosshair at the center of the target.

Please note that your scope may have dots or dashes. It may have a Christmas tree. If your scope has neither, it really is time for you to upgrade.

Can’t get any simpler.
Click to expand...
Confused. Moved my scope 2 on the turret. Didn't move 2 dots. What to do?

Note this is messing with you. I don't have that scope anymore. Leopold mark ar 3-9x40. mildot reticle. Sfp. 1/2 Moa elevation. Iphy windage. Gave to my FIL to use on a non dial 22lr.
 
#267
LeftyJason said:
Confused. Moved my scope 2 on the turret. Didn't move 2 dots. What to do?

Note this is messing with you. I don't have that scope anymore. Leopold mark ar 3-9x40. mildot reticle. Sfp. 1/2 Moa elevation. Iphy windage. Gave to my FIL to use on a non dial 22lr.
Click to expand...
I had one of those. The first Imill dot worked out to 300 yards (which is the max distance of our local range) and had to use MOA for everything past. It was a mess. But with a decent ballistic program and a Leupold that always returned to zero, it actually worked. BUT with no zero stop, always had to start the day, making sure one mil dot was 300 yards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeftyJason
#271
stanley_white said:
This thread is like an argument at a Thanksgiving in Ohio — someone always has to have the last word, which causes someone else to need to have the last word, and nobody ever leaves, and the best that can be hoped for is the argument is postponed until the Christmas get-together.

-Stan
Click to expand...
Kinda like the opposite of a Southern Goodbye. But instead of carrying a productive conversation, it is an argument that moves to the foyer, then to the front porch, then to the drive way, and ending up by hanging on the window sill of the car door for an extra 30 minutes.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: WindstormSCR, LeftyJason, stanley_white and 3 others
#275
#277
Dead Eye Dick said:
OK Children, Listen UP, I am Mr. Kirste, your teacher. I have a Masters Degree in Education with a specialty in SPECIAL EDUCATION, so maybe, just maybe we can put this issue to bed.

View attachment 8474906

This is a scope reticle. Notice that it has a line running up and down and a line running sideways. On those lines are dots. You will notice that there are four dots on each line past the big green dot in the center.

View attachment 8474909

This is the shape of a typical silhouette target that we shoot at

Note right target has reticle aimed at silhouette. Notice our shot (the red dot) was TWO dots on the scope reticle to the right,

So to hit the center of the target we FAVOR TWO Dots to LEFT

View attachment 8474910

Notice now our shot has now landed in the center of the target. Has anyone mentioned INCHES, has anyone mention MILS,

Has anyone mentioned converting anything?

Now, if one is using this to sight in our scope, and our shot is landing two dots to the right, we turn our windage dial two MOA or two MIL to the left. (Depending on the type of scope we have). That will put our crosshair at the center of the target.

Please note that your scope may have dots or dashes. It may have a Christmas tree. If your scope has neither, it really is time for you to upgrade.

Can’t get any simpler.
Click to expand...
🙋‍♂️

Uh….. umm…

Uh…

At what distance, teacher?

🥺
 
#278
Dead Eye Dick said:
OK Children, Listen UP, I am Mr. Kirste, your teacher. I have a Masters Degree in Education with a specialty in SPECIAL EDUCATION, so maybe, just maybe we can put this issue to bed.

View attachment 8474906

This is a scope reticle. Notice that it has a line running up and down and a line running sideways. On those lines are dots. You will notice that there are four dots on each line past the big green dot in the center.

View attachment 8474909

This is the shape of a typical silhouette target that we shoot at

Note right target has reticle aimed at silhouette. Notice our shot (the red dot) was TWO dots on the scope reticle to the right,

So to hit the center of the target we FAVOR TWO Dots to LEFT

View attachment 8474910

Notice now our shot has now landed in the center of the target. Has anyone mentioned INCHES, has anyone mention MILS,

Has anyone mentioned converting anything?

Now, if one is using this to sight in our scope, and our shot is landing two dots to the right, we turn our windage dial two MOA or two MIL to the left. (Depending on the type of scope we have). That will put our crosshair at the center of the target.

Please note that your scope may have dots or dashes. It may have a Christmas tree. If your scope has neither, it really is time for you to upgrade.

Can’t get any simpler.
Click to expand...
Lemme guess you have one of these to go with that scope......
1723059165359.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dead Eye Dick
#279
I didn’t read through this entire thread, that moa guy is just too thick. Did anyone even bring up the Kraft wind stuff and how well it fits with mils? And mils is just base 10. Pennies and dimes as frank has mentioned before. Mils is the present and future. Moa is for the boomers who play benchrest.
 
#282
Greek. The Greeks invented the angle. So moa and mil are derivatives of the Greek system.

Edit: I was wrong. the correct answer is the Babylonians.
 
Last edited:
#285
  • Like
Reactions: Makinchips208 and JerkyFreak
#286
The ancient Babylonians base 60 system is what our modern time system is based on. They were fabulous land navigators and used the "clock" to navigate. Some town would be a given heading and a distance from some given point. Truly, some vector mathematics involved. 60 minutes, 60 seconds...from this came the use in circles.
 
#287
Aftermath said:
www.thoughtco.com

Why the 4,000-Year-Old Babylonian Math Base 60 System Is Still Used

Babylonian mathematics relied on a base 60, or sexagesimal numeric system, that proved so effective it continues to be used 4,000 years later.
www.thoughtco.com www.thoughtco.com
Click to expand...
This is kinda interesting, but…

They quote an equation for calculating the product of 2 integers.

AB=[(A+B)2-(A-B)2]/4
IMG_6304.jpeg


This equation is false, and any 8th grader exposed to algebra for the first time should be able to recognize it as such…

AB =/= [(A+B)2-(A-B)2]/4 = B

I have developed a postulate for “kinda interesting” articles on the internet; “if one part is bull shit, then all parts are likely bullshit.”

I developed this postulate while reading through the chain-email-like “supposedly” historical etymology of common English phrases that Maggot posted, then reposted, in the Pit. All of it was- as the postulate says- bullshit.

Regardless, I post the Hlee postulate here, free for all to use, without license or recompense. I find it very useful in disabusing myself of the bullshit I read on the internet.
 
#289
  • Haha
Reactions: Dead Eye Dick and Aftermath
#290
hlee said:
This is kinda interesting, but…

They quote an equation for calculating the product of 2 integers.

AB=[(A+B)2-(A-B)2]/4View attachment 8476215

This equation is false, and any 8th grader exposed to algebra for the first time should be able to recognize it as such…

AB =/= [(A+B)2-(A-B)2]/4 = B

I have developed a postulate for “kinda interesting” articles on the internet; “if one part is bull shit, then all parts are likely bullshit.”

I developed this postulate while reading through the chain-email-like “supposedly” historical etymology of common English phrases that Maggot posted, then reposted, in the Pit. All of it was- as the postulate says- bullshit.

Regardless, I post the Hlee postulate here, free for all to use, without license or recompense. I find it very useful in disabusing myself of the bullshit I read on the internet.
Click to expand...
Use base 60 and try that formula....also notice:
Screenshot 2024-08-09 at 10.39.18.png
 
Last edited:
#292
I was just pointing out that it was the ancient Babylonians that gave us 60 minutes and such rather than the Greeks. It is interesting that they developed a base 60 system and that they figured out the positional relationships to describe very large numbers. We use that system in our base 10 system....

The number 6543.21 is 6x10^3+5x10^2+4x10^1+3x10^0+2x10^-1+1x10^-2

EDIT to add.... in base 60, that is a VERY large number.... 6x60^3+5x60^2....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makinchips208
#293
Aftermath said:
I was just pointing out that it was the ancient Babylonians that gave us 60 minutes and such rather than the Greeks. It is interesting that they developed a base 60 system and that they figured out the positional relationships to describe very large numbers. We use that system in our base 10 system....

The number 6543.21 is 6x10^3+5x10^2+4x10^1+3x10^0+2x10^-1+1x10^-2

EDIT to add.... in base 60, that is a VERY large number.... 6x60^3+5x60^2....
Click to expand...
Yes you are right. I was incorrect in saying that it was the Greeks.
 
#294
Maurygold said:
Using your reticle vs your natural inclination as a human is moronic.

It assumes you have matching reticles and leaves you untrained to handle a situation without. Using linear allows shooter and spotter to ensure the correction is right adding redundancy.
Click to expand...
Are you going to be able to tell your shooter that he missed 42” at 1000 yards? Lmao you can judge 42” at 1000 yards you see splash and run out there and pull a tape to see how much he missed by then run back an tell him
 
#296
Maurygold said:
moving my scope 1 moa left at 800 yards will or will not cause my impact to shift to the left 8 inches??

In my part of the world it does and always has.
Click to expand...
If you just seen it hit measure with reticle if it’s 1 moa left on the reticle adjust 1 moa, instead you see splash you measure splash in inches then covert to moa then move 1 moa. What EVERYBODY is saying yes you could measure everything inches for moa it directly correlates but there is a lot more room for error trying to measure inches at distance then there is using the ruler in the scope to measure… you should have to do ZERO converting to put your next round on target. It’s as plain and cut dry as this.

If I’m understanding this correctly you are seeing impact and assuming or measuring it 18 inches left then your adjusting for it? If so refer to above it is MUCH quicker to cut that step completely out and to just adjust off what the reticle shows miss by 3 adjust by 3

Or are you just arguing moa and mil is also linear measurement?
 
Last edited:
#297
I Think I Understand. The mark of intelligence is to simplify the difficult and complicated. The mark of stupidity is to make easy things hard and then try to explain that understanding is the mark of smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Secant
#299
Logan ray lande said:
If you just seen it hit measure with reticle if it’s 1 moa left on the reticle adjust 1 moa, instead you see splash you measure splash in inches then covert to moa then move 1 moa. What EVERYBODY is saying yes you could measure everything inches for moa it directly correlates but there is a lot more room for error trying to measure inches at distance then there is using the ruler in the scope to measure… you should have to do ZERO converting to put your next round on target. It’s as plain and cut dry as this.

If I’m understanding this correctly you are seeing impact and assuming or measuring it 18 inches left then your adjusting for it? If so refer to above it is MUCH quicker to cut that step completely out and to just adjust off what the reticle shows miss by 3 adjust by 3

Or are you just arguing moa and mil is also linear measurement?
Click to expand...

Nope. I call the miss by targets off and direction then supply the correction in mils/ moa.

I absolutely explain and teach new shooters how the angular change effects the linear though because that makes sense to lay people and whole inches are easier to grasp.

People are acting like even attempting to correlate angular to linear is impossible and it’s clear as shit not.

People just wanted to misinterpret and get up in arms when they saw someone prefer moa.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: TriggerJerk! and Rob01
#300
Dead Eye Dick said:
I Think I Understand. The mark of intelligence is to simplify the difficult and complicated. The mark of stupidity is to make easy things hard and then try to explain that understanding is the mark of smart.
Click to expand...
This.

All day. Every day.

Don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Don’t over complicate the simple.

-Stan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

3
Sako TRG 42 pre 2013
Replies
16
Views
860
babyguppy
B
Milirad
Rifle Scopes Burris Eliminator 6 Accuracy Range Test Review
Replies
19
Views
8K
Eric B.
E
W
Hunting scopes, 6x42, 8x56, vs. variable
Replies
3
Views
652
Woodlanddude
Woodlanddude
carbonbased
Flare / Glare / Backlit notes on 4 scopes (NX8 4-32, Razor Gen II 4.5-27, Razor LHT 4.5-22, S&B 5-25)
Replies
10
Views
454
carbonbased
carbonbased
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
129
Views
12K
Kickin45
Kickin45
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts