Rifle Scopes A Redesigned Minox AQRAS Reticle for Yards

[Lexington]

(See new design in post #5)

What use is the Minox Advanced Quick Ranging Scale (AQRAS) for calculating distance in yards? I can make use of the fine milliradian scale on the lower right of the MR5 reticle, but not the AQRAS scale on the lower left.

Their user guide examples are in metric for a 60cm (23.6”) tall target:

AQRAS: 60cm x 4 scale = 240m range

MRAD: 600mm / 2.5 scale = 240m range

My own quick calculation for the same target in inches and yards on the MRAD scale:

23.6 inches / 3.6 constant / 2.5 scale = 2.62 hundred yards distance.

So, I can make use of the fine MRAD scale in meters or yards like any other milliradian reticle. Has anyone figured out yards on the AQRAS scale? I suspect it is not possible to read directly, knowing the target size in inches.

 

[Lexington]

In answer to my own question, the fastest mental math to use AQRAS for inches and yards is this:

First the proof:

AQRAS: 60cm x 4 scale = 240m range (user guide example)

1. Convert 60cm to inches by dividing by 2.54 cm/in.
2. Multiply the 4 scale factor by 2.54 to compensate for the prior division. (Divide one term by 2.54 and multiply the other term by 2.54 to keep the equation), and convert the result to yards, thus:

The quick mental math for meters to yards is add 10%; for yards to meters is subtract 10%.

Now the simple range math:

Target is 24 inches
AQRAS scale is 4
2.5 is a constant

Another example:

Target is 30 inches
AQRAS scale is 9
2.5 is a constant

This is a way to read the AQRAS portion of the MR5 reticle. It's not a quick read, but is only a couple of steps.
The MRAD scale is used as usual for meters or yards, as many of us are accustomed to.

If Minox would make a direct-read AQRAS scale for yards, I'd be all over that in an MR5.

 

[pinkhair]

Nice work there, glad you were able to figure it out.

 

[Lexington]

Here is the AQRAS reticle scaled with factors for yards. Target size in inches x scale factor = distance in yards.

(New factor = old factor * 2.54 * 1.093) See posts above.

But of course, who wants a reticle with decimal factors like those? No one. Next I'll move the lines to be at spacing with whole numbers and will re-label. They'll also be aligned to the fine MRAD scale in the lower right quadrant of the MR5 reticle.

 

[Lexington]

Here is what I have come up with for an AQRAS reticle that works with targets in inches and distances in yards. I began designing another version that had whole sequential numbers for the yardage scale factors, but they quickly get too close together in the upper range. Instead, this design has a yard factor every 0.2 mils, across from the fine mil scale.

Target (inches) x Yard Factor = Distance (yards)

What do you think?

 

[Lexington]

A revision with larger numbers on the scale.

 

[Lexington]

I'd love to have your comments. Maybe I should change the conversation.

Nice glass!

 

[Basher]

Why are you using an odd target size? Seems like the scale is made for a 1m target, and the numbers come out nice and even when doing so (100cm x 4 scale factor = 400m). If the target isn't either a meter or half meter, I'd probably just use the mil scale on the right and cut the math in half...

 

[Lexington]

What's the odd target size? Any target measured in inches works with the yards scale. Follow the derivation.

I agree that all that's needed is the fine mrad scale anyway, but if Minox is going to etch the lower left quadrant with their "AQRAS" scale, I've designed an option for yards. There is no way I am ever going to estimate my target sizes in centimeters.

 

[Basher]

I suppose I was referring to your use of the scale as it is presently constructed, but with a target in inches. Way too much math for field use, but maybe that's just me!

If they offered one as you depict, I suppose it would work. I understand that learning to use metric after a lifetime of standard is a challenge, but metric really is so much easier. I'm a red blooded American, so I was raised on the Imperial system, but I'm making myself learn metric. It's a superioir system all the way around.

 

[Lexington]

I think I know what you are referring to. For the sake of offering a traceable proof, I converted the 60cm to 23.6 inches and then followed through to the end, where 240m = 262 yards. It was just a step along the way as I figured this out. Proofs tend to make the conclusion look complex, but it's not. Now it's just inches x factor.

But either Minox's metric or my standard system are just for range estimates. Both have the rounding error of the user to contend with when the target image is not exactly on a marked division on the scale. So, I go back to the fine mil scale and a LRF if handy.

 

[Basher]

I think I know what you are referring to. For the sake of offering a traceable proof, I converted the 60cm to 23.6 inches and then followed through to the end, where 240m = 262 yards. It was just a step along the way as I figured this out. Proofs tend to make the conclusion look complex, but it's not. Now it's just inches x factor.

But either Minox's metric or my standard system are just for range estimates. Both have the rounding error of the user to contend with when the target image is not exactly on a marked division on the scale. So, I go back to the fine mil scale and a LRF if handy.

Gotcha. We're on the same page more or less then, I suppose.

 

[jarredsc]

Deciding on mr4 or mr5 reticle is their anyone here that has the mr5 that can pls take some pics through the scope

 

[Lexington]

Sorry, can't help you there. Thanks for resurrecting the thread! I'd still buy the reticle I designed above.

 

[JaoeyP]

Deciding on mr4 or mr5 reticle is their anyone here that has the mr5 that can pls take some pics through the scope

Dang, I was at the range with mine when you posted this!!! Will try to get you pics today or tomorrow.

I have the MR5, really like it.