You're not getting it.
The Op asked specifically about inches, yrds, meters & cm & how they work in the system & I answered the question.
He didn't ask if I or anyone else uses that regularly or not.
For fucks sake, get off your fucking soap box.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Adapting to First Mil Scope
- Thread starter Packfan
- Start date
The Op asked specifically about inches, yrds, meters & cm & how they work in the system & I answered the question.
He didn't ask if I or anyone else uses that regularly or not.
For fucks sake, get off your fucking soap box.
You get it!!
You don’t!!!
Here’s a simple conversion chart if using the reticle is to complicated....
He asked because he didn’t understand but now he does. Not a soap box but trying to help the op and not confuse him with useless shit. You want to sit at the fire, smoking your pipe, and contemplating the amount of inches in 1.2 mils at 563 yard then great but when shooting, 1.2 mils is 1.2 mils. Linear means DICK!
I don't want to do anything of the kind, that's just shit you go on with.
You mean metric not Linear. That's why 1.2 Mils is 1.2 Mils. Linear means EVERYTHING.
Questions.....
is 1 inch a linear measurement?
Is 1 centimeter a linear measurement?
Now what about degrees, minutes and seconds?
How about milliradian?
Clue...the first 2 mean dick.
Haha, so the rets aren't linear. Is that what you're saying?
All those measurements are "linear". They're not all metric though.
Inches are still linearly divisible in a Mil ret, just not decimally divisible.
Rob, maybe you're thinking about this all wrong. Perhaps a better question to ask is how many matches Mr. Linear-is-everything has shot and how many corrections were called in inches.....
Or maybe he has a scope that has subtensions in inches.
I'll remind you of this thread when you're up to shoot next weekend and you'll laugh so hard I might be able to catch you on a stage or two....
Or maybe he has a scope that has subtensions in inches.
I'll remind you of this thread when you're up to shoot next weekend and you'll laugh so hard I might be able to catch you on a stage or two....
The OP has seen the light so that is what is most important. Can’t teach everyone.
You don't seem to know what "linear" means.
It's got nothing to do with metric or imperial.
One yrd is 1.09 to 1 meter which can be linearly applied to any distance meaning, that conversion ratio won't change over distance.
The point everyone is making is that you are still caught up in some fucked up form of conversion and talking linearity.
For the love of all that may be holy or slutty, we aren't converting anything because we don't care anymore.
Conversion is unnecessary unless you have an old Bushnell/Leupold 10x with the 3/4 mil dot and 1/4 moa turrets.
Even then, it's really not a big deal. Just hold a little modern Kentucky windage and smack the smiley.
I know they're saying that &, I'm not caught up in any conversions. I don't convert anything unless I'm practicing ranging objects with the ret which, I do occasionally for shits & giggles.
I answered a question, correctly &, it got turned into this bucket of shit.
You really are a twat.
So if you want to find the distance to a known size object using the reticle?
Like I said, get off your soap box.
There are NO conversions in ranging. You have a target size, no converting, a mil reading of that target, again no converting, and a constant, and you guessed it no converting. You do the formula and get the range to target. Not being a “twat” but trying for the op to not be confused with ranging now.
By post #10 the OP had it figured out.
You jumped in with both feet and holding your nose with your eyes closed at post #14 with your conversion factors.
Instead of admitting you jumped the gun, you're still holding on to your "But I answered his question correctly" line.
50 posts later you're still doubling down.
The OP understands the ruler matches the turrets.
You're defending your "I answered correctly and I want credit for it" post.
Here, this is for you:
Well what did you think I meant?
Are you so determined to find an argument that you can't comprehend what you read.
And the conversion is from Mils to meters or, don't you know what "conversion means either?
It’s not a conversion but finding the range with a formula. You are not converting one thing to another. Not looking for an argument but you just continue to type confused. Trying not to let anyone else read and get confused. Honestly not being a “twat”.
The formula performs the conversion, that's why it's done. To CONVERT to yards or meters, same formula, different constant. All linear, not all decimal, or, you can do what I do & just use the ret to tell me what I need to know.
I don't know why you have to confuse everyone about not confusing them.
No way, bugger that.
I have to have the last say just as bad as you buddy. LOL
I have to have the last say just as bad as you buddy. LOL
It seems in almost every one of these MIL/MOA type threads, there is at least one special kind of stupid person.
Wrong.
The little lines in the scope are measuring an angle that is created by your pupil as you look through the scope. Tell me, in your owners manual for your scope, how are those little marks described?
That's what I find difficult about written communication on these forums.That's all you had to say. I totally get that.
Carry on my man.
It's impossible to read into comments anything other than our own perceptions of what a guy is saying.
When I comment, I try to speak as if the guy was standing in front of me however, there's just so much information we can't convey & it's more often than not misinterpreted, myself included.
You have a good day Mike.
Sorry, evening I think.
The Mil ret sub tensions were indeed spaced for cm & meters with regard to the angular divisions as far as I've read.
It wasn't an accident that they match.
As far as an angle we see in the scope( if that's what you're getting at) no, I don't think it is an angle within the reticle because the image is always overlaying a fixed sized reticle with regard to magnification. The actual reticle size in FFP scopes is similar in size or diameter to our pupil I think. Maybe a tad larger but not much.
As I said before, you have a LONG road ahead of you. You do not understand the mathematics used at all.
MIL is short for milliradian. One radian is created by using the radius of a circle.
You can draw a radian using a compass. Draw a circle. Now, without changing one fucking thing, make a mark on the circle and place the point of the compass on the mark. Where the pencil part touches the circle, make a mark. If you now draw straight lines from the origin of the circle through both of the marks that are on the circle, you have an angle. It is one radian. (EDIT: using this method does not give you a true radian. You would need to lay a flexible line, one radius long, along the circle to achieve 1 true radian) 1/1000 of a radian is called a milliradian.
Now, just for fun, if you draw a much larger circle and draw another radian, are those angles the same or not?
Last edited:
Excellent.
I'm after a Razor Gen II 4.5-27x56 but with the Tremor 3.
C'mon Mike, I know you're itching to tell me why not &, I'd genuinely like to hear why.
By the way Packfan, what reticle did you decide on, the EBR-7 ?
Good rets, I have one my own self.
Absolutely not an issue as we do these Mil/MOA type threads several times a week it seems
The difference is you comprehended what was said on the first page.....so you learned
As for the rest of the conversation, it’s pretty typical on these threads once someone pulls out a yardstick or tape measure
Yes they're the same but, the distance of 100 meters gives the sub tension in the decimal system. I realize that it could be made to match any system by altering the distance. The divisions are the same & the distance between the hashes are always the same & have no definition other than their division into a radian.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Around the time of the start of World War I, France was experimenting with the use of millièmes or angular mils (6400 in a circle) for use with artillery sights instead of decigrades (4000 in a circle). The United Kingdom was also trialing them to replace degrees and minutes. They were adopted by France although decigrades also remained in use throughout World War I. Other nations also used decigrades. The United States, which copied many French artillery practices, adopted angular mils, later known as NATO mils. Before 2007 the Swedish defence forces used "streck" (6300 in a circle, streck meaning lines or marks) (together with degrees for some navigation) which is closer to the milliradian but then changed to NATO mils. After the Bolshevik Revolution and the adoption of the metric system of measurement (e.g. artillery replaced "units of base" with meters) the Red Army expanded the 600 unit circle into a 6000 mil circle. Hence the Russian mil has a somewhat different origin than those derived from French artillery practices.
In the 1950s, NATO adopted metric units of measurement for land and general use. NATO mils, meters, and kilograms became standard, although degrees remained in use for naval and air purposes, reflecting civil practices.
So, by choosing the metric system, the Milliradian system was optimized for meters & cm.
Hopefully you can't miss interpret this.
The only issue here is that certain people determine that everyone else knows nothing & they're the experts in everything &, as a result of their self imposed bias, they fail to comprehend what they're reading.
Well, see, if you use a radius of 1 inch, you still get the same angle as when you use a radius of 1 meter. The metric system has zilch to do with what a milliradian is.
Do you understand that in that Wiki article you had to go look up that there are several different angles being used?
6400 angular mils in a circle?
6300 marks in a circle?
6000?
Which is correct?
Truth is, none of these are correct. Which one is closest?
There are pi diameters around every circle. I'll keep it simple here and say pi is 3.14
Since there are 2 radius in every diameter, there are 2 pi radius around every circle (EVERY circle, whether it is an inch or a meter). 2 pi is 6.28. There are 6.28 radians in every circle. If those radians are divided into 1000 smaller angles, a mil, how many mils are in every circle?
Which one is closest?
Do you understand that in that Wiki article you had to go look up that there are several different angles being used?
6400 angular mils in a circle?
6300 marks in a circle?
6000?
Which is correct?
Truth is, none of these are correct. Which one is closest?
There are pi diameters around every circle. I'll keep it simple here and say pi is 3.14
Since there are 2 radius in every diameter, there are 2 pi radius around every circle (EVERY circle, whether it is an inch or a meter). 2 pi is 6.28. There are 6.28 radians in every circle. If those radians are divided into 1000 smaller angles, a mil, how many mils are in every circle?
Which one is closest?
Yes I know. I read all this stuff years ago when I went to a Mil ret.
Now I could have worded things better but, what I was getting at was that, the metric system delineates the measurements. The metric system is a decimal system which lends itself to the Milliradian system. They could have used yards but then yards & inches would be divided into 10. This gets back to what I said about any conversions from Mils to any distance in the case of ranging using the ret. Meters was chosen because it is a base 10 system & has nothing to do with the number of Milliradians but, has everything to do with the size or subtension at a certain distance once the system of measurement has been chosen. Having said that, it's not the distance of the Mils which changes as it never changes but, only our perception of it.
All this gets back to the question I answered about Mils being easier to deal with if you use the metric system, at least from a mathematical perspective. Not so intuitive though if you're not familiar with meters & centimetres if you need to convert which, is not usually necessary.
You STILL do not understand.
I recommend you go down to your local High School or Junior College and take a Geometry course. Euclidean Geometry.
Nope. It's the same kind of thing though. It's just the arcminute system with MOA superimposed on it via yards & inches, exactly how the metric system is superimposed on the Milliradian system.
Sometimes for entertainment you just need a good Pale Ale and the Hide.
Anyway, I'm heading back to the scientific calculator to figure out what linear change I'm making when I rotate my rifle/scope through an arc.......
Oh shit, that won't work. My scopes in Mils and I'm shooting at a 6" gong
Anyway, I'm heading back to the scientific calculator to figure out what linear change I'm making when I rotate my rifle/scope through an arc.......
Oh shit, that won't work. My scopes in Mils and I'm shooting at a 6" gong
152.4 mm or 15.2 cm.
The rest of world walked away from that antiquated, befuddled, hodgepodge years ago.
Get with the program, join the rest of the world in the decimal revolution.
Some really dumb shit here.
Great job convincing people with bullshit like this.
I was having some really nice Washington made Bourbon with last night's festivities.
I decided to pull the plug when the woman suggested going to bed...
Here I am again this morning, but I have a strong black coffee instead.
I really didn't think this would go on through the night, but I think we have a few in this thread that live under the equator or something.
Hey, did you guys know that our earth is a circle (okay, really a sphere) and it's divided up in little lines too?
^^^^^^^
That wasn't nice of me, but I'm still feeling feisty because the weather here has been perfect for the last couple of weeks.
My buddy's new rifle is making 1k yard head shots on the IPSC targets.
My new barrel is due soon, and I get to play some golf with friends and family next week while we raise funds for the Florida Sheriff's Youth Ranches.
Hell, the tarpon are everywhere. The grouper are biting and reds, snook and trout are willing to play tug'o war.
Fellas, don't forget that Sunday is Mother's Day.
Hey Mike, on another subject, what scopes do you own or have had experience with?I was having some really nice Washington made Bourbon with last night's festivities.
I decided to pull the plug when the woman suggested going to bed...
Here I am again this morning, but I have a strong black coffee instead.
I really didn't think this would go on through the night, but I think we have a few in this thread that live under the equator or something.
Hey, did you guys know that our earth is a circle (okay, really a sphere) and it's divided up in little lines too?
^^^^^^^
That wasn't nice of me, but I'm still feeling feisty because the weather here has been perfect for the last couple of weeks.
My buddy's new rifle is making 1k yard head shots on the IPSC targets.
My new barrel is due soon, and I get to play some golf with friends and family next week while we raise funds for the Florida Sheriff's Youth Ranches.
Hell, the tarpon are everywhere. The grouper are biting and reds, snook and trout are willing to play tug'o war.
Fellas, don't forget that Sunday is Mother's Day.
I'm looking at grabbing another scope & I'm trying to get some info from guys who've got some PRS type experience.
I'm kinda trying to find a good dual purpose scope if I can. I do a lot of spotlight shooting, long range target & mid range crow shooting, out to 300 Meters or thereabouts.
The scope needs to be very good in low light with a generous eye box.
Is there any scope you think might fit the bill?
I don't do any PRS stuff because my body can't take it.
I do shoot weekly at JTAC which has steel out to 2k.
My Mil/Mil scopes are simple Bushnell XRS, an XRS-2, an Athlon Ares BTR and an Argos BTR.
To me, the only one suitable for hunting is the Ares BTR and even that I wouldn't make my first choice for critter killin.
For low light performance, I'd choose a nice Swarovski or Leica and never look back.
If I hunt at night, it's with a friend's thermal...
