Rifle Scopes Adapting to First Mil Scope

[Aftermath]

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.

Wrong yet again! HAHAHA!!!
See, a long, long time ago there lived a bunch of people who were very adept at navigation. They devised a method of dividing a direction of travel into 360 pieces. These were more finely divided into 60 pieces each and, in turn, those were divided into 60 more pieces.
The ancient Babylonians developed degrees, minutes and seconds LONG before there was ever an inch or yard developed.
Even today, the 2 systems are unrelated.
Think abut this, if they were so in-tune with each other, why is 1 MOA not exactly 1 inch at 100 yards?
You are a real special sorta stupid.

 

[Barelstroker]

Wrong yet again! HAHAHA!!!
See, a long, long time ago there lived a bunch of people who were very adept at navigation. They devised a method of dividing a direction of travel into 360 pieces. These were more finely divided into 60 pieces each and, in turn, those were divided into 60 more pieces.
The ancient Babylonians developed degrees, minutes and seconds LONG before there was ever an inch or yard developed.
Even today, the 2 systems are unrelated.
Think abut this, if they were so in-tune with each other, why is 1 MOA not exactly 1 inch at 100 yards?
You are a real special sorta stupid.

I think you'd best do some more reading about it.
It's the same thing being that it's an angular system accept 360 deg divided into 21,600 mins
Mils is 57.3 deg divided by 1000.
Like I said, they are the same kind of system with different divisions.
It's as I said:
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.
Go & annoy someone else.

 

[Aftermath]

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.

There it is. YOU said it perfectly yourself but you are so blinded by your idiocy that you cannot see the light.
Here ya go, dumbass. Just so you don't have to learn from the mean guy on the Hide...

Why a Circle Has 360 Degrees | History Today

www.historytoday.com

 

[Barelstroker]

There it is. YOU said it perfectly yourself but you are so blinded by your idiocy that you cannot see the light.

Haha, you really are retarded.
Toddle off & yap somewhere else.

 

[Aftermath]

Haha, you really are retarded.
Toddle off & yap somewhere else.

The pot calls the kettle black

 

[Aftermath]

Mils is 57.3 deg divided by 1000.

Preserved for posterity
What an idiot.

 

[Barelstroker]

The pot calls the kettle black

So I suppose you think that 1 Mil is 3.6 inches at 100 M.

 

[Barelstroker]

Preserved for posterity
What an idiot.

I expect an apology when your done checking your fuckup.

 

[Aftermath]

Funny shit right there.
YOU choose to round a radian to an arbitrary decimal point and determine that I am wrong.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Aftermath]

So I suppose you think that 1 Mil is 3.6 inches at 100 M.

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?

See? I can 'splain it to ya but I can't understand it for ya.

 

[GrumpyOleFart]

@Packfan enjoy your new scope, and the milliradians.

 

[Barelstroker]

Funny shit right there.
YOU choose to round a radian to an arbitrary decimal point and determine that I am wrong.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

MILS/MRAD
MILs, or milliradians, are a unit of measurement dividing radians in a circle. A radian is equal to 57.3 degrees, with 6.2832 (π x 2) radians in a circle. There are 1000 milliradians in 1 radian, and therefore 6,283 milliradians (or mils) in a circle.

It appears you've either reached the limits of your knowledge or, your ability to remain coherent under pressure. LOL

 

[Aftermath]

MILS/MRAD
MILs, or milliradians, are a unit of measurement dividing radians in a circle. A radian is equal to 57.3 degrees, with 6.2832 (π x 2) radians in a circle. There are 1000 milliradians in 1 radian, and therefore 6,283 milliradians (or mils) in a circle.

It appears you've either reached the limits of your knowledge or, your ability to remain coherent under pressure. LOL

So...just to point out the blatant flaw in your very own argument....EXACTLY what is π x 2?

 

[Aftermath]

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?

Did you actually glean some knowledge?

 

[Barelstroker]

So...just to point out the blatant flaw in your very own argument....EXACTLY what is π x 2?

In this case, you'll have to take the argument up with "LONG RANGE SHOOTING.ORG".
That info was copied off their site.
Anyhow, keep digging, I hate it when my victims don't dig their own graves deep enough. LOL

 

[Barelstroker]

Did you actually glean some knowledge?

Maybe you should step away from the computer for a bit. You're on railway tracks at the moment & loosing cohesion.
The Hide does that.
Anyhow, I'm off to bed. It's late here & I'm sure you've got stuff to do today as well.

 

[Packfan]

@Packfan enjoy your new scope, and the milliradians.
View attachment 7620926

Thanks! Looking forward to getting it!

 

[Newbie2020]

Mike,

Bourbon can’t be made in Washington. Just sayin.

Oh yeah. Mils = metric moa = murica

 

[Newbie2020]

There it is. YOU said it perfectly yourself but you are so blinded by your idiocy that you cannot see the light.
Here ya go, dumbass. Just so you don't have to learn from the mean guy on the Hide...

Why a Circle Has 360 Degrees | History Today

www.historytoday.com

Holy crap! We’re arguing because of some smartass in Uruk and the Epic of Gilgamesh! This is even more awesomer than I thought!

 

[Aftermath]

In this case, you'll have to take the argument up with "LONG RANGE SHOOTING.ORG".
That info was copied off their site.
Anyhow, keep digging, I hate it when my victims don't dig their own graves deep enough. LOL

Again. You do not have a grasp on the mathematics and must resort to internet searches. Truly, a course in Euclidean Geometry would assist you greatly, if you were able to comprehend. If you were to follow that with a rudimentary Trigonometry course, you might then be able provide valid answers to the many questions I have asked you that you want to avoid due to your ignorance of the subject.

 

[Aftermath]

Holy crap! We’re arguing because of some smartass in Uruk and the Epic of Gilgamesh! This is even more awesomer than I thought!

It is interesting that the whole of what we know about angles was discovered before Christ was born, isn't it?

 

[Barelstroker]

Again. You do not have a grasp on the mathematics and must resort to internet searches. Truly, a course in Euclidean Geometry would assist you greatly, if you were able to comprehend. If you were to follow that with a rudimentary Trigonometry course, you might then be able provide valid answers to the many questions I have asked you that you want to avoid due to your ignorance of the subject.

Keep at it, you'll get there. LOL

 

[wade2big]

@Barelstroker are you an engineer by trade?

 

[Aftermath]

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.

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?

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?

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?

Think abut this, if they were so in-tune with each other, why is 1 MOA not exactly 1 inch at 100 yards?
You are a real special sorta stupid.

So...just to point out the blatant flaw in your very own argument....EXACTLY what is π x 2?

Did you actually glean some knowledge?

I doubt anyone expects any sort of intelligent answer to any of these. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

[TwistedOneinSeven]

I doubt anyone expects any sort of intelligent answer to any of these. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Now @Aftermath and @Rob01 , please try to remember it is not possible to reason with a house brick.......

Either way, it appears this thread will continue to amuse and amaze most of us for at least another day.
So tonight (cause yeah, ignoring ignorant twats, I'm in Aus which BTW has been metric since the sixties - it was a joke FFS) I'm checking in for a laugh with a Sparkling Ale from Coopers Brewery.

 

[GrumpyOleFart]

MRAD is great in a compass as well.

 

[Barelstroker]

Now @Aftermath and @Rob01 , please try to remember it is not possible to reason with a house brick.......

Either way, it appears this thread will continue to amuse and amaze most of us for at least another day.
So tonight (cause yeah, ignoring ignorant twats, I'm in Aus which BTW has been metric since the sixties - it was a joke FFS) I'm checking in for a laugh with a Sparkling Ale from Coopers Brewery.

Pull your tongue out his arse you crawler.

 

[loveha]

Something, something concrete.

 

[GrumpyOleFart]

This shit never ages.
Mils vs MOA, pissing comps over angular measurements.
Like fine wine and cheese, just gets better every serving.

 

[Smokin7s]

By calculations, I mean that If I am impacting 6 inches right at 600 yards, I know I need to hold or adjust 1 minute left. With Mil, it will now be .3 Mils.

I know I need to get better at using the reticle to make these adjustments. This has been atough transtion for me as in service rifle or F-class you get measurable results on paper to make adjustments off of.

Okay then at 1373 yards if you’re 11 inches right how many moa is that? Exactly who knows and who cares it’s x mils in my scope so I hold that or dial that. I had to have this talk with my brother. There are very few real life situations where the yardage and all that work out perfect for you to do math.

 

[Barelstroker]

The most amusing thing about this pissing comp is , I was never disagreeing with the fuckwit. This all started when the Op asked a question about converting to inches & or meters etc & I said that it's easier to use the metric system if you have a Mil scope. I was thinking in terms of using the ret for ranging & such. What I said is exactly true. I do it myself regularly.
Now he's even arguing with information I've copied from sites which deal with the subject.
I reckon he was drunk to be honest.

 

[Barelstroker]

Okay then at 1373 yards if you’re 11 inches right how many moa is that? Exactly who knows and who cares it’s x mils in my scope so I hold that or dial that. I had to have this talk with my brother. There are very few real life situations where the yardage and all that work out perfect for you to do math.

I agree totally & I told Aftermath that several times. The comment I made to the op was from the perspective of ranging with the ret, at least that's how I Interpreted it.

 

[Eostech]

This shit never ages.
Mils vs MOA, pissing comps over angular measurements.
Like fine wine and cheese, just gets better every serving.

See this is where I'd disagree.
This time it's just retarded bullshit that is not even really funny or interesting.

 

[308pirate]

By calculations, I mean that If I am impacting 6 inches right at 600 yards, I know I need to hold or adjust 1 minute left. With Mil, it will now be .3 Mils.

I know I need to get better at using the reticle to make these adjustments. This has been atough transtion for me as in service rifle or F-class you get measurable results on paper to make adjustments off of.

I see that you get it now but let me tell you a short story about the benefits of never thinking in linear units when your sights adjust in angular units.

I shot NRA service and match rifle for years. I never gave a fuck about how many inches I was off center because all my data books had target plots with MOA grids over the target diagram. I also memorized the sizes of the rings from X to 7 in MOA.

That way the correction math was instantaneous. If the spotter came up a wide 9 I didn't have to think. I instantly knew how many minutes I had to put on the windage (this was back before optics were allowed across the course) to get an X next shot. Doing it that way made it way easier to not fall behind the conditions by wasting time doing conversion math.

And because I never thought about any of this in inches, my transition to milliradians was seamless.

 

[308pirate]

at some point everyone wants to reconcile what they see in their ret to a distance, be it yrds, inches, meters or cm.

No, not everyone. Only idiots want to know.

If I need to know how far away something is, I ask Leica and she tells me. Instantly.

 

[Mike Casselton]

Mike,

Bourbon can’t be made in Washington. Just sayin.

Oh yeah. Mils = metric moa = murica

Um,
I have the correct War-shington, right?

I blame @1J04 for this.

 

[308pirate]

If you say so but, it doesn't have to clutter anything.
The Op alluded to the conversion system & I answered his question. I didn't give him an answer to a question he didn't ask.
Now the ret will subtend to any measurement you want but, if you use yrds & inches it's not divisible by 10 & then that has to be converted.
I use my Mil rets most days & I don't bring any measurements into it but, that's not what the Op asked in the post I answered.

The OP asked how to get used to dealing with a scope that has mil turrets and reticle. He thought there was a need to deal with conversions and he soon learned that has no need for linear measurements or conversions of any kind, just like they're not needed when using a scope with MOA turrets and reticle.

 

[308pirate]

You don't seem to know what "linear" means.

I know what you mean (linear in terms of a scalable ratio) and it still doesn't fucking matter.

 

[308pirate]

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.

GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR

 

[308pirate]

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.

Holy fucking shit dude........go have someone teach you geometry.

 

[308pirate]

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.

GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR

 

[Barelstroker]

GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR

Whether or not the Mil system was designed to be decimal, it is.
1 Radian subtends 57.3 deg which is divided by 1000. It is a decimalized angular system.

 

[Secant]

 

[Newbie2020]

It is interesting that the whole of what we know about angles was discovered before Christ was born, isn't it?

Smart old sumbitches

 

[Newbie2020]

@Mike Casselton

shoot...my bad

http://bourbonbuzz.com/bourbon-requirements/

google is my Sherpa

Im a dumbass but Unlike some linear hammerheads Im eager to learn

 

[308pirate]

Whether or not the Mil system was designed to be decimal, it is.
1 Radian subtends 57.3 deg which is divided by 1000. It is a decimalized angular system.

LOL

You're Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

 

[Aftermath]

I doubt anyone expects any sort of intelligent answer to any of these. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Like I said, nothing intelligent at all.

Now he's even arguing with information I've copied from sites which deal with the subject.

This sums up the matter really quite well. You have absolutely no clue of the subject at hand and must resort to internet searches, copy and pasting shit you have zero understanding of.
Not only do you have zero clue of the actual subject matter, you were unable to perform the simple calculations you used as examples.
You, sir, as stated elsewhere, are only slightly more intelligent than a house brick. A moron. E. coli makes better use of cytoplasm.

 

[Mute]

God damn it! Are we back to this minute of squirrel testicles nonsense again? Stop bringing linear measurements into this. The ONLY linear measurement that matters is distance to target. Always some MFers trying to ice skate uphill.

 

[NewsShooter]

Both of you should read it again. 0.2 Mils at 1000 yrds is 7.2"

Did you walk 1000 yards to measure that with your ruler? It's irrelevant, see impact in scope, measure using the RETICLE the difference from POA, there's the correction. Don't need to know whether it is 7 inches, 15 cm or two meters, you measured it with the ruler in your scope. Done......

 

[Aftermath]

Mils vs MOA, pissing comps over angular measurements.

Here's the deal, though. I couldn't care less what anyone uses...MIL, MOA, IPHY...FFP, SFP...
I won't even argue which is supposedly better.
Just don't try to explain one of those systems to someone asking legitimate questions unless you absolutely know and understand what you are talking about. The OP understood very quickly in this thread, then this one particular dumbass tried to add more convoluted and incorrect info. He is not capable of understanding any of the explanations from several people here. He is so incompetent that he must resort to searching the internet elsewhere when, right here on this site, even within this particular thread, all the info is spelled out over and over and over.
I don't mind calling him out on his bullshit, potentially preventing confusion on the part of someone seeking knowledge.