Rifle Scopes Another mil vs moa thread

[Lowlight]

In classes now we only see about 1 MOA Scopes to 8 Mil based scopes, so we just dope the wind in Mils and then in my head I convert it to MOA and give the guys that. MOA is dying on the vine when you look at class composition.

In the classroom portion for MOA people we use the British Method and then show the limitations of the USMC / Long Hand formula, mainly because of the constants. You need to know the hold in order to calculate the correct constant for the bullet being used, but if you know the hold who cares about the formula. Its more of a discussion, "Here are two options, pick your poison and be sure to do your homework and commit your decision to chart so you only do math once and not twice. A dedicated wind chart in 2 MPH increments is the best answer for MOA people.

With apps in everyone's hands, very few will put in the effort they just default to the phone. I have yet to see someone show up with a chart, most repeat students come back with a Mil based scopes LOL. The takeaway from taking a class is get the better tool.

 

[Lowlight]

here is an irony thing,

we are debating Base 10 vs Fractions right, the method cited as being easy is the Hoffman Formula, however in the explanation it says;

If it’s a ¾ value (such as blowing across the target from 2 o’clock or 10 o’clock) multiply the previous result by 0.7 (We rounded down 7.5 to avoid fractions). So the final result is 3 MOA x 0.7 = 2.1 MOA, rounded off to 2 MOA. This means that you would adjust your target knob into the wind 2 MOA or 8 clicks of windage on a ¼ MOA

To avoid fractions, some might call that a clue

 

[Deleted member 10043]

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/wind-formula-constants.129566/

http://www.millettsights.com/downloads/JeffHoffmanWindFormula.pdf

http://www.millettsights.com/resources/shooting-tips/shooting-in-the-wind/

 

[Deleted member 113831]

How about we apply BC/MIL methodology to the MOA problem?

Given: At 1000 yards, with the bullets and cartridges we are using these days, 1mph full value wind = +/- 1/2 MOA.

So, take your bullet number that respresents your base wind from the BC/MIL method, your "5","6","7" or "8"... and drop it by one number. So a "6" becomes a "5". This is your MOA base wind.

1 MIL is 3.438 MOA, so we are basically getting rid of the 0.438 and dividing 3 MOA by 10 to get 0.3 MOA per hundred yards.

Multiply the yard line by 0.3 (example: 900 yards is 9 x 0.3 = 2.7 MOA)

If the wind is 2x the base wind, multiply by 0.6 (example: 9 x 0.6 = 5.4 MOA) ...and so on.


ALTERNATE METHOD: USE AN ANGLE OF 5 MOA
Find the wind that moves your bullet 5 MOA at 1,000 yards. This will be approximately 150% of your MIL number.

If your MIL number is a "5" then this new number is an "7", if the MIL number is a "6" then use "9". This number will give you 1/2 MOA per hundred. Of course doubling this number will give you 1 MOA per hundred for 10 MOA at 1,000 yards.

 

[Lowlight]

Been looking at that today and found a few shortcuts but most are written down and used that way, like the Army high-power guys with

300 = 2MOA
500 = 4
600 = 5
800 = 7
900 = 8
1000 = 10

But yes we are looking for a MPH method that is not caliber specific with the constants.

Like I found a variant of the British Method that works well, more like a mix between what Hoffman did with 10MPH vs 6MOA , by using 10 you just slide one decimal place

 

[Sil17sd]

I read this stuff for years and thought.... bs mils is metric and I'm a numbers guy that isnt scared of fractions at all. But I apprehensively switched to mils and it's crazy but it just seems simple, kind of hard to explain. Before it seemed like I was constantly thinking now it's simple, dope calls for 1.3 dial 1.3 ...... DONE.


No complexity of oh shit kestrel called for .61 MOA ahhh what do I do .5 or .75 MOA?

 

[Sil17sd]

Also, I tend to be an overthinker and I couldn't even imagine dicking around with a .05mil or 1/8moa scope holy shit WHY would someone wanna mind f themselves with that small of increments.

Oh yeah more precise right? Well I think I'll just have to live with those guys being more precise then.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Like I found a variant of the British Method that works well, more like a mix between what Hoffman did with 10MPH vs 6MOA , by using 10 you just slide one decimal place

I don't know that I've seen that one. Care to explain it?

 

[308pirate]

I couldn't even imagine dicking around with a .05mil or 1/8moa scope holy shit WHY would someone wanna mind f themselves with that small of increments.

To make it easier to fucking win a benchrest or F class championship. That's why.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

Here is how i did it when i had a moa scope. I adapted from the bc mil method frank and mike talked about in a podcast. I just had to play on my calculator a while to make it work.

My 260 is a 3mph gun in moa. But instead of 1000 yards, i use 500 yards. 3mph moves the bullet 1 moa at 500 yards. From there, every 100 yards further or closer is +/- .25 moa. This method keeps me within .25 moa from 100 to 1000 yards.

Everything else works exactly like the bc mil method because it applies the same principles.

I tested the theory on my other guns, 16" 308 gas gun, 18" 223 gas gun, etc. It translates.

 

[Lowlight]

So the way I have seen it

British formula
10MPH wind is your base wind. (wind speed that equals 1moa per 100 yd)
Off of base wind 2-3 = light 5 = medium 10 = base 20 = heavy

Example
Range 600, velocity 10mph = 6 moa
Range 600, velocity 5 mph = 3 moa
Range 600, velocity 2-3mph=1.5 moa
Range 600, velocity 20 mph = 12 moa

The explanation seems pretty straight forward but I have also seen I using a constant . The issue is the above is a 308.


100 = 1
200 = 2
300 = 3
400 = 4
500 = 5
600 = 7
700 = 8
800 = 10
900 = 12
1000 = 14

This way, the example is 12MPH wind at 800 so you use the constant vs the yards to correct for your rifle

12 x 10= 120

Then because the wind base is 10 MPH you just move the decimal.

12 MOA however it still needs a reference point to confirm this changing the constant. Once you have it, it's pretty easy.

Basically constant X Wind speed then slide the point.

It changes things to be a bit more accurate as the example shows @ 800 with a 10 MPH you use 8 MOA, but with the constant it's 10MOA because the caliber specific constant. Still need to do manual homework.

 

[Sil17sd]

To make it easier to fucking win a benchrest or F class championship. That's why.

I get it for sure .

I just dont have enough skill or patience to need that fine adjustment.

But..I would probably have the turrets wore out pretty quickly if I was able to dial for 1/8 moa or .05 mil corrections. Because I know I would always be trying to dial my way out my poor shooting fundamentals.

I was not trying to be offensive in the earlier post, but I'm humble enough to admit It would not benefit me (never shot in a match). I also would like to think that some other people on here would read that and realize that may be true for them as well.

 

[Lowlight]

We need a separate thread to lay this out.

The conversion @C_R_Slacker Posted is probably the answer we want

 

[C_R_Slacker]

We need a separate thread to lay this out.

The conversion @C_R_Slacker Posted is probably the answer we want

It seems to work. I've tested the theory usimg a few different hypotheticals.

 

[Sil17sd]

Where can I find the BC Mil method mentioned above?


EDIT: FOUND IT

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Here is how i did it when i had a moa scope. I adapted from the bc mil method frank and mike talked about in a podcast. I just had to play on my calculator a while to make it work.

My 260 is a 3mph gun in moa. But instead of 1000 yards, i use 500 yards. 3mph moves the bullet 1 moa at 500 yards. From there, every 100 yards further or closer is +/- .25 moa. This method keeps me within .25 moa from 100 to 1000 yards.

Everything else works exactly like the bc mil method because it applies the same principles.

I tested the theory on my other guns, 16" 308 gas gun, 18" 223 gas gun, etc. It translates.

OK, I'm listening. Show your work now. How would your process go for a 12 mph wind at 837 yards?

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Where can I find the BC Mil method mentioned above?

In a nutshell, find the wind that gives you 1 MIL at 1000 yards. Figure it 0.1 MIL per 100 yards.

 

[Sil17sd]

In a nutshell, find the wind that gives you 1 MIL at 1000 yards. Figure it 0.1 MIL per 100 yards.

Thank you sir.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Thank you sir.

I forgot to mention that it will very closely approximate the first number of your G1 BC. Hence, the BC/MIL designation.

 

[Sil17sd]

I forgot to mention that it will very closely approximate the first number of your G1 BC. Hence, the BC/MIL designation.

Yep, it's pretty close. Awesome method.

5.5 mph put me on the money.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

So the way I have seen it

British formula
10MPH wind is your base wind. (wind speed that equals 1moa per 100 yd)
Off of base wind 2-3 = light 5 = medium 10 = base 20 = heavy

Example
Range 600, velocity 10mph = 6 moa
Range 600, velocity 5 mph = 3 moa
Range 600, velocity 2-3mph=1.5 moa
Range 600, velocity 20 mph = 12 moa

The explanation seems pretty straight forward but I have also seen I using a constant . The issue is the above is a 308.


100 = 1
200 = 2
300 = 3
400 = 4
500 = 5
600 = 7
700 = 8
800 = 10
900 = 12
1000 = 14

This way, the example is 12MPH wind at 800 so you use the constant vs the yards to correct for your rifle

12 x 10= 120

Then because the wind base is 10 MPH you just move the decimal.

12 MOA however it still needs a reference point to confirm this changing the constant. Once you have it, it's pretty easy.

Basically constant X Wind speed then slide the point.

It changes things to be a bit more accurate as the example shows @ 800 with a 10 MPH you use 8 MOA, but with the constant it's 10MOA because the caliber specific constant. Still need to do manual homework.

So, in essence, instead of range x wind / a constant....every 100 yard line has it's own constant and you multiply by the wind. Interesting...I've never seen that one before.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

OK, I'm listening. Show your work now. How would your process go for a 12 mph wind at 837 yards?

3 mph is 1 moa at 500, add .75 to get to 800 = 1.75. 12 mph is 4x more than 3 mph, so 1.75 x 4 = 7. Maybe add .25 for the extra 37 yards. Just did that in my head. I'll check my calculator to see how close it gets...

Pretty close i think...

 

[NVScout]

Tagging in ! I’ve been a MOA guy from the get go but this thread has really got me considering giving mils a go!

 

[Squibbler]

Been playing with this...its kinda like a blend of Hoffman combined with BC/mil

General Equation: Full value wind hold (based on your rifle's wind #) = Range in yardage (first digit) +/- 1
Prerequisites for the equation:
1. First find your wind # for your rifle
2. Recognize there is drop-off points through the trajectory where you need to +/- 1

Applying equation:
Go into your ballistics and find the wind speed that gets the the first digits of range to match your wind hold near the end of supersonic trajectory. This is your wind #.
Now examine the trajectory for your drop-off points where +/-1 needs to be applied.
First digit of yardage - 1 at closer range bracket, equal to first digit at end of supersonic range bracket, first digit + 1 typically around transonic. There is extended range drop-off point where +2 maybe necessary for your rifles trajectory.
This generalized formula seems to be +/- .5 moa for most scenarios.... if you find the right wind # for your rifle and recognize your rifles drop-off points.
A person can "true the wind # " by trying a higher or lower wind # comparative to up/down yardage to match the given rifles trajectory the best.


Gonna try out @C_R_Slacker 's method cuz that appears that it might be easier.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

Here is my method applied my 16" 308 gas gun. It's a 2 mph gun. 2 mph moves the bullet 1 moa at 500, so every 100 yards further is +.25 and every 100 yards closer is -.25. Keeps wind call within +/- .25 moa from 100 to 800 (which is the gun's supersonic range).

After looking at it, using 400 as my reference might work better for this gun because it has such a short supersonic range, but either way it works pretty well.

 

[photorestore]

I know that this isn't exactly what Frank asked for because it's caliber specific but I figured it might help someone. With my 6.5 Creedmoor AX with a 140gr. ELD going 2760 I use half the range in minutes for an 8 mph wind. After 800 yards I add 10%. For example, in an 8 mph full value wind at 600 yards I use 3 moa, AB says 2.9. For 1000 yards I use half the range +10% (5 minutes +.5 =5.5), AB says 5.6. Now, bear in mind i live in Massachusetts so we don't get a ton of wind up here. I haven't put this to the ultimate test but it works fairly well for me so far. I guess I should add that I am basically at sea level so you guys in CO. just ignore this lol.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I know that this isn't exactly what Frank asked for because it's caliber specific but I figured it might help someone. With my 6.5 Creedmoor AX with a 140gr. ELD going 2760 I use half the range in minutes for an 8 mph wind. After 800 yards I add 10%. For example, in an 8 mph full value wind at 600 yards I use 3 moa, AB says 2.9. For 1000 yards I use half the range +10% (5 minutes +.5 =5.5), AB says 5.6. Now, bear in mind i live in Massachusetts so we don't get a ton of wind up here. I haven't put this to the ultimate test but it works fairly well for me so far. I guess I should add that I am basically at sea level so you guys in CO. just ignore this lol.

What you are using is basically the 5 MOA/ 1/2 MOA per hundred method I was talking about in post #155. If you are at sea level you lose about 0.5 mph on your basic wind. You are probably a 7.5mph.

 

[seansmd]

My RPR 6.5CM using Prime 130g is between 3-4mph, and the math works using @C_R_Slacker formula, @Skookum had shared a similar method using the app to find what mph gets me 3MOA @1000 yards which is 5mph, then use ~0.3MOA /100yards, which is very close. Both of these work, but this has convinced me the as a NOOB my first purchase of optics was wrong. I will convert to MIL on my next buy, but not until I am better understanding all of this, the funDAmentals, and get through the class up in Alaska.

 

[damoncali]

Can someone explain how any of these methods remove the need to do math in your head, or to specify a bullet & velocity? Am I just dense? It all seems the same to me.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Can someone explain how any of these methods remove the need to do math in your head, or to specify a bullet & velocity? Am I just dense? It all seems the same to me.

Some math will always be required. The trick is using a system that is the most relatable easily remembered and applied.

For instance in the MIL system, there are 1000 yards divided into 10 yard lines, and 0.1 mil per 100. That is math, but it is so easily relatable that it almost isn't. The BC and velocity and atmospherics are all wrapped up in a single number.

Your bullet number, your "base wind" is the wind that will give you 0.1 MIL wind drift per 100 yards. So, i.e.... 0.4 MILS at 400 yards... 0.8 MILS at 800 yards... 1 MIL at 1000 yards. Again, it is math, but so easily relatable that it almost isn't.

Some basic multiplication of single digits and some fractional reckoning happens when figuring multiple of your "base wind" or wind angle. But it is minimal actual figuring.

The problem with MOA, is that the angle of the base unit "1 MOA" doesn't fit neatly into what the wind actually does to a bullet. Bullets don't fly different from a gun with a MOA scope, but the reckoning of that angle is a bit more cumbersome. Thus all rules of thumb and tricks that have arisen over the years.

BTW, I know you already know all of this, I have your website in my favorites list: https://bisonballistics.com/

 

[Lowlight]

I need to start the MOA Wind Formula Thread

The difference is most MOA shooters use the long hand math formula because the rules of thumb are so limited and specific.

It's not so much math as reading and counting, 500 = .5 as a base wind for mils we can teach that super fast and easy. There is no MOA solution currently being taught that is just as easy.

We want that 1 number, the MPH of the Rifle / Ammo combination that tells the entire story as it does in Mils.

the guys above who cut the wind spend in 1/2 to use MOA have the right idea, now we just need to make sure the explanation is solid.

Wind is the great equalizer and clearly, people are falling down in this department because the methodology is so convoluted using MOA. We are trying to simplify both sides of the equations so people can actually learn something

But thanks for being a douche about trying to learn something

 

[Lowlight]

We need to crowdfund a reticle, USO used to do the custom reticles, one-offs were no problem. They are possibly the only ones who would try without a lot of extra effort

 

[Deleted member 113831]

We need to crowdfund a reticle, USO used to do the custom reticles, one-offs were no problem. They are possibly the only ones who would try without a lot of extra effort

Agreed, the idea I posted has problems so I deleted it. I'm typing faster than I'm thinking so I need to quit that shit. But, I do like wrestling with these problems.

 

[Diver160651]

We need to crowdfund a reticle, USO used to do the custom reticles, one-offs were no problem. They are possibly the only ones who would try without a lot of extra effort

Oh boy, really?

More reticles and reticle langue like the Tubb reticle is NOT the solution. It seems the REAL answer is to get people to talk the same base language, use the same tools to communicate. Your sitting right in front of so many people, you and guys like you are the answer. Encourage your students to use the mils if they are interested in PR. (I am sure you do). Maybe have loaner scopes from key MFG partners for those that show up in MOA. When people ask on the Hide what is better for PR MOA or Mils, I think it is time to definitively say mils.

Offer a set classes where people can focus on spotting, wind etc. using real world wind predictions under time pressure- I see guys all the time giving .1 corrections for an off the plate, near shot.. Hell .1 is less than the shooter wobble, less than wind uncertainty.. Teach proper corrections and the wind shortcuts.. I think giving proper corrections is the forgotten 7th fundamental

This seems like something you and a few other key instructors in the PR space, should come together on and teach with focus in a similar direction. Maybe me every year reconvene and update as more info is gained.

Edited to add: I am not talking about teaching old school shooter spotter langue or corrections where the entire new solution is called out because obviously in PR matches and such, we do not have the shooters base calls

 

[Lowlight]

I have a couple of 2-day wind classes on the schedule for 2019


We are too cut-throat, nobody really plays well together because it is business. if I teach you my stuff and you get more students than I do, I will not teach you my stuff anymore.

As it is, because of this site, me in general being accessible etc, I am very PUBLIC about what I do, most are not and guard it. I have even given my fundamental Checklist to others something I have never seen done. I designed and printed off a list and handed it out.

the information I present may not be anything new, it's not, but the way I present it is unique to me and why I have a successful class. I am not just regurgitating talking points I read on the internet. I adjust and modify the class for every situation and block of students.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

The moa method I posted works exactly like the mil method @Skookum and @Lowlight are talking about. It is slightly more cumbersome to do in your head though. That's just the nature of fractions vs base 10. It's like finding the area of a square. The procedure is always L x W = area. It doesn't matter if you use inches, centimeters, feet, or dick lengths. Your inputs and outputs are different numbers, but the square is the same size.

 

[Lowlight]

@C_R_Slacker

I need you to write out the entire thing so I can see it all

Basically, you said, 1 MOA @ 500 yards, Okay give me a breakdown of 100 to 1000 yards in the wind if 500 = 1

Not the JBM Page either, as I want to be able to completely recreate it, so we need a full breakdown and not a partial one

 

[Deleted member 113831]

More reticles and reticle langue like the Tubb reticle is NOT the solution.

What if it was just a small change? Something simple...like just graduating the wind dots on an existing reticle for 6 mph rather than 5 or 10 mph, and using a .6XX bullet at 2800 fps as the base cartridge?

 

[Diver160651]

What if it was just a small change? Something simple...like just graduating the wind dots on an existing reticle for 6 mph rather than 5 or 10 mph, and using a .6XX bullet at 2800 fps as the base cartridge?

Ya, but many .54 projos are 6mph guns. The BC on the box as you know is only an indication of base wind. The current scopes with .2 wind really are nice.. more clutter in my opinion is moving back to the TREMOR 2 etc..

 

[Lowlight]

Okay so here is some trial data with the 500 being 1 MOA

it looks like it goes

.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0

then it's really not that hard to go odd numbers after

1.3
1.5
1.75
2.0
2.5
2.75

This is a 6.5 with a 143gr at 2850fps and it's a 3 MPH gun, actually, 3.8 lines it perfect in this case.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Okay so here is some trial data with the 500 being 1 MOA

View attachment 6988356

it looks like it goes

.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0

then it's really not that hard to go odd numbers after

1.3
1.5
1.75
2.0
2.5
2.75

This is a 6.5 with a 143gr at 2850fps and it's a 3 MPH gun, actually, 3.8 lines it perfect in this case.

It seems that @C_R_Slacker method keeps you within .25 moa at all ranges. Another bonus is that it seems to be relatable to the G7 BC. Your MOA number would be the first number of the G7 BC +1.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Ya, but many .54 projos are 6mph guns. The BC on the box as you know is only an indication of base wind. The current scopes with .2 wind really are nice.. more clutter in my opinion is moving back to the TREMOR 2 etc..

The point about most guns these days being 6mph guns is exactly the point I was making. Whether you are getting there by BC or speed is irrelevant. The benefit would be that they would better line up for what most people are shooting these days. But it's a moot point. I don't see it happening.

 

[Diver160651]

I have a couple of 2-day wind classes on the schedule for 2019


We are too cut-throat, nobody really plays well together because it is business. if I teach you my stuff and you get more students than I do, I will not teach you my stuff anymore.

As it is, because of this site, me in general being accessible etc, I am very PUBLIC about what I do, most are not and guard it. I have even given my fundamental Checklist to others something I have never seen done. I designed and printed off a list and handed it out.

the information I present may not be anything new, it's not, but the way I present it is unique to me and why I have a successful class. I am not just regurgitating talking points I read on the internet. I adjust and modify the class for every situation and block of students.

^ unfortunate..

BTW lets say the MOA guys find a wind thing that really works quickly. Great for them, but $25 says that if they do and they are good, they are experienced.

To me this entire thread is about what is better, MOA or MIL. If you need to ask that question, then there is some level less than being completely spun up. So, the real question in my mind is, what is the better advice or answer to that question, considering that someone is NOT spun up? Thay may be purchasing a new scope soon, taking a PR class or maybe thinking about trying a PR type match. In that case there is ONLY one correct answer.

As an example of just how bad the MOA handicap can be; We had 1 new MOA guy to PR in our squad on Sunday:
Wind was twitchy from our backs; 160° thru 200° ish and later about 270° 10mph-20 (I didn't use a Kestrel but another squad reported a solid 20). Personally, I find that 180°- ish switching wind the hardest to deal with especially in these hills with a wide FOF. Although we don't have wind flags on our course, below is a picture of the wind flags on the Silhouette Range in the canyon (flat spot, below the shooter on the blue barrel) Lone star took the pic as we hiked up a ridge between stages. More often than not, they were blowing in complete opposite directions to each other.

Anyway, all of us were trying to figure out and sharing or predictions. Using 6mph head math my wind was really good most of the stages. I near zero's on a tripod stage when the head broke before my first shot was even off, most of my mistakes were mine, but the formula was very solid once again.

1.2L... ah ya, L maybe 3.5x that we tell the MOA shooter. I am sorry, I am ok with math. But during the match even though we all tried to help, none of use did the conversions to him any justice. We just rounded the best we could. Ya, about 3.5-4 MOA? Nobody had the time to run real conversions. Oh ya, 1.2 was on my 6mph gun, he was running a 5 mph gun (if using mills) so now what?

REALLY using MOA, he was at a huge disadvantage.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

Right, so this what I would do for my 260 in my head: 3 mph = 1 moa at 500. So counting down would be
.75 at 400
.5 at 300
.25 at 200
.25 at 100 (because i know it's not zero)

Counting up from 500
1.25 at 600
1.5 at 700
1.75 at 800
2.0 at 900
2.25 at 1000
2.5 at 1100
2.75 at 1200
3.0 at 1300

I know I'll need more at 1100+ because the bullet is really slowing down at that point. I was just continuing the pattern for the sake of this discussion.

Here is what my calculator says

It actually works out better than i thought to 1300. There is some rounding and whatnot, but it works well.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

When i do it, i think in quarters because that's what my scope adjusts in. My calculator spits out tenths even though I'm using moa. I just round to the nearest quarter.

 

[Lowlight]

That is what I did above

I used my 6.5 Load with a 143 and set it for 3.8 MPH and it lined up in 1/4s in a logical order

 

[308pirate]

1.2L ah ya, L maybe 3.5x that. I am sorry, I am ok with math. But during the match even though we all tried to help none of use did the conversions to him any justice. We just round the best we could ya, about 3.5-4 MOA? Nobody had the time to run real conversions. Oh ya, 1.2 on my 6mph gun he was running a 5 mph gun (if using mills) so now what?

REALLY he was at a huge disadvantage

Mils or MOA, no matter which one I use I don't want to know your dope. Dope depends on caliber and to a lesser extent on the exact load and rifle. Tell me your wind estimate. I can do the rest, and very fast.

 

[Diver160651]

Mils or MOA, no matter which one I use I don't want to know your dope. Dope depends on caliber and to a lesser extent on the exact load and rifle. Tell me your wind estimate. I can do the rest, and very fast.

308, most of us are talking in mil units not mph wind for the result.

With a 6mph gun, we are skipping that the 12mph only @ 30° is actually effectively 6mph. We look at the wind, we all know we have 12mph where we are standing.. but we are jumping directly to .6R on a target @625 for example. It is fudged guess the first time.

If we were wrong and needed 1 mil, that's again what we share. We don't go back and work the mph backwards as we clear the gun. We could later in the match work to figure out that it was actually closer to 16mph @ 30° or 8ish mph or was it really more than 30° etc.. but usually we are off that stage often to a new wind value. Sorry to the MOA guys, but it just doesn't happen as people are hurrying for info and occupied with their own staging and stage plan.

So thats what I've see communicated 90% of the time inside a squad at a PR match.

Fighting Siri once again on this post.

 

[morganlamprecht]

308, most of us are talking in mil units not mph wind for the result.

With a 6mph gun, we are skipping that the 12mph only @ 30° is actually effectively 6mph. We look at the wind, we all know we have 12mph where we are standing.. but we are jumping directly to .6R on a target @625 for example. It is fudged guess the first time.

If we were wrong and needed 1 mil, that's again what we share. We don't go back and work the mph backwards as we clear the gun. We could later in the match work to figure out that it was actually closer to 16mph.. but usually we are off that stage often to a new wind value. Sorry to the MOA guys, but it just doesn't happen as people are hurrying for info and occupied with their own staging and stage plan.

So thats what I've see communicated 90% of the time inside a squad at a PR match.

Fighting Siri once again on this post.

yup, similar to what i see

usually before the stages guys will discuss "im going to run a 12 mph from 10oc", but then after the stage if they missed and someone asks "what did u have to correct on that last target?...its just answered with "x.x mils on the last one"

 

[308pirate]

308, most of us are talking in mil units not mph wind for the result.

With a 6mph gun, we are skipping that the 12mph only @ 30° is actually effectively 6mph. We look at the wind, we all know we have 12mph where we are standing.. but we are jumping directly to .6R on a target @625 for example. It is fudged guess the first time.

If we were wrong and needed 1 mil, that's again what we share. We don't go back and work the mph backwards as we clear the gun. We could later in the match work to figure out that it was actually closer to 16mph @ 30° or 8ish mph or was it really more than 30° etc.. but usually we are off that stage often to a new wind value. Sorry to the MOA guys, but it just doesn't happen as people are hurrying for info and occupied with their own staging and stage plan.

So thats what I've see communicated 90% of the time inside a squad at a PR match.

Fighting Siri once again on this post.

OK whatever, we're talking past each other

PS, I use mils exclusively for LR/PR