Rifle Scopes Another mil vs moa thread

[Lowlight]

I was just talking to someone shooting Mammoth Soon so because it’s a team thing with two different calibers they have to speak in MPH

If 6.5 Shooter uses 1 Mil on Target X the 223 can’t translate Mils but he can MPH

 

[Diver160651]

I was just talking to someone shooting Mammoth Soon so because it’s a team thing with two different calibers they have to speak in MPH

If 6.5 Shooter uses 1 Mil on Target X the 223 can’t translate Mils but he can MPH

Everyone kinda shares the first guys at FFP wind speed prediction or has their own in MPH, then translates a hold before the shot.

If both are on mills and the 6.5 guy needed X it fairly easy adjustment from a 6mph gun to a 4mph gun, because they are both using mils.. BTW at your own team match there were some guys with the teammates dope on their own arm board, fairly smart. They were also calling elevations instead of yardage so nobody could use their distance reads..

Now, if the 65 guy was on Mils and the 223 guy on MOA ya, no choice convert it all back to MPH or use a shared arm board..

 

[Diver160651]

Because it is a team event they can plan before the event.

Here's what I meant about an arm board for wind with two dissimilar wind values. Here is the 6.5 guys base wind with the same value on the 223 --- the 223 guy might do the same for his base wind of 4 mph and could reverse it with a 4 base effect on the 6.5.

So lets just say the adjusted FV prediction is 9mph at 650 for the 6.5 guy is .9// he only needed .6; Sliding up to .6 on the 6.5 guys wind would be 1 mil for the 223 guy. Same for the actual elevation for distance/gravity drop. This eliminates the need to translate distance or MPH after the initial call and shot.

 

[damoncali]

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/

I get all that. And I get the benefit of radians and why they exist. And yes, they are metric. But practically, are you not still having to scale the wind value (say, 10 mph to the actual value of 6mph), and account for direction (half value, full value, etc)? Neither of these are factor of ten easy, and if you're doing it fast, you will probably introduce a small estimation error (unless you're REALLY good at math. I'm not.). It seems like using a rule of thumb vs looking at a chart is not really a meaningful improvement - you have to look up elevation anyhow, right?

And thanks for checking out the site. The new bullet business has sucked up a lot of time for writing, but I'm hoping to get back to it soon.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I get all that. And I get the benefit of radians and why they exist. And yes, they are metric. But practically, are you not still having to scale the wind value (say, 10 mph to the actual value of 6mph), and account for direction (half value, full value, etc)? Neither of these are factor of ten easy, and if you're doing it fast, you will probably introduce a small estimation error (unless you're REALLY good at math. I'm not.). It seems like using a rule of thumb vs looking at a chart is not really a meaningful improvement - you have to look up elevation anyhow, right?

And thanks for checking out the site. The new bullet business has sucked up a lot of time for writing, but I'm hoping to get back to it soon.

Scaling for multiples of the wind speed is simply counting by 5's or 6's or 7's you are only going to be dealing with 4 or 5 multiples at the outside most of the time.

When scaling for wind angle is simple multiplication. Say I would have a .8 hold if the wind were full value. But it isn't, it is .7 value. 7x8 =56. So I do a small rounding and hold .6 mils.

Say it would be a 2.5 mil hold, but again, .7 value. 7x25 =175, so 1.75. It took longer to type it than do it in my head.

 

[damoncali]

Scaling for multiples of the wind speed is simply counting by 5's or 6's or 7's you are only going to be dealing with 4 or 5 multiples at the outside most of the time.

When scaling for wind angle is simple multiplication. Say I would have a .8 hold if the wind were full value. But it isn't, it is .7 value. 7x8 =56. So I do a small rounding and hold .6 mils.

Say it would be a 2.5 mil hold, but again, .7 value. 7x25 =175, so 1.75. It took longer to type it than do it in my head.

So the main benefit of this rule of thumb is that you don't have to look up (or memorize) a windage value? That's not nothing, but I don't know that I would call it a reason to choose mils over MOA. I think I'm just in the "it doesn't matter" camp (outside of communication, if that's something you require). For me, looking at a table is less mental load than thinking "500 yards is .5" Admittedly, I do very little shooting where this is even an issue, so maybe it's just an experience thing.

Tangentially related, I think fractions are a benefit (for me), not a problem. If you're just reading off a table, you don't need to dial precisely if you have 1/8 clicks - you're still going to be about as close as .1 mil clicks even if you're off one. You can eyeball it and you're going to be fine. I do this all the time. I never translate the decimal my caluclator outputs into 1/8s. I just eyeball it. Alternatively, it's trivial for a program to spit out the number of 8ths rather than the number of 10ths.

And for me at least, it's easier to divide up a space by factors of two than tenths. So if I'm trying to adjust what is about .3 ticks of a reticle, I look at it, split it in half mentally, then split it in half again, and see that the impact is just a hair over .25. You never have to split it more than 3 times, which happens in the blink of an eye with very little mental effort.

That is somehow easier to me than judging that it's 30% of the way over - when I try to do that, I'm still splitting it mentally, but 10 isn't a power of 2, so it screws me up. A minor thing, but everything counts towards keeping the mental load down and minimizing mistakes. I don't know if everyone thinks this way, but I do.

 

[C_R_Slacker]

But practically, are you not still having to scale the wind value (say, 10 mph to the actual value of 6mph), and account for direction (half value, full value, etc)? Neither of these are factor of ten easy, and if you're doing it fast, you will probably introduce a small estimation error (unless you're REALLY good at math. I'm not.). It seems like using a rule of thumb vs looking at a chart is not really a meaningful improvement - you have to look up elevation anyhow, right?

Do you have a chart for every wind speed and angle? Any dope card I've seen has drop and a corresponding full value wind for each yardage listed. You still have to figure what percentage of that full value you're adjusting for, so it's really no different.

 

[Lowlight]

He is just being contrarian why explain something that is beyond obvious

 

[damoncali]

Do you have a chart for every wind speed and angle? Any dope card I've seen has drop and a corresponding full value wind for each yardage listed. You still have to figure what percentage of that full value you're adjusting for, so it's really no different.

That's kind of my point - you're still multiplying 3 numbers (value, direction, and scale). I'm not saying my way is better. Just that it's no more difficult. If the rule of thumb gets even a little complicated, it's harder than just looking at a card. (And I agree - the MOA based rules of thumb are more complex than I care to remember). I'm not trying to be a dick - if a rule of thumb is an easier starting point than looking up a number on a card, then by all means do that. Whatever works.

I did try making wind roses with multiple wind values to see how that would work. But even if you have one done for a specific range, I found it more trouble than scaling a 10mph value and adjusting for direction, even for a single distance. Maybe there is a better way of organizing that information visually (maybe some sort of chart), but using a bunch of multiple value roses to cover out to 1000 yards would be pretty ridiculous and a clear step backwards.

I'm just looking at it a different way I guess. I want to eliminate multiplying the three numbers in my head, but not have the reference card be so busy that it's more difficult to look up the answer than it is to just multiply the numbers. I haven't figured out how to do that yet, but I'm not convinced it can't be done.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

And for me at least, it's easier to divide up a space by factors of two than tenths. So if I'm trying to adjust what is about .3 ticks of a reticle, I look at it, split it in half mentally, then split it in half again, and see that the impact is just a hair over .25. You never have to split it more than 3 times, which happens in the blink of an eye with very little mental effort.

That is somehow easier to me than judging that it's 30% of the way over - when I try to do that, I'm still splitting it mentally, but 10 isn't a power of 2, so it screws me up. A minor thing, but everything counts towards keeping the mental load down and minimizing mistakes. I don't know if everyone thinks this way, but I do.

I don't get this part, why would you see a correction in your reticle and dial something different? With either system you should be dialing the correction you see. I don't think I'm following what you are getting at.

 

[atepointer]

This was a great 'new' read for me b/c coming from short range hunting inside 200 yards an MPBR with a 308 takes care of anything and everything. I just purchased an SWFA MOA/MOA and kind of wished I'd of done MIL after reading this, but for cutting my teeth and knowing this won't be my last scope I'll just file this away for next time and learn both. Learned a lot here thanks

 

[LeftyJason]

This was a great 'new' read for me b/c coming from short range hunting inside 200 yards an MPBR with a 308 takes care of anything and everything. I just purchased an SWFA MOA/MOA and kind of wished I'd of done MIL after reading this, but for cutting my teeth and knowing this won't be my last scope I'll just file this away for next time and learn both. Learned a lot here thanks

Could be much worse. 2nd focal Mildot reticle with 1/2 IPHY (inch per hundred yard) turrets. That is the first scope that I got. It sits on my .22. AR has a strike fire on it. Used to have the mismatched leupold pos on it. Now I know much better. Next is probably a razor 2 4.5-27 in mil.

 

[LeftyJason]

Why is it the more I read this thread I am reminded of this other one?
https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...l-possibilities-here-in-the-bear-pit.6902557/

 

[beetroot]

No, I don’t memorize it. It’s a chart. I have a full 8.5x11 sheet for ease of use, and a miniaturized chart in a wrist coach for quick use.QUOTE]

Now that folk are finally coming around to the metric system it's about time the US started using the A series of paper sizes.

 

[Diver160651]

What this thread shows is that a lot of people are not shooting outside their small group or range.

Keep your mixed scope, moa scope or whatever and mix it up my going to a precision rifle match. Get in a squad have a great time.

When you get home, stay off the shopping sites or you’ll be itching for a new Mil scope.

Either way your shooting experience will be richer

 

[sinister]

Nothing is going to replace trigger time and wind reading experience for getting off a shot quickly and accurately.

You can use any matter of gazzintas at whatever range you want, mils, MOA, British, whatever. You dial or hold over, then use your hashes (mil; MOA; or with a plain cross-hair dead-on, 5 inches (neck-line on an E-type), 10 inches [edge on an E-type], 15 inches, etc.).

If your first shot is a miss you're going to use dots or Kentucky windage anyway, right (Christmas tree or TLAR -- That Looks About Right)?

Not sure what all the panty-twisting is about. Pick one, take it to PRS matches, see who wins or progresses in their development.

It's musketry. Like any other competitive field, whoever does it best (not necessarily fastest) wins.

 

[AMTGMC]

So after reading this it appears that a mil reticle would be better to hold for wind and a moa turret for finer adjustment. Best of both worlds, someone should build one!

 

[damoncali]

I don't get this part, why would you see a correction in your reticle and dial something different? With either system you should be dialing the correction you see. I don't think I'm following what you are getting at.

I mean if I look through my scope and I see a bullet hole about 3/10 of the way from center to the first tick mark. The way I figure that is to split that tick (say it's 1 MOA), in half, then half again (in my head), and see that the hole is right about where 1/4 MOA is. I then dial 1/4 MOA, which is how the turrets are divided (1/8ths or 1/4ths). Fractions make this easier for me mentally. You could just put the tick marks closer together but that makes it hard to read and busy.

This is not a huge deal, but I do like fractions because of it. And I'm sure there are some reticles where this doesn't even make sense. This is exactly how my nightforce comp is laid out (1 MOA ticks, 1/8 MOA clicks) and I do this all the time. Maybe it's an F class thing. It's defnitely a "way my brain works" thing, and not a universal truth.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I mean if I look through my scope and I see a bullet hole about 3/10 of the way from center to the first tick mark. The way I figure that is to split that tick (say it's 1 MOA), in half, then half again (in my head), and see that the hole is right about where 1/4 MOA is. I then dial 1/4 MOA, which is how the turrets are divided (1/8ths or 1/4ths). Fractions make this easier for me mentally. You could just put the tick marks closer together but that makes it hard to read and busy.

This is not a huge deal, but I do like fractions because of it. And I'm sure there are some reticles where this doesn't even make sense. This is exactly how my nightforce comp is laid out (1 MOA ticks, 1/8 MOA clicks) and I do this all the time. Maybe it's an F class thing. It's defnitely a "way my brain works" thing, and not a universal truth.

OK, I'm tracking with what you are saying now. Making corrections isn't any more difficult with either system, making the initial wind call can be quite different though. You don't deal with that in a discipline where you get sighters.