1 Mrad is 3.6" @ 100 yards
You are correct, I fubard that once I re-read it, should have been Mrad not mil. Don't you think your statement in that post was not very clear because you did not mention you were calculating it for 100 yards?
But my statement is the same, when I convert the two to MOA (Mrad and Mil) I use 3.5 as the multiplier because it is close enough for conversation sake. Remember, we are trying to get a rough idea what the best slope for a scope would be. Doing all the math to the enth degree as explained above is rather pointless when there is such a large margin to work with.
This is what I should have said:
As far as I am aware, 1
MRAD is actually 3.438" unless they changed it so your numbers are slightly off...
And this part is exactly on point:
When I convert the two
I use 3.5 MOA to one Mrad or mill and call it close enough for conversation sake.
[MENTION=27126]LawnMM[/MENTION]
Sorry, I apologize, but when I read stuff like this
My 308 is supersonic to close to a mile in Colorado but it's not a mile gun.
I think of all these guys that tell all these stories on how they shoot their 308's all day long at distances over 1500 yards, and hold x MOA.. you see crap like that and see what you said and there ya go, first thing you think is yet another keyboard commando.
The problem with making statements like you made is you get some young kid that thinks "well if this guy did it, then I am going to try it" because all these new know-it-alls think they can do something better than the last guy. It gives them a false impression of what is realistic.
You have to admit, pushing a 208 Amax out of a 308 supersonic to a mile is not a real bright thing to do safety wise and really not something we should bring up for the sake of the idiots that think they can do it better than you. Like you, I have done some wild stuff with some cartridges and pushed bullets faster than I should have but for safety sake, I never bring that stuff up so some dumbass decides to try it that same way this dumbass did.
What pisses me off and motivates me to use the F bombs is we take a discussion that is so basic and argue about every single statement... well my 14 year old glass is clear at the edge and maybe that is some benchrest shooters obsession...
Really? The advice that was given was sound. Just leave it at that, but no...
So here you go...
In optics, chromatic aberration (CA, also called achromatism or chromatic distortion) is a type of distortion in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point. It occurs because lenses have a different refractive index for different wavelengths of light (the dispersion of the lens). The refractive index decreases with increasing wavelength.
Chromatic aberration manifests itself as "fringes" of color along boundaries that separate dark and bright parts of the image, because each color in the optical spectrum cannot be focused at a single common point. Since the focal length of a lens is dependent on the refractive index, different wavelengths of light will be focused on different positions.
There are two types of chromatic aberration: axial (longitudinal), and transverse (lateral). Axial aberration occurs when different wavelengths of light are focused at different distances from the lens, i.e., different points on the optical axis (focus shift). Transverse aberration occurs when different wavelengths are focused at different positions in the focal plane (because the magnification and/or distortion of the lens also varies with wavelength).
These two types have different characteristics, and may occur together. Axial CA occurs throughout the image and is specified as diopters and is reduced by stopping down. (This increases depth of field, so though the different wavelengths focus at different distances, they are still in acceptable focus.)
Transverse CA does not occur in the center, and increases towards the edge, but is not affected by stopping down.
