In that case I don’t compute anything. I dial and shoot. If I need to know how many mils/moa that is I look in the scope.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
How to transition from thinking in MOA to thinking in MILLs
- Thread starter DMTYAGER
- Start date
You are literally taking the thinking out of the problem.Someone tells you they shot a 4" group at 1000 yards, what's the group size?
That's not thinking in angular units, that's converting from linear units which people do instinctively understand via mental mathematics to angular units which people do not instinctively use, thus the term "conversion". Flip the statement around to see more clearly:
"That plate is 2moa across." would be met not with the instinctive understanding that because it's N distance away that it's linear width is Y. If they were thinking in angular units then linear equivalents would not enter into the matter at all. In the real world though, an experienced shooter would probably say to himself, "a 2moa target is not large but it's not small either" with zero realization of the linear measure entering into their mind. When I pony up to the barricade and the target shows up in my optic as .8 mils across I don't need to concern myself with how many inches that is because it's not really meaningful.
Yep.
Your reticle is a Ruler. Doesn't matter if it's measuring in Inches, Centimeters, or Planks. Once you take your shot, spot where the bullet impacted, use your ruler to measure the difference horizontally and vertically from the point of impact to the CENTER of the plate. Whatever those numbers are, add / subtract that number to your scope in the reticle for your next shot. There is no need to know precisely how many inches it is to the center of the plate. If your reticle is in MILs, and you held .5 MILs left of the center of the plate for wind on the first shot, and the bullet impacted .4 to the right of the center of the plate, adjust your hold to .9 left of the center of the plate (your original .5 left plus the .4 you missed to the right of the center of the plate), and send it.
There's no need to make it any more complicated than that.
Ok I understand your point I got a bit lost in the semantics, my examples would likely come up more in conversation than actually on the clock.
I shot Ko2M Canada and they gave target distance and dimensions the day before. I ended up calculating them in Mils so I had it for my DOPE card. Next year I won't bother they were all roughly .2x.4 but it does help to know that and can bracket wind a bit.
4”
Someone tells you they shot a 4" group at 1000 yards, what's the group size?
Maybe my terminology wasn't the best but with precision I was referring to ability to adjust the impact to the bullseye. Let's say for example at 1000 yards you are impacting 2.6" left. On a MOA scope with 1/4 MOA clicks one click would perfectly center your group on the target. If you had a MRAD scope with .1mrad clicks wouldn't one click move you 3.6" and now you are shooting 1" right? Practically speaking does 1" at 1000 yards matter to the average person? I doubt it but what I was trying to state is in theory the MOA scope with 1/4 MOA clicks offers more precise adjustments vs .1mrad.Technically you are correct. I did state those numbers above myself as to clicks when talking strictly about the precision of the instruments. So I'll talk about that now. For all purposes the MIL system is not less precise. And in fact, it is more precise when using the metric system. In the example in your last paragrah you jumped over to accuracy - hitting the center, that's a different thing from instrumental precision and a whole different discussion.
I use MOA all the time but for astrophotography, not for shooting. In astrophotography the sky is a moving target so telescope mounts have to be VERY precise to track the sky. A mechanical error of 2 arcseconds will result in an image with oblong stars. One arcsecond by the way is 1/3600 of a degree...
The difference you and I stated is for the precision of instrument clicks and said stated difference is only 1/10 of an inch (.36-.26). The reality is that 1/10 of an inch precision is not only VERY small, but it is also not less precise and I'll explain why below:
Both MOA and MRAD systems use approximations. Let's take an inch at 100 yards. These approximations get larger as the angle, and consequently, the distance increases (you did mention that). That is why above I mentioned that three clicks on a .1 MIL scope are 1.08 inches whereas in MOA that approximation (4-clicks) is 1.047. taking that into account, the approximation error is now down to .033. That is three one hundreds of an inch!
And it gets worse for MOA. MRAD although interchangeable within numerical systems really shines when using the metric system where it was designed to be used. And there the approximation error in .1 MIL using 1 centimeter at 100 meters is 3.3×10−7%. That's .00000033 for a .1 MIL angle approximation error! The formulas for approximation errors are complex, but available on the internet.
These are very good reasons why the US military adopted both the Metric and MRAD systems. The system is more precise.
I'd say:
Jesus, that's a huge fucking target. Do you have anything smaller?
Can I paint a 2" dot on it and shoot at that?
You can look at it that way if you like mental gymnastics.
Try this instead.
Look at your impact vs hold. Your MOA reticle will show your impact as 1/4 MOA left.
You can either dial the correction, or simply hold 1/4 MOA to the right.
No conversion, no nothing but using the reticle to determine hold vs impact.
Also, at 1k, I definitely wouldn't dial the correction unless the wind is totally stable. (Hint: it's not)
I would simply hold a little more to the right, or just send another one because we all know we're not shooting 2" groups at 1k unless we're top F-Class shooters.
Yes, the terminology for your comment is accuracy, not precision. Think of it this way: Precision is grouping, wherever the group lands and is mostly a mechanical system attribute. Accuracy is hitting the bullseye, which means adjusting for wind, gravity drop etc. - human at the wheel. If you hit the bullseye consistently then you have both, precision AND accuracy.
And for a bit more information, your example above is not realistic unless your are shooting in an F-class match where you can see your impacts at 1000 yards electronically - only way you can see them when shooting paper.
Also, the F-class bullseye (the X ring in the center), is 5 inches. so a 1/4 MOA or a .1 MIL adjustment is not really relevant because you already hit the bullseye or very close to it. And at 1000 yards there are other factors that induce much more variability. Rifles are not lasers. They have inherent dispersion rates, well I take that back, lasers do too...
An an edit here:
For you and a number of other posters on this thread I recommend going to Amazon and spending like $40 dollars (nothing compared to a rifle and ammo) and buy two books. The internet is full of bullshit. These books are not! Links below:
Frank's book - the owner of this site (If only buying one buy this one)
Ryan Cleckner's book - a book for beginners (I shoot well and still bought it and learned from it)
Last edited:
I’ve never switched to MILs because I’m a hunter. Lots of hunters use MILS just fine. I can’t. Most suggest using your reticle for adjusting for a miss. On paper this works great. Super easy as is MOA. Simply use the reticle.
On an animal (at least for me) it does not work. I can figure out MOA on the fly and in an absolute instant. I cannot with MILS. I’ve tried to get a few friends who are dedicated MIL users who swear up and down that it’s just as easy on the fly to show me without using their reticle on a moving target. By the time they do, that animal is long gone.
EXAMPLE: if you miss a deer at 750 yards, they don’t usually stand there for you to put your reticle back on target and see how many MILS you were off. But, if you can see your miss (say 7” high) then the math is instant and easy with MOA. You’re about minute high. 1 MOA at 750 yards is 7.5” (roughly). Easy and fast. I’m back on target with second shot ready.
If I hit 7” high at 750 yards, I have absolutely no idea on the fly how many MILs or tenths high that is. I just can’t do 750 yards at .36/100 yards or 3.6/100 yards that quick.
Hang tight deer while I get a calculator out.
The math is easy when you have a second. When you don’t have a second, for me it’s tuff.
On an animal (at least for me) it does not work. I can figure out MOA on the fly and in an absolute instant. I cannot with MILS. I’ve tried to get a few friends who are dedicated MIL users who swear up and down that it’s just as easy on the fly to show me without using their reticle on a moving target. By the time they do, that animal is long gone.
EXAMPLE: if you miss a deer at 750 yards, they don’t usually stand there for you to put your reticle back on target and see how many MILS you were off. But, if you can see your miss (say 7” high) then the math is instant and easy with MOA. You’re about minute high. 1 MOA at 750 yards is 7.5” (roughly). Easy and fast. I’m back on target with second shot ready.
If I hit 7” high at 750 yards, I have absolutely no idea on the fly how many MILs or tenths high that is. I just can’t do 750 yards at .36/100 yards or 3.6/100 yards that quick.
Hang tight deer while I get a calculator out.
The math is easy when you have a second. When you don’t have a second, for me it’s tuff.
Last edited:
With hunting I always seem to have the two extremes, absolutely no time for things like dialing a scope, barely enough time to hold over. Or, I have enough time to take out laser rangefinder, take out my phone and consult ballistic programs dial my scope, play with the magnification, decide if I really want to shoot or not, watch for a long long time..
If you are using a plain crosshairs and holding over, you can still “think in inches” knowing how to aim relative to the game.
If you are using a reticle with some kind of hashmarks, you need to memorize the corresponding drops (and/or use a cheat sheet or a phone app) MOA/MILS Is irrelevant, Just “this line is 200 yards, this line is 275 yards, this line is 350 etc. etc.” for when you don’t have time to dial.
Not sure how are you are going to know you missed the deer by 7 inches at 750 yards unless it’s standing against a wall.
(Oh and I am not a big MILs guy, when you have fifty or so MOA scopes and one or two MRAD, It’s hard for me to not “think in MOA”)
If you are using a plain crosshairs and holding over, you can still “think in inches” knowing how to aim relative to the game.
If you are using a reticle with some kind of hashmarks, you need to memorize the corresponding drops (and/or use a cheat sheet or a phone app) MOA/MILS Is irrelevant, Just “this line is 200 yards, this line is 275 yards, this line is 350 etc. etc.” for when you don’t have time to dial.
Not sure how are you are going to know you missed the deer by 7 inches at 750 yards unless it’s standing against a wall.
(Oh and I am not a big MILs guy, when you have fifty or so MOA scopes and one or two MRAD, It’s hard for me to not “think in MOA”)
You might try purchasing a metric tape measure if you don't already own one & just use it around the house for a while.
Just measure all kinds of shit to give your mind a chance to familiarize itself.
As with just about anything, give your mind time & practice & you'll pick metric distances without a lot of fuss.
God, please help me keep my composure here..... That quote above seems the only valid statement in your post. You really need to consider going back to hunting school.
Given a western deer - a mule deer, you didn't miss while seeing the impact fly high by 7-inches at 750 YARDS.... You actually missed your aim point high by ~17-inches!
That's (in MOA) -17"x1.047"x(I have no idea how far the dammed deer was)=(MOA? Mils? Inches? Not going to matter)
Assuming you are the expert hunter that you are, then the only explanation is that you GROSSLY misjudged the distance to the target. The deer had to be considerably closer than 750 yards. Now what? How do you correct for that? If you are going to use examples as to why you do things the way you do, do the math first. Start there.
Whew! That was so hard to not use expletives here....
It was just an easy quick way to explain the number instead of getting into a mule deer, whitetail, elks actual body size difference. That would have been a whole another argument if I would have started throwing out animal dimensions. Someone out there always has to argued that a mule deer is X big vs X big. Happens on all the forums. Chill out. It was just for a quick reference for number purposes only.
But still, as a reference, it showed how you grossly miscalculated in the first place......
Miscalculated? The calculation was correct for the numbers used. But simplicity in the explanation vs detailing animal size height for ease of understanding is a miscalculation to you?But still, as a reference, it showed how you grossly miscalculated in the first place......
Last edited:
Well, it does bring up a point that when hunters miss, it's usually over their prey. Admittedly, that's not a mils/MOA issue, but a miscalculation of drop or actual distance. So you counted two MOA high, or were you at 700yds instead?
And yes, you won't get time to measure the correction with your reticle.
And yes, you won't get time to measure the correction with your reticle.
All I was getting at is it’s easier for me to do MOA in my head, especially in a hurry vs MILS. Specifically when you can’t use your reticle.
If I was a target guy, I’d absolutely have all MIL scopes.
Funny thing is, I do totally agree with the fast use of MOA. To explain to others since it's a FUDD sport: Years of NRA Highpower where we used the rough "come-ups" 2 for 200, another three for 300, 3 more for 400, etc all the way up to 1K. So yeah, it's quite fast in our heads.
No way have I memorized the Mils that fast.
No way have I memorized the Mils that fast.
You are converting angles to linear measurements again, and it's not necessary or accurate. If you are using a MOA scope the detentions essentially match anyway, so there's even less reason to convert them to linear measurements.
But, I can see that some of you are just going to flatly refuse to get it. I am a mathematical genius (NOT) the way I can transition between Mils and MOA scopes without even thinking about it. The quadratic conversion equations just come to me like I was born in a scientific calculator.
Well then our experiences are quite different.
I’ve never had a miss where the rifle remained in such a position that I could accurately see the reticle, sight picture, animal etc.
Not sure that is even possible and if so, someone would have to prove it to me. Quite often you can see a miss in the scope, but that reticle is considerably off target. Especially light weight hunting rifles. It stays nowhere near its original position to where you could line up that reticle. Not a chance I would ever believe it.
Big heavy bench rifle. Sure.
All I'm saying is I get the fast MOA dope for distance that @Pronghunter is talking about. Without looking at your Kestrel or dope card taped to the stock, how many mils up for a shot at 550yds? The old FUDs using MOA would spit out a number that fast. Unless I'm using Speed Drop, there's no fast "rule of thumb" for mils.
Yeah, I get it, "cool story bro"....
Memorizing your dope is no different for one measurement than the other. If anything should be easier with mils because of smaller numbers.
Ledzep's quick guide to modern centerfire mil "come ups":
200- 0.4
300- 1-1.2
400- 2
500- 3
600- 4
....
Can't "chill out". Your 750 yard deer example, and the errors therein, do a great disservice to the hunting community and shooters in general. Let alone the animals. It gives the uneducated masses the impression that shots like that are commonplace, when in fact for most hunters the scenario you described would be considered reckless.
Any hunter that is interested in shooting animals at long ranges but wont take the time to use a doped rifle, a $300 rangefinder and at the very least a drop cheat sheet just because the opportunity presented doesn't allow the time is indeed reckless. You example, whether on purpose or not, telegraphs just that.
I'm gonna step back into this pit of shit.
I'll start with telling you what I've been doing.
Lately, I've taken to setting up and shooting a very lightweight 7 Remington Magnum.
The length of pull is 1-1/4" too short for me. It has no cheek piece to rest my noggin on. It has the open, swept back grip that all of the plastic stocked Remingtons came with.
It weighs 7-1/2# loaded.
I'm launching 162 ELDMs at just under 3000fps velocity.
No matter how well I get behind the rifle, it will come up some and disturb the sight picture.
Impacts at 100 yards are tough to spot. From 200+, it gets easier and easier. The pig at 517yds is super easy to spot impact. The plates at 800 can be spotted and trace is also easy to watch.
My recommendation to you?
Firstly, you need to learn to get PROPERLY set up behind your rifle.
Whether you're shooting steel, paper or speedgoats, the info you're presenting says a lot about your form.
It's terrible.
Get your mind off of the mathematics of shooting and focus on the basic principles of good marksmanship.
Learn to square up behind the rifle and practice watching trace and spotting impacts.
Don't worry about measuring or converting anything. Just learn how to shoot first.
If you want to learn to make corrections, it's really simple. Go to the range and setup directly behind a buddy and use a scope or spotter with a reticle that matches your buddie's reticle.
Hint: it won't matter if it's MIL or MOA as long as it matches his optic.
Spend a couple of hours spotting and using that ruler on the reticle to call the corrections to your buddy.
If the light doesn't come on, then I suggest taking up golf or drafting.
If you insist on doing mathematical gymnastics then we're never going to be able to help you.
Here's an image of a reticle with two different impact points. (Sorry the color blotches are big, this was done on my phone)
Let's get the consensus on what correction the shooter needs for center impact.
Green first.
Red second.
You got all that by someone simply saying their reticle comes off target enough to where they cannot always see a miss or impact.
I hunt with a pretty light carbon build. It’s hard to keep on target once fired.
I’d be willing to bet we have different hunting styles. Whether in the Yukon, the Brooks, or Southeast Alaska, perfect shooting position more times than not doesn’t always happen. As much as I’d like it too, it just doesn’t. That doesn’t mean unethical shots are taken.
Things can happen fast. Things can go south.
I use a rifle that works for me caliber wise and weight wise. And dope chart? Of course I use ballistic apps, (applied ballistics, Zeiss RF or Sigs and have all data proven with every load and rifle. I shoot and prove all my data year round). I’ve chosen the 300 Ultra that’s short, carbon and light. Maybe too light. But it works. An 8lbs Ultra isn’t the most manageable at times. More times than not, a miss isn’t always visible.
Point of all this being, I’m not on a bench with a heavy PRS build and time to measure with the reticle if there’s a miss.
And we wouldn’t even be having this conversation if I would have went into a little more detail on the 750 yards, 7” high miss and explaining the animal vital size and putting it into the equation and adding a little more MOA. From that, you and another made assumptions. . I simply tried to keep it simple on how I can figure MOA vs MILS quick and off top of my head. But from me simplifying an easy equation, you have come to the conclusion that I’m spreading miss information and bad info, and that I need to work on form. All that from a little math problem.
Spend more time outdoors. You need fresh air.
Sheesh. It was an equation.
Last edited:
You sure about red dot for a second round impact?
But yeah no need to convert from mils to inches then back to mils.
The dots simply represent two different shots, not one after the other or one as a correction to the other.
Basic correction to center is all that is needed..
Sorry, I was too stupid to comprehend plain English on that.
Wow.
You went waaaaay off into the alders.
And you're still missing the point about not needing any type of conversion.
Mike,
Your problem is that you (and I) just don’t understand how complicated it is supposed to be. We’ve apparently been making this way to easy on ourselves and need to complicate things up a bit to catch up to these obviously much better shooters.
Silly me. I always just thought that if you took a shot and it missed, you just corrected your aim in the scope (or even iron sights for that matter) and send the corrected shot. I should have been doing mental gymnastics all of this time.
And I’m still a little confused about how one can say that they cannot watch for impact location in the scope to make a quick correction and yet still know that they impacted 7” too high at 750 yards. That one has me a-pondering’, it does.
Okay, one last comment. All you that are converting inches/centimeters/feet/cubits/ meters into Mil/Moa are…wait for it…doing. It. Wrong. Unless you have the time and you are using your reticle to range the target, stop doing that. Take a class. Learn how to use your scope for something besides a magnifying glass.
That is all.
Oh shit…. Was that a mil reticle or moa? Duplex? Same answer.
But, we don't hunt in Al-askhole so we can't know anything about hunting and we spend too much time indoors.
Or something like that.
@lash
I kept thinking the same thing in regards to the 7" miss, but it's just so damn hard to milti-multi-multi quote on a phone, it's just not worth the effort.
Last edited:
BTW, I can see that you aren't a Marine.
You missed a great opportunity to draw a dick.
Not a marine, however…. Enhance….. Enhance….. Enhance.
Attachments
MOA: Measuring with a ruler/yardstick.
MIL: Measuring with calipers.
I'd just say it a finer measurement to use MIL, hence you could say you are able to adjust your hits in 1/10" per click increments compared to 1/4"per click increments.
MIL: Measuring with calipers.
I'd just say it a finer measurement to use MIL, hence you could say you are able to adjust your hits in 1/10" per click increments compared to 1/4"per click increments.
No, that is down right incorrect. MOA is a finer adjustment.
it's 1/10 Mil vs 1/4 MOA not inches.
@ 100yards .1 Mil is roughly .36" and 1/4 Moa is roughly .25"
it's not really a big enough difference to care about
Similar threads
