Measuring Groups in MIL

[b2lee]

I know it is tradition...but why do we measure our groups in MOA when we shoot in MIL? Am I a trend setter or a dumb %$* because when people ask me about a group lately I say, "Rifle shot good, best group was .1 mil and the rest were .2 or sub .2 Mil"

I know...probably the later...I do it just to get that look on their face.

I'll go hide now.

 

[aprocast]

Good point, I’m gunna start too

 

[Tree]

I usually indicate group size in inches at xxx distance. Once the apps start changing their displays then I might think about something else until then inches at distance works for me. ?

 

[whatsupdoc]

 

[123Nick]

Might as well switch to the metric system while we are at it!

 

[Fig]

Nobody measures groups in MOA!
Everyone I know uses cubits.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

It is a valid question.

In my opinion, it has to do with how finely we typically measure groups on the paper. Groups are routinely measured linearly to the .001" place. So an MOA's proximity to 1 inch at 100 yards is somewhat relevant in this context.

 

[acudaowner]

If it works for you then that is all that matters . Messing with peoples minds is never a bad thing to do .

 

[Deleted member 10043]

If you shoot MILS you should record MILS. It's the "sub MOA" bug-a-boo. .1 or .2 MIL is "sub MOA" but not .3 MIL, lol..

 

[wade2big]

If I measure a group it is in inches. 1/2”, 3/8” etc. I’m not measuring an angle. Shoot angles and measure distance.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

We never measure how far from the bullseye.

 

[Rocketvapor]

A five shot group in a shoulder is still gonna hurt

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

A true tactical operator will only measure group size in fathoms.

I measure in leagues.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

A true tactical operator will only measure group size in fathoms.

I thought they measured in quantities of bodies stacked?

 

[M8541Reaper]

Fucking amateurs. Nautical Miles is where it’s at. #1NMAllDayIfIDoMyPart
lol

I shoot Mil/Mil and use Ballistic-X to measure my groupings in MOA and my ATZ in Mils. Never gave any thought to changing it up.

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

Fucking amateurs. Nautical Miles is where it’s at. #1NMAllDayIfIDoMyPart

Yeah, it's 2020. Get with the times.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Who cares? It’s a benefit to know both. So, doesn’t matter if you know your group is 1moa or .3 mil.

Doesn’t matter at all.

 

[stello1001]

Mine are measured in mils...

 

[GotCox]

Interesting question. I have always hated measuring and the yell "sub moa" because 9 times out of ten it is a cherry picked 3 shot group anyway.? I always just measure groups in inches because all my rulers are in inches, well that is a lie but i use the inchs side of my rulers.? I suppose if i had a ruler that was in mills i might use it instead, but for my purposes i might as well use any measurement as long as i use the same one each time. I aint competing with anyone.

 

[theLBC]

because at the most commonly measured distance (100 yards) for group size, 1 mil is an odd number (3.6")?

 

[IronmanDaremo]

My guess is you are already measuring in linear measurement (inches) and then have to convert to MIL. So why bother with the extra step? If you have software doing it, then it is just a click setting and pick what you like best.

People know what you mean when you say you shoot sub-MOA, but I doubt most will get it if you say your best was a .1 MIL group.

Oh ..... and 5-shot groups, or it don't count ......

 

[Steel head]

<<<<<<<<1/2 mil groups all day every day!

 

[pmclaine]

We use MOA because @Kasey hasn't produced a tool that measures in .mil yet.......

 

[Snuby642]

Tried measuring snowfall in mils but got confused, went to the ball method.

Ball deep on a dachshund is not so bad but if we progress to labradors it gets real.

It's an easy measurement because everyone knows when thier balls hit the snow.

Distance does not have to be calculated.

 

[pmclaine]

Tried measuring snowfall in mils but got confused, went to the ball method.

Ball deep on a dachshund is not so bad but if we progress to labradors it gets real.

It's an easy measurement because everyone knows when thier balls hit the snow.

Distance does not have to be calculated.

Women disagree.

Just because your "Balls Deep" doesn't mean you made the grade.

 

[Snuby642]

I disagree .

Ball deep is like all in with poker.

Lol

 

[b2lee]

I disagree .

Ball deep is like all in with poker.

Lol

Well...in Poker...depending on your hand...that could be balls deep with a butthole pucker.

 

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

We never measure how far from the bullseye.

What is the measure, cPk , or something like that. I remember it in relation to ballistic missiles and warheads. What is the confidence level ooming with in a Certain distance of a point target... Everyone talks about their 1MOA guns, but even multiple MOA targets get missed..

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

When Home Depot starts selling mil measuring tapes.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

@FromMyColdDeadHand

Cpk is how accurate you are to your average over time. Most people don't know their average because they don't shoot enough groups over time and record it. the k is the factor that you are not centered at a certain rate. Very good. If you need a measuring tape then you are way off. A regular ruler should be fine. A minimum of six five shot groups should give you an average that has acceptable statistical confidence. But keep measuring groups and eventually isolated and occasional flyers will have immaterial impact on your average. Keep it up and you will have enough groups that you can pull a statistical, rather than random, sample to verify that your sample is representative of your population. Your true verified average including k. Best performed with a .308 or .223 ensuring the barrel isn't fucking up your average. Barrel burner cartridges are SOL. Each day may be a new dawn. Cpk is about consistent process capability. Something to think about when choosing a cartridge that is being shilled out as the latest and greatest thing since pressured cooked fried chicken. It is comparing apples to oranges when there is nothing wrong with that mathematically.

 

[AIAW]

It is a valid question.

In my opinion, it has to do with how finely we typically measure groups on the paper. Groups are routinely measured linearly to the .001" place. So an MOA's proximity to 1 inch at 100 yards is somewhat relevant in this context.

I would share an identical opinion as well!

 

[308pirate]

A true tactical operator will only measure group size in fathoms.

Only SEALs do

Because maritime, that's why

 

[hlee]

because at the most commonly measured distance (100 yards) for group size, 1 mil is an odd number (3.6")?

3.6 is a even number...

 

[hlee]

Tried measuring snowfall in mils but got confused, went to the ball method.

Ball deep on a dachshund is not so bad but if we progress to labradors it gets real.

It's an easy measurement because everyone knows when thier balls hit the snow.

Distance does not have to be calculated.

Balls deep on a dachshund? Now we know why Snuby's not allowed to own dogs...

 

[Snuby642]

I don't know?

Saying I have shot a 0.1 mil group kind of sounds end all argument ish.

Unless you want to start splitting tenths.

I know someone will.

 

[Rocketvapor]

3 into a tenth, 5 into 2 tenths, 10 into 3 tenths.
Sounds good to me

 

[b2lee]

I don't know?

Saying I have shot a 0.1 mil group kind of sounds end all argument ish.

Unless you want to start splitting tenths.

I know someone will.

I know...they are like " I just shot 1/2 MOA..." and I'm like...."So friggin what! I just shot 2 tenths of a Mil!"...and they get that far away look in their eyes.

 

[Rocketvapor]

I need to make a "SPECIAL" ruler for my next trip to the public range.

 

[Snuby642]

I'm good as long as people don't mix the two in the same sentance.

Kind of like spangledesh ?

Did you want mushroom gravey with your tacos?

 

[b2lee]

I'm good as long as people don't mix the two in the same sentance.

Kind of like spangledesh ?

Did you want mushroom gravey with your tacos?

Eww....I don't see how you eat that stuff...it's pork gravy with tacos....unless it is chicken tacos then it is white country gravy.

 

[G-Dog]

First, because math is hard, and conversions beyond “‘Bout an inch at dar hundred yards” (basic MOA) provides excess cognitive load for the average shooter. Second, humans in general are terrible at intuitively comprehending scale. Third, bias “anchoring” occurred with any number/price/system we lean/hear first. Basically, MOA isn’t better, I’m just lazy! ?

 

[WATERWALKER]

The reasons for describing group sizes in MOA vs MIL can best be described as “idiomatic” for a couple of reasons.

1. Who cares?
2. It fits the fucking definition of idiomatic. Those who’re multilingual will understand this fact.

 

[aprocast]

Went down to my shed and dug out a bunch of targets to measure them in mils and add something really special to this thread
What a waste of fukn time that was, impressive data sounds much less impressive

 

[Bmghunter]

Reviving this thread because this same thought came to me the other day. Did a search to see who else thought of it and voila.
.3 mil is close to 1 moa so sub .3 mil is good, Sub .2 mil is great, and sub .1 mil, well that's just YouTube.
Going with mil size groups now.

 

[Luckyshot]

Sorry, it simply does not compute. Inches or moa for group-size forever

 

[Snuby642]

Reviving this thread because this same thought came to me the other day. Did a search to see who else thought of it and voila.
.3 mil is close to 1 moa so sub .3 mil is good, Sub .2 mil is great, and sub .1 mil, well that's just YouTube.
Going with mil size groups now.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Aftermath]

MILOA or GTFO

IT'S FEBRUARY, Y'ALL!

 

[Modoc]

You really want to fry brains at the range, I’ll loan you one of my work tape measures. Civil Engineer working in 0.1 and 0.01 foot increments. . A 0.125 foot group sounds much better than 1-1/2” group!

Just decide on the Increment you want to use and watch everyone melt down.

 

[6.5SH]

 

[aprocast]

Sub .1 mil sounds good