Mil-ranging Standards

[BeteNoire]

I'm fishing for everyone's opinion on what would be considered a good standard to achieve when learning how to mil-range targets, e.g. a 24" out to 1000 yds or 30" torso out to 1200? I'm just trying to set a benchmark for myself, but don't want to stress out until I know what is a realistic standard. Please let me know what standard you all train to.

Thanks!!

 

[ArTeeKay]

Your capability to get accurate measurements is going to depend on what your target is. A white square with fresh paint against a dark background? Very easy. A dark, irregular silhouette against a dark background? More difficult.

Your confidence in target size is another factor. Is it a steel gong "exactly" 30" wide? Or is it a hay bale that is usually 30" wide, but might be a little wider or narrower?

Additionally, certain reticles are going to be better or worse for milling targets. One with thin, relatively closely spaced hash marks is going to be more difficult to see in poor lighting conditions, but will allow you to be more precise when using that reticle as a ruler. Thick hashes farther apart will be easier to see, and may help prevent mistaking .2 for .4 when you're pressed for time, but when your target is 1.25 mils wide, and hash subtensions are .1, you could end up with a proportionally larger error.

I also assume you're going to be using an FFP scope for this exercise. SFP is not impossible, but verify the magnification at which the reticle matches up with expected measurements at known range. Even with FFP, I'd verify, just to feel confident in my system.

My advice is to practice ranging the targets you normally shoot at the distances you normally shoot them at, then confirm with a known accurate laser rangefinder. If you're shooting gophers for example, mil-range them, dope and shoot. A hit where point of aim and point of impact were the same means you executed the fundamentals well and applied consistent technique when ranging your targets. If you miss, or hit your target somewhere other than where you were aiming, range the spot where the gopher was. If your range was right, you just shot badly, and can do better next time. If your range was wrong, you hopefully understand what to do differently next time.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

When I was going through training, Army side, I want to say our accuracy standard was to to be within 15% of the true range by eye, 10% with the Steiners (super coarse mil reticle), and 5% with the M3A (standard mil dot reticle).

So if the true range to target was 525 meters the acceptable range envelope was:

Eye = 446-604
Steiners = 472-578
M3A = 499-551

A good idea is to take a tape measure and record the various sizes of things so you have an accurate reference. In my data book I had steel target dimensions, car dimensions, sign dimensions, building material dimensions, anything that was relevant.

Lighting conditions and humidity play a big part in getting accurate range estimates, mirage can destroy the edges of a target so sometimes you're playing the best guess game where the edges are. You can dial the magnification down to help but that could screw you too if you have a SFP optic that has to range on the highest power. Another thing to think about is the angle of the target in relation to your perspective. If you can see the target is angled downward as you're looking at it, range the width because ranging the height is likely to give you a skewed distance. Likewise, if you notice the target is angled to the left or right, range the height. If you're pretty confident that you're looking straight on at the target, mil the height and width and average them together.

Do your best to get the mil estimates down to the 1/10th mil, .05 mil if your reticle allows it. Mil ranging takes practice and a little finesse, it can be an art form in a way.

Good luck.

 

[CoryT]

We teach getting within +/- .02 mil using the spotter. Anything worse than that will be a problem past about 600 (depending on the cartridge danger space). This is one reason our targets are painted in camo patterns and have varied placements. 800-1000 is about the max usable range for mil relation, even on a 30" or larger target. Past 1000 you more or less require a LRF or GPS coordinates or something like baseline triangulation to get the required accuracy.

 

[Simonsza1]

Something interesting you should probably do is to do some hypothetical math just to see how inaccurate you will be without an enormous amount of practice and luck. Just for shits and giggles do the math at a few yardages like say 700. Pick your target size say 24”x24” and then your mill measurement. Let’s say you had measured 2 mill. Now start changing it by tenths, 2.1, 2.2 1.8, 1.7 and so on. Also a tenth or two is probably less then you will usually be off. You will quickly realize how being off by just a couple tenths will basically be a miss or a large miss every time. It’s so easy at long distance to be off by a couple tenths every time imo. Especially with targets that you didn’t walk up to beforehand with a tape measure ie real life. Best advice is to probably buy a very nice lrf, extra batteries and make sure there both always with you. Embrace the technology.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

A 24" X 24" target at 1000 yards has a constant of 666.48 (range in yards) so the true mil size of the target is about 0.66 mils. If you estimate that target as .6 mils your range comes out to 1,111 yards, if you read it as .7 mils, your range is 952 yards. Say you're shooting a 6.5mm 140 gr ELD-M at about 2750 fps, that means if you ranged it at 952 yards, you're going to be about .7 mils low (25" low) and if you ranged it long, the bullet is going about 1.5 mils high into oblivion (54" high). You don't even have to be a couple tenths off on your range estimation to completely screw yourself.

 

[BeteNoire]

This info is fantastic. Thanks to all who quickly jumped on this question before I spent weeks chasing a very limited skill. It really doesn't seem practical to be able to reach .05 mil-ranging accuracy. I just need to tinker with UKD and see what my limits are. Thanks !!!

 

[CoryT]

Getting to .025 on reasonable sized targets at reasonable ranges is no huge feat. As stated however that ‘reasonable’ range is about 800 yards on a 24” target, 600 on a 12”. All ranging in the PR7 class is done via reticle. 85% of the targets are between 400 and 700. Closer targets are generally smaller, 12 to 16 inches, the longer are 18 to 24. It’s not that hard with a good spotter, the riflescope is much more difficult and really just backs up the spotter. If the sniper thinks the 24” plate is 1.2 mil and the spotter has it at .8, you can presume you are looking at two different targets or someone is misreading the lines, or is on the wrong power with a SFP scope.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

What reticle are people using that is getting .02 mil?

Or do we mean .2?

 

[BeteNoire]

I'm using a Tremor 3 with .2 subtended stadia but I think the guys above are visualizing those divided into quarters or using the thickness of the stadia lines to get more refined.

 

[CoryT]

+/- .02 on the Leupold TMR in the 12-40. With the .2 marks on the outer edge, and the line width being .03, you can read something as .85, .87 or .83 and anything between those values on a 24" target should put you inside the danger space of most cartridges. You'd get a range between 766 and 803 and danger space should be around 35 yards +/-.

It does take some practice for sure, but a solid tripod and a gear head can get good placement of the reticle and between the edges of the lines and knowing the line width you can get pretty decent ranges on a 24x18 plate at 800 or so. Much past that you'll be wrong by enough that you'll be over/under unless you just happen to get it exact, which is more happenstance than design.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

+/- .02 on the Leupold TMR in the 12-40. With the .2 marks on the outer edge, and the line width being .03, you can read something as .85, .87 or .83 and anything between those values on a 24" target should put you inside the danger space of most cartridges. You'd get a range between 766 and 803 and danger space should be around 35 yards +/-.

It does take some practice for sure, but a solid tripod and a gear head can get good placement of the reticle and between the edges of the lines and knowing the line width you can get pretty decent ranges on a 24x18 plate at 800 or so. Much past that you'll be wrong by enough that you'll be over/under unless you just happen to get it exact, which is more happenstance than design.

On the original topic, I typically limit mil ranging to 600 or so. For all the reasons you’ve mentioned.

 

[VargmatII]

I think ArTeeKay gave a lot of good advice, but figured that I would add a few random thoughts.
I have been compeating in field shooting since 2015. In Scandinavian field shooting 99% of the targets are set at unknown distance, so you have to range them using your reticle, the oldschool guys still shooting with diopter use those and probably some degree of black magic, Ill never understand how they are able to be as accurate as they can be, not always but still. Anyways.
I dont shoot with diopter sights, I use a scope and while I have tested a few, I have settled on a Schmidt PM2 and what is more important, is the reticle, the MSR. While there are good alternatives popping up during the last few years, the MSR is awesome.
Depending on the target, the sunlight, mirage and what not, your ranging results will vary. On a good day I can occationaly be +/- 1 meter of acctual range using the reticle and now with practise and experience Im seldom beyond +/- 20 meters of acctual range. But as ArTeeKay and others have written, your target and how well it is defined against its background will mess with the results.
I have also found that I am picky with CA in my scopes, and the CA has messed with my results. My worst experience with this was with a Vortex Razor G2 4.5-27x. The seasons I used it gave me the worst results Ive ever had. YMMV as always.

 

[JustSendit]

You guys crush it miling 30in out to a grand. That’s awesome.

At a military school I’m familiar with its 40in targets stopping at around 800-830m, essentially stopping at a 1.19 miling the length on a E-type. That’s shooting 300wm and using at the time leupold mk4 w/ h58s.

 

[ArTeeKay]

Danger space is a vital concept that I sort of skimmed over, and I'm glad that came up. For posterity, and for OP, in the event you're not familiar, danger space is the range envelope inside of which you will still get a hit on target, despite your range measurement being incorrect. Extend the maximum point blank range concept and you basically get the idea. DS essentially changes based on 3 values: bullet trajectory, target height (and to a much lesser degree at practical engagement ranges, target depth), and distance to target.

For the sake of example I'll make up some numbers, and we'll assume a 2D target. Say your target is 12" tall, and 400 yards away. For any number of reasons, you misrange your target and find a distance of 375 yards. Now, you are essentially aiming 25 yards in front of the target, but because the bullet travels on an arc, you hit bottom edge of target. Your point of impact did not match your point of aim, but because your danger space for this combination of cartridge, target size, and range is plus or minus 26 yards, you still manage a hit. Now let's move the target to 500 yards. You still misrange by 25 yards, and dial for 475. Because the bullet is falling at an increased angle, you now miss badly, as your danger space for this combination of variables is only plus or minus 10 yards.

It's danger space that gives us practical limitations on effective range for use of the technique, and this is why I recommended practicing on the targets you normally shoot, at the distances you normally shoot them at. You'll quickly learn the limitations of the technique for your intended use. Varmint hunters typically prefer fast, flat shooting cartridges for this reason. It allows for increased ranging error, since the other two variables can't be controlled for. A military sniper is going to be engaging larger targets, so danger space is going to be proportionally larger, at any given distance. A PRS type shooter is going to have the advantage of high certainty of his target size, and so despite not being able to control for anything except bullet trajectory, his practical limit is going to be greater than it would be otherwise.

I apologize for the essay, I was unable to find the diagram that I hoped would be illustrative, as the concept becomes crystal clear when sort of drawn out on paper. Like the other posters suggest, play with your ballistic calculator, it's a great aid for the exercise.

 

[sled_mack]

Impact data books sells (or at least did in the past) a ranging practice kit. You print scaled down targets. Put them on a board and range them. The worksheet gives you the target size to use (even though printed on standard 8.5x11 paper, the size might be 23x35) and you fill in the sheet with your calculated distances. When done, range the board and there is a conversion chart for each target to see how well you did. It’s a great way to practice at home, especially with a spotter if you have close neighbors.

I used this a lot back when matches didn’t allow laser range finders. Being good at this was the difference between first or second round hits and chasing impacts all day.

 

[rhsc]

I apologize for the essay, I was unable to find the diagram that I hoped would be illustrative, as the concept becomes crystal clear when sort of drawn out on paper. Like the other posters suggest, play with your ballistic calculator, it's a great aid for the exercise.

No, you gave a good, clear explanation of the concept of danger space. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

 

[DFOOSKING]

Since you guys gave a good write up....may as well also add in the tools for the task.

Mildot Master...

Pocket calculator with the formula written on the back....

Calculator on your phone with the needed formula memorized....

Milling feature on some ballistic solvers....

A pre-made cheat sheet of basic sizes and mil values....

A bunch of ways to add redundancy.

Don't forget to have the proper formula for the angular unit of measure your reticle subtends in and the desired output (meters/yards).

 

[VargmatII]

I have used the Truemiller for years. Its a great product from one of the best fieldshooting guys in Sweden, Sem L.

 

[Rob01]

Impact data books sells (or at least did in the past) a ranging practice kit. You print scaled down targets. Put them on a board and range them. The worksheet gives you the target size to use (even though printed on standard 8.5x11 paper, the size might be 23x35) and you fill in the sheet with your calculated distances. When done, range the board and there is a conversion chart for each target to see how well you did. It’s a great way to practice at home, especially with a spotter if you have close neighbors.

I used this a lot back when matches didn’t allow laser range finders. Being good at this was the difference between first or second round hits and chasing impacts all day.

Those work but you don't have to make it that hard. Cut known sized pieces of cardboard and put it on known distance yard lines and practice breaking down the reticle. Breaking down the reticle is where you accuracy comes in. If you don't know the size of the target then ranging is a best guess but if doing this in matches etc and knowing the exact target size then it comes down to breaking down the reticle. Now with reticles that have .1 mils marks you can be more accurate. Years ago it was tougher with standard mildot scopes and when the .5 marks came in it was a great advancement. Below are some practice targets I used for years. You can do it at 100 yards or as far as you want. You can do it at unkown distances and range the targets later but I always liked doing it at known distances as I would figure it out and if it didn't come out to that exact range I would look back at the reticle breakdown and see where I messed up and learn what the more exact breakdown of the reticle was.

And the Mildot Master is a great tool. Used one for over 20 years and they work great. Worked great at matches like ASC where every range was found with the reticle.