mil to mil

[SierraOne1]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Now if you want to talk l/e that runs the gamut but he original poster wasn't talking police and was in fact very specific. And while much slower to react, police will eventually follow the military. I routinely shoot with local agency guys who are already using mil / mil.</div></div>

True story. We're (my agency) in the process right now of switching over and I think once Leupold starts retro-fitting exhisting older scopes with MIL turrets (according to the LE rep I spoke with last week, sometime next Spring they'll start retro'ing the newer Vari-X III's), you'll see a lot more of them going that way. The biggest hold up for the LE community is of course funding (and training standards). It amazes me how many LE snipers still don't fully grasp the concept of angular measurement. But that's a whole 'nother can-o-worms.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: mil to mil

Seth

Along the same lines, you take you SS trained, Scout Sniper Plt member and give him a 1903a3 with iron sights, he WILL get the job done.

It's not the equipment.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

Yes he will, but his chances of making a 1000 yard kill will greatly increase with a scoped rifle and a LR.

Equipment does matter.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

The equipment is in fact part of it. The military shooter has very little to no say in what he uses, so the shooter and equipment makes up the "system" .

Making due should never be the standard.

If you hold a class and all of the shooters have a mil / mil based system and you are used to teaching people on an ACOG or even an M3 Leupold do you still teach them about MOA? I would say the system has a bearing, it guides the lesson plan. Why would you teach Marines with S&B scopes an MOA or inches based system of wind holds? Or Army shooters using a Horus?

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The equipment is in fact part of it. The military shooter has very little to no say in what he uses, so the shooter and equipment makes up the "system" .

Making due should never be the standard.

If you hold a class and all of the shooters have a mil / mil based system and you are used to teaching people on an ACOG or even an M3 Leupold do you still teach them about MOA? I would say the system has a bearing, it guides the lesson plan. Why would you teach Marines with S&B scopes an MOA or inches based system of wind holds? Or Army shooters using a Horus? </div></div>

+1

Equipment does matter. Technology makes a difference. As a professional, you are trained to be an expert in all areas, ie land navigation, call for fire, comoflage, marksmanship, range estimation, individual movement techniques, employment, etc. The gear does not make the operator, but the gear does bring his mission capabilities to the next level.

Am I an expert in land navigation if i can only do it with a gps? No, but can the gps enable me to complete my mission with more speed and accuracy? Absolutely.

Same goes for marksmanship. Am I concidered an expert in range estimation only when i have a LR on hand? No, but can the speed and accuracy of my RE be improved through the use of the LR? Yes.

Point being, equipment does make a difference. It does not make the operator, but it does make the operators mission easier.

I am a firm believer in knowing all the relevant formulas by heart, and not depending solely on the technology. If the gear breaks, you need to be able to complete the missionregardless, but I'd be a fool to say that the equipment didn't make a difference.

Keep up with the times, move ahead, but never let the fundamentals, and the basics fall to the wayside. The gear doesn't make the operator, it makes the operators mission easier, faster, and allows his skill set, and capabilities to move to the next level.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The gear doesn't make the operator, it makes the operators mission easier, faster, and allows his skill set, and capabilities to move to the next level. </div></div>

That sums up this mil/mil argument in a nut shell.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The gear doesn't make the operator, it makes the operators mission easier, faster, and allows his skill set, and capabilities to move to the next level. </div></div>

That sums up this mil/mil argument in a nut shell.</div></div>

I think your statement is truthful; yet, it is not always true. Sometimes, gear can distract the shooter; and, it can undermine basic marksmanship development. Scopes, bipods, and dot sights are in fact sometimes used as substitutes for marksmanship. For example, the dot sight is a Godsend to shooters who have not mastered basic marksmanship. With the parallax free dot sight, such as an Aimpoint, the shooter does not need to focus on anything, does not need to have a consistent stock-weld, and does not need to consistently align anything for a good hit. Sometimes this sort of capability deceives the shooter into believing he actually knows something about good shooting. When a shooter however does develop basic marksmanship skill on the sort of equipment that requires it for good hits, reaching the highest plateaus of good shooting is not only possible but probable. This shooter can make technology work very well.

 

[BadDudes4Hire]

Re: mil to mil

ADM09 003

I am a little confused. Are they not teaching you this stuff in training? I dont have any mil exp. So Sorry for being dumb about this, but I would just think that they would go over different styles, techniques, and equipment of dialing in on target.

 

[pl259]

Re: mil to mil

Not sure if this was mentioned already or not. I did read the earlier posts but I may have missed it.

A variable power MIL/MOA scope, where the reticle doesn't magnify, can be made into a decent MOA/MOA scope by just backing off the power a little bit(approx 10%). It can usually be set up to 4"@100yd or ~4 MOA, dot center to dot center. On most scopes the dot diameter will then be 1"@100yd or 1 MOA. Range estimation would have a different scale factor.

 

[Win308]

Re: mil to mil

I am trying to understand my mil dot reticle, and I am still confused. To help me understand would someone please answer me these questions. I am sighting in my rifle at 100yds, and I shoot a three round group that I view through my SS 10x42 scope with a mil-dot reticle that is two mils low; the crosshairs are on the bullseye and the group is centered around the first mildot below the crosshairs. How many inches is the group low on the target at 100 yards? The adjustments of each click is 1/4 MOA. How many clicks do I adjust my turret to zero my scope on the center of the target? Thanks!

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

The Kiss method of converting Mils to MOA off the reticle is 1 MOA per .25 Mil on the reticle... but for the real answer 1 Mil = 3.6" so you would dial that to be exact.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DFOOSKING</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lowlight...would it be considered a bad idea to dial 3.5 MOA for every mil (since a mil is actually 3.43) needed for a correction?

And if so, what would you recommend?

Thanks</div></div>

I highly doubt his scope dials in MOA, but more likely IPHY in which case he needs to dial 3.6"

 

[SIG700]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I highly doubt his scope dials in MOA, but more likely IPHY in which case he needs to dial 3.6" </div></div>

He said he had the SWFA SS 10x42- website says 1/4MOA clicks- I verified MOA clicks on my new SWFA SS scope earlier this week. Anyways, 308- Dial 3.5 and shoot- see what happens.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

The $300 SS 10x42 is True MOA ?

How many MOA did you dial to verify it ?

 

[SIG700]

Re: mil to mil

100 yards measured out- gun secured into a vise. Centered scope on at target at the far left of a poster board- drew a vertical line in sharpy at 25 inches to right- than dialed right 25.0. Was roughly an inch to right of line. (which 25 MOA at 100 should be a hair over 26 inches, correct?)

Did it 2x. same both times.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

Okay, sounds good... I would not have suspected it.

then actually 3.43 is the right answer, so you have to dial 3.5 to match the turrets.

 

[SIG700]

Re: mil to mil

I was quite surprised myself. For the record mine was the "$300 20x42"- however I dont see them changing between the 10x/16x/20x

 

[Win308]

Re: mil to mil

Thank you, guys! I think I see the light!

 

[Win308]

Re: mil to mil

Where does the 3.43 come from? I see many explanations that come up with the 3.6" per mil, yet you assert the 3.43" as the correct number.

 

[SIG700]

Re: mil to mil

1 Mil = 3.43 MOA (not inches). Just kinda one of those "equations" that comes up frequently with Mil reticals/MOA turrets.

 

[SIG700]

Re: mil to mil

The real math (well do this all at 100 yards to make it easy) is

1 MOA = 1.047 Inches
1 Mil = 3.6 Inches (Army says 3.53"- but Marines use 3.6" which is more "generally accepted")

3.6/1.047= 3.438 MOA in one Mil

 

[phillietimothy]

Re: mil to mil

1 Mil = 3.438 MOA

3.438 MOA x 1.047 = 3.6"

1 MOA = 1.047"

The OP stated that his group was 1 mil low.

The OP can dial 14 clicks or hold over 1 mil

 

[SIG700]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DFOOSKING</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We don't count clicks...read the dials.

</div></div>
+1

 

[phillietimothy]

Re: mil to mil

Win308 specifically asked about clicks. I acknowledge that it is desirable to speak in terms of MILS or MOA.

 

[TRG4ME]

Re: mil to mil

Go with mil-mil i had a similar question earlier i got a moa mil and had to learn to remember mil to moa conversion i had to draw mil markings on my scope . To convert from yards to meters
you multiply your yards by 1.0936133

3.62 x 1.0936133 = 3.9588
3.96 is close enough


0.1 MIL = 1 cm @ 100 meters
3.96 MIL = 39.6 cm @ 100 meters
3.96 MIL = 120 1/8 MOA clicks @ 100 metters


15 MOA 1 revolution = 120 1/8 MOA clicks = 39.6cm @ 100 m
5 rev of 120 clicks = 600 1/8 MOA clicks = 198cm @ 100 m
or
1 MOA = 2.90833334cm @ 100 meters.
15 MOA 1 revolution = 120 1/8 MOA clicks = 43.6335cm @ 100 m
5 rev of 120 clicks = 600 1/8 MOA clicks = 218.1675cm @ 100 m



0.33636125 cm @ 100 meters = 1 1/8 MOA click.
1 cm @ 100 meters = 2.75 1/8 MOA clicks.
1.09 cm @ 100 meters = 3 1/8 MOA clicks.

1 1/8 MOA click = 0.33636125 cm @ 100 meters.
2.75 1/8 MOA clicks = 1 cm @ 100 meters.
3 1/8 MOA clicks = 1.09 cm @ 100 meters.



Is this all this correct?
what is incorrect ?

i'm getting different answers from different sources

can anyone else contribute ...



http://www.impactdatabooks.com/MOA_MIL_Conversion_Chart_p/i-moamil.htm
http://www.impactdatabooks.com/MIL_MOA_Conversion_Chart_p/i-milmoa.htm

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...577#Post2744577

 

[SIG700]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TRG4ME</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Go with mil-mil i had a similar question earlier i got a moa mil and had to learn to remember mil to moa conversion i had to draw mil markings on my scope . To convert from yards to meters
you multiply your yards by 1.0936133

3.62 x 1.0936133 = 3.9588
3.96 is close enough


0.1 MIL = 1 cm @ 100 meters
3.96 MIL = 39.6 cm @ 100 meters
3.96 MIL = 120 1/8 MOA clicks @ 100 metters


15 MOA 1 revolution = 120 1/8 MOA clicks = 39.6cm @ 100 m
5 rev of 120 clicks = 600 1/8 MOA clicks = 198cm @ 100 m
or
1 MOA = 2.90833334cm @ 100 meters.
15 MOA 1 revolution = 120 1/8 MOA clicks = 43.6335cm @ 100 m
5 rev of 120 clicks = 600 1/8 MOA clicks = 218.1675cm @ 100 m



0.33636125 cm @ 100 meters = 1 1/8 MOA click.
1 cm @ 100 meters = 2.75 1/8 MOA clicks.
1.09 cm @ 100 meters = 3 1/8 MOA clicks.

1 1/8 MOA click = 0.33636125 cm @ 100 meters.
2.75 1/8 MOA clicks = 1 cm @ 100 meters.
3 1/8 MOA clicks = 1.09 cm @ 100 meters.



Is this all this correct?
what is incorrect ?

i'm getting different answers from different sources

can anyone else contribute ...
</div></div>


Everything except ".33636 cm @ 100 meters = 1/8 MOA" is correct.
1/8MOA @ 100m (2.90833334cm/8)= .36354cm (ever so slightly off)

While most of this math is kind of impressive, and I applaud you taking the time to do all the math to help someone out - I'm failing to see the reliance. Win308 was asking his question regarding a scope with 1/4 MOA adjustments. Also- he stated he was at a 100 yard range- so 100 meter equations are rather irrelevant. And yes, while Mil/Mil scopes are easier to make adjustments while looking at targets thru a Mil recital scope, Its rather easy math to convert Mil to MOA. 1 Mil= 3.43 MOA- at every range. Round hits 2.4 Mils low- 2.4*3.43=8.232 MOA. (call it 8.25.) Doping done.


BTW TRG4ME- Nice glass set up. I'll admit it- I'm kinda jealous. (minus the 1/8 adjustments... too many clicks for me)

 

[TRG4ME]

Re: mil to mil

Just thought it might help 1/8 x 2 =1/4 ps. thanks and 1/8 moa is to many clicks 4 me as well. my first 1/8 scope , I should of bought the 1-mrad ,1-cm. not 1/8 moa, just my preference after getting some experience time . But your right it simple to use a moa/mil scope.

 

[Lexington]

Re: mil to mil

There are 3.43 minutes per milliradian.

At a distance of 100 yards, an angle of 1 minute subtends an arc of 1.047 inches.

3.43 MOA per MIL x 1.047 inches = 3.6 inches per milliradian at 100 yards.

At a distance of 100 yards, a 1 milliradian angle subtends an arc of 3.6 inches.

You can find the derivation online.

 

[Lexington]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SIG700</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real math (well do this all at 100 yards to make it easy) is

1 MOA = 1.047 Inches
1 Mil = 3.6 Inches (Army says 3.53"- but Marines use 3.6" which is more "generally accepted")

3.6/1.047= 3.438 MOA in one Mil </div></div>

Better than "generally accepted", 3.6" is the correct answer in purely mathematical terms.

 

[pl259]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lexington</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SIG700</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real math (well do this all at 100 yards to make it easy) is

1 MOA = 1.047 Inches
1 Mil = 3.6 Inches (Army says 3.53"- but Marines use 3.6" which is more "generally accepted")

3.6/1.047= 3.438 MOA in one Mil </div></div>

Better than "generally accepted", 3.6" is the correct answer in purely mathematical terms. </div></div>

...and don't forget about 3.59" for the Swedish Army and 3.77" for our Russian buddies.

From a purely mathematical perspective they're all wrong. Technically these numbers calculate arc length and not the vertical or linear distance between the POIs. The two are nearly the same only because the angles we're talking about are small.

 

[Lexington]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ecg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lexington</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SIG700</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real math (well do this all at 100 yards to make it easy) is

1 MOA = 1.047 Inches
1 Mil = 3.6 Inches (Army says 3.53"- but Marines use 3.6" which is more "generally accepted")

3.6/1.047= 3.438 MOA in one Mil </div></div>

Better than "generally accepted", 3.6" is the correct answer in purely mathematical terms. </div></div>

...and don't forget about 3.59" for the Swedish Army and 3.77" for our Russian buddies.

From a purely mathematical perspective they're all wrong. Technically these numbers calculate arc length and not the vertical or linear distance between the POIs. The two are nearly the same only because the angles we're talking about are small.

</div></div>

Understood.

theta (angle in radians) x radius = arc length

Because of the extremely narrow angle, the sector of the circle is approximated as a right triangle and the relationships are solved with trigonometry.

I like the simplicity of the sector equation better.

 

[bigwheeler]

Re: mil to mil

http://static.scribd.com/docs/d2ke2aetnlp77.pdf

everything in one bag, so to speak.

 

[pl259]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lexington</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I like the simplicity of the sector equation better. </div></div>

Absolutely! Same here. My hats off to Mr. Cotes for making it easier for all of us.

 

[jamesbern]

Re: mil to mil

I just got my first longer range setup and got the scope in mil/mil. After reading the first page i'm really starting to understand this.

Can't wait to get to the range.

 

[pl259]

Re: mil to mil

Fixed or variable scope?

 

[jamesbern]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ecg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fixed or variable scope? </div></div>

If you're talking to me it is a SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 illuminated. Can't wait to get it mounted and test it out.

 

[pl259]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jamesbern</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ecg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fixed or variable scope? </div></div>

If you're talking to me it is a SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 illuminated. Can't wait to get it mounted and test it out. </div></div>

Sorry about that. Yes, I was asking about your scope.

I was going to toss out a short quip that if you really, really wanted a MOA/MIL scope, you could just jack the power up or down a bit. But that's not the case, with that model since it has a magnifing reticle.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But this topic did get me to thinking back to basic where we were taught range estimation, using fingers 'n such to estimate range. That was the average finger at 15 inches from the eye is 50 mils. And the average soldier was 19 inches shoulder to shoulder.

Fine and dandy, Average Huh? Then the suckers sent me to war fighting midgets. Skinny little suckers that were no where near average.

</div></div>

Hmmmm....."finger milling" skinny midgets using your rule of thumb (or is it finger?) must have lead to underestimating range and some low shots, probably right to the balls. That really is giving them the finger!