mil to mil

[kraigWY]

Re: mil to mil

Sorry, that should be 1.5 MOS not 1 1/5. Miss type.

Yes a mil (artillery mill) is 1/6400th of a circle, which is 3" 22.5" or 3.375 minutes.

So if you missed a target at 800 yards by half (.5) mil you would miss by 1.6875 MOA, rounded to 1.5 MOA or a foot.

Lets assume your target is 19 inches (man, shoulder to shoulder). Hold over 2/3s of the width of the target for a corrrection.

You can do the same thing using your front sight post or scope redical if they are known. When I first started teaching sniper schools we used the M84 on M1C/Ds. The post on the M84 scope is 3MOA. So using the 12 inch miss at 800, we know the front post covers 24 inches at 800 yards (3x8). 12 inches is half of 24, so move the post of the M84 scope 1/2 post width in the direction you want to move the impact.

For the most part, people know MOA.

Its what your trained with. But you also have to take into account the knowledge of the people you're working with. Most people don't understand mils.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

Please let me clarify my previous post, I believe I misunderstood what SS may have been stating.

The only thing that i am stating is that when using a scope that has matching knobs/reticle, neither has the edge as long as the said shooter is knowledgeable about the system he or she is using. In now way do i think that "eyeballing" said number of inches, mills, or MOA at a given range without some sort of consistent reference is consistent. Weather that reference point be the reticle scale or Target dimensions or the reticle. When I am making adjustments off of impact, I think in MOA, because that is what my scope/reticle is set for. When i use a mil/mil scope I will think in mills, and when i see a scope that is set for iphy's, that's what ill think in. I do see advantages in the mil/mil setup, and am very familiar with the mil system. It just so happens that both of my NF's are in MOA, so that is what i use.

1 mil.....3.438 MOA /3.6"@100 yds.......I'm sure that was a typo on his part

Seth

 

[SSSamurai]

Re: mil to mil

I was taught to use real mils, artillery mils are rounded to 6400. The number I was taught is 6283 mils in a circle, and I can share the math to back that up if necessary. The number of minutes in a circle is easy, 360 degree times 60 minutes. That's 21600 minutes in a circle. Divide 21,600 by 6283 and you get 3.438 moa in a mil.

I prefer using mil/mil scopes because I like the base 10 system.

 

[Graham]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes a mil (artillery mill) is 1/6400th of a circle, which is 3" 22.5" or 3.375 minutes. </div></div>I, too, remember the M3A.

But the rest of the optics world uses 6283.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 mil.....3.438 MOA /3.6"@100 yds</div></div>

That would be an infantry mil (or true mil) which there are 6283 mils in a complete circle. 1/6280.

The artillery mil is 1/6400. That's the confusion.

I always used the artillery mil. I never taught "mils" in sniper school but I did in machine gun schools which are designed for the artillery mil.

The infantry mil had been drop in favor of the artillery mil (math is easier), but has been picked up again when using mil dot sighting systems.

With machine guns, mils are a lot easier to use when discussing angle of departure/angle of fall when using indirect fire.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

Regarding wind favors, it does not matter to me whether I've got an MOA or mil graduated reticle, or whether my windage and elevation adjustments are in MOA or mils. I favor using the formula which yields an answer in MOA; and from that, I convert to inches, favoring in inches as I perceive it. Seth did not misunderstand. Since I know the width of my target in inches, understanding what any favor looks like is elementary. Note, I can also favor with irons; and indeed, I do in HP competitions, where something like a 10 mph cross wind over a 300 yard target would be worth about 9 inches of favor. On a 19 inch bull such a favor would put the center of my front sight's tip just barely inside the bulls-eye's edge for X-ring hits.

Folks, this stuff is not as complicated as some make it. Seth and Kraig are old salts with it all. They certainly know which hog ate the cabbage. I'd suggest to folks that they just re read Kraig and Seth's posts and consider just doing it like they say instead of debating it all. Thing is, some folks here, not having the benefit of some formal training on irons, apparently, don't think that targets at LR can be hit with anything less than a Santa's sack filled with shooting aids: like some sort of high magnification scope with mil dot this and that, a friend to come along as a spotter, wind meter, a Palm Pilot, GPS, topos, ballistic charts, a cell phone, or laptop computer linked to satellite. The truth is, a properly trained shooter can get good hits at insane distances, and in most any condition with not much more than a match conditioned M14 or M16 with iron sights and a sling support. Good favors can be taken from such sights; and, the front post can even be used for range finding too. Remember, aids other than perhaps a score book are no substitute for basic marksmanship knowledge.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: mil to mil

Sterling,

No one said anything about Palm pilots, GPS or any other technology aid. Further more no one even mentioned using a spotter. The topic is specifically about Mil/Mil vs the other options.

The problem is you are relating everything to your High Power game. The original post indicated he is military and is training with combat in mind. With that in mind please note that combat engagements are done at various ranges, often unknown ranges and with targets you don't always have an accurate size for with limited exposure.

I totally understand how your method works for punching paper of a known size at a known distnace under limited stress conditions. Though you can not tell me your method is easier and just as or more accurate than just using a the reticle. When you use the reticle there is no conversion, you read the hit/miss and adjust accordingly.

Now I may not be such an "old salt" but I can tell you I have attended a dozen sniper schools (mil/le/civi) in the last 15 years and I have never heard anyone suggest such an idea as yours; "I favor using the formula which yields an answer in MOA; and from that, I convert to inches, favoring in inches as I perceive it.". That method may work for you but please refrain from painting it as the preferred way.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

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

No one said anything about Palm pilots, GPS or any other technology aid. Further more no one even mentioned using a spotter. The topic is specifically about Mil/Mil vs the other options.

The problem is you are relating everything to your High Power game. The original post indicated he is military and is training with combat in mind. With that in mind please note that combat engagements are done at various ranges, often unknown ranges and with targets you don't always have an accurate size for with limited exposure.

I totally understand how your method works for punching paper of a known size at a known distnace under limited stress conditions. Though you can not tell me your method is easier and just as or more accurate than just using a the reticle. When you use the reticle there is no conversion, you read the hit/miss and adjust accordingly.

Now I may not be such an "old salt" but I can tell you I have attended a dozen sniper schools (mil/le/civi) in the last 15 years and I have never heard anyone suggest such an idea as yours; "I favor using the formula which yields an answer in MOA; and from that, I convert to inches, favoring in inches as I perceive it.". That method may work for you but please refrain from painting it as the preferred way.</div></div>

You can't be serious about not ever hearing..Second, I did not paint it as a preferred way, it's an effective way. And, it's indeed taught, part of USAMU's SDM curriculum. For the last 7 or 8 years I've assisted the AMU teaching it. In fact, with some optics, like TA31F AGOG, it's the only way to favor when ya run out of crosshair. Also, it's the only way to favor with an M4, or A4 without an optic. THE ONLY WAY! The shooter must convert to inches. The shooter is likely to be converting to inches from MOA too since after all, that's the unit of measurment adapted to the M4/A4's sights. Also, when determining the necessary favor, using MOA formula with constant of 10 is indeed a whole lot easier than using mil formula with constant of 30 something. It can be done in the shooter's head while on the sight, and in a heartbeat.

What is fact is this: without an understanding of the favoring concept, hitting a 400 to 600 meter target using an M4's BDC or Matech sight would be difficult in any condition where just a little crosswind was present. Having an understanding makes such shots easy--and that's why it's taught. At least, from recent reports, about 2700 NCO's who have participated in the USAMU's SDM course have "heard" this instruction.

My way has nothing to do with paper targets, that's to say target material.

The mention of Palm Pilots was to highlight the absurdity of mils vs MOA. It's all good, and good to know it all.

Yes, I know when reading the reticle's ticks, MOA or mils, of course, converting to inches is not necessary. I mentioned it.

Stating that counting ticks is easier or more accurate than favoring by perception is not fact. Need and opportunity determine the best approach.

I'm not relating anything here to HP activity, adjusting sights, irons or optical, to hit a target at a given distance/condition is basic marksmanship, independent of application.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: mil to mil

Sterling,

I am serious, I have never heard of converting to inches for the purposes of correcting for wind in any sniper course. We are discussing mil mil in relationship to the role of the sniper or precision shooting. The topic of iron sight and SDM optics is a different ball of wax entirely when compared to today's optics currently being employed by the sniper community. I have been down the road of a DM and since you are so knowledgeable in the SDM role I shouldn't have to remind you that a SDM is not a sniper who engages the enemy with precision fire, but instead is trained to directly support the squad with well-aimed shots at ranges slightly beyond the normal engagement distances of the basic infantryman. Big difference from that of precision world.

Your way has everything to do with paper targets and square range shooting for the simple fact you continue to reference the exact size of the target.

 

[Papagallos]

Re: mil to mil

I don't have knowledge to contribute to this topic, but I sure am learning a lot from this thread. Thanks for the great information. Keep adding to it.

 

[Rifles Only]

Re: mil to mil

SS, what do you do when looking at a target that is 10 degrees up angle, partially obscured, no known size, and the best range you can get is that it is between 750 and 770 yards, and there is a 10 mph right to left at the shooter? Keep in mind that there are some rugged verticle and horizontal terrain features between you and the target.

Not exactly square range, huh?

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

Exact size of the target? No, favoring by perception of a linear value is not dependent on understanding an exact size of a target no more than understanding an exact wind value, I mention it only as an example of the methodology used to understand linear object relationships. And, what this thread is about is mils. A discussion of such implies comparison and contrasts to other means of range finding, BDC, and wind adjustment means for shooting in general, again, independent of application. What any shooter does is use what resources are at hand to get the job done. The more the shooter knows, the better: certainly an understanding for the effects of drag, gravity, slope, wind & weather and target movement are all useful.

 

[Rifles Only]

Re: mil to mil

Not so much. Your wind correction had conversions to inches and holding based off of the known size of a target. That IS target size dependent.
But whatever, keep working at it.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rifles Only</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not so much. Your wind correction had conversions to inches and holding based off of the known size of a target. That IS target size dependent.
But whatever, keep working at it.
</div></div>

No, wind correction is not based on the target size, corrections are based only on distance, wind direction, wind velocity, and/or target movement where the shooter is always shooting to 12 o'clock. A favor in inches is indeed related to target appearance. But, remember since target size must already be estimated for either mil or MOA range finding, favoring in inches is just an extension of what has already been determined by some means.

And, once again, it's the only means when using sights like those on an M4.

 

[Rifles Only]

Re: mil to mil

Not talking about the M-4. And again you are thinking in square range work. The shooter is not ALWAYS shooting to the 12 o'clock. There are almost always multiple targets that are identified in a number of ways. The first target may be 12 o'clock, the next may be at 2 o'clock, the next at 8 o'clock to the first.
Reference my above example, the range is only rough due to the target not facing directly at you and laser is questionable due to vegetation or other items between you and the target.
All of this means nothing other than to state that the square range and the square range only will afford you the luxury of exact target size and exact target aspect to the shooter.

In the above example, the shooter would do his best to compensate for wind, range and angle. Hopefully striking a first round hit. If the first round does not strike the target, a second shot would be made based off of what the shooter sees in the reticle. This would not be dependent on any calculations or even thought. See the strike on the reticle in relation to the target, adjust hold and fire.
The bullet will give you the answer every time. Don't think, just listen to what the bullet says, believe it, and adjust accordingly.
No data book, no calculator, no palm pilot, no thought, no calculations in your head
If you held 1.5 right and you see the strike at one mil, that is the answer. Hold a mil. The bullet gave you the answer.
The fact is that things go wrong, what you do with that information is the difference between a field shooter and a range shooter

 

[Graham]

Re: mil to mil

My guesses as to inches, on real targets, are about as bad as my guesses as to their range.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

RO, CB are right. Not to say that SS is wrong in all situations but when dealing in this aspect of real world, combat, tactical applications with a bolt rifle,and the selection of the most useful tool, is have to give it to the RO crew. Can it be done with other methods? Of course. Can it be done as well with other methods? When it comes to adjustment off of previous impacts or making precision adjustments of wind and elevation, between a hold using a scaled reticle or eyeballing a said amount of inches based off of the shooters perception of target size, it goes to the mil/mil, or MOA/MOA scope hands down. With the selection of good optics with scaled reticles to match the knobs on the market today ranging from $600-$3000+, there is no reason not to be using this application. Now, 10-15 years ago, this may not have been a viable option for some (including myself), so we had to deal with what was available. When I was still operating as a Scout Sniper we did not have the benefit of a spotting optic that was scaled to match the snipers optic, so in turn the spotter would either guess at the mil adjustment needed to hold off and proceed with a follow up shot, or make adjustments based of target dimensions (ie. miss left shoulder, hold right lung, fire). That worked for us because it was the only viable option available. This is not the case today. If you have an option to go with a scaled scope/reticle match in mil/mil, you need to go with it. It is the most useful, and efficient way to get the job done. It would be equivilent of knowing you were going to have to make a shot on something at let's say 600 yards, and you chose to take an M14 with iron sights when you had a scoped M40 avalable. Can it be done? Sure. Is it the most efficient tool for the job? Not hardly.

And as far as me being an "old salt".......I've done more than some and not as much as others. This forum is full of extremely knowledgeable shooters, instructors, and operators. I'm just one of the many.

JMHO. Hope you all have a good Thanksgiving.

Semper Fi,
Seth

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rifles Only</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not talking about the M-4. And again you are thinking in square range work. The shooter is not ALWAYS shooting to the 12 o'clock. There are almost always multiple targets that are identified in a number of ways. The first target may be 12 o'clock, the next may be at 2 o'clock, the next at 8 o'clock to the first.
Reference my above example, the range is only rough due to the target not facing directly at you and laser is questionable due to vegetation or other items between you and the target.
All of this means nothing other than to state that the square range and the square range only will afford you the luxury of exact target size and exact target aspect to the shooter.

In the above example, the shooter would do his best to compensate for wind, range and angle. Hopefully striking a first round hit. If the first round does not strike the target, a second shot would be made based off of what the shooter sees in the reticle. This would not be dependent on any calculations or even thought. See the strike on the reticle in relation to the target, adjust hold and fire.
The bullet will give you the answer every time. Don't think, just listen to what the bullet says, believe it, and adjust accordingly.
No data book, no calculator, no palm pilot, no thought, no calculations in your head
If you held 1.5 right and you see the strike at one mil, that is the answer. Hold a mil. The bullet gave you the answer.
The fact is that things go wrong, what you do with that information is the difference between a field shooter and a range shooter</div></div>

Regarding wind, the shooter is always shooting to 12 o'clock for the purpose of determining wind value. But, thanks for bringing me recognition of your knowledge on the subject. And, of course you're not talking about the M4, that would undermine your argument. Once again, results will determine the effectiveness of any technique.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rifles Only</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not talking about the M-4. And again you are thinking in square range work. The shooter is not ALWAYS shooting to the 12 o'clock. There are almost always multiple targets that are identified in a number of ways. The first target may be 12 o'clock, the next may be at 2 o'clock, the next at 8 o'clock to the first.
Reference my above example, the range is only rough due to the target not facing directly at you and laser is questionable due to vegetation or other items between you and the target.
All of this means nothing other than to state that the square range and the square range only will afford you the luxury of exact target size and exact target aspect to the shooter.

In the above example, the shooter would do his best to compensate for wind, range and angle. Hopefully striking a first round hit. If the first round does not strike the target, a second shot would be made based off of what the shooter sees in the reticle. This would not be dependent on any calculations or even thought. See the strike on the reticle in relation to the target, adjust hold and fire.
The bullet will give you the answer every time. Don't think, just listen to what the bullet says, believe it, and adjust accordingly.
No data book, no calculator, no palm pilot, no thought, no calculations in your head
If you held 1.5 right and you see the strike at one mil, that is the answer. Hold a mil. The bullet gave you the answer.
The fact is that things go wrong, what you do with that information is the difference between a field shooter and a range shooter</div></div>

Regarding wind, the shooter is always shooting to 12 o'clock for the purpose of determining wind value. But, thanks for bringing me recognition of your knowledge on the subject. And, of course you're not talking about the M4, that would undermine your argument. Once again, results will determine the effectiveness of any technique. </div></div>

I don't believe he's saying that your method is all out wrong Sterling. I just think that on the basis of what the original posters question was, which is dealing with the use of a scopes rifle, that the preferred and most accurate method is using a scope with a mil/mil based system.

Now in your case, when using a weapon system (ie M4, M14) with an acog, or iron sights, or when rules or regulations restrict the applications stated above, your method is the preferred one. Now if the said restrictions above were to be lifted, or the equipment was to become available for use, there is no doubt in my mind that it would become the most used and preferred method.

They are just keeping true to the original posters subject matter, situation, and environment, and application by saying that a mil/mil based system is the way to go.

 

[Rifles Only]

Re: mil to mil

Results have been pretty good so far.
The topic wasn't about an M-4 or range work.
Go ahead and make a snide comments. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. After having seen your posts over time, I am well aware of your knowledge on the subject as well.
Keep doing what you are doing, keep running stuff in your head, and we will keep hitting targets
Happy Thanksgiving

 

[bm11]

Re: mil to mil

I gotta say after reading all the posts in this thread, that I am glad that when I jumped into this I did enough research to buy a mil mil scope the first time. I do everything, including thinking, in mils. It is much easier to spot your miss in mils and correct with either a hold or a dialed correction in mils than to think in inches and make a bunch of mathematical conversions to try and correct. When I think of my dope, I think of it it mils, not the amount of inches in drop converted to moa converted to whatever. I think of my wind in terms of mils per 10mph full value and correct based on a fraction of that. Much more simple when you throw all the inches out the window.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Seth8541</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rifles Only</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not talking about the M-4. And again you are thinking in square range work. The shooter is not ALWAYS shooting to the 12 o'clock. There are almost always multiple targets that are identified in a number of ways. The first target may be 12 o'clock, the next may be at 2 o'clock, the next at 8 o'clock to the first.
Reference my above example, the range is only rough due to the target not facing directly at you and laser is questionable due to vegetation or other items between you and the target.
All of this means nothing other than to state that the square range and the square range only will afford you the luxury of exact target size and exact target aspect to the shooter.

In the above example, the shooter would do his best to compensate for wind, range and angle. Hopefully striking a first round hit. If the first round does not strike the target, a second shot would be made based off of what the shooter sees in the reticle. This would not be dependent on any calculations or even thought. See the strike on the reticle in relation to the target, adjust hold and fire.
The bullet will give you the answer every time. Don't think, just listen to what the bullet says, believe it, and adjust accordingly.
No data book, no calculator, no palm pilot, no thought, no calculations in your head
If you held 1.5 right and you see the strike at one mil, that is the answer. Hold a mil. The bullet gave you the answer.
The fact is that things go wrong, what you do with that information is the difference between a field shooter and a range shooter</div></div>

Regarding wind, the shooter is always shooting to 12 o'clock for the purpose of determining wind value. But, thanks for bringing me recognition of your knowledge on the subject. And, of course you're not talking about the M4, that would undermine your argument. Once again, results will determine the effectiveness of any technique. </div></div>

I don't believe he's saying that your method is all out wrong Sterling. I just think that on the basis of what the original posters question was, which is dealing with the use of a scopes rifle, that the preferred and most accurate method is using a scope with a mil/mil based system.

Now in your case, when using a weapon system (ie M4, M14) with an acog, or iron sights, or when rules or regulations restrict the applications stated above, your method is the preferred one. Now if the said restrictions above were to be lifted, or the equipment was to become available for use, there is no doubt in my mind that it would become the most used and preferred method.

They are just keeping true to the original posters subject matter, situation, and environment, and application by saying that a mil/mil based system is the way to go.</div></div>

Yes, I see your point.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rifles Only</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Results have been pretty good so far.
The topic wasn't about an M-4 or range work.
Go ahead and make a snide comments. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. After having seen your posts over time, I am well aware of your knowledge on the subject as well.
Keep doing what you are doing, keep running stuff in your head, and we will keep hitting targets
Happy Thanksgiving</div></div>

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bm11</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I gotta say after reading all the posts in this thread, that I am glad that when I jumped into this I did enough research to buy a mil mil scope the first time. I do everything, including thinking, in mils. It is much easier to spot your miss in mils and correct with either a hold or a dialed correction in mils than to think in inches and make a bunch of mathematical conversions to try and correct. When I think of my dope, I think of it it mils, not the amount of inches in drop converted to moa converted to whatever. I think of my wind in terms of mils per 10mph full value and correct based on a fraction of that. Much more simple when you throw all the inches out the window.</div></div>

No matter whether you're using mils/mils, moa/moa or mils/moa you're still going to need to estimate distance dividing target's perceived width in inches, yards, whatever, by the number of ticks your target consumes; thereafter, multiplying by the appropriate factor. When you've got the distance, of course, there's no need with either mil or MOA reticle to convert to inches to favor wind. A shooter can just count ticks. My point is there are many ways to skin a cat; and, awareness of the possibilities can be useful

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: mil to mil

Sterling, You are opening another can of worms and misinformation.

Range in yards---- Size of target in inches multiplied by 27.77 (constant) divide by size in Mils.

Range estimation is often a several part process. First visual estimation because it is the fastest, next a laser then with time permitting you use the reticle. That is the ideal format.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you've got the distance, of course, there's no need with either mil or MOA reticle to convert to inches to favor wind. A shooter can just count ticks. My point is there are many ways to skin a cat; and, awareness of the possibilities can be useful</div></div>

What are you talking about??? You call yourself an instructor? They are called Mil Dots for a reason, they are a unit of measurement. Or if you have a MOA reticle you call them Minutes. Why are you calling them ticks?

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sterling, You are opening another can of worms and misinformation.

Range in yards---- Size of target in inches multiplied by 27.77 (constant) divide by size in Mils.

Range estimation is often a several part process. First visual estimation because it is the fastest, next a laser then with time permitting you use the reticle. That is the ideal format.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you've got the distance, of course, there's no need with either mil or MOA reticle to convert to inches to favor wind. A shooter can just count ticks. My point is there are many ways to skin a cat; and, awareness of the possibilities can be useful</div></div>

What are you talking about??? You call yourself an instructor? They are called Mil Dots for a reason, they are a unit of measurement. Or if you have a MOA reticle you call them Minutes. Why are you calling them ticks?</div></div>

The formula can also be inches divided by mils times 27.78.

The reason I used the word tick is everyone here knows what a tick mark is and these are not always presented as whole units of measurement, an example might be a reticle with delineation at 2 minute intervals or perhaps 5 minute intervals. There's no misinformation here, just facts. And, yes I do identify myself as an instructor.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: mil to mil

Thats why you say 1 mil or .5mil or half a mil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an example might be a reticle with delineation at 2 minute intervals or perhaps 5 minute intervals</div></div> ... exactly why you don't say, "tick". Come 2 ticks left... What does that mean? We could be talking .4 mils, 1 mil or 2 mils depending on the reticle you are using.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats why you say 1 mil or .5mil or half a mil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an example might be a reticle with delineation at 2 minute intervals or perhaps 5 minute intervals</div></div> ... exactly why you don't say, "tick". Come 2 ticks left... What does that mean? We could be talking .4 mils, 1 mil or 2 mils depending on the reticle you are using.


</div></div>

+1

Stiiiiiiiiiiill going.lol ain't you guys got some bird to eat? Haha

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

You guys should knife fight!!! Lol

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats why you say 1 mil or .5mil or half a mil.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an example might be a reticle with delineation at 2 minute intervals or perhaps 5 minute intervals</div></div> ... exactly why you don't say, "tick". Come 2 ticks left... What does that mean? We could be talking .4 mils, 1 mil or 2 mils depending on the reticle you are using.


</div></div>

The informal nomenclature here is not what I'd be sayin' or even thinkin' in the field or on the range. Terms used in instruction are always in accord with the curriculum. Here the word tick is used in consideration for anything in the genre just for brevity's sake.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: mil to mil

Now I'm getting confused.

First, if you don't know the size of the target, then you can't range it in the first place (excluding a laser range finder or something),

Regardless of sights, mil, moa, or width of redical, you still need to knowns (size of target & redical) to find the third unknown (distance).

That being the case,if you know the size of the target you can estimate how many inches to favor for the wind.

Judging corrections is the same using mils or moa, the only difference is the constant. For the 308 its 10 for MOA or 35 for mill. Thats been around and taught in our military since before WWI.

Even the sniper portion of the M1 Field manual gives you hold overs in inches and gives you normal size fo targets.

As to targets not always being at 12 o'clock. We're talking about apples and oranges now. The range card has you tragets or possible targets ploted either in degrees, clock system from a given point, or mils from a give point, BUT when you are shooting at any of the targets, it is at 12 o'clock from where your muzzle is pointed for the purpurses of wind corrections, (full value, half value, etc).

There is nothing new about this. What is new (new being relative since I'm an old fart) is the use of mils in rifle scopes.

Whether we wish to admit it, American people think in inches, not mils. Yards, not meters.

Stands to reason if one is going to hold off a target, he will use inches as a measurement. Inches in relation to the target he sees in inches.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: mil to mil

the point is for a follow up shot.... mil/mil makes it easier ( as does moa/moa ) in the real world, when you've screwed the target size estimation, or range, or slope, etc... you can watch the splash and w/o thinking make a correction and send another

 

[Swift]

Re: mil to mil

I like mils for 2 reasons:

1. A mil is a mil is a mil. It's not 2" @ 200 yards, 6" @ 600 yards, etc. Always the same.

2. It's a mental thing for me, but the smaller "values" of the mil system are just cleaner. Instead of dialing 19 1/4 and having to work with fractions, it's just 5.5. When adjusting, the thought process isn't "three quarters" or "three quarters of a minute" it's ".2" Something about the fractions and broader spectrum just muddy the waters, IMHO.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now I'm getting confused.

First, if you don't know the size of the target, then you can't range it in the first place (excluding a laser range finder or something),

Regardless of sights, mil, moa, or width of redical, you still need to knowns (size of target & redical) to find the third unknown (distance).

That being the case,if you know the size of the target you can estimate how many inches to favor for the wind.

Judging corrections is the same using mils or moa, the only difference is the constant. For the 308 its 10 for MOA or 35 for mill. Thats been around and taught in our military since before WWI.

Even the sniper portion of the M1 Field manual gives you hold overs in inches and gives you normal size fo targets.

As to targets not always being at 12 o'clock. We're talking about apples and oranges now. The range card has you tragets or possible targets ploted either in degrees, clock system from a given point, or mils from a give point, BUT when you are shooting at any of the targets, it is at 12 o'clock from where your muzzle is pointed for the purpurses of wind corrections, (full value, half value, etc).

There is nothing new about this. What is new (new being relative since I'm an old fart) is the use of mils in rifle scopes.

Whether we wish to admit it, American people think in inches, not mils. Yards, not meters.

Stands to reason if one is going to hold off a target, he will use inches as a measurement. Inches in relation to the target he sees in inches. </div></div>

Why would you do this when you have a reticle that is scaled in MILS or MOA? So what your saying is if I'm observing an impact through a scope that has a MIL reticle, and I see my impact .5 mil low @ 200 yards, it is more condusive to convert that .5 mil to 3.6" and eyeball that 3.6" on the target, and then take my shot?

Why wouldn't I just use my reticle to hold .5 mils high and take the shot, or dial .5 mil up and take the shot?

MILS or MOA, doesn't really matter, procedure is still the same. If you don't have a scaledreticle, then your method is the way to do it.But in no way is it as expedient or accurate as using a set measuring system determined by the reticle.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now I'm getting confused.

First, if you don't know the size of the target, then you can't range it in the first place (excluding a laser range finder or something),

Regardless of sights, mil, moa, or width of redical, you still need to knowns (size of target & redical) to find the third unknown (distance).

That being the case,if you know the size of the target you can estimate how many inches to favor for the wind.

Judging corrections is the same using mils or moa, the only difference is the constant. For the 308 its 10 for MOA or 35 for mill. Thats been around and taught in our military since before WWI.

Even the sniper portion of the M1 Field manual gives you hold overs in inches and gives you normal size fo targets.

As to targets not always being at 12 o'clock. We're talking about apples and oranges now. The range card has you tragets or possible targets ploted either in degrees, clock system from a given point, or mils from a give point, BUT when you are shooting at any of the targets, it is at 12 o'clock from where your muzzle is pointed for the purpurses of wind corrections, (full value, half value, etc).

There is nothing new about this. What is new (new being relative since I'm an old fart) is the use of mils in rifle scopes.

Whether we wish to admit it, American people think in inches, not mils. Yards, not meters.

Stands to reason if one is going to hold off a target, he will use inches as a measurement. Inches in relation to the target he sees in inches.</div></div>

You see it the way I see it. Thing that surprises me is that apparently there are some "experts" here who have not heard of the wind clock. But, maybe that's moot today. Or no longer fundemental to wind estimation.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now I'm getting confused.

First, if you don't know the size of the target, then you can't range it in the first place (excluding a laser range finder or something),

Regardless of sights, mil, moa, or width of redical, you still need to knowns (size of target & redical) to find the third unknown (distance).

That being the case,if you know the size of the target you can estimate how many inches to favor for the wind.

Judging corrections is the same using mils or moa, the only difference is the constant. For the 308 its 10 for MOA or 35 for mill. Thats been around and taught in our military since before WWI.

Even the sniper portion of the M1 Field manual gives you hold overs in inches and gives you normal size fo targets.

As to targets not always being at 12 o'clock. We're talking about apples and oranges now. The range card has you tragets or possible targets ploted either in degrees, clock system from a given point, or mils from a give point, BUT when you are shooting at any of the targets, it is at 12 o'clock from where your muzzle is pointed for the purpurses of wind corrections, (full value, half value, etc).

There is nothing new about this. What is new (new being relative since I'm an old fart) is the use of mils in rifle scopes.

Whether we wish to admit it, American people think in inches, not mils. Yards, not meters.

Stands to reason if one is going to hold off a target, he will use inches as a measurement. Inches in relation to the target he sees in inches.</div></div>

You see it the way I see it. Thing that surprises me is that apparently there are some folks here who have not heard of the wind clock. </div></div>

Come-on Sterling, we all know what a wind clock is all about. Where doing what you are speaking on a target that is square to your position guesstomating a meaurement in inches isn't that hard, but what about when the said Target is uphill, downhill, or bladed to your position? The measurement of the target is distorted by the angle, so also is your estimation by eye in inches when referenced by the target size. The same reason why you don't mil a target width wise while it is bladed to your position.

This can all be avoided by using a scaled reticle, and adjusting off of what was seen through your scope and referenced by the use of the reticle.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: mil to mil

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A mil is a mil is a mil. It's not 2" @ 200 yards, 6" @ 600 yards, etc. Always the same.</div></div>

They are the same, moa and mils. They never vary in value, but subtends greater widths at increasing distanace.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what your saying is if I'm observing an impact through a scope that has a MIL reticle, and I see my impact .5 mil low @ 200 yards, it is more condusive to convert that .5 mil to 3.6" and eyeball that 3.6" on the target, and then take my shot?</div></div>

No sir, that's not what I met to say. If you have mils use them, if your scope has moa hash marks, use them. If you are using iron sights or plain cross hairs then its going to be easier to thing in inches when it comes to favoring.

Americans think in inches, feet, yards. Not mils or meters.

You can see that teaching rifle marksmanship in basic. The kids are confused when you tell them when you tell them one click of windage equals 2.8 cm So you tell them one click is one inch (same thing, so close not many can tell the difference of 3/32s at 100 yards.

You have to know your students. You start talking mils, you could loose them.

A good example is Alaskan Eskimos. We had three BNs make up of Eskimos. These guys, though great people, had limited education.

When I was runing sniper schools, they did well. M1C/Ds and later M21s worked well in MOA, They understood that. They fed their families hunting and shooting. Shooting seals (fury ones) with head shots in small boats in the choppy waters of the Bering Sea.

At the same time, I ran machine gun schools, These natives had no problem with the sights on the gun it self, but when you put the gun a a tri-pod,with the T&E marked in mils, it was like I was talking a different language.

If you have mils, and know how to use them, by all means use them. If you have moa use that, if you just have the front sight or plane cross hairs, then favor in inches, every one knows inches.

Mils are fine, but they aren't the only system out there, its no worse or better then anything else.

In some (most cases) it is worse, Everyone knows inches/moa, few know mils. You interject mils as a means of rifle sights in basic training, you better extend the marksmanship phase of basic several weeks.

I work at our range during "sight in days" for out of state hunters prior to our hunting season. In helping someone get zeroed and I call for a .5 mil correction, they are gonna think I'm nuts. I call for a 2 min or inch correction, they'll give it to me.

 

[bm11]

Re: mil to mil

I'd be the first to admit that I use a rangefinder too much and mil my targets too little. If I can't range my target, I can range something close to it. That said, I would agree that MOA/MOA is almost as good as mil/mil, and both are better than MIL/MOA. But, I would still rather use mil/mil, for a number of reasons- better scopes available, better reticles available, more of a standard system, and easier mil ranging if you can think in meters.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: mil to mil

Kraig and Sterling, I guess the issue is you two are out of touch with todays sniper training. I keep hearing you relate back to the days of Accu-Range scopes and M1C/D... That is not what the discussion is about. Then you bring up ACOGs and irons... Again, way off topic. The both of you are grasping at straws in a attempt to save face. Both of you need to go take a class and get updated on current TTPs.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

Sterling & Kraig,

You are looking at it as though past history is current doctrine. To put it simply, you're trying to tell someone how to change the channel on their flat panel TV by turning the dial, instead of using the remote. Both ways change the channel and will get you the desired results, but really only the remote works, and visa versa.

In terms of what they saying with reference to targets off axis, you are taking it from a slow methodical, we have minutes to shoot, they are looking at from the standpoint you have equally dangerous, multiple threats converging. You might shoot the 12 O Clock first but then you have your 3 O Clock target engaging from a covered position. Yes he is still 12 O Clock from the muzzle but you are not engaging in the same fashion. It's speed versus slow fire.

The idea you are "thinking" in a unit of linear measurement does not apply. You are simply reading the results in real time. The previous line of thinking was more so passive, it required a secondary spotter unlike now where you shoot and follow up in less than 3 seconds, so there is really no time to process inches from the target or the target size. It's much more dynamic, instead of getting up and dialing the TV to the next channel you just hit the back button on the remote.

Linear measurements are only used a third tier backing process, there are 2 methods in front of it. So the idea that Americans think in Inches no longer applies as a primary method of determining the firing solution. Really if you are basing the shot off a range card that was predetermined with a laser, the next shot is determined by the visual of the strike against the graduations of the reticle. Again, within 3 seconds of the first shot, it is done very quickly. 100% of the information is given to you in the scope where no thinking is needed, it is now reading.

Reverting back to an M1 manual is a recipe for disaster, this is no longer 1978 , so these guys are moving the conversation to 2011. It matches the Flat Screen everyone uses, as dials no longer apply.

In teaching a modern soldier you want to avoid the pit falls indentified from the past. One is the mix of linear values when talking angular adjustments. The same with talking ticks or clicks, it's better to use the true value as it builds a better foundation down the road. It's the difference between using slang or true statements in a databook. Your tick is different to each person. That is the point they are making.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

Hmmm.. M4 is current, M16 A4 is current, ACOG is current; and, with any of these it's all about MOA and wind favors in inches. Now, you've retorted that this thread is not about M4's. I understand why you would dismiss this since it undermines your argument. And arguing the facts, even for you, would, I'm sure, be difficult. But what I don't understand is why you would not embrace all the possibilities to getting a good hit quickly. With a broad knowledge base, a shooter is better prepared to get a good hit in any condition and distance a bullet can get to nose-on.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: mil to mil

My being an old has been does not negat the fact that there is more then one way to skin a cat.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In teaching a modern soldier you want to avoid the pit falls indentified from the past. One is the mix of linear values when talking angular adjustments.</div></div>

In this, nothing has changed except maybe we went to metric for the military. In teaching the modern soldier, we do in fact use linear values in talking angular adjustments. Whether its mils or moa. All "modern" sniper manuals discuss MOA.

The Mil and MOA are both the same, as in, neither vary in value, but substend greater widths at increasing distances.

The modern army does not teach mils, with the exception of sniper, machine gun schools, and artillery. They do teach, including sniper & machine gun schools, moa as an angular adjustment.

You will not see, in our life times, the military switching to mils only in riflery. It was this way prior to WWI and its that way on the modern battle field.

If we want to limit this dicussion to modern US Sniper systems then maybe its a different matter, then again maybe not.

The M24 is set up for both irons and glass. The irons use MOA not mils, you restrict instruction to mils, and the glass fails, you're screwed when you have to switch to irons. The same thing if you as a spotter have to go to your M16. M16s are not sighted in using mils.

Learn mils, but you better know MOA and be able to use them.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

The original poster is asking about the use as it pertains to sniping, not M4s with an ACOGS. Aimpoints are current also and just have a red dot with no graduating reticle, one has nothing to do with the other. So saying an ACOG uses inches is meaningless. Dismissing it here is the same as comparing a Leupold M3 to an EoTech also currently used, one has nothing to do with the other.

You both need to stop digging as each post you make looks worse and worse that you are clearly not spinning in the same circle as the rest of the conversation.

Sure most are taught MOA as it pertains to adjusting the scope, not holds as they have realized the holds are more efficiently used with the mil based reticle. Everyone is versed in both, ask anyone who's ever been on a line with me, I speak both languages fluently and with much more understanding then either of you as I know the difference between IPHY / MOA / Mils and how to account for each across any platform. Doesnt matter if I guy shows up with a S&B, USO or NF I can talk the language of each.

Look up the PSR programs, the current MSR, the fact they spec'd iron sights in 1982 for the M24 doesn't mean they use them. I guarantee less than 1% have ever touched them, and even then only because they were bored and wanted to try. If you look the M40A1 had no ability to use a bipod, that doesn't mean the A5 can't use one. If you find a USMC manual it will talk MOA but current doctrine is in fact Mils - just because some reserve unit might have a throwback scope laying around doesn't mean you teach the fine tuning MOA to guys shooting the mil based scopes. The M24s have a new spec and are being changed.

If you want to teach line soldiers to be DMs with their ACOGS that is great, but that doesn't make them snipers. A line soldier has no need to know mils, as it pertains to sniping. The artillery mil is not the same, only one scope ever used that and the company realized it did so in error, and no longer makes it that way. When you teach snipers mils, it's not compared to a military mil that artillery uses. Mils taught in shooting are not taught like mils taught on the compass. There is no linear equivalent necesssary even though people will simply repeat it because that is how someone did before them.

This is the problem with institutions, they are slow to work out of bad habits and past errors. Military manuals also get humidity wrong, they claim that high humidity makes the air more dense, you don't teach this because the manual says it, it's wrong. Even Plaster reprinted it wrong, so pointing to an error never makes it right. Just because it was passed down doesn't make it correct. Institutional training scars, and you guys have them in spades.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

The US has had a long standing tradition of always training and preparing for the last war. This has always been the way. I attended Marine Corps Sniper School prior to this war begining and instructed the same school years after this war had begun. Did the ciriculum change? No. It still taught the past techniques that had been used since the Vietnam War. Are these the basics, and fundamental techniques needed to be second nature to any Sniper? Absolutely! But this new era of warfare is not going anywhere, anytime soon, and have my reservations about it ever returning to that way again. That doesn't mean that that those techniques are left by the wayside, but it does mean that we need to make way for new techniques.

Have we altogether gone away from traditional measurements used in the past? No, but it should be blatantly obvious to all that the mil/mil system is not going anywhere, but will be the scale used primarily now and in the future. So why don't we stop concentrating our efforts in training our students in the techniques of old, and begin preparing them for the future?

The RO crew has made a point of trainig there students with practical skills needed "right the fuck now" haha. They see and have seen the writing on the wall. Train them for now and the future. The mil/mil is here, and its not going anywhere. It sure would be ashame if in 10 years after this system has been around for 2 decades, that people still unaware how it is to be used, and how pertains to them as shooters because all the instructors that had been intrusted with imparting useful, practical, and efficient knowledge upon them were stuck in the past.

That's just my feelings on the matter. This thread was started with the regards to the mil/mil system and how it pertains to us in the precisionk, LR, tactical world. Not the M4, M16, ACOG, and HP platforms. If we remain true to the OP's subject matter, this is a done deal.

JMO

Semper Fi,
Seth

 

[Papagallos]

Re: mil to mil

Ok, now I'm confused. I think I need a practical class to understand this. Concrete, concrete, concrete.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: mil to mil

Re-reading the OP's first post, it would appear that my contributions are indeed Germaine to the discussion. But. of course, you set the rules and can change them as you see appropriate to support your view. Knowing all means to an end however better assures the desired outcome in any arena.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: mil to mil

This topic seems to have drifted to the narrow minded view of what is a sniper, as it always does. “ If you aren’t SS or Army trained, using X equipment, you aren’t, regardless of the mission”.

As long as one has the opinion they will never understand it’s not the rifle, it’s not the scope it’s the shooter, not whether he/she is school trained, military, LE or even the criminal sniper.

They do exist whether one chooses to admit it or not, and failure to understand that, and to realize it, (especially for law enforcement), and take that fact into account, there will not be any productive counter-sniper measures.

A perfect example is in current operations where some peasant is given an Enfield or Mosin, a couple rounds of junk ammo, and sending him out to harass troops. Don’t even have to hit anything, getting rounds in the same grid square accomplishes the mission.

Another example is the SDM and how many “school trained” military snipers look down on them. Even though they often have the same mission, that being setting up at a location to observe and cover a patrol, or covering a popular location for placing IEDs.

Sure things change from war to war. In my reading of sniper operations in current battle fields, they don’t send out two man teams into Indian country like they did in SE Asia. Today’s snipers in fact do work more as SDM then the snipers of past wars.

Sure some tools are better than others, but sometimes you have to use what you have, you have to teach the use of tools the student has available.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: mil to mil

Youre right, that's exact what the guys "who didn't" graduate sniper school say, it's the same thing, you blur one line and immediately it's "see I do it too" .

Bottom line the US military does not use a sniper scope with an MOA reticle, as asked by the original poster, and is in fact moving very quickly to a completely mil based system. So, When a guy shows up with an MSR toped with a Leupold M5 with H58 or whatever model Horus reticle, he'll have no reasons to even hear the words inches or MOA. And really when he currently uses a mil based reticle and his spotter has a mil based reticle it should be closer to a footnote on the subject then the main focus.

Legacy skills are fine but they are not a primary focus, they are in fact a fallback skill set that is there to use in case their primary system fails and they have to revert to a secondary method. However training the proper use of mils, even that is unnecessary as the operator can simply use the mils in the reticle without dialing. So if your MOA turrets fail the options is your use your mil reticle knowing with a 100 yard zero you can hit a target from 0 to 600 without ever dialing. If he is forced to go to iron sights as his primary means, shit has gone horribly wrong for him and he would be better served picking up an Assualt rifle.

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.

Your mileage may very, but I suspect not by much, especially moving forward. Looking back is great, lessons in history can be helpful, but at some point your gonna have to move into the 21st century. Even today you better know how to set up their RULR, or work the PDA and connect it to their Bluetooth Kestrel. Linking electronics is part of it, yet none of that is in the sniper manual.

 

[MD2Colo]

Re: mil to mil



The posters on this thread are some very experienced guys, I recognize that and I'm definitely not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adm09_003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I completely understand</div></div>

That's the only thing that matters, I think...

I think what everyone is eluding to is that you better know how to use your equipment and apply your own techniques when you go out...
MIL reticle with MOA knobs, R x V / Wind constant, convert to mil, whatever the hell wind formula choose to use, MIL holds, body holds, holding in inches, etc
I personally don't give a shit what knobs are on my scope...
If I'm by myself, I'm gonna be spotting for myself obviously and I will use the reticle to achieve a second round hit if I miss on the first shot, so who cares what kind of knobs you have.
If I have a spotter, he's is looking through the Mk 4, so if I miss he'll give me a correction based off the mil reticle, no brainer there.
No mil reticle? Something like a NPR whatever the hell that comes in the NXSs? Big deal...the bullet will tell you how f_cked up you are and you will correct using the MOA reticle, just like you would if you had a mil reticle. If your spotter sees the trace/impact (and you didn't) with his mil reticle, he's gonna need to get his shit together and send you a correction in MOA.
Ranging with an MOA reticle or MIL reticle is essentially the same process, however I prefer the MILDOT reticle, although you could work out the same system wth an MOA reticle--
standard E-type, 39.75 or 40 inches, 19.75 or 20 inches wide.
works out to be almost exactly 1 MIL at 1000M. My brain can chew on that pretty easily...
target/man is 2 mil high nuts to head- 500m. hold over, read wind, do a quick RxV/10 and shoot.
I mean, hell...why even mil it? We were all trained some standard of 10% with your eye, 5% with optics (forgot, might be 20 and 10)... 1 MOA or .34MIL at 500M is what, about 5" and 17cm? ten inch dot when you quarter a man at 500 will do the job, I think. Obviously, that is the most expedient way to range and engage.
I'm rambling.
Good times, livin' the dream.

 

[Seth8541]

Re: mil to mil

Miltary Snipers don't look down on DM's, unless that DM is walking around telling everyone he's a Sniper. And yes that will piss a school trained Sniper off. If you don't know the difference......that in itself says it all.

Believe it or not, overwatch is not Scout Snipers primary mission, or is it the only mission. That is however, the SDM's primary mission. Give the squads high shooter a 3 week course, a match rifle, and whalla, you got yourself a Scout Sniper in every squad. May as well just do away with Scout Sniper Platoons, and Marine Corps Sniper Schools accross the board.

We'll put it this way.........I'm a Sniper, I can shoot, may as well just give me a Distinguished rifle badge.