Rifle Scopes Mills VS Metric ?
- Thread starter para1505
- Start date
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
no.....no no no
a mil is a mil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
it is NOT metric as in SI
no.....no no no
a mil is a mil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
it is NOT metric as in SI
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
It's the measurement of death to our enemies, Foreign (metric) or Domestic (Standard).
It's the measurement of death to our enemies, Foreign (metric) or Domestic (Standard).
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
Maladat, that is only another way to express click value that is 100% correct, and very practical to metric users (EVERYONE in the world but the good ol USA).
It only sounds stupid to non metric users...
Maladat, that is only another way to express click value that is 100% correct, and very practical to metric users (EVERYONE in the world but the good ol USA).
It only sounds stupid to non metric users...
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
It's one unit of lateral displacement at 1000 units of distance. Pick your own units. In the US it's 3.6 inches at 100 yards and in Canada it's 10 centimeters at 100 meters.
It's one unit of lateral displacement at 1000 units of distance. Pick your own units. In the US it's 3.6 inches at 100 yards and in Canada it's 10 centimeters at 100 meters.
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maladat, that is only another way to express click value that is 100% correct, and very practical to metric users (EVERYONE in the world but the good ol USA).
It only sounds stupid to non metric users...</div></div>
Yes, it is technically correct that .1 mil is 1cm @ 100m. I am quite comfortable with the metric system. It is still stupid to mark an angular adjustment based on specific linear measurements.
1cm @ 100m doesn't mean anything if you don't already know it's an angular adjustment (and 1cm@100m doesn't actually imply or have to be an angular measurement). If you don't know it's an angular adjustment, 1cm @ 100m could also mean 1cm @ 200m, or .5cm @ 200m, or -2cm @ 200m or 253.23416cm @ 200m (and one could build a sighting device which managed 1cm @ 100m and any one of the 200m values just given). It's an angular adjustment and should be marked as one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maladat, that is only another way to express click value that is 100% correct, and very practical to metric users (EVERYONE in the world but the good ol USA).
It only sounds stupid to non metric users...</div></div>
Yes, it is technically correct that .1 mil is 1cm @ 100m. I am quite comfortable with the metric system. It is still stupid to mark an angular adjustment based on specific linear measurements.
1cm @ 100m doesn't mean anything if you don't already know it's an angular adjustment (and 1cm@100m doesn't actually imply or have to be an angular measurement). If you don't know it's an angular adjustment, 1cm @ 100m could also mean 1cm @ 200m, or .5cm @ 200m, or -2cm @ 200m or 253.23416cm @ 200m (and one could build a sighting device which managed 1cm @ 100m and any one of the 200m values just given). It's an angular adjustment and should be marked as one.
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
I still get confused as to whether or not is proper to say it has a metric prefix. I understand it is an angular unit of measurement, but isn't a milliradian still 1000th of a radian (1 radian equals 360 degrees)? And by the same token, why couldn't we say that 10 milliradians is the same as one centiradian?
I'm still just confused
I still get confused as to whether or not is proper to say it has a metric prefix. I understand it is an angular unit of measurement, but isn't a milliradian still 1000th of a radian (1 radian equals 360 degrees)? And by the same token, why couldn't we say that 10 milliradians is the same as one centiradian?
I'm still just confused
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still get confused as to whether or not is proper to say it has a metric prefix. I understand it is an angular unit of measurement, but isn't a milliradian still 1000th of a radian (1 radian equals 360 degrees)? And by the same token, why couldn't we say that 10 milliradians is the same as one centiradian?
I'm still just confused </div></div>
I'll say. To start, the number of radians in a circle (360 degrees) is equal to 2*pi, or roughly 6.28.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still get confused as to whether or not is proper to say it has a metric prefix. I understand it is an angular unit of measurement, but isn't a milliradian still 1000th of a radian (1 radian equals 360 degrees)? And by the same token, why couldn't we say that 10 milliradians is the same as one centiradian?
I'm still just confused </div></div>
I'll say. To start, the number of radians in a circle (360 degrees) is equal to 2*pi, or roughly 6.28.
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: palmik</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 mil is 1 centiyard (1/100 of a yard) at 100 yards.</div></div>
Not quite..
1 mil is 10 centiyards or 1 deciyard at 100 yards. (100 yards / 1000 = 0.1 yards)
0.1 mil is 1 centiyard at 100 yards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: palmik</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 mil is 1 centiyard (1/100 of a yard) at 100 yards.</div></div>
Not quite..
1 mil is 10 centiyards or 1 deciyard at 100 yards. (100 yards / 1000 = 0.1 yards)
0.1 mil is 1 centiyard at 100 yards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still get confused as to whether or not is proper to say it has a metric prefix. I understand it is an angular unit of measurement, but isn't a milliradian still 1000th of a radian (1 radian equals 360 degrees)? And by the same token, why couldn't we say that 10 milliradians is the same as one centiradian?
I'm still just confused </div></div>
"milli", as well as "centi" are indeed metric SI -system offical prefixes and in that sense term "milliradian" is metric. But since angular unit itself isnt tied to metric or imperials, it can be confusing.
And yes, 10 milliradian is 1 centiradian. It is perfectly correct way to say it, but not commonly used.
Another story is term "mil", as it is called in spoken english.
There are many mils, but only one is milliradian.
Common mils around world, used by various armys, are 6000, 6283, 6300 and 6400 -circle systems. But as we know, they arent same.
P.S.
S&B has also 100 microradian turrets available.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still get confused as to whether or not is proper to say it has a metric prefix. I understand it is an angular unit of measurement, but isn't a milliradian still 1000th of a radian (1 radian equals 360 degrees)? And by the same token, why couldn't we say that 10 milliradians is the same as one centiradian?
I'm still just confused </div></div>
"milli", as well as "centi" are indeed metric SI -system offical prefixes and in that sense term "milliradian" is metric. But since angular unit itself isnt tied to metric or imperials, it can be confusing.
And yes, 10 milliradian is 1 centiradian. It is perfectly correct way to say it, but not commonly used.
Another story is term "mil", as it is called in spoken english.
There are many mils, but only one is milliradian.
Common mils around world, used by various armys, are 6000, 6283, 6300 and 6400 -circle systems. But as we know, they arent same.
P.S.
S&B has also 100 microradian turrets available.
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maladat, that is only another way to express click value that is 100% correct, and very practical to metric users (EVERYONE in the world but the good ol USA).
It only sounds stupid to non metric users...</div></div>
Yes, it is technically correct that .1 mil is 1cm @ 100m. I am quite comfortable with the metric system. It is still stupid to mark an angular adjustment based on specific linear measurements.
1cm @ 100m doesn't mean anything if you don't already know it's an angular adjustment (and 1cm@100m doesn't actually imply or have to be an angular measurement). If you don't know it's an angular adjustment, 1cm @ 100m could also mean 1cm @ 200m, or .5cm @ 200m, or -2cm @ 200m or 253.23416cm @ 200m (and one could build a sighting device which managed 1cm @ 100m and any one of the 200m values just given). It's an angular adjustment and should be marked as one. </div></div>
I'm an engineer and I can understand and use anything but most people don't. I agree it would be technically better to express it in angular units, but for 99% of metric users (this is, almost everyone but USA) the training is much faster expressing it "1 cm at 100 m". It is simple to understand and use (everyone knows is an angular subtension), that's the beauty of the metric <span style="font-weight: bold">decimal</span> system that goes hand in hand with mils.
Life is really easy if you have to train guys that use mils and meters, you don't have to explain what a MOA, radian or miliradian is, just:
"1 mil = 10 cm at 100 m, 20 cm at 200, and so on..." for the reticle
for the turrets: "1 click = 0.1 mil = 1 cm at 100 m, 2 cm at 200, and so on...".
then the ranging formula: range (m) = (target size (m) / mil reading) * 1000 and you are set
People instantly understand that reticle and clicks match, and use them accordingly. Of course come ups, wind corrections, hold offs, etc. are also in mils.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maladat, that is only another way to express click value that is 100% correct, and very practical to metric users (EVERYONE in the world but the good ol USA).
It only sounds stupid to non metric users...</div></div>
Yes, it is technically correct that .1 mil is 1cm @ 100m. I am quite comfortable with the metric system. It is still stupid to mark an angular adjustment based on specific linear measurements.
1cm @ 100m doesn't mean anything if you don't already know it's an angular adjustment (and 1cm@100m doesn't actually imply or have to be an angular measurement). If you don't know it's an angular adjustment, 1cm @ 100m could also mean 1cm @ 200m, or .5cm @ 200m, or -2cm @ 200m or 253.23416cm @ 200m (and one could build a sighting device which managed 1cm @ 100m and any one of the 200m values just given). It's an angular adjustment and should be marked as one. </div></div>
I'm an engineer and I can understand and use anything but most people don't. I agree it would be technically better to express it in angular units, but for 99% of metric users (this is, almost everyone but USA) the training is much faster expressing it "1 cm at 100 m". It is simple to understand and use (everyone knows is an angular subtension), that's the beauty of the metric <span style="font-weight: bold">decimal</span> system that goes hand in hand with mils.
Life is really easy if you have to train guys that use mils and meters, you don't have to explain what a MOA, radian or miliradian is, just:
"1 mil = 10 cm at 100 m, 20 cm at 200, and so on..." for the reticle
for the turrets: "1 click = 0.1 mil = 1 cm at 100 m, 2 cm at 200, and so on...".
then the ranging formula: range (m) = (target size (m) / mil reading) * 1000 and you are set
People instantly understand that reticle and clicks match, and use them accordingly. Of course come ups, wind corrections, hold offs, etc. are also in mils.
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
JL, you get the idea... meters and centimeters and everyone understands, you say "miliradians" and you get quite a few blank stares
JL, you get the idea... meters and centimeters and everyone understands, you say "miliradians" and you get quite a few blank stares
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
Thanks JL and TF, your explanations reinforce some additional reading I've done. Now I get it.
That said, I now find it ironic that an intentionally "non metric" system like <span style="font-style: italic">angular mil </span>works so perfectly with the metric system, and even has a metric prefix in the name. No wonder it's confusing!
Thanks JL and TF, your explanations reinforce some additional reading I've done. Now I get it.
That said, I now find it ironic that an intentionally "non metric" system like <span style="font-style: italic">angular mil </span>works so perfectly with the metric system, and even has a metric prefix in the name. No wonder it's confusing!
Re: Mills VS Metric ?
glock24, there is no magic, it matches the metrical system simply because it is decimal, if you use yards and decimal fractions (like entelodont posted above) it matches exactly too.
The thing is, most american users are used to measure in yards, feet, inches, not decimal units.
glock24, there is no magic, it matches the metrical system simply because it is decimal, if you use yards and decimal fractions (like entelodont posted above) it matches exactly too.
The thing is, most american users are used to measure in yards, feet, inches, not decimal units.
Similar threads
- Poll
