-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Mils at 100 Meters?
- Thread starter BJDelaporte
- Start date
I am the greatest instructor ever,
I just guided this trainwreck back on course to a productive topic
Ban cat was put on hold
I just guided this trainwreck back on course to a productive topic
Ban cat was put on hold
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Please to meet you. My name is Major Major Major Major. You can just call me Major.
Okay since i am camped out bored as fuck,
Here is a great image example, this was a stage at my match years ago, so consider calling in Inches, or a linear value,
The target was about 400 yards away, so you have them, the targets are the scope lenses, they are a 2" flapper target
Here is through the scope
You are shooting the Dirka Dirka on the roof and at the driver's door,
But here is the reality of that target,
The other guy is well behind the car, so the reticle is going to be your most precise means of measurement
Here is a great image example, this was a stage at my match years ago, so consider calling in Inches, or a linear value,
The target was about 400 yards away, so you have them, the targets are the scope lenses, they are a 2" flapper target
Here is through the scope
You are shooting the Dirka Dirka on the roof and at the driver's door,
But here is the reality of that target,
The other guy is well behind the car, so the reticle is going to be your most precise means of measurement
I will say this. I do like your videos now that I know who you are based on your no nonsense approach. I often wondered what your background was. That small gun of mine served me well. HK416. Hell I even subscribed. But we, like my first marriage, can't getter all right.
So help me out here. Us guys that just know our 5.56 holds with a red dot aren't good at this stuff. Let's say I mil a target that is 508 meters away, (target is E Type) and I know he's at 508 cause he measures 2 mils tall and 1 mil wide, if the shooter misses by a full target width to the left edge (and I know I have to bring him back to center), I would give him a correction of "Right 1.5 mils"
So help me out here. Us guys that just know our 5.56 holds with a red dot aren't good at this stuff. Let's say I mil a target that is 508 meters away, (target is E Type) and I know he's at 508 cause he measures 2 mils tall and 1 mil wide, if the shooter misses by a full target width to the left edge (and I know I have to bring him back to center), I would give him a correction of "Right 1.5 mils"
Again, I get that, calling shots with todays TMR's. I'm looking for a better more accurate way of calling a miss when I see the trace buzz buy a target. Where do you run your courses?
M856, et tu?
I missed your last thread. Here I am.
Belay that. Obviously not the same guy. He actually is rational.
Last edited:
Yes,
That would be the correction, so for you with no reticle to get up to speed fast, take the time to create a cheat sheet, we use them all the time. I would have a width reference in mils based on your target package, then you can work exactly as posted,
I did a ton back in the day with Hk416, did a secret squirrel gig they just swapped uppers to push out farther. I love the platform, all good stuff. I think we used Range 29? I forget, my brain is broke.
With a red dot, you want to call as explained above, based on the target. They have no reference so they are holding off the target. Unless they can swap out to a 1-8x or something.
I am a dick at times, especially when I am home bored, and definitely on here because I answer to nobody, but we're all good. We always give real information we just tend to mix in a few treats to entertain.
I teach all over, Colorado, Alaska, Minnesota, Iowa, Tennesse, all are on the books this year but stuff is getting moved around a lot. My class next week was canceled with the state in lockdown
That would be the correction, so for you with no reticle to get up to speed fast, take the time to create a cheat sheet, we use them all the time. I would have a width reference in mils based on your target package, then you can work exactly as posted,
I did a ton back in the day with Hk416, did a secret squirrel gig they just swapped uppers to push out farther. I love the platform, all good stuff. I think we used Range 29? I forget, my brain is broke.
With a red dot, you want to call as explained above, based on the target. They have no reference so they are holding off the target. Unless they can swap out to a 1-8x or something.
I am a dick at times, especially when I am home bored, and definitely on here because I answer to nobody, but we're all good. We always give real information we just tend to mix in a few treats to entertain.
I teach all over, Colorado, Alaska, Minnesota, Iowa, Tennesse, all are on the books this year but stuff is getting moved around a lot. My class next week was canceled with the state in lockdown
Brother, now that I know who you are and your back ground we are solid. Hell, I did 22 years in the army mastering the shit talking trade. Your talking Range 19. That was my home for 17 years. I'm a FAG (formal action guy) I only did maybe two years in recce though, the rest of the time of was in an assault troop. I never liked the idea of laying flat belly watching other guys kick in doors. I was happy to get back on an assault team. But now getting older and I can't see the front sight on my pistols as well anymore I would like to get into the long range game.
So I am an old civvy, but spotter and shooter have to communicate in units available to both. So if you have nothing but binoculars, and the shooter has nothing but a plain reticle, then the only thing you can both see is the target. So giving corrections in fractions of the target may be the best you can do when speed matters (i.e., you are 1/2 a target left, hold 1/2 a target right). Crude, but all you have in common.
That said, @lowlight is right. You need time on glass (OJT) to start seeing the field of view in angular units of measurement (mils or moa). But that will not help a shooter with a naked reticle.
I am likely making things worse here, but trying to hear what you’re saying and put it in context. Angular units are best... after that you are winging it at best. Ok, amateur hour is over... someone with more rank take over.
Not that pissing matches aren’t fun?
Ok, question:
I have a 12" wide target at 450 yards.
how many mils is that?
if I take 3.6" x 4.5 = 16.2" so 1 mil at 450 yards = 16.2"
the target is 12" wide so 12" devided by 16.2" = .74 mils.
So the target is .74 mils in width at 450 yards.
Would this be correct?
I have a 12" wide target at 450 yards.
how many mils is that?
if I take 3.6" x 4.5 = 16.2" so 1 mil at 450 yards = 16.2"
the target is 12" wide so 12" devided by 16.2" = .74 mils.
So the target is .74 mils in width at 450 yards.
Would this be correct?
Or you could just measure it in mils...ya know... With the reticle if you have a mil scope and just skip the math
It was all I could do to keep @lowlight out of jail, but I was not around for this hands-in-the-pockets moment. LOL
He was probably playing with his cock. He used to show it to the Duty Watch Sailor every time he came throught our berthing area.
He was probably playing with his cock. He used to show it to the Duty Watch Sailor every time he came throught our berthing area.
I think ur mixing up ur factors. There are ~ 3.43774 mils per MOA. That factor is CONSTANT regardless of range. 1 MOA @ 100 yds = ~ 1.047” , so 3.4377x1.047=3.6”. At 100m, 1 mil is exactly 10cm =~ 3.937” . If at all possible, given ur gear: just work mils when ur ranging in meters and MOA when ur ranging in yards. I just thinks it’s easier that way. But then again, I’m an old guy and I like things simple. YMMV. If u can’t do that then I guess u gotta do the math.
Love the subtle humor. ? Hard to get a rational answer when one is dealing with irrational numbers.
I think you’ll find that the origin of “mil” comes from abbreviation of milliradians, or 1/1000 of a radian which is ~ 57.2957 degrees.
And this is why, as an American, LOVE the metric system more than the Imperial system
To be fair, not all reticles are in mils, some are in minutes. But, and here's the value add: don't use a reticle that's in inches and think "well the duplex part is about 3" wide at 100 yards. and I missed by about one reticles thickness so I need to adjust by 3" on the turrel" Think instead, "that's about 3 MOA", then dial in 3 MOA on the MOA turrets. Which works regardless of whether you have 1/4" or 1/2" clicks on the turret
Of course, few people are going to be dialing anything in at 100 yards, unless you're just competing in paper punching. And it's at the long distances that the small errors add up. ...and this is all just book learning on my part, sadly. The odds of me ever shooting much at even medium range at my age are low.
I suspect that unlearning the "hold over by X inches" thing is a particular problem that we older shooters have to unlearn, because that's how it was learned back in the 1970's. I still have a laminated drawing I made of the duplex reticle on a fixed 4x scope, with the dimensions of the reticle in inches @100 yds, and the holds for the particular cartridge, on a rifle I bought when I was a teenager. That's the kind of information that came with scopes back then, and in the US it carried on like that for at least 2 decades. Fortunately we now have great books and videos available to help us relearn things.
This is the first I've heard of 0.499" I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just saying it never came up in math, algebra, or calculus. After thinking about it a moment it makes sense to me mathematically. However in the real world it's sufficiently accurate to say "round up if it's greater than or equal to 0.5, round down otherwise." At least for small arms cartridges.
To be fair 3.438 will solve that dilemma if the reticle is in moa and the turrets are in mils or vise versa (multiply or divide). Shooting without a matching reticle is still possible even with the extra step. A piece of paper and calculator go a long way. If the reticle is in moa and turrets are in moa, welp, it’s the same as my example. If you miss by 3.4 moa, adjust 3.5 moa. Whatever.
I'm all for the KISS answers in life
After reading this whole thing (which was very entertaining, thanks) I still have to say the simplest answer to calling better as a spotter is get a spotter with a reticle in it...
It seems like everyone is so focused on the math and if it can be done... If you paid yourself $25 an hour for all the time you've spent thinking about this you could have bought a new spotter with a reticle in it
I’ve found that as stated above, using verbiage like “half target” and “one full target” work well.
If you know how wide or tall a target is based on holds, you can use that as well.
As I’m sure you’re well aware of, making sure the comms is on same page is the most important. If you’re calling corrections, and one of you thinks you’re calling the correction and the other thinks your calling the location of the shot, everything gets fucked up fast.
I would absolutely stay away from linear measurements though. Unless you and your shooter are extremely well on the same page. I’ve lost count the times someone has given me a call in linear terms when I saw it on glass with my reticle and the measurements don’t line up.
I personally prefer to just be given the impact location. Tell me “half target left” and I’ll make the adjustment right. Even though the standard dialogue is to get the shooter to center back to center by saying “come a half target right.”
The reason I prefer the former is because with modern day marksmanship, I should be able to see most if not all of my shots. So telling me where I impacted validates what I saw or think I saw. When I’m told “half target left” and I see the splash on the left, whether it’s a half or whole target, I don’t think twice and just measure. As I know 1000% I saw it with the extra validation.
When someone calls corrections without a reticle and says “come a half target right,” and my measurement with my reticle is say a whole target right, it messes with me a little and I take a second to double check what I saw. Or dialogue like “are you sure, I think it was a full target” “I saw a half but if you saw a whole, go with that” starts happening.
Many times I’ll just say “I saw it” so we don’t need to communicate about something I already have the measurement for. Or, I’ll say “miss left?”
That turned into a long winded explanation. But I think the point is, without a reticle, use something the shooter can reference in his sight picture and not something abstract such as inches. And, spotter/shooter dialogue being compatible is more important than what is referenced.
Even with a reticle, unless you’re directly behind/above the shooter, you will be seeing the angle a bit different. Even only a foot or two left or right can make things look odd.
So, a spotter with reticle doesn’t help if you’re calling the wrong side (happens a ton). So a reticle isn’t always the universal answer.
So, a spotter with reticle doesn’t help if you’re calling the wrong side (happens a ton). So a reticle isn’t always the universal answer.
