-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Mils/MILRAD, MOA, inches and yard vs cm and m
- Thread starter Buffalofrank
- Start date
Also, I meant to add that as you understand this metric usage with mils, you'll see streamlined easy ways to jump to your answer instead of the long math I wrote out above. Example put a decimal in your distance and that's the click value on your optic. 369 meters = 3.69cm per click. 455 meters = 4.55cm per click...etc...
Not picking on you, you got to the right choice, but there are at least 1000 posts that talk about this in this forum alone. The search function is your friend.
Making statements like "Mildots are great, however lines are more precise, cut and dry." is kind of the equivalent of "Wordperfect is great but Word 2010 is better." (and in any case the precision will be relative to the thickness of the line won't it?)
And you may get Frank to respond to one of your first posts, not many posts saying Mils are metric get through here w/o correction.
Search some. Read a lot.
Making statements like "Mildots are great, however lines are more precise, cut and dry." is kind of the equivalent of "Wordperfect is great but Word 2010 is better." (and in any case the precision will be relative to the thickness of the line won't it?)
And you may get Frank to respond to one of your first posts, not many posts saying Mils are metric get through here w/o correction.
Search some. Read a lot.
Last edited:
Mils/MILRAD, MOA, inches and yard vs cm and m
Good effort.
But the process you describe is not used. And so, odd distances are no more 'difficult' to derive than are even distances.
Because one does not need to convert angular units to linear units.
And, not picking I you, but FFP has nothing to do with focus and 'clicks' are not adjustments.
Good effort.
But the process you describe is not used. And so, odd distances are no more 'difficult' to derive than are even distances.
Because one does not need to convert angular units to linear units.
And, not picking I you, but FFP has nothing to do with focus and 'clicks' are not adjustments.
Nice try, and you get an "A" for effort. But your post is also replete with errors. It's not just a little messed up with the math, it's not even close to correct. What I mean is when you tell a newbie that 1/4 MOA clicks are = to an adjustment of 1.036" @ 100 yds, instead of 1/4 MOA actually being equal to 0.26175" @ 100 yds. your error is 4 times the correct value. That's not even in the same zip code.
So please either correct your math or delete the post, as it's going to cause more confusion than it educates.
Last edited:
Ok I'm going to try and respond to all of your posts. If I miss something, sorry.
First, sorry for messing up the math, as I stated I messed up on the part that deemed more difficult. However, not being in the same zipcode is a little excessive. It was simply not divided down properly. It has been edited. Thank you for highlighting the error.
nowhere did I mention Mils being a metric measurement. I'm simply saying that they run more congruently. It's easier to convert. That was the purpose of the entire thing.
I understand that "clicks" are not adjustments. It was meant to be in simple form for those that don't know much. I have a lot of buddies constantly asking me about things like this. I figured if I have this many guys asking me then surely there are more out there, which is what motivated me to write the damn thing. So it was dumbed down for that purpose. My thoughts were to put it in a way anyone with the desire to pick up a rifle, select and optic and hit on target at substantial distance with a reliable, simple formula. There are a lot of guys out there that want to be able to accomplish such a thing that don't have the time to make shooting their life. I thought this would be a simple method.
First, sorry for messing up the math, as I stated I messed up on the part that deemed more difficult. However, not being in the same zipcode is a little excessive. It was simply not divided down properly. It has been edited. Thank you for highlighting the error.
nowhere did I mention Mils being a metric measurement. I'm simply saying that they run more congruently. It's easier to convert. That was the purpose of the entire thing.
I understand that "clicks" are not adjustments. It was meant to be in simple form for those that don't know much. I have a lot of buddies constantly asking me about things like this. I figured if I have this many guys asking me then surely there are more out there, which is what motivated me to write the damn thing. So it was dumbed down for that purpose. My thoughts were to put it in a way anyone with the desire to pick up a rifle, select and optic and hit on target at substantial distance with a reliable, simple formula. There are a lot of guys out there that want to be able to accomplish such a thing that don't have the time to make shooting their life. I thought this would be a simple method.
Yes it would be relative the thickness of the lines, however, I haven't seen any reticles like I described with lines that as thick or more than a mildot which I understand to be .2mils. I have spent a lot of time on the site. Again, this was just an effort to give a simple simple method for less experienced shooters.
Mils/MILRAD, MOA, inches and yard vs cm and m
You don't think that you said Mils were metric, but if you didn't say those words you did make that assumption. It's one basis for one of your misunderstandings.
Last edited:
The term mil is slightly related to the metric system. It was derived by Charles-Marc Dapples from the same prefix of millimeters and milligram. It means (obviously) one thousandth (millimeter is one-thousandth of a meter). I believe this is why so many people relate it to the metric system. The mil system was not designed to line up with any division of degrees like 360 degrees in a circle, but rather the angle that mathematically coincides to be one-thousandth change in impact at whatever distance you are attempting to subtend. I agree that working in tenths is easier and the metric system is set up to do just that from the get go, which is why in American engineering they use inches and feet with tenth divisions instead of quarters, eighths, or sixteenths.
Frank,
Thank you for now getting it very close. But to recap 1 MOA @ 100 is = to 1.047" and not 1.036", therefore 1/4 MOA is 0.26175" @ 100 Yds not 0.259". Does it matter a whole lot accuracy wise, well I let you judge.
If your correcting for 400 inches of drop @ 1000 Yds on your scope computing the correct adjustment in MOA would be 400/1.047= 382.0 MOA. If your using your number 400/1.036= 386.1 MOA. That's an error of almost 4.1 MOA or 4.29". Probably not enough to miss your target, but numbers do matter.....
Using a ready made (based on your bullet, velocity, altitude inputs et al) drop tables like those found in JBM Ballistics JBM - Calculations - Trajectory (Simplified) take most of the complex the math out of it equation. You still have to know what value your scope actually adjusts with each click, and you have to test the validity of the computer generated drop models in the real world, with your rifle and loads at real ranges, and make any appropriate corrections.
No I didn't make that assumption or statement. Saying the 1 Mil = 10cm in not saying Mils are Metric. Just as 1 MOA = 1.047 inches is not stating Minutes as standard measurement. If you open up a manual to either MOA or MRAD optic, they will give you the exact formulas I've stated.
Oh man, days like this on the forums make my head hurt. I'm not even gonna try and jump in on this one. I'm going to go cook a bag of popcorn and sit back and watch this thread to see where it goes next down the rabbit hole. 
Mils/MILRAD, MOA, inches and yard vs cm and m
I don't need to learn about Mils or MOA from you, and there's no point in me talking when you don't want to learn about them from me, so enjoy your thread.
Pass the popcorn.
You are doing much talking and posting, and a lot less reading and listening.
I don't need to learn about Mils or MOA from you, and there's no point in me talking when you don't want to learn about them from me, so enjoy your thread.
Pass the popcorn.
Frank,
If you never made a mistake, you would never learn. Some of these concepts like MILS, MOA, drops, adjustments, and the like are not easy, and take more than a little experience to apply correctly, and we all made more than few mistakes before it all makes sense and clicks in our noggins.
You are at least trying hard to understand and explain concepts that are new to you. And that is far better than just sitting back, and not making a mistake and waiting for somebody to spoon feed to you.
You get my credit and admiration for trying.
Thanks,
Bob
Last edited:
By all means let us know the corrections on what you think the math should be. Perhaps your confused into thinking I was talking about scope adjustments, which would be expressed as 38.2 MOA of adjustment as applied to the scope for a 1000 yd correction. But that was not where I was going with the example.
But hey fire away, I'm always willing to learn something....
Last edited:
Dear Valued Member BobinNC
The formula to convert inches of drop to MOA is
hundreds of yards x one MOA then divide the answer by the inches of drop at that distance.
10 x 1.047 = 10.47
400 / 10.47 = 38.2 MOA
maybe several members here should consider posting in the Stupid Question Section as I recommend that with all due respect.
No no offense but this thread is chock full of fail.
The formula to convert inches of drop to MOA is
hundreds of yards x one MOA then divide the answer by the inches of drop at that distance.
10 x 1.047 = 10.47
400 / 10.47 = 38.2 MOA
maybe several members here should consider posting in the Stupid Question Section as I recommend that with all due respect.
No no offense but this thread is chock full of fail.
I don't understand these threads. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there just one correct way to calculate for mils and one correct way to calculate for moa yet somehow somebody always figures out a "better way"? Are there different ways to calculate or is this just another one of those threads? I'm a student so I'm just trying to keep it clear.
Mils/MILRAD, MOA, inches and yard vs cm and m
There is also IPHY (Leopold adjustment knob so-called 'MOA') which is 1" at 100y, and actual MOA which is 1.047" at 100y, a 5% difference.
There are different formulas for determining range to target, depending on whether you are using the linear measurement for target size of inches, yards, meters or centimeters.
There is also IPHY (Leopold adjustment knob so-called 'MOA') which is 1" at 100y, and actual MOA which is 1.047" at 100y, a 5% difference.
Last edited:
It's basic Math, there is more than one solution.
Consider 4... guys will get to 4 and say the way they do it works, which it does, meanwhile we can say:
0+4= 4
1+3= 4
2+2= 4
3+1= 4
See, it's when guys claim domain over one of these we run into a problem.
You have someone stumble on this :
1x4= 4
2x2= 4
And then start a topic how they found something nobody saw before and how it works so much better. Meanwhile they are saying the same thing, but because it is math, it works.
There are a lot of ways to get to 4.... that is the beauty of Math.
Consider 4... guys will get to 4 and say the way they do it works, which it does, meanwhile we can say:
0+4= 4
1+3= 4
2+2= 4
3+1= 4
See, it's when guys claim domain over one of these we run into a problem.
You have someone stumble on this :
1x4= 4
2x2= 4
And then start a topic how they found something nobody saw before and how it works so much better. Meanwhile they are saying the same thing, but because it is math, it works.
There are a lot of ways to get to 4.... that is the beauty of Math.
I'm a full month and a half late into this thread and kicking myself,,, this is a riot. Lowlight, you're spot on. many different ways to get to the number 4. To throw a real monkey wrench in, after Frank stated that he didn't like getting so in depth with the decimals, is that there is a difference between SMOA and TMOA and when doing the math with TMOA (true minute of angle) it comes out to be 3.438" @ 100 yds but with SMOA (shooter minute of angle) it comes out to 3.6000012" @ 100 yds. =]
Frank, I admire your willingness to be a new guy on a forum and jump right in to "educate" some folks, but brother... take a step back and dive into the research for awhile. Ask a few more questions and get to know this community. I have lived and worked in the sniper community since 03' and am constantly impressed by the amount of knowledge and willingness to help on this site. Don't just run the numbers on a scratchpad and decide you're going to teach us all something new. Especially within your first 15 post. Hopefully we haven't austerized you to the point of running away. Welcome to the Hide!
Frank, I admire your willingness to be a new guy on a forum and jump right in to "educate" some folks, but brother... take a step back and dive into the research for awhile. Ask a few more questions and get to know this community. I have lived and worked in the sniper community since 03' and am constantly impressed by the amount of knowledge and willingness to help on this site. Don't just run the numbers on a scratchpad and decide you're going to teach us all something new. Especially within your first 15 post. Hopefully we haven't austerized you to the point of running away. Welcome to the Hide!
If I had known that there was a "stupid question section" I would have asked a lot more questions.
Similar threads
