Rifle Scopes Moa or Mil... yawn, old news

[Dthomas3523]

Yes I get that a mil can be 1/1000 of any linear measurement, but we are not talking about just any linear measurement we are talking about a mil and how it applies to rifle scopes.


Once again I understand what a mil radian is, but once again we are talking about what a mil is as we use them in rifle scopes I get that you could use any linear measurement and call it a mil. So answer me this did it just happen by chance that a 1/10 of a mil at 100 meters happened to be 1cm or did the people smarter than you actually designed it to be exactly that.
Schmidt and Bender in one of their brochures I can't find it now but they actually refer to the mill being based on the metric system.

It “applies” to rifle scopes exactly any way you want it to, at any range. That’s the whole point.

You can use meters and centimeters or yards and inches for ranging or target tests.

Hell, you can even make up your own unit of linear measurement.

You are limiting yourself to only one unit of measure. Which in itself means you don’t have a proper understanding.

 

[308pirate]

And yet no matter how much you post it isn't going to stop being an SI unit. It is based on the metric system. Yes, it's a ratio. Big deal... It's real clean with the metric system. However, since imperial distance measurements of yards, feet, and inches are not multiples of 10 the math to drop them into a ratio and calculate miliradians becomes complicated to try to do in your head quickly.

Missing by 1cm at 100 meters is .1mils. [10(mm)/100(m) ] = .1mils That's real easy to figure in your head.

Now lets try it using imperial measurements.

Missing by 1 in at 100 yards is ? Well, we can either:
1) Convert to each measurement into metric and calculate. 25.4(mm)/91.44(m) = 0.278 mils
2) Keep using imperial units, convert yards to inches, and calculate. [1(")/3600(")]*1000 = 0.278 mils
3) Use MOA. 1(")/100(yd) ~ 1MOA

You aren't really going to try to claim that either of the two mil calculations based on imperial measurements are easily done in your head are you?

If I miss by an inch at 100 yards I click .3 mils and done.

Let me know if you need another lesson

 

[Spblademaker]

I’m calling the original post a total troll to get shit started. First post ever, no response to anyone’s replies. How is it possible to not be able to communicate what you are seeing thru your scope? Someone wants attention. Low carbs have me a bit pissy this morning.

 

[Dthomas3523]

And yet no matter how much you post it isn't going to stop being an SI unit. It is based on the metric system. Yes, it's a ratio. Big deal... It's real clean with the metric system. However, since imperial distance measurements of yards, feet, and inches are not multiples of 10 the math to drop them into a ratio and calculate miliradians becomes complicated to try to do in your head quickly.

Missing by 1cm at 100 meters is .1mils. [10(mm)/100(m) ] = .1mils That's real easy to figure in your head.

Now lets try it using imperial measurements.

Missing by 1 in at 100 yards is ? Well, we can either:
1) Convert to each measurement into metric and calculate. 25.4(mm)/91.44(m) = 0.278 mils
2) Keep using imperial units, convert yards to inches, and calculate. [1(")/3600(")]*1000 = 0.278 mils
3) Use MOA. 1(")/100(yd) ~ 1MOA

You aren't really going to try to claim that either of the two mil calculations based on imperial measurements are easily done in your head are you?

Why are you measuring your misses with a linear measurement???

You shouldn’t be using cm or inches or any other linear measurement to measure your miss.

Back to precision rifle basic class for you.....

 

[308pirate]

Yes I get that a mil can be 1/1000 of any linear measurement, but we are not talking about just any linear measurement we are talking about a mil and how it applies to rifle scopes.


Once again I understand what a mil radian is, but once again we are talking about what a mil is as we use them in rifle scopes I get that you could use any linear measurement and call it a mil. So answer me this did it just happen by chance that a 1/10 of a mil at 100 meters happened to be 1cm or did the people smarter than you actually d
Schmidt and Bender in one of their brochures I can't find it now but they actually refer to the mill being based on the metric system.

Sorry dude you're still stuck in a gross conceptual error.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Yes I get that a mil can be 1/1000 of any linear measurement, but we are not talking about just any linear measurement we are talking about a mil and how it applies to rifle scopes.


Once again I understand what a mil radian is, but once again we are talking about what a mil is as we use them in rifle scopes I get that you could use any linear measurement and call it a mil. So answer me this did it just happen by chance that a 1/10 of a mil at 100 meters happened to be 1cm or did the people smarter than you actually designed it to be exactly that.
Schmidt and Bender in one of their brochures I can't find it now but they actually refer to the mill being based on the metric system.

The very minute that somebody decided to divide a Radian by 1,000... rather than 360 or 540 or 820 or some other arbitrary number, it ordained that the math would work out that way. That happened in the mid 1800's sometime.

The metric system was conceived sometime shortly after WW2 and was standardized sometime around 1960.

 

[Jackomason]

If I miss by an inch at 100 yards I click .3 mils and done.

Let me know if you need another lesson

Yeah, not sure what he's getting at but it's really basic math. And what he is suggesting only applies for zeroing and it just so happens there is this cool thing inside your scope that plots the exact measurements on to the target...

I find the best way to remember a constant is to understand where it came from, from there it's pretty straight forward. Where the mil shines is in simplicity and dealing with small numbers when dialing. If you understand it then you probably finished high school or can count on your fingers.

 

[Rob01]

Reticle = Ruler in MOA or Mils. No need for linear. Miss? Measure correction, correct, hit.

 

[Stereodude]

If I miss by an inch at 100 yards I click .3 mils and done.

Let me know if you need another lesson

ROFL... So you memorize a table after trying to hammer people that radians/milliradians are a unitless ratio because you work in units of distance measurement that are effectively incompatible with easily computing the ratio.

 

[Stereodude]

The metric system was conceived sometime shortly after WW2 and was standardized sometime around 1960.

After WW2?!? The metric system and using units of measure that are multiples of 10 goes back to the very late 1700's in France. Before 1800 the meter and kilogram were already defined and standardized. Mainland Europe was already all metric well prior to WW2 (or WW1 for that matter). Calling them SI units / International System of Units was formalized in 1960.

 

[Bender]

Yes I get that a mil can be 1/1000 of any linear measurement, but we are not talking about just any linear measurement we are talking about a mil and how it applies to rifle scopes.


Once again I understand what a mil radian is, but once again we are talking about what a mil is as we use them in rifle scopes I get that you could use any linear measurement and call it a mil. So answer me this did it just happen by chance that a 1/10 of a mil at 100 meters happened to be 1cm or did the people smarter than you actually designed it to be exactly that.
Schmidt and Bender in one of their brochures I can't find it now but they actually refer to the mill being based on the metric system.

It’s based on math. 1/10th of whatever. Simple as that. The metric system doesn’t hold patent on fractions.

 

[308pirate]

So answer me this did it just happen by chance that a 1/10 of a mil at 100 yds is 1 cm.......

Yes

Schmidt and Bender in one of their brochures I can't find it now but they actually refer to the mill being based on the metric system.

Well then, it must be true......

 

[308pirate]

ROFL... So you memorize a table after trying to hammer people that radians/milliradians are a unitless ratio because you work in units of distance measurement that are effectively incompatible with easily computing the ratio.

No different than memorizing that 1 mil = 1 cm/100 meters. At any rate, you still don't get that nobody gives a fuck about the actual linear subtention of the angle measured in milliradians or 60ths of a degree of arc because we can measure the angular span between POA and POI and apply that same angular correction to the next shot.

In the example you gave me before (miss by 1" at 100 yds) I didn't tell you that, while I know that a mil spans 3.6" at 100 yds, I don't convert an inch in my head to mils. I simply measure the angle between the impact and the POA with my reticle then apply that angular correction to the next shot. Linear measurements don't even enter the calculation unless you're a fucking dolt running around with a mildot scope with MOA adjustments.

You're either stupid or intentionally obtuse. Not sure which.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

After WW2?!? The metric system and using units of measure that are multiples of 10 goes back to the very late 1700's in France. Before 1800 the meter and kilogram were already defined and standardized. Mainland Europe was already all metric well prior to WW2 (or WW1 for that matter). Calling them SI units / International System of Units was formalized in 1960.

It wasn't called the "metric" system then, and wasn't standardized until 1960, when the measurements you mentioned were actually redefined.

You are equating any base 10 system with the metric system. That just isn't the case. Base 10 predates the metric system as you have noticed.

No one is arguing that mils isn't base 10.

 

[Huskydriver]

And yet no matter how much you post it isn't going to stop being an SI unit. It is based on the metric system. Yes, it's a ratio. Big deal... It's real clean with the metric system. However, since imperial distance measurements of yards, feet, and inches are not multiples of 10 the math to drop them into a ratio and calculate miliradians becomes complicated to try to do in your head quickly.

Missing by 1cm at 100 meters is .1mils. [10(mm)/100(m) ] = .1mils That's real easy to figure in your head.

Now lets try it using imperial measurements.

Missing by 1 in at 100 yards is ? Well, we can either:
1) Convert to each measurement into metric and calculate. 25.4(mm)/91.44(m) = 0.278 mils
2) Keep using imperial units, convert yards to inches, and calculate. [1(")/3600(")]*1000 = 0.278 mils
3) Use MOA. 1(")/100(yd) ~ 1MOA

You aren't really going to try to claim that either of the two mil calculations based on imperial measurements are easily done in your head are you?

I swear the US military did such a disservice to world in the 1950's or 60's when they arbitrarily decided to put mil reticles in scopes with moa turrets then started cranking out guys who measured in mils then used a calculator to convert to moa or learned that shooters moa is close enough for adjustment purposes and so measured in inches then corrected in moa...these poor souls then had children who they taught this same madness and so the retardedness of bringing linear units into angular measurements was perpetuated. I know because I am one of them until I got issued glass with a H58 reticle and it all "clicked."

When I miss at 100 yards 678 meters 1.23 km or .6 of a mile I don't measure how many inches or cm I missed by...I measure how many moa or mils I missed by and then adjust because my scope is FFP with matching turrets...NO CONVERSIONS necessary...period end of story. The second you bring inches or cm into your adjustment your doing it wrong. When I go to zero at 91 meters or 100 yards I shoot the paper I count how many moa/mil I am off by and adjust...NEVER go ummm that 15.5 cm or 4.3 inches now lets see how many cm or in are in a mil or moa at the range I am shooting because I need to know how many mils/moa I need to spin my turrets. I know the conversions anyone can easily learn the conversions but they are completely unnecessary for corrections and getting hits on target.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Missing by 1cm at 100 meters is .1mils. [10(mm)/100(m) ] = .1mils That's real easy to figure in your head.

No, you missed by .1 mil. Says so right in your reticle and thats all you need to know. Leave centimeters and inches out of this.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I swear the US military did such a disservice to world in the 1950's or 60's when they arbitrarily decided to put mil reticles in scopes with moa turrets then started cranking out guys who measured in mils then used a calculator to convert to moa or learned that shooters moa is close enough for adjustment purposes and so measured in inches then corrected in moa...these poor souls then had children who they taught this same madness and so the retardedness of bringing linear units into angular measurements was perpetuated. I know because I am one of them until I got issued glass with a H59 reticle and it all "clicked."

When I miss at 100 yards 678 meters 1.23 km or .6 of a mile I don't measure how many inches or cm I missed by...I measure how many moa or mils I missed by and then adjust because my scope is FFP with matching turrets...NO CONVERSIONS necessary...period end of story. The second you bring inches or cm into your adjustment your doing it wrong. When I go to zero at 91 meters or 100 yards I shoot the paper I count how many moa/mil I am off by and adjust...NEVER go ummm that 15.5 cm or 4.3 inches now lets see how many cm or in are in a mil or moa at the range I am shooting because I need to know how many mils/moa I need to spin my turrets. I know the conversions but they are completely unnecessary for corrections and only needed if someone forgot to charge the batteries in the LRF.

Good post, I only disagree on one small point.

If you are zeroing, and want to find the actual mathmatical center of your group to make as accurate an adjustment as possible, then you need to know how to convert the linear measurements to the appropriate angular adjustment.

Your argument is 100% valid in all other shooting scenarios though.

 

[Huskydriver]

Good post, I only disagree on one small point.

If you are zeroing, and want to find the actual mathmatical center of your group to make as accurate an adjustment as possible, then you need to know how to convert the linear measurements to the appropriate angular adjustment.

Your argument is 100% valid in all other shooting scenarios though.

Lol you are assuming my groups are small enough that calculating the mathematical center leads to useful adjustments in narrowing the zero down to as close as possible to poa jk. I am just trying to keep it simple for the folks trying to actually learn something here but yes if you do not have a scope that allows free adjustments for setting your zero its sure nice to know how far each unit will move your scope at your zero distance to get your poi as close as possible to your poa good point.

 

[spife7980]

A mil is a derived si unit, not a natural. It both is and isn’t depending on how fucking picky you want to be with semantics.

 

[Stereodude]

It wasn't called the "metric" system then, and wasn't standardized until 1960, when the measurements you mentioned were actually redefined.

You are equating any base 10 system with the metric system. That just isn't the case. Base 10 predates the metric system as you have noticed.

You're just making this up as you go. The Kilogram and the Meter predate the 1800's. The Metric system wasn't created after WW2. A meter didn't get longer in 1960, nor a kilogram heavier when they lumped them under SI units / International System of Units.

For example here are historical definitions of a meter.
1793 - 1/10,000,000 of the distance from north pole to equator
1799 - Prototype meter bars constructed from platinum
1889 - International prototype meter bar constructed from platinum-iridium.
1906 - 1,000,000/0.64384696 wavelengths of the red line of the cadmium spectrum.
1960 - 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of radiation emitted during the transition between levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the krypton-86 atom.
1983 - Length traveled by light in a vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second.

They're all the same length. The length of a meter hasn't changed.

The metric system isn't 58 years old. It's 200+ years old.

 

[tadawson]

. . . . and your misunderstanding of the MIL and the radian didn't get any less stupid in the lasr 24 hours. What's you point again, other than proving you have not picked up the ringing clue phone?

The radian is, and always will be, a fundamental mathematical unit based on the circumference of a circle, which is defined by basic geometry, which has no unit system - it's universal!

Oh, and the quick history check I did on the radian, it was defined in 1714, and attributed to Roger Coates.

And I guess you have never done any machine work in decimal inches either? Hint: Working in thousandths of an inch does not make the inch an SI unit any more than working in thosandths of a radian . . .

 

[Deleted member 113831]

You're just making this up as you go. The Kilogram and the Meter predate the 1800's. The Metric system wasn't created after WW2. A meter didn't get longer in 1960, nor a kilogram heavier when they lumped them under SI units / International System of Units.

For example here are historical definitions of a meter.
1793 - 1/10,000,000 of the distance from north pole to equator
1799 - Prototype meter bars constructed from platinum
1889 - International prototype meter bar constructed from platinum-iridium.
1906 - 1,000,000/0.64384696 wavelengths of the red line of the cadmium spectrum.
1960 - 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of radiation emitted during the transition between levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the krypton-86 atom.
1983 - Length traveled by light in a vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second.

They're all the same length. The length of a meter hasn't changed.

The metric system isn't 58 years old. It's 200+ years old.

All this going around in circles is just a distraction from the fact that you are all fucked up in how you measure your misses.

 

[Bender]

Miss a mil adjust a mil.... that’s it.

 

[cuz]

Reticle = Ruler in MOA or Mils. No need for linear. Miss? Measure correction, correct, hit.

My reticle is a ruler.
My reticle is a ruler..
My reticle is a ruler...

I need to write that down before I forget...

 

[Stereodude]

All this going around in circles is just a distraction from the fact that you are all fucked up in how you measure your misses.

But only since 1960 when the metric system was invented.

 

[phillip61]

At a long range class I went to there was all different kinds of scopes. we used "favor right or left" and "Hold right or left" as our calls and it didn't matter one bit what kind of scope you had. Everyone could get on target.

 

[patriot07]

As an engineer whose wife is a science teacher, the lack of basic mathematical knowledge in this thread makes me sad.

 

[Steel+Killer]

Man you guys have been beating the shit out of this horse since I been gone all day. I will get one more lick in myself before I call it quits. First I never said you shouldn't just use your reticle as ruler. Of course if you see that your POI was 3 mils low from your POA then yea just dial or hold 3 mil up no shit. If I was spotting for someone and they were 3 mils low of course I wouldn't try to convert it to a linear equivalent and then tell them that I would just say “You need to come 3 mils up.

 

[Rob01]

At a long range class I went to there was all different kinds of scopes. we used "favor right or left" and "Hold right or left" as our calls and it didn't matter one bit what kind of scope you had. Everyone could get on target.

How far? Saying hold left or hold right is not a good way to get people on target or teach them how to call corrections for another shooter. Surprised the instructor let that slide. I wouldn't.

 

[Bender]

How far? Saying hold left or hold right is not a good way to get people on target or teach them how to call corrections for another shooter. Surprised the instructor let that slide. I wouldn't.

He went to Long Range Sniper Class. How dare you question “hold left/right”..... that’s OAF training

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Man....my ignore list is getting really long.

 

[phillip61]

How far? Saying hold left or hold right is not a good way to get people on target or teach them how to call corrections for another shooter. Surprised the instructor let that slide. I wouldn't.

we was shooting out to 1000yds. assuming the first POA was center mass, and the first shot was a hit but was half way between center mass and left edge, then "favor right" would get him back into center. If they were just off left edge , them "hold right" would get them back on target. The Instructor was a former army sniper. There may be better ways to do it, but everyone in our class was getting hits out to 1000yds using this method. we had all kinds of scopes with all kinds of reticles....it works.

 

[Rob01]

we was shooting out to 1000yds. assuming the first POA was center mass, and the first shot was a hit but was half way between center mass and left edge, then "favor right" would get him back into center. If they were just off left edge , them "hold right" would get them back on target. The Instructor was a former army sniper. There may be better ways to do it, but everyone in our class was getting hits out to 1000yds using this method. we had all kinds of scopes with all kinds of reticles....it works.

I know it can work but when teaching you should teach how to actually call a correction using the reticle and not just the short hand version of favoring or using target sizes. Different reticles and scopes would not matter as long as they had moa or mil marks. The only point in where that would be the last resort is someone with a standard duplex reticle.

 

[supercorndogs]

This part of the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread...using linear units of measure is unnecessary to get accurate hits on target. It's like using muzzle energy and distance to convert to fps/mps when you have the chrono reading in fps/mps right in front of your face.

The linear measurement of distance to target is very important.

 

[Bradu]

Good post, I only disagree on one small point.

If you are zeroing, and want to find the actual mathmatical center of your group to make as accurate an adjustment as possible, then you need to know how to convert the linear measurements to the appropriate angular adjustment.

Your argument is 100% valid in all other shooting scenarios though.

So you are going to walk to the target after every shot, measure and convert it to mils or moa? That's some dumbass shit when you can measure it with the reticle unless you are using a duplex in a hunting scope ??? You should repost your comment in the dumbest shit I've ever heard thread!

 

[Deleted member 113831]

So you are going to walk to the target after every shot, measure and convert it to mils or moa? That's some dumbass shit when you can measure it with the reticle unless you are using a duplex in a hunting scope ??? You should repost your comment in the dumbest shit I've ever heard thread!

You obviously have no idea what I was talking about.

 

[Bradu]

You obviously have no idea what I was talking about.

You said when zeroing and want to find the mathematical center to make as accurate as adjustment as possible. Wouldn't that require walking to the target after the shot?

 

[Bradu]

Maybe I don't have the app for remote measuring on my phone, I will have to look for that one???

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Maybe I don't have the app for remote measuring on my phone, I will have to look for that one???

So the concept of shooting a group, then measuring the distances of each shot from the x and y axis to derive a mathmatical center, and converting that measurement to click values to put on your scope to zero it, it foreign to you?

 

[Bradu]

So the concept of shooting a group, then measuring the distances of each shot from the x and y axis to derive a mathmatical center, and converting that measurement to click values to put on your scope to zero it, it foreign to you?

I use the reticle to figure out I need x amount of adjustment whether it be mils or moa. No conversion needed. Why do I need the exact mathematical solution when I can zero in 2-3 rounds by using the reticle and turrets. Sure hope you don't forget your tape measure at home lol

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I use the reticle to figure out I need x amount of adjustment whether it be mils or moa. No conversion needed. Why do I need the exact mathematical solution when I can zero in 2-3 rounds by using the reticle and turrets. Sure hope you don't forget your tape measure at home lol

OK, you just keep doing that then.

 

[Bradu]

OK, you just keep doing that then.

The horror of taking one more shot if I was a tenth or 1/4 moa off lol

 

[Jackomason]

The mathematical zero is also helpful for the best possible inputs in software. The coarse zero found with your reticle should get you within 1-2 10ths. Again only one number to remember, 0.36" and this should be easy for all Americans using the imperial system. Once I get my coarse zero I go back and measure then shoot to confirm mathematical zero and note the off set if any. But yes 98% of shooting and adjustments are done with the reticle so it makes the actual measurement irelivent.

 

[Rob01]

Using the reticle will get you much closer than 1-2 tenths. You can get dead on without a problem. Been doing it for years and even easier with the Vortex clickless zeroing.

 

[XTR]

These threads are like watching the video of the monkey who sticks his finger in his ass, sniffs it, and falls off the branch. It never stops being at least a little amusing, and it always ends the same way.

 

[Bradu]

Using the reticle will get you much closer than 1-2 tenths. You can get dead on without a problem. Been doing it for years and even easier with the Vortex clickless zeroing.

That is one thing I really like about Vortex, their zero system is nice.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

The horror of taking one more shot if I was a tenth or 1/4 moa off lol

Look, you are obviously trolling me for some kind of a fight. What you don't realize, is that you just aren't interesting enough for me to really flame. So, you just make my Ignore list instead.

 

[308pirate]

You said when zeroing and want to find the mathematical center to make as accurate as adjustment as possible. Wouldn't that require walking to the target after the shot?

Have you ever heard of these?: https://www.amazon.com/EZ2C-Purpose...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00N2GVCOC

No need to walk to the target.

 

[Bradu]

Have you ever heard of these?: https://www.amazon.com/EZ2C-Purpose...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00N2GVCOC

No need to walk to the target.

Yeah and the reticle does the same thing to get as close as possible without math. If you are going to do the math you should probably use a tape to get it exact so you can be in between clicks anyways lol

 

[Rthur]

And yet no matter how much you post it isn't going to stop being an SI unit. It is based on the metric system. Yes, it's a ratio. Big deal... It's real clean with the metric system. However, since imperial distance measurements of yards, feet, and inches are not multiples of 10 the math to drop them into a ratio and calculate miliradians becomes complicated to try to do in your head quickly.

Missing by 1cm at 100 meters is .1mils. [10(mm)/100(m) ] = .1mils That's real easy to figure in your head.

Now lets try it using imperial measurements.

Missing by 1 in at 100 yards is ? Well, we can either:
1) Convert to each measurement into metric and calculate. 25.4(mm)/91.44(m) = 0.278 mils
2) Keep using imperial units, convert yards to inches, and calculate. [1(")/3600(")]*1000 = 0.278 mils
3) Use MOA. 1(")/100(yd) ~ 1MOA

You aren't really going to try to claim that either of the two mil calculations based on imperial measurements are easily done in your head are you?

As you have a "measuring stick" in your scope why would you have to convert to inches for a correction?

R