-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
moa vs mils, the forbidden thread
- Thread starter giveemshell2
- Start date
So what do you do when it's 7.5 targets left. Or is it 7.25 targets? 30 mph winds can be a bitch man. Oh wait, it was in fact 6 targets left. Your method sucks.
Or what happens when the target is a conpletely unknown size? It kinda looks like a 10" plate or maybe it's only 7"....pretty fucking hard to tell at a plate that's well over 700yds away. Oh it's a 12" plate and you have been guessing.....yes guessing based on a completely false assumption. A guess on top of a guess to offer a guess. Fantastic
Or what do you do when the target is skewed off or semi obscured by foliage or snow drifts? Or all the above combined?
The answer is you use the reticle and fuck any use of linear
If you have an observer giving mixed units of measure you need to convert it. It's not even all that difficult.
You learn to call full mils 3.5 MOA. Half a mil is 1.75 MOA. And .3 mil is 1 MOA.
Very quickly you can call out 3.5, 7, 10.5, 14, 17.5 very easily.
What's 3.3 mils?
3 Mils is.......3.5, 7, 10.5...... so 10.5 MOA. .3 Mils is 1 MOA. 10.5 + 1 = 11.5 on the fly.
Actual answer is 11.34 MOA. Less than one click of error. Good nuff especially when your rounding to the nearest click.
This thread reminds me of an interaction I had with a know-it-all (KIA) coworker. So there was a web server outage that affected a high-visibility application; I owned the global web server software. KIA comes to my office and starts telling me how to do the troubleshooting. I said, nope, not gonna do any of that, I'm going to [do a computer thing] and the problem will disappear."
With great indignity, he declared "Eliminating the problem will not solve it!"
I sent that one off to Scott Adams for a possible Dilbert strip.
---------
Using the scope reticle, whether it be marked in MOA, mils, phlibits, etc. eliminates the conversion problem. Why in hades someone wants to "solve" a conversion problem is beyond me. Full disclosure: like the vast majority of novice riflemen, I used to solve the inches conversion. Then I listened to people who actually knew what they were talking about, and "eliminated the problem instead of solving it."
With great indignity, he declared "Eliminating the problem will not solve it!"
I sent that one off to Scott Adams for a possible Dilbert strip.
---------
Using the scope reticle, whether it be marked in MOA, mils, phlibits, etc. eliminates the conversion problem. Why in hades someone wants to "solve" a conversion problem is beyond me. Full disclosure: like the vast majority of novice riflemen, I used to solve the inches conversion. Then I listened to people who actually knew what they were talking about, and "eliminated the problem instead of solving it."
Last edited:
So, if you're 1000 yards away how are you measuring, walking up and using a ruler or the reticle in your scope. It doesn't matter what the measurements are called, just that they match. So you you missed by 1.6 quarks, dial or hold the 1.6 quarks and hit the target.
Personally I would rather talk to the finance estimators at work than listen to this drivel much longer, they make more sense.
Where and when did I EVER refer to a size of the target in some linear measurement?
I'll wait while you try to read with more comprehension. If you are alone, you can say the words out loud.
How many phlibits in a quark?
Isn't it silly how grown men can be when one is bored and the other is defending nonsense?
But enough watching the chil'uns poke each other in the internet car seat for tonight....
???
Why are you using linear measurements to define angular measurements? Why is a power 2 fractional system easier than a base 10 system?
Hopefully you're not seriously asking him. He makes discussion of gender fluidity seem... O wait, he identifies as linear so you're gonna get canceled if you advocate for angular....
Cool. Could you show me where to find them?
I've only ever seen milli radians. Thought it was just 360/1000.
True Milliradian is rounded to 6,283.185307179586…../circle
I might have these labels incorrect, but I believe it to be.
NATO 6,400/circle
Warsaw pact (USSR) 6,000/circle
Swedish 6,300/circle
I would guess that all modern riflescopes in the US market are based on true Milliradians.
I might have these labels incorrect, but I believe it to be.
NATO 6,400/circle
Warsaw pact (USSR) 6,000/circle
Swedish 6,300/circle
I would guess that all modern riflescopes in the US market are based on true Milliradians.
Spectacular answer, so the Swedish are the closest to the true. Now my curiosity is peaked on how the true number is derived
A Radian is a unit used to measure angles.
An arc of a circle with the same length as the radius of that circle subtends an angle of 1 radian. The circumference subtends an angle of 2π radians. (Wikipedia)
Pi = 3.14159265359……. Continues on for ever and ever, I think.
So, 2π = 6.28318530718….
Milli means 1,000th
So, Milliradian in a circle = 6,283.18530718….
Moa check
Leupold scopes check
Talking in linear measurements check
This thread is straight fuddery
Leupold scopes check
Talking in linear measurements check
This thread is straight fuddery
Targets aren’t unknown sizes when you have a reticle and a brain, not sure how that confuses you?
Why are you calling full and multiple mill misses?? Do you miss targets by that great of a margin? Do you even know how to use a ballistic calc or call wind?
I’d pay money to watch you try to convert mils to moa on the range based on the dumbassery above.
Hi - please explain to me whether an angular adjustment of 1 moa or 1 mil at any distance has a linear change in impact?
The answer is yes.
If I move my scope 1 moa or 1 mil left at 800 yards we expect to see a linear translation of 8inches for moa and 29 inches for mil.
Please explain what is inaccurate here.
Can we hold down the esoteric technical terms? Some of us are not that well educated. Everyone knows that doomaflotchy is perfectly acceptable.Skoash. One skoash is equal to 1 phlibit at 113 yards. There is no known formula to convert to inches.
And, it continue being ass, as I am so good at it, 1 MOA equals 1.047 inches at 100 yards.
They call me Senor Pendejo.
Its perfectly accurate. But why would anyone need to do it.... They are not adjusting POI in inches or centimeters.
A radian is the measure of the radius of a circle extended along as an arc on the circles circumference. There are 2π radians in a circle. π is an irrational number, one that cannot be written as a ratio such as 1:2 or 1/2. An irrational number is one that has never been found to repeat.
@Makinchips208 has the grasp.
However, I do think those differing uses of a MIL are restricted to land navigation (compass headings) and artillery units but I could be wrong. I have never actually seen a Soviet rifle scope reticle nor a Swedish one.
What you see is an angular dispersion. That round is expected to impact inside of a circle of whatever unit of angular measure you are using. Inside of a 1 MIL circle.
moving my scope 1 moa left at 800 yards will or will not cause my impact to shift to the left 8 inches??
In my part of the world it does and always has.
Yeah I stayed up last night and went through it I now get it. The math is not the issue, I had just never seen the definition. Have pleasant day!
It will move the probability of that impact being inside of the circle of accuracy you and your rifle. are capable of to the left 1 MOA. If you have a half minute rifle AND you are a half minute shooter, if you do your part, all day, then your impact is likely to fall inside of a half minute circle left 1 MOA of where you were aiming before shifting your point of aim.
Lol bro is your neck okay from dodging the question??
You just added a bunch of malarkey to not have to admit we would expect a shift of 8inches left with a 1 moa change left at 800 yards.
Because…… angular changes have linear consequences.
Now....you gotta wonder why the differing numbers. I mean, it's for ease of use rather than a non-repeating decimal, sure...but why choose THOSE numbers?
6300 is close so that's good
6000 is easily used, so that makes sense
Why 6400?
Computers, especially the older ones are binary. Zeros and Ones. (Actually, on the first computers, those represented switches in states of being open or closed). Binary (and every base, be it base 10 or 12 or 16 or whatever) are written as powers of the base. Base 10...the number 10 is 10 raised to the first power. 20 is 2 times 10 to the first power. The hundreds place is 10 to the second power.
2^6 is 64, nice for the computer iteration of a firing solution for artillery.
Dude...there is no dodge there. That is the actual truth. FACT.
You have no real clue. More fact.
You should do much more studying. I leave you to go do that.
It at least is called a calculator but for instance 36*2 is 72 it isnot harder than that
Think of a pie in moa there are more pieces of pie that mils. Mild is more of the standard than moa so you really need to know both if you are serious about long term shooting I have two stave Nightforce one is Moa the other is mild really everything but the size of the pie slice is the same some people make a mountain out of amolehill
Have a good day
Man, I am always late to these dumpster fires, I am going to throw a little gas on it for fun.
Pretty much all scopes these days have or should have matching turrets and reticles I think we all can agree on that.
For the sake of keeping it simple let's just assume shooter and spotter are using the same thing rather it be MOA or MILS.
If you are spotting for someone and you saw looking through your scope that the point of impact was 1 MIL low and 2 MILS left why on earth would you not just call it like that?
If you converted that back to a linear measurement to tell the shooter in god's name, why in the hell would you do that?
You had the correction right in front of your face on what needed to be done for the next shot.
It doesn't matter how far off the POI was from the POA in any linear unit if you think it does you are not thinking correctly.
Pretty much all scopes these days have or should have matching turrets and reticles I think we all can agree on that.
For the sake of keeping it simple let's just assume shooter and spotter are using the same thing rather it be MOA or MILS.
If you are spotting for someone and you saw looking through your scope that the point of impact was 1 MIL low and 2 MILS left why on earth would you not just call it like that?
If you converted that back to a linear measurement to tell the shooter in god's name, why in the hell would you do that?
You had the correction right in front of your face on what needed to be done for the next shot.
It doesn't matter how far off the POI was from the POA in any linear unit if you think it does you are not thinking correctly.
It is what it is MOA is the English,American (we just refuse to accept metrics like our English cousins. MILS I the metric system used by the rest of the world am for instance an inch is about 26 mm so 2 inches is 2*26 same problem you just got to accept it
Lise is a bitch then you marry one
MIl has zero to do with the metric system. The only reason the misinformed think they are related is the ease of multiplying and dividing by 10.
It will not. It will move left 8 x Pi / 3 inches, which is 8.377 inches.
Those of you who keep referring to linear measurements at some given distance....
When you zero your rifle, how do you measure the group size created by say, 5 shots?
When you zero your rifle, how do you measure the group size created by say, 5 shots?
Yeah I am still noodling on that but am not going to dive there today when we have real world problems like how many Phlibits in a Skoash. Inquiring minds demand a solution!
Did I get ripped off? Where’s the angular measurement on here?
Hey - can I use these to measure 1 mil at 100 yards? How much would that be?
We never said linear measures don’t exist. I travel 23 miles to work ( takes an hour, but that’s another issue), but none of that has anything to do with calling scope adjustments!
Beg to differ Mils, associated with radians are used in metric calculations
Similar threads
