Mrad help

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Clicks? That's the first thing I beat out of student's heads in class. The numbers are on the scope knob for a reason. No need to be counting clicks. Same as no need to convert to any linear and then back to angular. Just a waste of time. Is that how you make a correction in a match?

What would you rather call it?

I just said clicks to represent a physical tactile adjustment of your scope and how the formula gets you there.

And no its not how i make adjustments behind a rifle, ive just been flirting with the conversion for fun.

I may switch my lrf to metric and get a metric tape measure.... for fun

 

[Rob01]

A metric tape mesure? A spotter making a estimation? Comparing to a known object?

Without a doubt. if you can see your own impact or your spotter has a mil reticle optic then using your scope is best.

And if you cant and he doesnt?

Then you send another as you don't know where the impact is. Hopefully you can see it on the next shot.

Not like you will walk down and measure it as you won't know where it hit anyways. And if you do walk and see the impact on paper then mark it and when you get back to the rifle measure it with the reticle. No need for metric or other linear measurements.

 

[Rob01]

What would you rather call it?

I just said clicks to represent a physical tactile adjustment of your scope and how the formula gets you there.

And no its not how i make adjustments behind a rifle, ive just been flirting with the conversion for fun.

I may switch my lrf to metric and get a metric tape measure.... for fun

I would call it 1.7 mils as it should be. You won't be counting 17 clicks.

Have fun doing it the hard way but just trying to show people the easier way here so they learn how to actually do it.

 

[dirthead1]

A metric tape mesure? A spotter making a estimation? Comparing to a known object?

Without a doubt. if you can see your own impact or your spotter has a mil reticle optic then using your scope is best.

And if you cant and he doesnt?

Well, I guess if I didn't see my impact and the spotter didn't have a reticle to measure with, he could just say "you hit 1/2 a plate off right edge", and I could measure with my reticle and make my adjustment. Not ideal but better than guesstimating a linear distance at long range and doing math to convert to clicks. I understand you are just trying to make a point and that you probably don't actually do this in real life, but it's a similar argument to people saying "I can't switch to mils because I think in inches and feet, so I have to use MOA." There are easy ways to do this. Some are more precise than others. No math is involved in any of them.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Absolutely... But measuring poi to POA is not one of them.

Calling for an artillery strike and my batteries are dead in the lrf sure....

Have you ever tested yourself on ranging with your reticle within 10 meters/yards to see how good you are? It's way harder than most guys think. It toooookkk a ton of practice to be able to do it decently in a pinch out to 1k. Light conditions, angles make getting an accurate and precise measurement tricky. I don't have to do it for work anymore and it's amazing how quickly I lose this skill on man sized targets.

Trust my LRF more. Milling is a good skill to have for sure but I don't want anyone estimating my misses with their best guess when you have a perfectly good reticle to tell me exactly what I missed by.

Ill remember this next time i call in an artillary strike. I have not tested myself ranging, just started flirting with the concept. I like having odd and obscure tools in my toolbox.

I would call it 1.7 mils as it should be. You won't be counting 17 clicks.

Have fun doing it the hard way but just trying to show people the easier way here so they learn how to actually do it.

Yeah ok call it mils. Nobody is doing anything the hard way. I dial to mils on my scope when shooting. Its a theoretical discussion on the relationship of mils and metric linear measurements not a best practices.

Y so serious?

 

[Rob01]

Because there are people here trying to learn how to use their rifles. Saying mils is metric and converting angular to linear to angular does nothing more than confuse people trying to learn.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Then you send another as you don't know where the impact is. Hopefully you can see it on the next shot.

Not like you will walk down and measure it as you won't know where it hit anyways. And if you do walk and see the impact on paper then mark it and when you get back to the rifle measure it with the reticle. No need for metric or other linear measurements.

Sure, i never said this is a best practice or even practical.

Lets say you had a shot on a billboard set up at 2000m
You either go down and measure or better yet set up a camera to show your hits would you mark a grid on the target it in metric or imperial?

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Because there are people here trying to learn how to use their rifles. Saying mils is metric and converting angular to linear to angular does nothing more than confuse people trying to learn.

I agree. does exploring what's possible really hurt them? It may confuse them. And then they can explore the truth. Ive personally learned a lot reading the evolution of threads going down a rabbit hole. I never said metric is mil. I tried to be clear that I wasn't.

 

[Rob01]

Neither. Adjust with the reticle off the shot placement. If you know where it hits it's easy. I have done it with targets out to 2500 yards.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Neither. Adjust with the reticle off the shot placement. If you know where it hits it's easy. I have done it with targets out to 2500 yards.

See now you`re just being difficult.

What if you can't see hits with your scope... and your spotter scope doesn't have a reticle...

 

[Rob01]

See now you`re just being difficult.

What if you can't see hits with your scope... and your spotter scope doesn't have a reticle...

If you can't see hits through the scope and the spotter doesn't have a reticle then you do like said above and use the plate width or a landmark. No meters or yards as they would be more of a guess.

And I am not being difficult but giving people wanting to learn actual info on how to do it.

 

[seansmd]

Let's flip it around, what if you couldn't go out to the target to measure misses because you would spook the game or endanger the shooter. Even if the spotter didn't have a reticle you would need some frame of reference and the reticle based ruler in the rifle scope to make the adjustment or call.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Let's flip it around, what if you couldn't go out to the target to measure misses because you would spook the game or endanger the shooter. Even if the spotter didn't have a reticle you would need some frame of reference and the reticle based ruler in the rifle scope to make the adjustment or call.

I agree. I never disputed it. I feel like were not talking about the same thing.

I just threw out the idea that when using a mil scope metric makes more sense to use as a linear measurements over inches/feet/yards. Just like if you were zeroing in a scope at 100m, it would make sense to have a cm grid (1 click) or 1/10th mil = 1cm.

Then everyone is all "its stupid to measure things, theres no rational reason to ever measure something"

"Use your scope!!!".

 

[seansmd]

Haha I'm with you, I say when using a mil scope all math is easier. I started in moa did it and bought mil when it clicked for me.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

It amazes me the number of people that "jump the shark" on this question, every single time.

1) I'm an American....I was raised with inches and yards. I know exactly what that shit is. I know what it looks like. I'm not measuring anything in cm or meters. I don't give a fuck if it is easily divided by ten.

2) Similarly, it matters not one fucking bit if I know that 1 MIL at 543 meters is 54.3 cm and 1 click equals 5.43 cm. Because I can't fucking divide my 16.73 cm POI offset by 5.43 in my fucking head anyway. So guess what? I pull out the goddamn calculator anyway.

3) If I'm calling hits and misses, I'll either call in angular units (MILS or MOA), or target relational units (1/2 target etc...)

4) If I am zeroing, or truing data and have to shoot paper, you can be goddamned sure I'm gonna put a ruler on it. You can be equally sure that some math is gonna get done. I have a $5 calculator to back up my smart phone, and I ain't afraid to use it.

Failing both of them, I can still do it long hand with pencil and paper if need be....because I'm not a FUCKING RETARD!

There is a reason we say use the reticle, but that reason HAS A FUCKING CONTEXT! If you can't make your students understand that, it is a testament to your failing as an instructor. If your students are simply unable to get that difference, then they are too stupid to do this. End of story.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Lol, cheers. ?

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Lol, cheers. ?

Good shooting to you brother.

None of that above was aimed at anyone in particular. I've heard it all before in other conversations.

 

[mosin46]

tag-need to study this trying to learn mils

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

tag-need to study this trying to learn mils

Heres another one that might interest you

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/measuring-impact-with-reticle.6938397/

Food for thought.
2 values to solve for the third.
Distance to target (meters)
Measurement at target (cm)
Mils (on scope)

Cm÷mil×10=m
Mil÷10×m=cm
Cm÷m×10=mil

 

[mosin46]

thanks

 

[brianf]

just to be a ass..cant stop my self

Second focal plane shooters, make sure your on the correct magnification...that would be a total shit mess

and make sure your spotter has the same ret (moa or mil) as your scope...double shit mess?