Rifle Scopes Mrad IS Meteric

B3dlam

B3dlam

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 3, 2012
753
6
Kodiak, AK
#1
I often see guys saying milliradians aka mrads are not metric. I can understand wanting to say it isnt as we often use it with yards and inches however a milliradian is equal to 1/1000 of a radian. A radian is a SI derived unit and therefore part of the metric system. If my logic is completely off here feel free to let me know I won't be offended just figured I would point it out since anytime you see someone mention mrads and metric a half dozen people comment that mrad isnt metric.

I utilized Wiki as a refrence only because I have spent plenty of time reading more indepth painful refrences to confirm what I found on wiki and wiki is a little easier to read.

Angular Mil definition: Angular mil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radian Definition: Radian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#2
B3dlam said:
A radian is a SI derived unit and therefore part of the metric system.
Click to expand...

On your second link, indication is that until 1995, the SI classified the radian and the steradian as supplementary units, which means not classified in derived and base units. My guess is that the change was simply to relate a known value to a unit of angular measure. In reality, I think a radian is neither metric nor imperial, but I understand why people might think otherwise.
 
#3
Don't think so.

Radian is a measurement of a circle, like degrees are a measurement of a circle. A radian is the distance along the circumference of a circle that equals the radius of a circle. (Regardless of the size of the circle). A mil-radian is nothing more then 1/1000 of a radian.

Mils are larger (in measurement) based on the size of a circle like any other triangle. Or should I say the measurement of the angle near the center of the circle is smaller then the measurement of the angle at the outer edge of the angle, but the angle is the same. That's how we can use them to measure distance if we know the size of the target.

Has nothing to do with metric except we can use metric distance and sizes in determining that range.

I know this doesn't make sense, maybe someone will chime in who writes better then I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DDD5_1000
#4
The point in pointing out that mrad is not metric (if I remember correctly it's older than the metric system) isn't to convey some historic fact (it is indeed part of the SI system and defined as [m/m]), but rather for educational purposes. Americans tend to say "metric" when in reality they mean "decimal". Mrad and the metric system work together so well because they are both decimal units, and that's not a coincidence, but that's not the real point for practical applications.

What happens when Americans think that mrad is "metric" is that they start to use meters for distance (like the USMC), but keep using inches and feet for target size, drop/drift etc. and think they have gained something. This is totally fucked up and you will have no advantages whatsoever unless you switch to the decimal system all the way. Now the most common decimal system by far happens to be the metric system, so that's an easy favourite. Nevertheless, I haven't come across a single american in a decade of surfing the web that has stated that he's switched to using centimeters and millimiters for target size/drop/drift when making the switch to "mils". Some start using meters for distance because they think that will be somehow better with their "metric" reticle (and a meter is close enough to a yard so they still manage to maintain a sense of distance), but completely fail to grasp that that's not the point and they won't gain anything by doing so.

Yes, in a sense mils are "metric" but saying so doesn't help anyone understand their true advantage which lies in the fact that the metric system is decimal based and doesn't require odd conversions like the imperial system.

I'm not mocking people for a lack of flexibility in dealing with different units of measurement, we had a switch to a different currency (the damn €uro) here in Germany about ten years ago, it took everybody a long time to get "fluent" with the new prices, and that was only a factor of about two to consider! Going to a system of units that you don't have a "feel" for is very hard, but that's what you have to do if you want to make full use of the advantages of an mrad based reticle.
 
#5
The beauty in our application is the perfect ratio of radius to arc len when using radians; 1:1, or 1:1000 if using Mrad. Try doing that with minutes of angle. You end up with 1:3437.74677078494. Yet people still want to talk about group size in minutes of angle. We are precision shooters, lets use precision. Not about 1" at 100y, but exactly 10cm at 100m, exactly 1ft at 1000ft, 1y at 1000y, ect... Go Mrad! Now if the scopes just had 0.01Mrad clicks instaed of 0.1 then we could adjust exactly 1mm per click at 100m and blow those benchrest 1/8 moa clicks away.
 
#6
dcjs said:
... Going to a system of units that you don't have a "feel" for is very hard, but that's what you have to do if you want to make full use of the advantages of an mrad based reticle.
Click to expand...
It is true that we Americans, in general, have no "feel" for the metric system and I do not see that changing anytime soon. I work in the Automotive OEM business, which changed over to metric in the mid-90s. However, even though all our prints and measurements are done in metric units, I daily hear and see people converting (either in their heads or with calculators) to imperial units so that they understand the dimension(s) being discussed. For example, a machining tolerance might be +/- 0.03mm. The machinist will say, "So that's about 1 thou tolerance."

Since we do not live by the metric system, there is a general lack of feel for the "size" of things in metric units.
 
#8
lash said:
It is true that we Americans, in general, have no "feel" for the metric system and I do not see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I can understand that all too well because I've been in the same situation, just from the other side of things. Put me in front of a lathe or milling machine with imperial dials and I'm about as blind as a bat without a calculator. :D

This is why it's so important to understand the whole point of using mrad and metric units of distance together. If you're not prepared to go all the way, wou'll never be able to reap all the benefits.
 
#9
B3dlam said:
I often see guys saying milliradians aka mrads are not metric. I can understand wanting to say it isnt as we often use it with yards and inches however a milliradian is equal to 1/1000 of a radian. A radian is a SI derived unit and therefore part of the metric system. If my logic is completely off here feel free to let me know I won't be offended just figured I would point it out since anytime you see someone mention mrads and metric a half dozen people comment that mrad isnt metric.

I utilized Wiki as a refrence only because I have spent plenty of time reading more indepth painful refrences to confirm what I found on wiki and wiki is a little easier to read.

Angular Mil definition: Angular mil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radian Definition: Radian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yes, but so what?

You can use any units you want. I range in yards, work out drop and windage in inches but use a mil dot reticule. Its just a question of options in JBM or the ballistic calculator. Who cares
 
#10
Drifter_1 said:
On your second link, indication is that until 1995, the SI classified the radian and the steradian as supplementary units, which means not classified in derived and base units. My guess is that the change was simply to relate a known value to a unit of angular measure. In reality, I think a radian is neither metric nor imperial, but I understand why people might think otherwise.
Click to expand...

The metric system is made up of base units derived units and prefixes: http://www.chemteam.info/Metric/Metric-Units.html

If you reference table 3 radian is a derived unit:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

The wiki link also states that it was changed from a supplementary unit into a derived unit in 1995.

I don't think it makes a huge diffrence one way or another as it could be a Martian unit of measure and it will still work out for us as long as we know its value but since its been commented regularly that it isn't metric I figured I would toss this side of the argument out there.


Sent from my iPad autocorrect at your own risk.
 
#11
Chanonry said:
Yes, but so what?

You can use any units you want. I range in yards, work out drop and windage in inches but use a mil dot reticule. Its just a question of options in JBM or the ballistic calculator. Who cares
Click to expand...

I agree that in the end it doesn't really matter one way or another. I have noticed, however, thats every topic I see about mrad seems to have at least one person mentioning that its not metric. I figured I would put forth the argument that it is.


Sent from my iPad autocorrect at your own risk.
 
#12
kraigWY said:
Don't think so.

Radian is a measurement of a circle, like degrees are a measurement of a circle. A radian is the distance along the circumference of a circle that equals the radius of a circle. (Regardless of the size of the circle). A mil-radian is nothing more then 1/1000 of a radian.

Mils are larger (in measurement) based on the size of a circle like any other triangle. Or should I say the measurement of the angle near the center of the circle is smaller then the measurement of the angle at the outer edge of the angle, but the angle is the same. That's how we can use them to measure distance if we know the size of the target.

Has nothing to do with metric except we can use metric distance and sizes in determining that range.

I know this doesn't make sense, maybe someone will chime in who writes better then I do.
Click to expand...

Radian is the angular measurement used in the SI (aka metric) system of measure.


Sent from my iPad autocorrect at your own risk.
 
#14
From the mind of a guy who needs to get out more...

I use Pennies, Nickels and Dimes to explain it, so does that mean it is a monetary unit ?

.1 Mils = 1 penny

5. Mils = Nickel

1 Mil = Dime

Unit of 10... your reticle is broken up into 10 pennies with some using a nickel in the middle and each "dot" is a dime... you have 10 clicks on your turrets, so you have 10 pennies to equal the distance of 1 dime.

Now every American can understand it.

The Point people make about it "not" being metric, IS, it is NOT SOLELY RELATED to the metric system. It's angular and works with any linear distance. So it is correcting people who try to relate it strictly to the metric system. It crosses over, 1 yard at 1000 yards... 1/1000th of a mile, a foot, a yard, etc. This way people are not confused thinking they need to work in meters. Where they decided what category it falls after 200 years is irrelevant to the conversation because it works with both. It is just more at HOME within the metric system. Doesn't mean it started out that way.

All this post is doing is trying to muddy up the works and confuse people.
 
#15
B3dlam said:
I agree that in the end it doesn't really matter one way or another. I have noticed, however, thats every topic I see about mrad seems to have at least one person mentioning that its not metric. I figured I would put forth the argument that it is.
Click to expand...
If looking for historical accuracy, the problem I see with that is the radian is older than the metric system by some 85 years. Just because the metric system adopted it at a later date doesn't mean "It's Metric" in the way people think about that phrase.
 
#19
In my mind milradians work better in glass considering its a measure of curvature, all scopes will have curvature to lenses so I always thought common sense would say radians would be more precise at longer distances due to curvature of glass versus trying to skew inches per yard in reticle kind of like if you try to peel an orange and make the peel lay perfectly flat. This is not taking into account how the human eye works either.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone so don't think to long about my crackpot line of thought.
 
#21
TiroFijo said:
If the USA hurries up you can still beat Myanmar and Liberia so it won't be the last country in the world to "go metric"...
Click to expand...

Actually were are going metric, but backdoor.

When was the last time you bought a drink in quart size? Alcohol went metric MANY years ago. A fifth became 750 ml. A quart became 1 liter. A half gallon became 1.75 liters. Soft drinks and bottled water are in 500 ml, 600 ml, 1L, 2L sizes.

IMO where the US always went wrong in trying to go metric was converting the US measurement to metric, instead changing to the close metric. When they put up speed limit signs in both systems, you got things like 60MPH/96KPH. If they have put up 100 KPH/62MPH, people would have made the switch to the round number.

Just like the several attempts to replace the $1 bill with a coin. And they find people keep using bills. DUH. Do it like everyone else did, stop printing the bills. People will then use the coins.
 
#25
The only thing metric about mils is the use of the word "milli" in "milliradians".

Radians are mathematical, not metric or standard. You're trying to essentially argue whether pi is metric or not.

next topic..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DDD5_1000
#31
dcjs said:
I'm not mocking people for a lack of flexibility in dealing with different units of measurement, we had a switch to a different currency (the damn €uro) here in Germany about ten years ago, it took everybody a long time to get "fluent" with the new prices, and that was only a factor of about two to consider!
Click to expand...


I was in the French Antilles during the switch and that was funny as hell. Mostly because the euro was closer to the dollar value at the time and hit closer to home. Had one cashier try to give me 10 euro in change for the Pepsi I bought and the 2 euro I gave her.
 
#34
The metric system uses the radian as its angular unit, but the radian is not exclusively metric. It's a unitless quantity and works in the English system of units as well. It is not an "SI derived unit", but is defined in a practical way without having a metric or English unit (arc length/radius has no units since it's length/length).
 
Last edited:
#35
The radian was divided into 1000 equal parts well after the metric system's inception by a metric practitioner for armies using the metric system. I understand not wanting to muddy the waters of truth, but I don't see how refusing to acknowledge history helps accomplish clearer understanding. I do not understand why the conversation continually centers around radians, when we are discussing milrads. The two were invented 150 years apart. Maybe it's too tough to concede the fully metric shooter will always have a functional advantage, and all other considerations being equal will be a superior tactical shooter to the American. Maybe we don't want to cryout for standardization of IPHY reticles and turrets (MOA is obsolete) and sound like whiners. Lowlight, doesn't the joke you posted to Rob prove there is an area here for the optics producers to GREATLY improve their products and maybe the shooting sports? The standardization of IPHY is as valuable an idea as matching turrets. It is for all practical purposes the same idea. Maybe nobody wants to change, but there is a functional advantage to the IPHY angle subtension for an American shooter. I think our fervor for supremacy and that functional advantage will create change, either the idea of using IPHY or full metric conversion will gain momentum. And I think IPHY is an easier sell than the metric system. We'll see I guess, I've been wrong before.

BTW I use mils and do agree that the lack of standardization in IPHY leaves mil/mil the best option for the current state of art. I am just not sure this will be the case in the coming years.
 
#36
Of course you can use mils with yards and inches, it is just not optimal but still better than MOA/IPHY whatever. A have a few scopes with mil reticles and MOA clicks, and don't change them because I'm just and amateur and they work just fine. I'm an engineer, and also very proficient with US units of measure. But you really don't need a lot of study or a beautiful mind to grasp meters (if you are american), or the US system if you are from elsewhere. A lot of half educated people in many parts of the world do it daily with no problems at all, very easy to do if you have half a brain.

"Fixing" a non decimal system that is not used by anyone else is like putting the dodo bird under intensive care so it will live a little more. Won't change the final outcome.The US will slowly become more "metric" by the day, despite the stubborness and inertia.Not only a decimal system is better, but the metric system has inherent advantages in engineering and science, and again is the world STANDARD (very important word this, if you don't want to live in a bubble).

The final solution is of course giving up the US customary system (that is not the imperial, BTW) and join the metric world... as has already done nearly all industries, science, engineering, architecture, etc. in the USA. The military uses meters, as needed by NATO standarization and common sense since it is superior and every map of the world is metric. Mil based reticles are the world standard, and they are very intuitive, fast and easy to use for a metric user. You can take a grunt familiar with the metric system and tell them: 1 mil is 10 cm at 100 m, and every click is 1 cm at 100 m and instantly you have practically learned all there is to it.
 
#37
I don't see how an MRAD is any more metric than the number "Pi" or the word "diameter" or "circumference." To me, this is neither metric nor standard. It is just a way of defining a relationship of distance and angle.
 
#38
Let's use another analogy. I would not claim that decimals are "metric" and fractions are "standard" any more than I would say the same about mils and MOA, although MOA are traditionally more common in the US.
 
#39
I'm not a big fan of Wiki, here is a good example.

The wiki link also states that it was changed from a supplementary unit into a derived unit in 1995.
Click to expand...

1995????

See if you can find a copy of Hatcher's "Machine Guns-1917", it was writing a tad before 1995 and it covers mil/meridians before computers and before Wiki.

Hatcher and the co-authors Major Glenn Wilhelm & Major Harry Maloney did not consider the mil system as a supplementary unit then, but as a primary unit for laying in machine guns.

When you try to say its metric or any other standard of measurement you loose or confuse your audience.

I use to run machine gun schools for the National Guard, not using the gun as an assault rifle but as a medium machine gun using the tripod and T&Es. The T&E of the M-60 which we used was in mils.

I had three Alaska NG Native battalions, let me tell you, teaching mils to Alaska Eskimos is an art in it's self, about half didn't have an high school education, their elders use feet, yards and miles, and so did they. They wanted nothing to do with the metric system so I used feet, yards and miles but I taught MILS because the T&E used mils. The M-60 doesn't care if its meters or yards, a Mil is a Mil.

If you look at your target and distance in inches and yards, mils will measure in inches and yards. If you use your target and distance in metric then the mils will measure in meters.

Its really that simple.
 
#40
jakelly said:
Maybe it's too tough to concede the fully metric shooter will always have a functional advantage, and all other considerations being equal will be a superior tactical shooter to the American.
Click to expand...

So that logic states that all european shooters are better than American shooters?! Thanks.

All you are doing is transforming an angular offset into a linear measurement at the target. Because you use radians and mm does not mean you are any more accurate than the guys who uses radians and inches, moa and inches or moa and mm.
 
#41
I think I'm going to create a new angular measurement where we divide the radian by some multiple of 12, or 36, or maybe even 16. It'll be far less useful, but then maybe it won't be so scary to those with metricphobia.
 
#43
E. Bryant said:
I think I'm going to create a new angular measurement where we divide the radian by some multiple of 12, or 36, or maybe even 16. It'll be far less useful, but then maybe it won't be so scary to those with metricphobia.
Click to expand...
No need for new angular units, there 360 degrees and 400 grads in 2PI radians. Start from there.

PS A grad is 1/100th of a right angle (90 degrees or PI/2 radians), but that doesn't make it metric.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aftermath
#44
.1 Mrad = 1cm @ 100m
.2 Mrad = 2cm @ 100m
.3 Mrad = 3cm @ 100m
....
1 Mrad = 10cm @ 100m


1Mrad @ 475m = 47.5cm

If this doesnt seem easier than MOA math, ... ok. Lets agree to disagree.
 
#45
Lowlight said:
All this post is doing is trying to muddy up the works and confuse people.
Click to expand...

That's it. People that know how to use them see these posts and laugh. It's ridiculous.


2/1_Kiwi said:
.1 Mrad = 1cm @ 100m
.2 Mrad = 2cm @ 100m
.3 Mrad = 3cm @ 100m
....
1 Mrad = 10cm @ 100m


1Mrad @ 475m = 47.5cm

If this doesnt seem easier than MOA math, ... ok. Lets agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Why even translate it to a linear measurement? No need at all. .1 mil is .1 mil at 50 yards/meters or 1000 yards/meters.
 
Last edited:
#47
I milled a target 2 yards high, he subtended 2 mils ergo he was at 1000 yards.

However, USE CAUTION, as these were metric yards. Don't confuse these with standard yards or shooters yards. This is why I suggest yards per hundred yards for beginners.
 
#49
Well, you know the old saying, Give a guy an inch and he wants a foot, give a guy a foot and he wants a yard, give a guy a yard and he wants a pool in it!
Personally I'm a MOA guy, just what I've used for the past 50 yrs.
 
#50
The fact early US Scope makers and training focused around the linear distance at range does not make it valid or correct. Just because that is how they "used" to do it, or that was how you were taught doesn't make it right.

People are very adaptable and will adjust, doesn't make it any less limiting in practical application simply because we made due.

They recognized the need for angles, and the benefit of it, then immediately turned away from that very method to relate the distance via a linear measurement. Linear discussions and distances have no real place within the scope, it should only apply to the distance in terms of range, not any part of the solution for either range or wind. The Angle is universally superior to saying 1 (anything) @ 100, 2 @ 200, 3 @ 300... this cause a lot of confusion, even with people who think they understand it.

Anyone can succeed when on their range shooting alone, the difference comes into play when you have a situation beyond your making or control. I have seen many a person who used a mix of MOA & IPHY on their home range fall apart when taken out of their comfort zone and that is a result of the errors built into the system. It's a big fudge factor from the start, and only compounds at distance because the fudge factor was never intended to shoot beyond short ranges or was used only KD Ranges where it really didn't matter. If you have a vertical fudge factor in the target of 4 MOA or more as many target will you'll never see the errors of your ways. Also, if you are shooting on a KD Range (even with a sub moa bullseye) you are zeroing for that range and it makes no difference what the answer to the range is. If the routine is always to dial the same number you might as well call it 8 for 800, 9 for 900 and never used any unit of measurement.

The MOA is dead, or at least should be allowed to die...

There is no reason to use it in shooting, there is no reason to incorporate it in a scope and there is no effective way to modify it beyond IPHY. Even that should really only be used for KD Course shooting. When it comes to using the scope and reticle in combination for tactical shooting, even hunting or any other form of UKD it should be shunned as too sloppy and too ineffective for extended use. The idea we "think" in inches is a ridiculous one and doesn't play out. Effective shooters don't think in linear terms, they read the ruler and adjust to exactly what they see. If the first thing that pops in your head is, linear, 1@ 100, 2@ 200, etc, that is clue you are doing it wrong. There is no reason to "think" about it that way at all.

1.047 does not divide effectively by anything. They have difficultly machining it in the turrets, they have taken to shorting it to the point you have to map it. If you own a MOA based scope and you haven't tested it completely, the odds are against you from the start. Same with the reticle. They find it much easier to make a reticle MOA based then give you an IPHY turret. Big mistake. Also as noted there is not Standardized subtension across manufacturers, no two reticles are exactly the same will have a defining reference point like Mils do. Not all MOA reticles have a 1 MOA reference, or two, etc, and not all MOA / IPHY are the same either, 1/8th, 1/4th, 1/2, 1" all exist in current offerings. Mils it is .1 with a few that offer .05 simply because people believe they need that close to 1/8th adjustment for accuracy. But practically speaking all mil based scopes have 1. turrets with 1 mil in the reticle. There is a standard, the fact a few chose to deviate doesn't matter in the big picture.

Stop supporting the idea of the MOA in a reticle and let it die, it's outlived it's usefulness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
129
Views
12K
Kickin45
Kickin45
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class Long Range Scope Review - TT, ZCO, Schmidt, March, Vortex
Replies
206
Views
32K
Dutch308
D
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes March FFP 1.5-15x42 MPVO Review and Comparison (w/ Nightforce and Athlon)
Replies
246
Views
23K
OlivierFR
O
Theoverwatch
Latitude 20-60x80 XD Tactical Spotting Scope
Replies
9
Views
1K
thefuzz250
T
Glassaholic
Vortex Impact 4000 GB First Impressions
Replies
23
Views
5K
Glassaholic
Glassaholic
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts