-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Mrad quest.
- Thread starter STRYKER74
- Start date
Just measure with the reticle. No different than a MOA scope unless you don't know how to use that properly also. It is ok to admit if you don't know, as we all start somewhere.
@308pirate, that is the nicest comment I think I have seen you make on a post like this.
@308pirate, that is the nicest comment I think I have seen you make on a post like this.
Ok, I’m gonna get this party started…
Why does it matter how many cm it moves on the target?
Why does it matter how many cm it moves on the target?
4.5 3822 12.3445 Ba z y 5678 solve for Q
Stop doing fucking math while shooting.
Stop doing fucking math while shooting.
First off, that's not correct.
Second, if you knew how to use MOA to shoot, you would easily be able to figure out how many inches, centimeters, yards, leagues, fathoms, kilometers 0.1 milliradians would span at any distance.
Third, I'll give you a bye assuming that the scope you're talking about has only a simple reticle with no subtensions. Because if not, may God have mercy on your soul here.
I wont assume what reticle you have or focal plane...
So my simple answer: Yes. .05 milliradian = .5cm (5mm) @ 100m and 1cm (10mm) @ 200m
Suggest you see what happens when you adjust your turrets and confirm
So my simple answer: Yes. .05 milliradian = .5cm (5mm) @ 100m and 1cm (10mm) @ 200m
Suggest you see what happens when you adjust your turrets and confirm
SFP, and thank you, that is all I needed to knowI wont assume what reticle you have or focal plane...
So my simple answer: Yes. .05 milliradian = .5cm (5mm) @ 100m and 1cm (10mm) @ 200m
Suggest you see what happens when you adjust your turrets and confirm
It was very simple, aye? Too bad you were still off even with MOA. lol The idea of 1/4 moa click = 1/4" at 100 yards is close enough for the brain and capabilities of the average shooter at 100 YARDS, but 100 METERS is 109 yards. That 1/4 moa click is like 0.28" per click there. That variance stacks up stupid quick once you leave your 100 yard line.
For the record, your 1/4" click was actually over 0.26" at 100 yards... once again, close enough for the average shooter but not factually equal.
Linear conversions should never be used, but after seeing you are using a basic reticle meant for point and shoot, the turrets will never be touched after you zero anyways so none of this really matters. I encourage grabbing a cheap optic with a milling reticle such as a SWFA fixed 10x just to learn so you can understand what we are discussing on this forum and in your post. It can be useful down the road and increase your ethical kill range.
That way of describing a milliradian scope is confusing to people who don't understand angular subtentions.
Like those who think that 1 MOA is 1/4" at 100 meters.
Thanks. Not many optics are like that now days and when I looked them up on bushnell they listed them at .1 mil.
Expressing the adjustment increment in terms of fractions of a milradian on ele/wind
turrets has been standard industry practice for quite some time, is very helpful and shouldn’t surprise anyone.
If you’re not sure why this is, perhaps it’s a good idea to brush up on rifle scope fundamentals in practical precision shooting applications.
He is correct, you are not.
First of all you’re mixing/mashing conventions (inches and mils). 1” is roughly equivalent to 1 MOA at 100 yards. What you are really referring to is the “inch/100 yards. One MOA is not exactly one inch at 100, theoretically or otherwise.
.1 Mil is equivalent to 1cm at 100 meters.
Mixing/mashing unit conventions is a common misunderstanding amongst those new to the game. At short range distances the impact is minor but once you stretch things out (300m+) this misunderstanding becomes material.
Since you are so new, Id recommend signing up for the on-line training (via upgrading to a Supporter account) and start going through those instructional vids.
OP, you have unwittingly opened a can or worms. This is a subject that always finds sensitive nerves and receives an undo amount of criticism. Ignore the rough treatment and you will receive answers to your question, albeit with much, much more information than you anticipated.
I didn't twist your words. You were wrong before and you're still wrong in more ways than one.
But since you think you aren't, good luck. You're on your own.
Correct me if I’m wrong then, but .05Mil is .05Mil. At any distance. The Mil is the constant. The distance and length are the variables.
Just as helpful if they had put “.05Mil on Sundays”
Thanks for the advice.
To be clear, I’m not surprised at them expressing the milliradians per click.
What I’m surprised at is the reference to a distance in the same expression.
Why are you surprised by this?
Do you not understand the relationship being expressed on the turret and how that information is applied in context? Would it also surprise you to know that nearly every scope, at essentially every price point now a days has the same sort of guidance on each turret?
‘1 click = .1Mil’
That’s it.
Why would I need any reference to distance? .1Mil is still .1 Mil regardless of if its @100m or 1000m
That’s it.
Why would I need any reference to distance? .1Mil is still .1 Mil regardless of if its @100m or 1000m
You just answered your own question. Lol.
What if one click wasn’t equivalent to .1 Mil at 100 meters. What if one click equated to .1 Mil (one cm) at 50 meters (but that distance figure wasn’t stated on the turrets).
Don’t you think that your rifle’s dope for a 1000m shot would be different from the same elevation you verified based on a scope indexed for 1 click=.1mil at 100m?
do you think you’d still be on target with the first round fired dialing up the same number of clicks using this new scope with a different index (unbeknownst to you because no distance figure is on the turrets)?
Either my morning tea hasn’t kicked in or I’m struggling to English.
I’ve read that 4 times and I’m still not sure what you’re asking..
Just to clarify.. when I said ‘1 Mil’ I meant 1Milliradian. Not mm. Is that where the confusion is?
Maybe I should have written ‘1 click = 1MRAD’
All I need to know is what unit of milliradians a click adjusts by. That’s it. I can work out everything else myself. If you’re asking would my Dope be different at 1000m compared to 100m.. Of course it would, but that doesn’t change the fact that a milliradian at 100m is still a milliradian at 1000m. It’s the distance (height or width) that a milliradian represents that changes with range. Not the milliradian.
If they’d written ‘1 click = 5mm @ 100m’, that would make more sense to me than ‘1mil @ 100m’.
What am I missing?
I’ve read that 4 times and I’m still not sure what you’re asking..
Just to clarify.. when I said ‘1 Mil’ I meant 1Milliradian. Not mm. Is that where the confusion is?
Maybe I should have written ‘1 click = 1MRAD’
All I need to know is what unit of milliradians a click adjusts by. That’s it. I can work out everything else myself. If you’re asking would my Dope be different at 1000m compared to 100m.. Of course it would, but that doesn’t change the fact that a milliradian at 100m is still a milliradian at 1000m. It’s the distance (height or width) that a milliradian represents that changes with range. Not the milliradian.
If they’d written ‘1 click = 5mm @ 100m’, that would make more sense to me than ‘1mil @ 100m’.
What am I missing?
Last edited:
You're right, I had read the label as 5 cm @ 100 m. Went back and sure as shit the turret label is fubar
ETA I should have said .5 cm @100 m but it's still a retarded European way of saying .05 mils
Last edited:
Scope makers don’t write it in terms of linear distance on turrets as much anymore (ie 1click=5mm or 1 click = 1cm at 100m, etc) as most folks think of and log dope using the unit of angular measurement not the actual drop value in mm, cm, inches, etc. As an example, Your rifle’s dope book (.308 win) prob reads something like 100m-0, 200m-.7mils, 300m-1.5mils - and so forth. It doesn’t express those drop values only in mm or cm (though you may keep that info in the dope book, it’s not what you’re reaching for first when tying to come up with a firing solution).
We also don’t typically use the linear measurement when correcting or adjusting, or calling shot corrections. You express all that information in the angular measurement (mils or MOA), depending on the system you’re using (Ie “.5 mils high, .2mils right” instead of “50 cm high and 20 cm right”). So the scope makers put “.1mil” instead of 1cm to make it more aligned with how we think of the adjustments.
The point of my question above was that if a zero distance index isn’t written at all and it just said one click = 1cm or .1 mil, you would just assume that means at 100m but if it doesn’t and that information isn’t on the turrets (or anywhere else for that matter), it would have an impact on your ability to hit your target (or initially zero the rifle) at least until you figured out what the difference was.
That said, It seems you’re actually hung up on having the “Mil” value (ie .05mil aka 1/20 mil)l at 100m) instead of the incremental adjustment distance expressed in a linear unit (1cm or 5mm) on the turret (answers my question in post 34) where as I read post 31 to indicate you were hung up on providing the target’s zero reference distance (100m) on the turret.
Let me know if I’m mis-reading anything of yours.
First 2 paras - I’m in 100% agreement with.
But then you lose me in the third. What exactly do you mean by zero distance index?
If I’m ‘.5 mils right’ as you refer to in the second para - the distance is irrelevant. I adjust .5mils.
I dont think I’m hung up on anything. I just see no need for any ‘distance or length’ reference on the turrets whatsoever. It’s redundant information that is openly going to confuse people. I’ve never suggested there should be a linear unit expressed on the turret. I’m saying that adding the ‘@100m’ to the OPs turrets makes no sense. The only way that referencing @100m makes sense to me is if they ARE using a linear unit - but they aren’t!
But then you lose me in the third. What exactly do you mean by zero distance index?
If I’m ‘.5 mils right’ as you refer to in the second para - the distance is irrelevant. I adjust .5mils.
I dont think I’m hung up on anything. I just see no need for any ‘distance or length’ reference on the turrets whatsoever. It’s redundant information that is openly going to confuse people. I’ve never suggested there should be a linear unit expressed on the turret. I’m saying that adding the ‘@100m’ to the OPs turrets makes no sense. The only way that referencing @100m makes sense to me is if they ARE using a linear unit - but they aren’t!
Op, the reason you're getting so much crap in this thread is you seem to be confusing/combining a term of angular measurement (mils / mrad / milliradians, etc.) with units of linear measurement (inches, centimeters or whatever). I made the same mistake many many years ago. Hopefully this will clarify.
Look at the image of the protractor, which measures angle. Degrees, radians, minutes, milliradians are all measure of angle. Feet, inches, meters, centimeters, etc are linear.
So let's pretend the protractor is measuring tenths of a mil.
To correct misses high or low, you make corrections to the angle of the barrel's angle by turning the elevation turret. Does it make sense to convert the linear distance of the miss to an angular measurement? Hell no. You use the stadia marks on the vertical reticle of your scope to see how many fractions of a mil high or low you are and dial that correction or hold over/under by that correction.
Your Bushnell Forge is a second focal plane scope, which means the reticle stays the same size regardless of magnification settings. This means that, assuming your reticle has stadia marks, the angle they are documented to subtend is only correct at maximum magnification.
Bottom line is, Forget Linear. Please. FORGET LINEAR. When you miss, your spotter doesn't call adjustments in inches, your spotter calls correction in mils (or MOA for old school).
Your scope, by stating "0.05 MIL @ 100M" isn't helping and really makes Bushnell look foolish. The distance is totally, utterly irrelevant.
Look at the image of the protractor, which measures angle. Degrees, radians, minutes, milliradians are all measure of angle. Feet, inches, meters, centimeters, etc are linear.
So let's pretend the protractor is measuring tenths of a mil.
- The horizontal line represents line of sight through the scope, which we'll assume is mounted on a .22 rimfire, aimed at a target on a level range.
- The line running through the "19" mark represents the angle of the barrel at 1.9 mils elevation from zero, which for an "average" .22 with "average" mils optic and "average" match ammo zeroed at an "average" 50 yards will be on target at very close to 100 yards.
To correct misses high or low, you make corrections to the angle of the barrel's angle by turning the elevation turret. Does it make sense to convert the linear distance of the miss to an angular measurement? Hell no. You use the stadia marks on the vertical reticle of your scope to see how many fractions of a mil high or low you are and dial that correction or hold over/under by that correction.
Your Bushnell Forge is a second focal plane scope, which means the reticle stays the same size regardless of magnification settings. This means that, assuming your reticle has stadia marks, the angle they are documented to subtend is only correct at maximum magnification.
Bottom line is, Forget Linear. Please. FORGET LINEAR. When you miss, your spotter doesn't call adjustments in inches, your spotter calls correction in mils (or MOA for old school).
Your scope, by stating "0.05 MIL @ 100M" isn't helping and really makes Bushnell look foolish. The distance is totally, utterly irrelevant.
There is some really helpful stuff in SH.
But this thread won’t exactly go down as the gold standard of helpful posts in here...
The OP asked a simple question.
Everyone seemed to be too busy leaping in and throwing shade, all the while making assumptions that were in fact, incorrect.
They assumed he was using FFP, and a tree reticle.
And then others didn’t bother to actually ‘read’ what other posts had written.
His original question was painfully simple.
But this thread won’t exactly go down as the gold standard of helpful posts in here...
The OP asked a simple question.
Everyone seemed to be too busy leaping in and throwing shade, all the while making assumptions that were in fact, incorrect.
They assumed he was using FFP, and a tree reticle.
And then others didn’t bother to actually ‘read’ what other posts had written.
His original question was painfully simple.
Zero Index distance is my term describing the “100m” portion of the information on the turret. Most zero their rifles at 100m (or 100 yards) hence why the turret values are expressed using 100m as the reference distance for movement in terms of incremental adjustment size on the target for each click.
I think you should reach out to Bushnell and give them a piece of your mind on this issue, lol. Because you are clearly hung up on it. Maybe you will win some hearts and minds over there.
I’m out.
Similar threads
