does the mlr ret. work with moa or mils. only, i'm still unclear on how to tell the differences in them and what works with which ret.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes NF MLR reticle
- Thread starter tex250
- Start date
Re: NF MLR reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tex700ltr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so what is it that people find hard about mils, i'm not sure I understand </div></div>
This has been discussed and beaten to death. But I think it is a matter of preference. I personally like MOA/MOA. I think in inches. It is easy for me to think 1" at 100yards, 2" at 200yards, 10" at a 1000yards is 1 MOA. Also, in my opinion i can do quicker math in my head when ranging in MOA.
Height of target in inches X 100
___________________________________ = approximate range
MOA (measured in reticle
So for example ranging an average 5'10" man thru your MOA/MOA measures 20 MOA.
70"x100= 7000
7000/20MOA= ~350 Yards
The above is simpler for me to do in my head than the mil formula. But no matter what system you use, i definitely think you should go with either MOA/MOA or mil/mil.
70x100=
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tex700ltr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so what is it that people find hard about mils, i'm not sure I understand </div></div>
This has been discussed and beaten to death. But I think it is a matter of preference. I personally like MOA/MOA. I think in inches. It is easy for me to think 1" at 100yards, 2" at 200yards, 10" at a 1000yards is 1 MOA. Also, in my opinion i can do quicker math in my head when ranging in MOA.
Height of target in inches X 100
___________________________________ = approximate range
MOA (measured in reticle
So for example ranging an average 5'10" man thru your MOA/MOA measures 20 MOA.
70"x100= 7000
7000/20MOA= ~350 Yards
The above is simpler for me to do in my head than the mil formula. But no matter what system you use, i definitely think you should go with either MOA/MOA or mil/mil.
70x100=
Re: NF MLR reticle
Neither one is "hard", it's all just math.It's easier, however,when the knobs match the reticle subtensions, less converting to do.But if you have the formulas( which every shooter should) then it's simple and painless with a calculator.
Neither one is "hard", it's all just math.It's easier, however,when the knobs match the reticle subtensions, less converting to do.But if you have the formulas( which every shooter should) then it's simple and painless with a calculator.
Re: NF MLR reticle
Your formula is correct only for an IPHY reticle, not an MOA reticle.
And if formulas are needed, they are here:
Ranging Formulas
Your formula is correct only for an IPHY reticle, not an MOA reticle.
And if formulas are needed, they are here:
Ranging Formulas
Re: NF MLR reticle
right now i have a mil-dot so I use the, " target in inches x 27.778 divided by the mil reading, so if I got a moa/moa ret what formula would I use, I know this sounds dumb but i'm having a hard time grasping all this, I may just stick with the regular ol' mil dot since i do ok with it anyways
right now i have a mil-dot so I use the, " target in inches x 27.778 divided by the mil reading, so if I got a moa/moa ret what formula would I use, I know this sounds dumb but i'm having a hard time grasping all this, I may just stick with the regular ol' mil dot since i do ok with it anyways
Re: NF MLR reticle
Read the link - and make sure you know whether you're getting an MOA reticle or an IPHY reticle.
Read the link - and make sure you know whether you're getting an MOA reticle or an IPHY reticle.
Re: NF MLR reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tex700ltr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">right now i have a mil-dot so I use the, " target in inches x 27.778 divided by the mil reading, so if I got a moa/moa ret what formula would I use, I know this sounds dumb but i'm having a hard time grasping all this, I may just stick with the regular ol' mil dot since i do ok with it anyways </div></div>
you would use "target height in inches x100 divided by MOA reading.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tex700ltr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">right now i have a mil-dot so I use the, " target in inches x 27.778 divided by the mil reading, so if I got a moa/moa ret what formula would I use, I know this sounds dumb but i'm having a hard time grasping all this, I may just stick with the regular ol' mil dot since i do ok with it anyways </div></div>
you would use "target height in inches x100 divided by MOA reading.
Re: NF MLR reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: alpha6164</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you would use "target height in inches x100 divided by MOA reading.</div></div>
Only with IPHY and not true MOA. It would do you well to read what Lindy writes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: alpha6164</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you would use "target height in inches x100 divided by MOA reading.</div></div>
Only with IPHY and not true MOA. It would do you well to read what Lindy writes.
Re: NF MLR reticle
For a true MOA reticle, the formula is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size(inches) * 95.5
Range(yards) = --------------------------
image size(MOA)
</pre></div></div>
At short ranges, the difference won't mean that you miss the target. At longer distances, it might. One might as well do it correctly to minimize the error.
For a true MOA reticle, the formula is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size(inches) * 95.5
Range(yards) = --------------------------
image size(MOA)
</pre></div></div>
At short ranges, the difference won't mean that you miss the target. At longer distances, it might. One might as well do it correctly to minimize the error.
Re: NF MLR reticle
For those who can't Mil-range down to .1 or .05 Mil, and I am one who can't do it reliably, MOA ranging can boost confidence on smaller (range competition) targets at longer distances.
But there's still enough MOA ranging error on small targets beyond 500 yards that there's no sense adding mathematical error as well:
A 12" target measured at 2 MOA in the fog is at 573 yards. But if the target actually measures 1.8 MOA in bright sunshine it's at 636 yards. If you add mathematical error by using 100 factor you get 600 yards and 666 yards, respectively. A ranging error as small as 25 yards can cause a miss even at that distance.
I still use Mils and inches, though.
For those who can't Mil-range down to .1 or .05 Mil, and I am one who can't do it reliably, MOA ranging can boost confidence on smaller (range competition) targets at longer distances.
But there's still enough MOA ranging error on small targets beyond 500 yards that there's no sense adding mathematical error as well:
A 12" target measured at 2 MOA in the fog is at 573 yards. But if the target actually measures 1.8 MOA in bright sunshine it's at 636 yards. If you add mathematical error by using 100 factor you get 600 yards and 666 yards, respectively. A ranging error as small as 25 yards can cause a miss even at that distance.
I still use Mils and inches, though.
Re: NF MLR reticle
An essential skill to master is to be able to break the reticle down finer than 0.1 mil increments.
One way to practice that is to set up a target at a distance where the image size of the target is precisely the resolution you want to practice.
Use the mil relation formula - or a Mildot Master - to calculate the distance you want.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size (inches) * 27.77
distance = -----------------------------
image size in mil
</pre></div></div>
For example, if you want a 12 inch target to measure 1.65 mils, then:
distance = 12 * 27.77 / 1.65 = 202 yards
At 196 yards, that target will measure 1.7 mils.
At 208 yards, that target will measure 1.6 mils.
By moving back and forth between those distances, you can practice reading the reticle to 0.05 mils, and doing that will greatly enhance your accuracy at long distances.
However, that's an exercise with, to be kind, a low probability of paying off, and will be practiced only by a finikin or a person with OCD.
Which of those describes me is best left as an exercise for the interested reader...
An essential skill to master is to be able to break the reticle down finer than 0.1 mil increments.
One way to practice that is to set up a target at a distance where the image size of the target is precisely the resolution you want to practice.
Use the mil relation formula - or a Mildot Master - to calculate the distance you want.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size (inches) * 27.77
distance = -----------------------------
image size in mil
</pre></div></div>
For example, if you want a 12 inch target to measure 1.65 mils, then:
distance = 12 * 27.77 / 1.65 = 202 yards
At 196 yards, that target will measure 1.7 mils.
At 208 yards, that target will measure 1.6 mils.
By moving back and forth between those distances, you can practice reading the reticle to 0.05 mils, and doing that will greatly enhance your accuracy at long distances.
However, that's an exercise with, to be kind, a low probability of paying off, and will be practiced only by a finikin or a person with OCD.
Which of those describes me is best left as an exercise for the interested reader...
Re: NF MLR reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: alpha6164</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you would use "target height in inches x100 divided by MOA reading.</div></div>
Only with IPHY and not true MOA. It would do you well to read what Lindy writes. </div></div>
I can read quite well thank you. I know there is a 4.5% error with that formula. For targets closer than 400 it will make a 2" difference with my setup and i can accept that. For longer ranges it is still easier for me to use that formula and just deduct 5%. At the end of the day, to be 100% correct you need a laser finder.
In high tense situations nobody has time to sit there and pull out calculators to be 100%. If you have that much time, then use a laser range finder to begin with.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: alpha6164</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you would use "target height in inches x100 divided by MOA reading.</div></div>
Only with IPHY and not true MOA. It would do you well to read what Lindy writes. </div></div>
I can read quite well thank you. I know there is a 4.5% error with that formula. For targets closer than 400 it will make a 2" difference with my setup and i can accept that. For longer ranges it is still easier for me to use that formula and just deduct 5%. At the end of the day, to be 100% correct you need a laser finder.
In high tense situations nobody has time to sit there and pull out calculators to be 100%. If you have that much time, then use a laser range finder to begin with.
Re: NF MLR reticle
You might be able to read but not write very well if that is what you meant because people like you spout out that formula and say MOA and it's not MOA so when people looking to learn read that they don't see the difference and learn wrong.
You might be able to read but not write very well if that is what you meant because people like you spout out that formula and say MOA and it's not MOA so when people looking to learn read that they don't see the difference and learn wrong.
Similar threads
Rifle Scopes
Elevation math
