Rifle Scopes understanding MILs

[proneshooter]

Now do that with a plain cross hair or iron sights.

I adapt to whatever increments my sights work with. When I used to shoot highpower, the sights on my rifles all had 1/4 MOA increments, so my dope was all in MOA. Now that my main rifle has a mil/mil scope I write all my dope down in mils.

What's the point again?

 

[damoncali]

I adapt to whatever increments my sights work with. When I used to shoot highpower, the sights on my rifles all had 1/4 MOA increments, so my dope was all in MOA. Now that my main rifle has a mil/mil scope I write all my dope down in mils.

What's the point again?

The point is that you don't always have a ruler, and if you don't, you have to do math. And to do that simple math, you have to understand what you are looking at.

 

[proneshooter]

The point is that you don't always have a ruler, and if you don't, you have to do math. And to do that simple math, you have to understand what you are looking at.

OK, let me give you a problem.

You have a scope with a duplex reticle. No subtensions other than the transition between thin and thick stadia. Your 30-06 rifle is zeroed at 200 yards. There's a deer you want to shoot at 350 yards.

What's your firing solution?

Please show your work.

 

[105gr]

uh....the definition of "mil" that I read said "1/1000 of a radian". The definition that I read of "Radian" that I read said "The distance around the arc of a circe equal to the radius of said circe" and then went on to say that "it is a unit-less system of angular measurement". So theres nothing in the definition that tells me that a "mil" or "radian" is metric. Is this a correct definition?

 

[Notso]

OK, let me give you a problem.

You have a scope with a duplex reticle. No subtensions other than the transition between thin and thick stadia. Your 30-06 rifle is zeroed at 200 yards. There's a deer you want to shoot at 350 yards.

What's your firing solution?

Please show your work.

TLAR x Sq root of WAG?

 

[Graham]

TLAR x Sq root of WAG?

That math is pretty close, for a 200 yard zero to a 350 yard target the size of a deer.

This guy shows his work:
Sitting Shot with a 308 MOA Maximum - Doe Antelope 350 yards - YouTube

 

[Pinecone]

thanks for the replies guys. i guess i am just over thinking it.

i guess part of the confusion lies with being accustomed to talking about inches for group size and being off "1.25 low and .5 right" because that's how grandpap taught us on a paper pie plate, in the middle of the woods, using a dead, moss covered limb as our rest while standing on the side of a hill. then we make the assumption that is how it is done, and in reality, there is a whole different way of thinking, looking, doing.

(an example of someone thinking to them selves at the range):
"so, if i am 1.25" low, i am at 200yds, i need to move my reticle, how many clicks? let's see, one click at 100 is .25", so at 200 it is.....?"

so from what i gather, fuck that, use the ruler that rob01 and a few others pointed out, and adjust for the read out.

is it really that simple? lol

The problem with thinking in linear measurements like you mention is, what happens when you are shooting 135 yards? 1.25 inch low and 0.5 inch right is how many clicks?????

With a good reticle, you look though the scope and using the markings, you see that your shot is just under 3 mils low (2.6) and just over 1 (1.2) mil right.

Adjust 3 clicks up and and 1 click left and you are good to go.

 

[damoncali]

uh....the definition of "mil" that I read said "1/1000 of a radian". The definition that I read of "Radian" that I read said "The distance around the arc of a circe equal to the radius of said circe" and then went on to say that "it is a unit-less system of angular measurement". So theres nothing in the definition that tells me that a "mil" or "radian" is metric. Is this a correct definition?

Its not the definition of radian you have wrong. Its the definition of metric. To see what i mean, answer this: what is the metric unit of angle?

 

[105gr]

just because the metric world adopted the radian as their unit of angular measurement doesnt mean that radians are exclusive to the metric system

 

[Graham]

understanding MILs

Oh, for heaven's sake, people...

Think, then post.

 

[damoncali]

Yes, lets.

Saying "a mil will equate to 1 unit of distance on the target at 1000 units of range, no matter what length units you're using" is helpful and true. Saying "there is nothing metric about mils" is neither true nor helpful to anyone who doesn't already know what you're talking about, and only confuses the issue. Sorry to all for getting into the weeds on this - that is on me. It really doesn't matter that mils are metric.

 

[proneshooter]

Oh, for heaven's sake, people...

Think, then post.

+1

 

[2ndamendfan]

Oh my God, Oh my God!!!!!

When I first started joining forums many years ago I never understood why the senior members always got so upset when the newbies kept asking the same damn question every week. Well this one subject (MILs) has totally made me understand why.

If I gave you the blueprints to build a house and it used jellybeans as the unit of measure and I gave you a tape measure and a laser calibrated in jelly beans. Would you build the house or waste 4 weeks figuring out how many jellybeans in a snickers??

You have a ruler in front of you. If the turrets and the reticle are both calibrated in light years then it doesn't matter.

The only time MILS and MOA should be used together is when the turrets and reticle don't match (which should be a crime really).

MILS are a base ten system and so is the Metric system, but that doesn't make MILS exclusive to the Metric system. Hence the statement "there is nothing metric about MILs".

I understand that linear measurements are involved, But if you ranged a target at 568 yards and you used a dope chart or software to figure your "come ups" and it said 18 jellybeans and that matched your turrets, dial it and send it. If the reticle then showed you were 3 jellybeans high dial it again and send it.

Why is everyone making this so damn confusing. I truly believe the reason America hasn't adopted the Metric system (NOT RELATED TO MILS) is because for some damn reason most CAN NOT wrap their head around how simple it is. Most people don't make it past 5th grade math.

 

[damoncali]

Why is everyone making this so damn confusing.

Because not all scopes have reticles that are graduated. And some people still use iron sights. The concepts are still relevant.

 

[roggom]

Screw that, I now want a jelly bean/ jelly bean reticle and turret setup.

 

[3DHUSKER]

Why do you do that math? No reason at all. Who cares if .5 mils at 100 yards is 1.8"? What should concern you is it's .5 mils. Don't think in inches. No need to at all.

Yes 5 clicks is .5 mils but why count clicks when you can look at the knob and dial .5 mils from where you are? So if you need 8 mils will you count to 80 clicks? No you will dial to the 8 on the knob.

Oh how I love FFP MIL/MIL scopes. its sooo easy. If you use it as intended. I will leave it at that.

This thread is really funny reading.

 

[thrusty]

Oh my God, Oh my God!!!!!

When I first started joining forums many years ago I never understood why the senior members always got so upset when the newbies kept asking the same damn question every week. Well this one subject (MILs) has totally made me understand why.

If I gave you the blueprints to build a house and it used jellybeans as the unit of measure and I gave you a tape measure and a laser calibrated in jelly beans. Would you build the house or waste 4 weeks figuring out how many jellybeans in a snickers??

You have a ruler in front of you. If the turrets and the reticle are both calibrated in light years then it doesn't matter.

The only time MILS and MOA should be used together is when the turrets and reticle don't match (which should be a crime really).

MILS are a base ten system and so is the Metric system, but that doesn't make MILS exclusive to the Metric system. Hence the statement "the is nothing metric about MILs".

I understand that linear measurements are involved, But if you ranged a target at 568 yards and you used a dope chart or software to figure your "come ups" and it said 18 jellybeans and that matched your turrets, dial it and send it. If the reticle then showed you were 3 jellybeans high dial it again and send it.

Why is everyone making this so damn confusing. I truly believe the reason America hasn't adopted the Metric system (NOT RELATED TO MILS) is because for some damn reason most CAN NOT wrap their head around how simple it is. Most people don't make it past 5 grade math.

Thanks - you saved me the time and anxiety of typing this for the hundredth time. +1

 

[corey4]

maybe my title was a bit confusing as well.

but like i said in my original post, i wasn't sure how to ask my question.

my question has been answered. use the ruler provided in the scope. and it really is that easy. miss my 3, dial in 3.

hopefully i can make it out tomorrow to give it a go.

somehow the topic turned to mil/metric argument.

i was confusing myself because i was trying to convert MIL to inches the same way i was used to converting MOA to inches.

next time, i am going to try and think in MIL and not inches or jellybeans. BTW, awesome analogy! lol

 

[3DHUSKER]

maybe my title was a bit confusing as well.

but like i said in my original post, i wasn't sure how to ask my question.

my question has been answered. use the ruler provided in the scope. and it really is that easy. miss my 3, dial in 3.

hopefully i can make it out tomorrow to give it a go.

somehow the topic turned to mil/metric argument.

i was confusing myself because i was trying to convert MIL to inches the same way i was used to converting MOA to inches.

next time, i am going to try and think in MIL and not inches or jellybeans. BTW, awesome analogy! lol

I am glad you got it. Sometimes things get out of hand here as you see.

 

[GlockBlock]

Radians are metric in as much as they are SI derived.

I don’t know if you are just stubbornly digging in, or if you have a limited view of what constitutes the concept of ‘metric’. Metric does not only pertain to linear measurements. It encompasses many different units of measure including things like temperature and time.

Please do elaborate for us minions on the metric time units. I gotta hear this.

 

[damoncali]

Please do elaborate for us minions on the metric time units. I gotta hear this.

The metric time unit is seconds.

 

[Joop]

The metric time unit is seconds.

Okay, but how many MOA does that come out to?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/e6T4OMBaoWM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

OP, Just listen to what Rob said and you'll be fine.

 

[proneshooter]

Because not all scopes have reticles that are graduated. And some people still use iron sights. The concepts are still relevant.

Wrong again. I spent years shooting NRA Highpower and never did I stop to wonder how many inches away from center my shot was. Guess why? The freaking scoring rings are the same size (in MOA) regardless of the distance and the sights had 1/4 MOA clicks.

If I'm on an edge 10 at 3, I click four left and fire. The ten ring is 2 MOA. Always. Regardless of how far away it is. So I could not give a FF how wide that ten ring is in inches.

We're shooting rifles, not solving differential equations.......

 

[damoncali]

Wrong again. I spent years shooting NRA Highpower and never did I stop to wonder how many inches away from center my shot was. Guess why? The freaking scoring rings are the same size (in MOA) regardless of the distance and the sights had 1/4 MOA clicks.

If I'm on an edge 10 at 3, I click four left and fire. The ten ring is 2 MOA. Always. Regardless of how far away it is. So I could not give a FF how wide that ten ring is in inches.

We're shooting rifles, not solving differential equations.......

You're still converting a distance(edge of 10 ring to center) to an angle (1MOA). You are using your knowledge of the target size to say "The my shot is 6 inches away from center because the ten ring is 12", at 600 yards, that means I'm off 1MOA". It's just so ingrained in you that you don't realize it. You *have to* unless your sight does it for you with a newfangled graduated reticle.

It's exactly the same process as guessing how far off you are in inches, converting to MOA, and making a sight correction. You just have the luxury of the target rings to help you make a better guess. And you know this stuff so it's second nature. As you should. Doesn't mean you cant or shouldn't use the convenience of a graduated reticle if you've got one.

Put another way, if the target is a black circle and I hit at 2 o'clock half way from center to edge, what should my adjustment be to hit dead center? I can't tell unless I know two things: how far away the target is and how big the target is. Only then can I convert to moa/mils. Using a graduated reticle will let you adjust without that info, and that's great, but people should learn to work without them first, in my opinion, because not every rifle has that feature.

 

[DCR]

OK, let me give you a problem.

You have a scope with a duplex reticle. No subtensions other than the transition between thin and thick stadia. Your 30-06 rifle is zeroed at 200 yards. There's a deer you want to shoot at 350 yards.

What's your firing solution?

Please show your work.

Um? What? I look at a my dope card. Dial the right elevation and send it! Stop trying to make shit more complicated than it is. If you didn't have the foresight to make a dope card...that's the problem.

 

[105gr]

Here's the part I don't get:
If I have 60" of drop at 500 yds how do I even get to a mil equation to what to dial for the first shot? Ofcoarse if I miss I can easily correct in mils or MOA regardless of distance but what if Im trying to hit it the first time?

 

[damoncali]

Here's the part I don't get:
If I have 60" of drop at 500 yds how do I even get to a mil equation to what to dial for the first shot? Ofcoarse if I miss I can easily correct in mils or MOA regardless of distance but what if Im trying to hit it the first time?

That's why the math matters. 1 mil = 3.6" at 100 yards, or 18" at 500 yards (5 x 3.6"). So 60" / 18" = 3.3 mils.

or, the more complicated way (or maybe simpler, depending on your point of view),

500 yards = 18,000 inches. So, the angle = atan(60/18000)*1000 =3.3 mils.

 

[105gr]

Thats the simplest way to convert inches of drop to mils?....cuz I can do that faster in MOA. But I apreciate the response. I really am trying to understand mils. It took me a while for MOA to CLICK also

 

[damoncali]

That's the long and short of it (and why MOA is so convenient with the 1"/100 yards thing). Typically, that part is done by a computer, though, which should be able to spit out your trajectory table in mils, inches, MOA, IPHY, or whatever other wacky measurement someone can come up with. It's the adjusting that you have to do on the fly in your head, and that's why graduated reticles are so handy - you measure mils directly rather than calculating them from two known distances, so there is no math. These scopes are a relatively recent development. I didn't have them growing up, and so I had to learn the other (harder) way.

Some people find it easy just to realize that 1 mil = 3.6 MOA (approximately), and MOA is just an angle, like degrees (in fact, it's 1/60 of a degree). If you know MOA, just divide by 3.6 and you get mils. They're both just units of angular measurement. Mils are special, though, because they are a very smartly chosen unit where the arc length of the angle is exactly equal to the radius. That's why you can do the 1 mil = 1m at 1000m trick. You cannot do that with degrees, because degrees were chosen to be 1/360 of a circle to make navigational math easy (it's easy to divide 360 by a lot of different numbers) and that makes the trick not work.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Because not all scopes have reticles that are graduated. And some people still use iron sights. The concepts are still relevant.

I understand that. If as above the target circles are all MOA then the target becomes you ruler. Target could just as well be MIL. Since I have never seen iron sights in MIL or a ungraduated reticle with MIL turrets (not saying none were ever made) MOA would be the standard for this. Distance from the target doesn't matter. If the target is unmarked, like a animal or flat piece of steel, then with iron sights or ungraduated reticle it is just a wild ass guess on how much to adjust no matter the linear distance.

Also I keep reading, if you are 3" off MOA is better. MOA is not a linear measurement. If you are 3" off you can't pick up the gun and move it 3" perpendicular to the target and be on target. you will be way off. MOA (and MILs) are angular measurements either with adjustments or holds you are figuring the amount of muzzle or sight movement required to move the shot as needed. I could be off on my math just a bit but should be close, .040" muzzle movement is 12" at 1000yds. The angle "opens up" . The gun or the sights didn't move 12". How do you think they get 25 mils or 120 MOA adjustments in to a scope, that amount probably isn't 3/8" total movement.

 

[105gr]

I got the number off of.....oh.....LIGHTBULB!

 

[Tim_WNC]

so, let's say i was off 1.5mil at 100 yds, at least that is what the read out on the scope was. i was trying to not fall into the habit of being off 1.5". since my scope is .1mil per click, does that mean i should have moved my turrets 15 times? because i did that, and i was way off.

As a new Vortex owner myself, I have to keep reminding myself that the subtentions (dots) each represent 0.2 mil, not a full mil. So, if you were reading "1.5 dots" at 100yds, your correction was actually 0.3 MILS/3 clicks, not 1.5 mil/15 clicks.

 

[2ndamendfan]

500 yards = 18,000 inches. So, the angle = atan(60/18000)*1000 =3.3 mils.

No metrics involved

 

[Deleted member 10043]

(Inches/3.6)/(yards/100)=mil adjustment. This is useful for sighting in correction or trajectory validation.

Inches is the amount off course.
Yards is distance to target.

No metrics
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

[proneshooter]

You're still converting a distance(edge of 10 ring to center) to an angle (1MOA). You are using your knowledge of the target size to say "The my shot is 6 inches away from center because the ten ring is 12", at 600 yards, that means I'm off 1MOA". It's just so ingrained in you that you don't realize it. You *have to* unless your sight does it for you with a newfangled graduated reticle.

It's exactly the same process as guessing how far off you are in inches, converting to MOA, and making a sight correction. You just have the luxury of the target rings to help you make a better guess. And you know this stuff so it's second nature. As you should. Doesn't mean you cant or shouldn't use the convenience of a graduated reticle if you've got one.

Put another way, if the target is a black circle and I hit at 2 o'clock half way from center to edge, what should my adjustment be to hit dead center? I can't tell unless I know two things: how far away the target is and how big the target is. Only then can I convert to moa/mils. Using a graduated reticle will let you adjust without that info, and that's great, but people should learn to work without them first, in my opinion, because not every rifle has that feature.

Wrong again.

Once a smart shooter realizes that the NRA HP bullseye target ring diameters are the same MOA regardless of the target distance, inches never again enter the mind. Once I hit the KD range, not once did I go through the convoluted thought process you do. See edge ten hit, click four into center. That fast.

Plus if you've ever shot HP you would know that most databooks have an MOA grid superposed over the target diagram, which makes knowing the actual diameter of each scoring ring completely irrelevant.

 

[corey4]

As a new Vortex owner myself, I have to keep reminding myself that the subtentions (dots) each represent 0.2 mil, not a full mil. So, if you were reading "1.5 dots" at 100yds, your correction was actually 0.3 MILS/3 clicks, not 1.5 mil/15 clicks.

this is the redticle i have. the blue dot is what i measured thru the scope at 100 yds.

so what should have i dialed into the scope?

 

[Notso]

Oh my God, Oh my God!!!!!

Most people don't make it past 5th grade math.

I think you're being very generous.

 

[Notso]

this is the redticle i have. the blue dot is what i measured thru the scope at 100 yds.

so what should have i dialed into the scope?

Dial (or hold) 1.4 mils R and .5 mils UP.

My personal technique is I always dial the elevation but hold the wind. Once you are on in the vertical, I find holding wind allows me to make more subtle corrections as the wind changes downwind - especially if you have a flag or something in the FOV that you can see as it goes up and down. I like this rather than chasing the wind with the turrets. Just my $.02

 

[Pinecone]

You're still converting a distance(edge of 10 ring to center) to an angle (1MOA). You are using your knowledge of the target size to say "The my shot is 6 inches away from center because the ten ring is 12", at 600 yards, that means I'm off 1MOA". It's just so ingrained in you that you don't realize it. You *have to* unless your sight does it for you with a newfangled graduated reticle.

No, he is using knowledge of the target size in MOA to make a correction. Just like used a graduated reticle.

1 MOA off, adjust 4 clicks. Edge of 10 ring is 1 MOA. It doesn't matter if at the 200, 300 or 600 yard line.

Why convert 1 MOA to 2 inches (at 200 yards, 3 inches at 300 and 6 inches at 600), back to 1 MOA to 4 clicks?

 

[thrusty]

What are we discussing again? lol

 

[105gr]

How big an inch is.....

 

[Tim_WNC]

As a new Vortex owner myself, I have to keep reminding myself that the subtentions (dots) each represent 0.2 mil, not a full mil. So, if you were reading "1.5 dots" at 100yds, your correction was actually 0.3 MILS/3 clicks, not 1.5 mil/15 clicks.

my mistake....I have the Second Focal Plane version which subtends 0.2 mil per dot, your FFP uses full 1mil per dot. My bad.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I think you're being very generous.

this is the redticle i have. the blue dot is what i measured thru the scope at 100 yds.

so what should have i dialed into the scope?

It's a ruler, Corey. Come on. You even have the instructions on the image. Fuck the subtensions. There is a horizontal and vertical ruler. Just measure it. You have a large blue dot. It isn't like diving off a tower into a bucket. Keep it simple.

 

[damoncali]

No, he is using knowledge of the target size in MOA to make a correction. Just like used a graduated reticle.

1 MOA off, adjust 4 clicks. Edge of 10 ring is 1 MOA. It doesn't matter if at the 200, 300 or 600 yard line.

Why convert 1 MOA to 2 inches (at 200 yards, 3 inches at 300 and 6 inches at 600), back to 1 MOA to 4 clicks?

This is how deeply ingrained this stuff is, which is why there is so much confusion. MOA is angles. Targets are flat. They are measured in distance (inches) and placed at a distance (yards). There is no such thing as a 1 MOA ring. There is such a thing as a ring that covers 1 MOA at 100 yards. There are three numbers we care about: target size, target distance, and angle. We HAVE to have the angle, because it's how our sights work. How we get it is by reading it off the scope or by calculating it from the two known (or guessed) distances.

If you hold an MR-1 target in your hands, how big is the 10 ring in MOA? There is no answer to that question because you don't know how far away someone's going to put it. It might get used at 500 yards or 600 yards. Or maybe the local range just uses them at 700 for kicks. My local range has them at something like 630 yards. Sure, it was designed to be used at 600. How do you suppose the guy who made the MR target decided to make the 10 ring 12"? He calculated what 2 MOA would be at 600 yards.

High power targets are measured in inches, and placed at yards. This fact allows you to *calculate* the MOA that will move the impact from ring to ring. You are not measuring rings directly.

Looking through a scope, you do not have to know how far away your target is or how big it is. It's different. You do not even need to know what units your scope is in to use it properly to make an adjustment (leaving mismatched scopes aside as they're just ridiculous). You cannot do that on the high power range.


But lets get off high power, which is a red herring and a special case where someone has done the math for you in advance. Suppose I put a round circle on the range and you hit the edge at 3 o'clock. What correction do you make to hit the center? You do not have a graduated scope, just a plain one.

The reason for all this confusion is shorthand. People and ballistics calculators refer to distances as MOA all the time, but it's tricky because whenever someone does that, there is another implied distance - the range. It has to be there or it won't make sense. A bullet doesn't drop 10 MOA, it drops a distance covered by 10 MOA at a specified distance. That's too much to say, so we shorthand it to MOA. This is confusing to the novice, who starts to think of distances in terms of MOA, which is wrong and will get you in trouble when things start moving around.

 

[Joop]

Dial (or hold) 1.4 mils R and .5 mils UP.

This. However, the blue dot is fairly large in that graphic, so it could possibly be 1.5 Rt. and .5 up, but at 100 yards it's not going to make much difference (using the subtensions to measure will get you more precise if you need it, and eventually you will, but I would just try to focus on the basics, first). You could dial those values into your turrets and use a center hold on the target for your next shot, or hold so that your POA is where the blue dot is (assuming that the blue dot is the POI of your last shot, or where your dope tells you to hold/dial to). Either will work and this will hold true at whatever range you are shooting with this scope. So, how many inches, centimeters, gnat ass hairs, etc. is that? The answer is that it doesn't matter, because it's 1.5 mils right and .5 up. It's that simple.

John

Edit to add: One thing to keep in mind regarding windage; if you are hitting to the left, the wind is coming from the right. Always dial INTO the wind (the direction that the wind is coming FROM).

 

[damoncali]

No metrics involved

It's metric alright. If it weren't, I'd have to convert 60/18000 into radians before plugging it into atan. But it's already in radians, which are metric by definition.

Getting hung up on whether it is metric or not is a mistake that doesn't help anyone. Mea culpa. But radians are metric

 

[roggom]

So should I trade in my Millett MIL for a Huskema MOA? Only problem is my Mosin rangefinder reads in Arshins. Dangit. BTW its made from wood.

 

[thrusty]

Suppose I put a round circle on the range and you hit the edge at 3 o'clock. What correction do you make to hit the center? You do not have a graduated scope, just a plain one.

At this point you are guessing. You're using equipment that's not designed to aid you in any way. Thus, unless you know the exact distance, exact size of the target AND the exact measurement from the center to where you hit...You cannot make a absolute correction...only an estimated one. A good marksmen who was aware of what their previous hold was will be able to easily correct (without dialing) and hit the center as long as the wind or other variables hadn't changed.

 

[Notso]

Oh my God, Oh my God!!!!!

I understand that linear measurements are involved, But if you ranged a target at 568 yards and you used a dope chart or software to figure your "come ups" and it said 18 jellybeans and that matched your turrets, dial it and send it. If the reticle then showed you were 3 jellybeans high dial it again and send it.

2AFan - I've been on JBM for the last hour trying to get some dope in jellybeans but I can't make it work. BTW - are we talking about metric jellybeans or imperial jellybeans? There IS a difference.

 

[corey4]

As a new Vortex owner myself, I have to keep reminding myself that the subtentions (dots) each represent 0.2 mil, not a full mil. So, if you were reading "1.5 dots" at 100yds, your correction was actually 0.3 MILS/3 clicks, not 1.5 mil/15 clicks.

this is the redticle i have. the blue dot is what i measured thru the scope at 100 yds.

so what should have i dialed into the scope?

It's a ruler, Corey. Come on. You even have the instructions on the image. Fuck the subtensions. There is a horizontal and vertical ruler. Just measure it. You have a large blue dot. It isn't like diving off a tower into a bucket. Keep it simple.

i understand your frustration with the simple questions people ask, but we FNGs do appreciate the time you guys take to clear up the stupid simple clarifications, at least i do.

the seabees post threw me off. i read the book prior to going to the range when i put the scope on. i pulled the book out again after i read his post, and thought to myself "WTF? how did i screw that up?". that is why i posted the pic of the exact reticle and the POI/POA.

and yes, the blue dot was the POI.

WNC seabee, welcome to the forum!