Thanks! Nothing like having my first post be a big 'ol steamy pile of wrong info! =)
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes understanding MILs
- Thread starter corey4
- Start date
Thanks! Nothing like having my first post be a big 'ol steamy pile of wrong info! =)
the blue metric ones are a mother fucker to dial in compared to the red imperial ones, just an FYI.
This is exactly my point. If you do not have a way to measure angles, you must know or guess at distance to target and on target. And then you have to do a little simple math (or write it down ahead of time). And that is a useful skill for those of us who do not have graduated reticles. Maybe it is going the way of the stick shift, but there are still plenty of iron sighted and plain sighted rifles out there.
The OP's question was answered (correctly) in something like the 3rd post - just hold the reticle on the target and measure. Just thought folks would want to understand how it works. A lot of people seem to be reluctant to learn about this, and I don't understand why. Even if you use a graduated scope, this stuff built in the language of shooting. It's pretty fundamental, and something a marksman should strive to learn about even if they suck at math.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
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
Trying to keep it civil here, we are all here to learn. But I have to say WTF?
In your problem 60 is the inches of drop divided by 18000 which is the inches in distances. All you numbers are imperial units yet you some how believe you received a metric unit answer. How the hell is that possible.
So what is the area of a rectangle that is 50 yards wide and 820 meters long. Without converting something you get an answer that is meaningless, and even then not very accurate.
how about the volume of a cylinder 12 centimeters tall with a diameter of 8 inches. What is the Average daily temperature for a 30 days if on the odd days I use Fahrenheit and the even days I use Celsius.
Radians while more recognized by the metric system (purely because they both use a base 10 decimal system) are universal the USA could start using Radian tomorrow and it would NOT affect our, inch, foot, yard, mile one damn bit.
someone else wrote something like this once:
Radian equals-
1 foot at 1000 feet
1 cm at 1000 cm
1 yd at 1000 yd
1 meter at 1000 meters
1 kilometer at 1000 kilometers
1 mile at 1000 miles
1 light year at 1000 light years
I hope I'm not coming of as offensive, because that's certainly not my intention. This metric thing is almost purely academic, and is of no real consequence. You have been warned
.The metric system defines units for physical measurement. Each "thing" gets ONE unit. For mass, it is grams. For length, it is meters, for time it is seconds, etc. etc. You add a prefix to denote fractions or multiples of that unit (always a power of ten) - kilogram, kilosecond, kilometer.
Some of these things are fundamental - mass, length, time, etc. There are other units which are derived from those units. Like force, where the units are kg*m/s^2, which is also known as a newton in the metric system.
Radians are like that. A radian is defined as meters/meter. (Think about distance on target vs distance to target - those are the two "meters" involved). The meters cancel themselves out, leaving radians dimensionless. That is why they work with everything. Any equation that works on radians must receive a dimensionless number as an input. (Like the atan I used in the post above - the input was in/in, which is dimensionless. If you put degrees into an atan function with your calculator, you will get the wrong answer.) Even though I calculated the angle with english units, the angle itself was metric - it was atan(60/18000) - a dimensionless, metric angle. Yes, that's a little bit of a paradox. What it isn't is degrees or something else that isn't metric.
You can mix units to your hearts content, but that's not what I did there. What I did was take advantage of the fact that the units cancel themselves out. In your example of the area defined by 10 yards by 20 meters, the answer is 200 yard*meters. yard*meter is a derived unit, and makes perfect sense. It's just that nobody uses them, so it's weird.
But, the metric system, by definition, uses radians as the official unit of measurement. A mil is a miliradian - 1/1000 of a radian. It's as metric as it gets. The military screwed this up, by redefining mils, but it seems like we've more or less recovered from that. Most scopes these days seem to use true metric mils.
Where this makes more sense is if you want to compare the defacto english unit of angle (the degree) to the metric unit of radians. You can do that. 1 radian = 57.29 degrees. In that context, the parallels with meters and yards is more clear.
Yes, radians have been around longer than the metric system, and so have seconds. But both are metric units because the people who define the metric system (aka the SI system) say so. Minutes, hours, days, etc are not metric - only seconds, if you're wondering.
Why I take issue with the statement "there is nothing metric about mils" without further explanation is that it obfuscates the simple fact that a radian is just a unit of measure for an angle. It's like a degree, but bigger. It also has some special significance that makes some math easier, which is why it was chosen to be such a funny number in the first place (by some very smart people long ago). If you take a line, pin it at one end one end, and rotate it around that pin, you will sweep an arc with the other end. The angle that you rotate it in radians times the length of the line will be exactly equal to the length of that arc. This makes a lot of math very easy, and is why you can say 1 mil will cover 1m at 1000m. (This only works for very small angles, but that is all we use in shooting, so it's fine. For small angles, the the arc is almost a straight line).
When you think about mils as plain old angles, this all boils down to high school trig. It's when people think about mils as some sort of "system" that they tend to get confused.
Edit: fixed some typos - also, in an earlier post, I said that 60/18000 was radians - that also was a typo - what I meant was that the output of atan was radians. Even I get confused when dealing with dimensionless numbers.
Last edited:
So what is the big deal against counting clicks? When I was shooting MOA I would not take my head off the stock, I just reached up and counted clicks. Now I am to take my head off the stock and look at the turret and count little white lines? It would take more time to look at the turret an figure out what 1.7 mils is.
How long does it take you to look at a ruler and find 1.5 inches? Have you seen a mil turret? You don't count white lines. You dial to a number. It's very easy. Very fast. Try it out sometime. The only difference between a mil turret and a moa turret is the number of lines between the numbers.
Last edited:
I LEARNED HOW TO MEASURE TODAY!!!
ya know, it really is that simple. MILs are in deed MILs. are they metric? i dunno. are they metric based? i dunno. i'm not an engineer, scientist, or an intelligent person; just a hillbilly. i just know that from the help i received over the last few days, that it really is that simple. off by 3.5 MILs, dial it in! whoda thunk it!
so anyways, i went to the range today. i had a few projects i wanted to work on. first was to shoot at 200 yds for the first time; (1) to reach out a bit further and challenge myself so i can move up 3,4,500yds (2) i have a mcree chassis and a HS precision stock. i was testing them both today to see which one i liked better. i will have a link to the thread that i will start later tonight (see EDIT below).
i originally had the 5R/mcree sighted in for 100yds. i shot a few nice .75MOA groups. i then slapped the HS stock on to see which i liked better. (i wont go over that in this thread see EDIT below).
after i slapped on the HS, at 100yds, i was ~1.0 MIL high (just for the sake of it, it was ~4". calm down, you will see why i referenced this later). i wasn't going for bulls eyes, just good consistent groups, so i left the reticle where it was. i shot my group, and then proceeded to move onto 200 next. it was WAY high, ~8"! immediately i started to do math...then i stopped. use the ruler dummy! i looked, saw 1.0 MIL. the same exact measurement on my ruler at 200yds as it was at 100yds...hmmmm...LIGHTBULB! i scanned back over to the 100yd target to double check. fucking sure as shit, 1.0 MIL. so, i dialed in (didn't count clicks like rob01 said, just looked at the numbers, way easier) 1.0 MIL...WHAM...dead on for the elevation at 200...WHAM...dead on at 100. fuck me! that was easy! i actually LOLed.
i had the urge to start doing the math so i could quantify it better to myself as far as how off my POA/POI on my groups switching from chassis to stock. but that math/converting/thinking ended real quick.
so i moved out 300. different story. i took a lot longer to get dialed, but i think i am close. my groups were a good 4". i was kinda disappointed. but on the other hand, i had 6 rounds left when i had an idea. so i grabbed 5 clay pigeons from my truck, hung them with twigs from the 300 plywood backer. 6 shoots, 5 dead clays. not bad for my first time i guess.
on a side note, and you guys already know this, it is just something that i ran into today. parallax can be a bitch! when i first moved to 200yds, i was all over the place. i was cursing the gun, the ammo, the mcree chassis, the scope. i was pissed! a full box of ammo trying to get a decent, consistent group. the group size was an honest 5". after i threw my mental tantrum, i sat down to smoke a cigarette, and noticed my parallax was set on the 75yd mark. (for me, that is were the setting needs to be at 100yds. at 200yds, i need my setting to be at the 150 mark). LIGHTBULB! i had a few nice 1-1.5" groups after i figured that out.
by the way, a jellybean is .152 MILs. seriously. jelly belly brand are .55" long. there are different size jelly beans, so i guess we can have metric and imperial jelly beans.
again, thanks guys. it was a simple solution to a self inflicted, over complicated problem.
EDIT:
watch this area for for my mcree chassis/HS stock shoot out
added: http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...1113-hs-precision-stock-vs-mcree-chassis.html
<a href="http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/corey762/media/200yds_zps03fc8d85.jpeg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1248.photobucket.com/albums/hh491/corey762/200yds_zps03fc8d85.jpeg" border="0" alt=" photo 200yds_zps03fc8d85.jpeg"/></a>
ya know, it really is that simple. MILs are in deed MILs. are they metric? i dunno. are they metric based? i dunno. i'm not an engineer, scientist, or an intelligent person; just a hillbilly. i just know that from the help i received over the last few days, that it really is that simple. off by 3.5 MILs, dial it in! whoda thunk it!
so anyways, i went to the range today. i had a few projects i wanted to work on. first was to shoot at 200 yds for the first time; (1) to reach out a bit further and challenge myself so i can move up 3,4,500yds (2) i have a mcree chassis and a HS precision stock. i was testing them both today to see which one i liked better. i will have a link to the thread that i will start later tonight (see EDIT below).
i originally had the 5R/mcree sighted in for 100yds. i shot a few nice .75MOA groups. i then slapped the HS stock on to see which i liked better. (i wont go over that in this thread see EDIT below).
after i slapped on the HS, at 100yds, i was ~1.0 MIL high (just for the sake of it, it was ~4". calm down, you will see why i referenced this later). i wasn't going for bulls eyes, just good consistent groups, so i left the reticle where it was. i shot my group, and then proceeded to move onto 200 next. it was WAY high, ~8"! immediately i started to do math...then i stopped. use the ruler dummy! i looked, saw 1.0 MIL. the same exact measurement on my ruler at 200yds as it was at 100yds...hmmmm...LIGHTBULB! i scanned back over to the 100yd target to double check. fucking sure as shit, 1.0 MIL. so, i dialed in (didn't count clicks like rob01 said, just looked at the numbers, way easier) 1.0 MIL...WHAM...dead on for the elevation at 200...WHAM...dead on at 100. fuck me! that was easy! i actually LOLed.
i had the urge to start doing the math so i could quantify it better to myself as far as how off my POA/POI on my groups switching from chassis to stock. but that math/converting/thinking ended real quick.
so i moved out 300. different story. i took a lot longer to get dialed, but i think i am close. my groups were a good 4". i was kinda disappointed. but on the other hand, i had 6 rounds left when i had an idea. so i grabbed 5 clay pigeons from my truck, hung them with twigs from the 300 plywood backer. 6 shoots, 5 dead clays. not bad for my first time i guess.
on a side note, and you guys already know this, it is just something that i ran into today. parallax can be a bitch! when i first moved to 200yds, i was all over the place. i was cursing the gun, the ammo, the mcree chassis, the scope. i was pissed! a full box of ammo trying to get a decent, consistent group. the group size was an honest 5". after i threw my mental tantrum, i sat down to smoke a cigarette, and noticed my parallax was set on the 75yd mark. (for me, that is were the setting needs to be at 100yds. at 200yds, i need my setting to be at the 150 mark). LIGHTBULB! i had a few nice 1-1.5" groups after i figured that out.
by the way, a jellybean is .152 MILs. seriously. jelly belly brand are .55" long. there are different size jelly beans, so i guess we can have metric and imperial jelly beans.
again, thanks guys. it was a simple solution to a self inflicted, over complicated problem.
EDIT:
watch this area for for my mcree chassis/HS stock shoot out
added: http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...1113-hs-precision-stock-vs-mcree-chassis.html
<a href="http://s1248.photobucket.com/user/corey762/media/200yds_zps03fc8d85.jpeg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1248.photobucket.com/albums/hh491/corey762/200yds_zps03fc8d85.jpeg" border="0" alt=" photo 200yds_zps03fc8d85.jpeg"/></a>
Attachments
Last edited:
On ya Corey. It looks like you are firing 10 shot groups. Your grouping is pretty damn good. Don’t hit yourself over the head if they open up a bit at 300 and over. The slightest bit of variance in wind will do that to you. Just to clarify, in case you don’t realise it, 4” at 300 yards is still a respectable ~1.3 MOA, or in your newly acquired language, 0.37 mrad.
Last edited:
Posts 114 and 115 show what seems to happen here a lot. People claiming to disagree with each other over things they probably don’t really disagree with, anywhere near as much as they like to think. It also shows another thing that happens here a lot. People talking past each other.
Here’s what I tend to do. If I’m on target and I like to maintain my cheek-weld and just need to adjust a few clicks based on observing the previous shot, I count my clicks. If I need to switch from 100 to 800, requiring something like 80 or whatever clicks, I read the dial. If I’m setting my scope (prior to first shot) based on my dope sheet, I read my dial.
That appears pretty consistent with what both of you said.
Here’s what I tend to do. If I’m on target and I like to maintain my cheek-weld and just need to adjust a few clicks based on observing the previous shot, I count my clicks. If I need to switch from 100 to 800, requiring something like 80 or whatever clicks, I read the dial. If I’m setting my scope (prior to first shot) based on my dope sheet, I read my dial.
That appears pretty consistent with what both of you said.
The only dig against counting clicks is getting lost. A quick look at the knob to see that you've actually gotten where you meant to go is a cheap sanity check. I get pretty OCD when counting clicks on my high power service rifle at the 600 yard line. More than once, I've gone back to start over, probably needlessly. This is another old vs new thing. Once upon a time we had to count clicks. Then things got fancy and easier.
yeah:
4 inches, when 1 mil= 3.6" at 100 yards:
4" / (3* 3.6) = .37 mils
or in trigonometry:
atan(distance_on_target /distance_to_target) x 1000 = mils
atan(4 / (300*36)) x 1000 = .37 mils
or if you know it in MOA already (3.44 MOA/mil):
1.3 / 3.44 = .37 mils
Last edited:
that's way over my head bro!
so, was my math off on my jelly bean MIL measurement as well?
4 / (300 * 36) * 1000 = 0.37
Divide the target size (group in this case) by the distance (must also be in inches or whatever you are using…but must be the same, so 300 yards * 36 inches in a yard), and multiply by a 1000 (that’s from that 1 in 1000 thing that defines an mrad).
If you were ranging – like snipers sometimes need to do if their laser rangefinder doesn’t work – you change that around a bit. So let’s say you are looking at a 4x4 fencepost, at least you assume that is what it is. And you can only assume based on best interpretation. You would measure the thickness of the post with your reticule and see that it would be around 0.4 mrad. That is about as accurate as you would be able to do it. (It pays to use something bigger if you can, to minimise error) Now you want to work out the unknown range:
4 / (0.4 * 36) * 1000 = 277 yards.
Not bad considering some guesswork and the accuracy with which you’d read the post dimensions in mrads in your reticule.
Note that all you would do is switch the range and the angle in this formula.
A sensible object for snipers to use in urban situations would be what would look like a ‘typical’ front door. That should be around 2 metres high, or 2 yards and 37 jellybeans, or 80 inches.
I’ll now show the first formula in metres and millimetres, so for those who don’t use metres, don’t read on.
102 / (274 * 1000) * 1000 = 0.37 mrad
The first 1000 is to turn the 274 m into mm, so it is consistent with the 102 mm group size.
To make this easier, you can remove both the 1000s from this formula iff you make a habit of measuring the target (group or object) in mm and the range in m. Given that there are 1000 mm in a m, the 2 1000s cancel each other out. So now you have:
102 mm / 274 m = 0.37 mrad
For ranging with the roughly measured 0.4 mrad:
102 mm / 0.4 mrad = 255 m
Divide the target size (group in this case) by the distance (must also be in inches or whatever you are using…but must be the same, so 300 yards * 36 inches in a yard), and multiply by a 1000 (that’s from that 1 in 1000 thing that defines an mrad).
If you were ranging – like snipers sometimes need to do if their laser rangefinder doesn’t work – you change that around a bit. So let’s say you are looking at a 4x4 fencepost, at least you assume that is what it is. And you can only assume based on best interpretation. You would measure the thickness of the post with your reticule and see that it would be around 0.4 mrad. That is about as accurate as you would be able to do it. (It pays to use something bigger if you can, to minimise error) Now you want to work out the unknown range:
4 / (0.4 * 36) * 1000 = 277 yards.
Not bad considering some guesswork and the accuracy with which you’d read the post dimensions in mrads in your reticule.
Note that all you would do is switch the range and the angle in this formula.
A sensible object for snipers to use in urban situations would be what would look like a ‘typical’ front door. That should be around 2 metres high, or 2 yards and 37 jellybeans, or 80 inches.
I’ll now show the first formula in metres and millimetres, so for those who don’t use metres, don’t read on.
102 / (274 * 1000) * 1000 = 0.37 mrad
The first 1000 is to turn the 274 m into mm, so it is consistent with the 102 mm group size.
To make this easier, you can remove both the 1000s from this formula iff you make a habit of measuring the target (group or object) in mm and the range in m. Given that there are 1000 mm in a m, the 2 1000s cancel each other out. So now you have:
102 mm / 274 m = 0.37 mrad
For ranging with the roughly measured 0.4 mrad:
102 mm / 0.4 mrad = 255 m
Damoncali, your post slipped underneath mine so I hadn’t seen it when I posted mine. Just studying it to see how you do it. So your ‘3’ is multiples of 100 yards?
Yes- that's the mil equivalent of "1MOA = 1 inch at 100 Yards." For some reason (perhaps all that MOA conditioning), I find inches at 100 yards sticks in my head, so I use 3.6". Even easier to remember is just 4/3/3.6 = .37 (inches/hundreds of yards/3.6 = mils)
If you've got a calcualtor, I find using trig is by far the easiest to remember. I can never rememebr if I'm multiplying by 3.44 or 3.6 or what, so atan(inches on target/inches to target) = radians is pretty easy for me to come up with on the fly. Got to have a calculator tho.
Last edited:
Fair enough Corey. Just continue to get your head around what you are doing now and at some stage perhaps have a play with my first paragraph. Then don’t worry too much about fully understanding the formula, just plug in the numbers. Group in inches, range in inches, multiply by 1000 and out rolls the angle in mils. It’s not as scary as it looks. (or this one, complements of Damoncali: 4/3/3.6 = .37 (inches/hundreds of yards/3.6 = mils)
Working your group size out in MOA, the usual way with 1 inch at 100 yards is 1 MOA is near enough. I still do that in communication with others, even though that is the only thing for which I still use MOA. Just don’t loose sight of the fact that at 200 yards 1 MOA is 2 inches, and at 300 yards 1 MOA is 3 inches and so on. Remember, MOA (and Mrad) is an angle. A fixed given angle over increasing distances will give increasing groupsizes in inches. That is why your 4 inch group over 300 yards is not that much over 1 MOA.
I think you actually get this, but many don’t. I have seen articles in gun magazines where they get this wrong. Some gun journo taking a new rifle through its paces, being pleased with a 1 inch, 1 MOA group at 100 yards. Then being upset that at 200 yards the group is 2 inches, therefore 2 MOA. NO! That is still 1 MOA. People often have difficulty getting their heads around angles. I don’t say this to be arrogant; its just the way it is. I come across it often in my trade (builder).
I find a good way to explain it is to imagine one of those orange traffic cones as being representative of a fixed angle. Lets say a MOA or a mil. Lay the thing on end and assume the tip to be your position as the shooter. Assume the length of it to be the maximum range of you rifle. Lets say that every 4 inches of length represents 100 yards of range. So at the first 4 inches (100 yards) the cone will have a certain diameter. Let that be representative of your group size. Now go another 4 inches further. The diameter at that point has now increased. But the angle along the cone stays the same.
Working your group size out in MOA, the usual way with 1 inch at 100 yards is 1 MOA is near enough. I still do that in communication with others, even though that is the only thing for which I still use MOA. Just don’t loose sight of the fact that at 200 yards 1 MOA is 2 inches, and at 300 yards 1 MOA is 3 inches and so on. Remember, MOA (and Mrad) is an angle. A fixed given angle over increasing distances will give increasing groupsizes in inches. That is why your 4 inch group over 300 yards is not that much over 1 MOA.
I think you actually get this, but many don’t. I have seen articles in gun magazines where they get this wrong. Some gun journo taking a new rifle through its paces, being pleased with a 1 inch, 1 MOA group at 100 yards. Then being upset that at 200 yards the group is 2 inches, therefore 2 MOA. NO! That is still 1 MOA. People often have difficulty getting their heads around angles. I don’t say this to be arrogant; its just the way it is. I come across it often in my trade (builder).
I find a good way to explain it is to imagine one of those orange traffic cones as being representative of a fixed angle. Lets say a MOA or a mil. Lay the thing on end and assume the tip to be your position as the shooter. Assume the length of it to be the maximum range of you rifle. Lets say that every 4 inches of length represents 100 yards of range. So at the first 4 inches (100 yards) the cone will have a certain diameter. Let that be representative of your group size. Now go another 4 inches further. The diameter at that point has now increased. But the angle along the cone stays the same.
Last edited:
Angles (moa or mils) are three dimensional cones with the point of the cone at the rifle's muzzle. That's what I find easy to visualize. All the math does is try to figure out how big around that cone is at the distance you are interested in.
Now I’ll have to spoil your day Corey. The size of a .55” jelly bean can only be expressed in angular terms over a certain distance. A jelly bean is a linear measurement, like an inch or a cm. So let’s apply that formula:
0.55 / (.152 * 36) * 1000 = 100.5 yards.
Well, fuck my giddy aunt. It would appear that you did indeed measure that bean with your reticule at 100 yards. How did you do that so accurately to .152 mil?
And I just realised something. .55" imperial jelly beans are Boys anti tank rifle turds.
Last edited:
Glad it makes sense now. Just to re-iterate in case it got lost here..... an MOA/MOA scope works exactly the same way. There's nothing magical about MILs. As someone said, the scope could be jellybean/jellybean and still work exactly the same way. I just prefer MIL scopes because I prefer the base 10 and the .1 decimal system better than fractions. And because it is more the world standard.
As an aside, but related subject - one of the things I find the most difficult is when a spotter is calling rounds in inches because they are looking through a spotting scope with no graduations - so they are calling it in an estimate of what they think the miss distance is. I actually prefer NOT having a spotter in that situation because it just gets confusing. I'm usually very good as being able to control recoil and see my own spot but when a spotting is helping and is not talking in MILs - I just have them tell me where the miss is relative to the target such as: "Left edge of the plate about 1/4 plate width in" or "in the dirt about a half plate width right". From there, I can put my reticle on that spot and then use the scope's internal ruler to make the correction in the correct units rather than doing higher math and having to take my shoes off to count higher than 10.
Its sometimes easier to just have someone spot with another Mil scope and speak in the same language rather than use an ungraduated spotting scope. But if that is all you have, get them to stop talking "inches" and instead talk in target sizes (1/2 plate, 1/4 plate, etc) because that will be valid at any range and no math is required to then use your own reticle to measure the correction from that spot.
Better yet, train yourself so that you shoot correctly and control recoil such that you can see your own hits. That's the easiest and most accurate of all.
Now back to post 112 (in addition, or variation, to post 113).
So I’m a sucker for punishment.
That is entirely possible because no systems are incompatible. I could choose to use (I can’t see why I would, but I could) mm and inches together. 1 inch is 25.4 mm. Hell, I could even throw in jelly beans, making sure to observe Notso’s warning in post 103. Other than the fact that it is unusual and not helpful, there is nothing wrong or impossible with expressing my height as 63 inches, 103 mm and 8 imperial jelly beans. I can make that (the answer to this equation if you will) fully metric by converting two numbers or I can make that fully imperial by converting one number.
Just as a side note, this actually shines a light on the difference between metric and imperial measurements. With metrics you go up or down by adding or removing zeros. The metre (in the case of linear measurements) is the base and everything else simply comes from that. The imperial system, however, uses a combination of different ‘things’ that by agreement and standardisation are made to work together reasonably nicely. There are 36 inches in a yard, but there is no intrinsic relationship between an inch and a yard. That is exactly what I did in the above paragraph, except I added a few more things.
Notwithstanding Damoncali’s explanation of yard*metres – which adds an interesting (I learned something) but unnecessarily scientific level to this conversation) – let’s agree that for our daily purposes we do indeed need to convert something to have the answer be meaningful. If that is done correctly (accurately) than the answer will be wholly accurate.
For a metric answer: (50 * 0.9144) * 820 = 37,490.4 m2
For an imperial answer: 50 * (820 * 1.0936) = 44,836.6 sq yards.
Both of these answers are mutually compatible because they can be converted to each other.
This can of course not be done with jelly beans, because jelly beans are round, not square, and because some taste better than others.
Same story. Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin and what ever else is out there, can be converted in any way to match up and lead to an accurate answer in any of the systems.
And this again shows the lack of understanding of what the word ‘metric’ means. Most pixels expended on this thread have been wasted for that reason. In fact, in my earlier posts I purposely mentioned mrads as distinct from ‘metric’, and referred to metric only with regards to linear measurements. That seems to be how many Americans see it. The USA could use anything it likes tomorrow, and so could the rest of the world, and nothing would affect anything a damn bit. In fact, the USA already uses Radians as is evident in the scopes many of you use, and metres (just spelled a bit differently), and whatever else. It just has not been accepted as the official units. As I wrote earlier, everything is compatible with everything else. This erroneous perception of incompatibility really holds people back from broadening their understanding. There is a difference between struggling to see the compatibility – that is, being able to do the conversions – and truly believing that there is no compatibility.
So I’m a sucker for punishment.
That is entirely possible because no systems are incompatible. I could choose to use (I can’t see why I would, but I could) mm and inches together. 1 inch is 25.4 mm. Hell, I could even throw in jelly beans, making sure to observe Notso’s warning in post 103. Other than the fact that it is unusual and not helpful, there is nothing wrong or impossible with expressing my height as 63 inches, 103 mm and 8 imperial jelly beans. I can make that (the answer to this equation if you will) fully metric by converting two numbers or I can make that fully imperial by converting one number.
Just as a side note, this actually shines a light on the difference between metric and imperial measurements. With metrics you go up or down by adding or removing zeros. The metre (in the case of linear measurements) is the base and everything else simply comes from that. The imperial system, however, uses a combination of different ‘things’ that by agreement and standardisation are made to work together reasonably nicely. There are 36 inches in a yard, but there is no intrinsic relationship between an inch and a yard. That is exactly what I did in the above paragraph, except I added a few more things.
Notwithstanding Damoncali’s explanation of yard*metres – which adds an interesting (I learned something) but unnecessarily scientific level to this conversation) – let’s agree that for our daily purposes we do indeed need to convert something to have the answer be meaningful. If that is done correctly (accurately) than the answer will be wholly accurate.
For a metric answer: (50 * 0.9144) * 820 = 37,490.4 m2
For an imperial answer: 50 * (820 * 1.0936) = 44,836.6 sq yards.
Both of these answers are mutually compatible because they can be converted to each other.
This can of course not be done with jelly beans, because jelly beans are round, not square, and because some taste better than others.
Same story. Fahrenheit, Celsius, Kelvin and what ever else is out there, can be converted in any way to match up and lead to an accurate answer in any of the systems.
And this again shows the lack of understanding of what the word ‘metric’ means. Most pixels expended on this thread have been wasted for that reason. In fact, in my earlier posts I purposely mentioned mrads as distinct from ‘metric’, and referred to metric only with regards to linear measurements. That seems to be how many Americans see it. The USA could use anything it likes tomorrow, and so could the rest of the world, and nothing would affect anything a damn bit. In fact, the USA already uses Radians as is evident in the scopes many of you use, and metres (just spelled a bit differently), and whatever else. It just has not been accepted as the official units. As I wrote earlier, everything is compatible with everything else. This erroneous perception of incompatibility really holds people back from broadening their understanding. There is a difference between struggling to see the compatibility – that is, being able to do the conversions – and truly believing that there is no compatibility.
It's easy to over think this subject, and thereby make a simple concept into a complex one. As long as your turrets and reticle match (Mil/Mil) you'll have no problem simply using the reticle for corrections on missed shots... no math, no worries. On a FFP scope it doesn't even matter what magnification you're at, whereas on a SFP scope you'll simply need to be at the correct magnification to make sense of it. It doesn't really matter (at that point) what the unit of measurement is called or based upon, just so long as your turret adjustments correlate to the hash marks in your scope's reticle.
So, let me use this very simple example from when I zeroed my new rifle in at 100 yards the other day:
1) I took a shot, and observed that the shot was on the paper, but not on my aiming dot (a small circular sticker).
2) I used the reticle in my scope to read this shot, and could easily determine that I was 1.5 mils high, and 1.0 mils left of center.
3) I adjusted my turrets based on those numbers, and the scope was zeroed. I didn't need to walk downrange, I didn't need to measure anything on the paper, or do any math.
Similarly, consider the target shooting application of this system:
1) I fire a shot at a 500 yard target in a crosswind.
2) My spotter tells me my shot was "half a mil" left, or I observe this fact myself.
3) Assuming all other variables stay the same with the weather, I can either adjust my hold on the reticle by 0.5 mils, or dial my turret to correct for that half a mil windage error (which correlates to 5 clicks in my scope and is also easily read off of the turret).
Once again, no math is really involved at this juncture.
Personally, after switching from MOA scopes to MIL scopes I've found that I prefer the decimal basis for the MIL system. A lot of people talk of MOA vs MIL as a "standard" vs "metric" issue, and I suppose I can see why people see it that way from a layman's perspective (and I'll admit I'm definitely no mathematician myself). In the practical sense the decimal basis for the mil system is easier to think through in the field than the fractional basis for the MOA system (at least for me). I don't have to think about any fractions, just simple numbers: 6.6 mils is easy: I dial to six mils, then it's just six clicks away... there's a half mil hash mark on my turret, so it's just one click past that hash mark. Sounds complex the way I explained it, but it's quite simple in the real world. Decimals just make sense!
So, let me use this very simple example from when I zeroed my new rifle in at 100 yards the other day:
1) I took a shot, and observed that the shot was on the paper, but not on my aiming dot (a small circular sticker).
2) I used the reticle in my scope to read this shot, and could easily determine that I was 1.5 mils high, and 1.0 mils left of center.
3) I adjusted my turrets based on those numbers, and the scope was zeroed. I didn't need to walk downrange, I didn't need to measure anything on the paper, or do any math.
Similarly, consider the target shooting application of this system:
1) I fire a shot at a 500 yard target in a crosswind.
2) My spotter tells me my shot was "half a mil" left, or I observe this fact myself.
3) Assuming all other variables stay the same with the weather, I can either adjust my hold on the reticle by 0.5 mils, or dial my turret to correct for that half a mil windage error (which correlates to 5 clicks in my scope and is also easily read off of the turret).
Once again, no math is really involved at this juncture.
Personally, after switching from MOA scopes to MIL scopes I've found that I prefer the decimal basis for the MIL system. A lot of people talk of MOA vs MIL as a "standard" vs "metric" issue, and I suppose I can see why people see it that way from a layman's perspective (and I'll admit I'm definitely no mathematician myself). In the practical sense the decimal basis for the mil system is easier to think through in the field than the fractional basis for the MOA system (at least for me). I don't have to think about any fractions, just simple numbers: 6.6 mils is easy: I dial to six mils, then it's just six clicks away... there's a half mil hash mark on my turret, so it's just one click past that hash mark. Sounds complex the way I explained it, but it's quite simple in the real world. Decimals just make sense!
as far as a spotter, no one i know is as into shooting as i am, let alone willing to drop ~$4000 for a rifle/chassis/scope/suppressor combo, so i can forget about that! i want to eventually do competitions, so i figured i would try out MILs. as it turns out, i was using my MOA scope wrong anyways. well, not using it wrong, i wasn't using it as it was designed, ie the ruler in front of my face. yesterday was the first time ever i stretched past 100yds and used the equipment as it was meant to be.
now, i just need some direction on recoil control, follow thru etc.
This has been a very informative thread. Thank you all for the discussion. I was also having a real problem understanding how sighting measurements were used and what they meant. Now I get it. Especially with [MENTION=45125]Notso[/MENTION] explaining the confusion with spotters giving you measurements in inches on target, which would require the mental calculations that seem to get everybody new to the sport messed up. Using the internal measurements on the scope and thinking of misses in relation to those measurements and then just dialing in as necessary is so much easier. Distance to target no longer matters. Great stuff....
updated post #116 with stock/chassis review as promissed
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...1113-hs-precision-stock-vs-mcree-chassis.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...1113-hs-precision-stock-vs-mcree-chassis.html
So I got my (new-to-me) Mark IV today with TMR reticle/MOA turrets. My brain automatically started converting mils to MOA. Then I stopped that nonsense and just dialed the turrets. Its more fun turnin knobs anyway
Uuuuhhh..... isn't the Mk4 TMR a mil reticle with mil subtensions? You're defeating the whole point of this discussion, because if you have MOA turrets and a Mil reticle - you now DO have to do conversions from mil to MOA. You can't just turn knobs by using the reticle as a ruler like we've been saying.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you're fucking with us......
No I get that. But what I was asking is how do you just "dial the turrets" when you have a mixed reticle (mil) and turrets (MOA). In your case you HAVE to think in both MILS and MOAs to arrive at a correct answer. You can't just "dial the turrets", you have to actually do a conversion every time you look through the scope and use the reticle to adjust for a shot. Am I missing something here?
If you're saying you now understand how to do the mil to MOA conversion math to make the adjustments, I get it.
All my scopes are either Mil-Mil or MOA-MOA and FFP. I only want crosshairs and dots. Assuming I am shooting well and am confident that I am hitting where I am aiming I shoot. POI is 1.5 dots from POA. If the turrets are .25 I go 6 clicks. .1 I go 15.
That's how I roll. My problem is good consistent shooting. All the math and complicated reticles confuse me.
Now, some of these new Christmas tree reticles do interest me because I wouldn't have to adjust the turrets I could just adjust the POA to the dot closest to the POI and fire.
Where am I off?
That's how I roll. My problem is good consistent shooting. All the math and complicated reticles confuse me.
Now, some of these new Christmas tree reticles do interest me because I wouldn't have to adjust the turrets I could just adjust the POA to the dot closest to the POI and fire.
Where am I off?
I think we're talking two different things here.... so if you're shooting at 800 yds and you have dope in MOA for that range but see the bullet splash .7 mils low - what are you going to dial into your MOA turret without doing a conversion of some sort?
I shoot with a mk4 TMR....yes it's beginning to suck converting back and forth... However, in this particular case I wouldn't convert, I'd correct by holding .7MIL high on the target and reengage.
But, if I had to dial, I'd estimate 2.5MOA, dial, and shoot. My rule of thumb is 1MIL is approx 3.5MOA....so every .1MIL equates to approx 0.35MOA. If you can memorize the typical numbers you can be on target rather quickly every time.
1MIL ~ 3.5MOA
.7MIL ~ 2.5 MOA
.5MIL ~ 1.75MOA
.3MIL ~ 1MOA
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
