Rifle Scopes Why Mils over IPHY?

[m1a convert]

It seems like most people use Mil/Mil. Why choose that over IPHY? Isn't it a lot easier to do the math if you are shooting in yards to do inch per hundred yards instead of having to convert from mils to yards?

Am I missing something?

Thanks

 

[ewoaf]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I think a lot of it has to do w/ comunication. We all have our little shooting buddies, that we do our thing w/. mine for instance, like most, is a mil oriented kinda guy. If he's spotting for me, or vice versa, it causes problems when he's feeding me mils, and I'm dailaing MOAs, because then I have to stop and do the math in my head. Its just that most people have been so Mil oriented, that its easier to get on the same page w/ another shooter/spotter if you are too.
Secondly, go shop around for a good MOA/MOA, or IPHY/IPHY, scope. MThen go Shop around for the Mil setups and see how many more there are. I was thinking about a MOA setup until I started shopping for one. There are way more choices when you look for a mil based setup.

 

[dmg308]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

One of many threads
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...rue#Post1153237

An article on the homepage
http://www.snipershide.com/node/1

One more
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...rue#Post1172733

This should give you enough if you need more just search function and you will be buried in threads.Franks write up pretty much covers it though.

 

[Pete E]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Firstly why are you using Yards? Most of the rest of the first world has been using Meters for years and that includes the US Military...

Mil's are a decimal based system so complement the Metric system perfectly.

Also, why are you thinking in terms of linear drop or windage adjustments?

Use a Mil based FFP reticule in your scope and a similar one in your spotting scope, and just work directly off Mil's...no need to calculate linear measurements at all...

You could do exactly the same with an MOA scope providing the reticule and the turrets, and your spotting scope are all MOA...

Where the problem comes is trying to convert one to the other because you scope relicule is in Mil, your turrets are in MOA and your buddy is shouting out your shot needs to come 16" right!

Regards,

Peter

 

[DAFAR]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I am sorry but In this aspect I do not care about the rest of the worl or the usmilitary I grew up using inches and feet, I will never have to call in for arty support so for me,I think the MOA recticle is the best thing to come along since sliced bread, ther is alot less conversion to do. WHen I do make turret adjustments they are in clicks, MOA clicks it just seems easier to have my recticle my brain and my turrets all speaking the same language
saying all that I will add this Opinions are like like as$%^&*% we all have one and they all stink mine is no better or worse than anyone elses the shooter must decide what will work best for them.

 

[doc76251]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I love these arguments..........

It doesn't matter what you use as long as you can use it effectively. If you can think in metric terms then use either one or all three. It doesn't matter. The same goes for MOA or IPHY.

The reticles in the scopes subtend in measurements of an ARC.

The only difference is in the divisions on the reticle and how small or large the white space is and how accurately you can determine the distance between each stadia.

FWIW the Milradian system is not "Metric". It subtends 1 Yard at 100 yards and 1 meter at 100 meters. Which came first the Chicken or the Egg?

Cheers,

Doc

 

[Pete E]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DAFAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am sorry but In this aspect I do not care about the rest of the worl or the usmilitary I grew up using inches and feet, I will never have to call in for arty support.. </div></div>

Sorry, I thought most guys here had a Forces background of some sort

Anyways, what about when your out huntsing?? Don't you guys use topo maps overlayed with 1km grids for giving grid refs ect??


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DAFAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">for me,I think the MOA recticle is the best thing to come along since sliced bread, ther is alot less conversion to do. WHen I do make turret adjustments they are in clicks, MOA clicks it just seems easier to have my recticle my brain and my turrets all speaking the same language </div></div>

And I said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pete E</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You could do exactly the same with an MOA scope providing the reticule and the turrets, and your spotting scope are all MOA...
</div></div>

So I think we basically agree that things are a bit easier if you choose a Mil/Mil set up or a MOA/MOA set up...its the mix and match approach thats a bit more complicated but not overly so...

Regards,

Peter

 

[Pete E]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doc76251</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
FWIW the Milradian system is not "Metric". It subtends 1 Yard at 100 yards and 1 meter at 100 meters. Doc </div></div>

I never said Mil system was "Metric", I said it was decimal based and completements the Meteric system, which it does...

 

[WYK]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

As previously stated - you'd use mils because you are used to them, your partner is used to mils, or you need to communicate with joint armed forces that use only mils, or you do not live in the United States or England. If you don't do this often, there is no advantage of MOA over IPHY over MILs. Using metric with mils is no real advantage to using yards unless you are very good at estimating target size in centimeters and then can easily use that number and divide it by mils and multiply by 10(and I know some folks who can do this).

The MIL system compliments metric just as well as it does yards - they both require decimal crunching to get your range estimation sorted.

Where the IPHY has an advantage is in that if you are used to dealing in inches and yards(and many of us are, even the ones whom spent a few years in the military), you know your target in inches, and if you can add two zeroes at the end of the #, you are good to go. If you go hunting for coyote, and you know they average 18" tall, or as guide tells you this, your calculations are literally half way done. Ya know the size and simply divide 18 by your reticule hashes and tack on a couple zeroes and you have your yardage. No need to turn the inches into metric. And you run in to more sweet spots, per se, than with a mil reticule.

While out in the boonies, you are on your own for range guestimation. But, if you know your target in inches, it's just that much easier to have an IPHY. In the city - the advantage increases drastically due to signs being standardized in inches.:

You will find a lot more objects in America that are exactly 12, 18", 24, 36, 48" like railroad tracks, street signs, etc. to range off of. On nearly every non major roadway intersection in the US, UK, Mexico, and some of Europe, is a stop sign to range off of. US 'Stop' signs(which are adopted by the UN as standard) are 30" for street roads, and 36" for multi-lane expressways, with 10" letters or 12" letters respectively. So you are now plugging in 10 or 12 VS 25.4 or 30.48, and 36 vs 91.44 in to your 'formula'. But that formula is unnecessary in IPHY as you already know you divide by your hash marks and tack on two 00 in an IPHY reticule - something easy to do in your head. The #'s on a speed limit sign are 10", with the "SPEED LIMIT" lettering being 4", as is most official lettering like "TRUCKS" or "FLOODING", "BUS LANE", TAXI LANE" etc. that you see on standard white signs. If you see the world in inches, this makes it easier.

This guide helps ranging in the city(for police officers, and for civilian unrest

or out in the country if you find a standard sign whether near a hiking trails, power lines, gas mains, falling rocks, Elevation signs, and most street name signs, etc.) :

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Regulatory.pdf

Rows with the bordered "C" are the standard regulatory size you mostly encounter.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, as nearly everything in the US is based on inches - wheels, doors, windows, bricks, sidewalks, mail boxes(42" is the official federal height requirement for the stand), license plates(6"X12" in NA), etc. etc. In the US, it's an inches world...

You'll have to pardon me if I get a little math wrong, I'm just a simple arm chair commando...


WYK

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I'm old school (old geezer,, whatever)

I <span style="font-style: italic">think</span> in inches & yards.

Whenever someone says "engine is 'x' liters" I automatically convert to cubic inches in my head.



IPHY/IPHY for me.

 

[m1a convert]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Who make IPHY/IPHY scopes?

 

[doc76251]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: m1a convert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who make IPHY/IPHY scopes? </div></div>

USO.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

The real problem with IPHY and why mils is preferred is with the scopes themselves.

They normally adjust in 1/4" adjustments on the turrets or maybe even 1/2" on the elevation, but the reticles are not broken up the same way, like a mil scope.

Mil reticles, regardless of who's you use has a 1 Mil mark which is broken up into 1/10th, usually with some form of 5/10th mark to assist. The turrets also adjust in 1/10th both windage and elevation so you have a harmonious relationship with the mil scopes that are not found in the MOA versions.

No two companies make the same MOA adjustments across both the reticle and turrets and you have to divide the 2 MOA or 5 MOA or whatever MOA amount into quarters where their is not real start or stop point to help.

A mil reticle has a 2/10th dot, which half of is 1/10th to start you going. The lines are usually some form of 1/10th as well to help... across the board it is 10ths, and not a mix of 1/4 and full, or 1/2 and full with nothing to help you divide it in the same adjustment as the turrets.

To me that is the primary reason and why I know is because I sketched out USOs first MOA reticle with John Sr at a steak house in Orlando as it was my request all those years ago to have an MOA and MOA scope. Quickly I went back to Mils, and directly over to Mil / Mil because I didn't think it (MOA) work as well in practice as it did on paper.

The trick is too look at the splash on the reticle and instantly say, "3/10th of a mil, or 1 Mil, with an MOA scope with a 5 MOA marking, you can't just instantly look at it and say, 3/4" so you can make the same adjustment, even with the 2 MOA ones... its 2 MOA On the horizontal, 1 MOA on the vertical, 5 MOA here... it changes from line to line and reticle to reticle.

The rest of the stuff being discussed is just white noise if you ask me.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

As a post script, there is no "thinking" it is only "reading" you read the reticle, you don;t have to think about how far something is, you read it exactly with the ruler in front of your eyeball and you put that number exactly on the turret. There is no guessing it is all reading.

Why guess, or think you have a ruler which is the reticle, simply read it and adjust... you don't know too know the linear value period.

 

[ewoaf]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

this is exactly what i came up w/ today. I was leaning moa based until I was shopping around on USO's site this morning, looking at the diference in their reticles..I can now say I'm sure i would never be able to gauge a target w/ a moa ret. as the moa rets are way too coarse. I'm definately now sold on getting a FFP mil based scope

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Another thing, given time and opportunity of a UKD target, you can literally bag the rifle in nice and steady, then dial the turrets across the target. From one end to another if you dial 5/10th on the turret, either windage or elevation you know the target is a .5 Mil and there is your answer. its a great way to learn how to break down the reticle.

 

[Bronco]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I'm sold on IPHY/IPHY.
Spotter is IPHY, Scopes are IPHY (2 IPHY hash marks that I can hold 1/4 of value) 1/2 IPHY adjustments, my ballistic program is IPHY, and most of all I think in IPHY, as does my shooting partner.

The other day I changed out scopes on my bolt gun before a match, worst thing you can do but it was in for repair and got back the Thursday before the match on Saturday. All my confirmed dial ups had been done with the 1.8-10X44, put the 3.2-17X44 on, zeroed in 3 shots, and 5 shots later had hits on same dial ups has used with other scope from 200 to 600 yds. That speaks volumes in the consistency of the scope and the system.

Out here in fly over country we have square miles, divided into 1/4 sections, which sometimes get divided again. You can see 1/2 mile lines which equal 880 yd., 1/4 mile lines that equal 440 yd. Well you can see where I'm going with this, range estimation is pretty easy when you have all these clues in front of you.

 

[ewoaf]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another thing, given time and opportunity of a UKD target, you can literally bag the rifle in nice and steady, then dial the turrets across the target. From one end to another if you dial 5/10th on the turret, either windage or elevation you know the target is a .5 Mil and there is your answer. its a great way to learn how to break down the reticle. </div></div>

http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=...ile=hotdamn.wav

 

[jeffersonv]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a post script, there is no "thinking" it is only "reading" you read the reticle, you don;t have to think about how far something is, you read it exactly with the ruler in front of your eyeball and you put that number exactly on the turret. There is no guessing it is all reading.

Why guess, or think you have a ruler which is the reticle, simply read it and adjust... you don't know too know the linear value period. </div></div>

Lowlights post nailed it, then seemed to get ignored.

IPHY values change every time your range changes. You will be constantly doing math in your head, especially when you start splitting the hundred yard increments up. How many 1/4 inch clicks do you need to move 9" at 350 yards? Not too difficult but it does take some figuring. Then if you change your range again, you need to change your values again. This might be fine on a relaxing day at the range, but maybe not so good when the adrenaline is flowing.

Mils don't require any such calculating. "There is no guessing it is all reading." A mil is a mil at any range.
If you have a problem with mils being based on 10 you're in luck. You can use your fingers and toes to practice with!

 

[Rafael]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jeffersonv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
.................
IPHY values change every time your range changes. You will be constantly doing math in your head, especially when you start splitting the hundred yard increments up. How many 1/4 inch clicks do you need to move 9" at 350 yards? Not too difficult but it does take some figuring. Then if you change your range again, you need to change your values again. This might be fine on a relaxing day at the range, but maybe not so good when the adrenaline is flowing.

Mils don't require any such calculating. "There is no guessing it is all reading." A mil is a mil at any range.
If you have a problem with mils being based on 10 you're in luck. You can use your fingers and toes to practice with!

</div></div>
Your thinking is flawed and this common mistake is one of Lowlight's arguments....
People should not mix angular measurements with linear measurements.

IPHY values don't change with range any more than Mil values or MOA values do.
All angular measurements remain the same at any range.
It is only in actual ranging with a reticle that we equate them with linear measurements, and all of them require calculations, or a mil-dot master, or some form of translation.

Adjustments and reticles in any of these scopes are angular.
There are no 1/4" adjustments in any scope, or centimeter adjustments.
They are 1/4 IPHY(angular), or MOA(angular), or Mil (angular).

 

[bh-ltr]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Become a true convert... Do your shooting in meters.

 

[ewoaf]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

and i say why not, shouldnt be that hard to convert, most LRFs do meters anyway

 

[doc76251]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I find it somewhat fascinating that even the most learned among us is culpable to "brand" fixation. The milradian reticle is certianly the gold standard of tactical optics. The advent of 1/10 mil adjustments has certianly aided this standard to a great degree. As Frank points out, reading the reticle is just the same as reading a ruler on a desk top. At that point we part company.

The mildot reticle or even the GenII reticle IMHO are too coarse, or more precisely have too much white space between stadia. Does that mean they cannot be effectively utilized, NO. Accomplished shooters such as Frank and Lindy and a whole host of others can determine measurements down to .05 of a Mil at a glance. This ability is borne of untold YEARS of practice.

IMHO if you are stuck on Mils there are better reticles out there. The MPR being one that offers a significant jump in UKD reading ability as well as holding ability. It has stadia at 0, .02, .05, .08 and 1 mil marks. Essentialy the only mil range you cannot accurately put a line on is .1 and .9. But that being said .1 is half way between 0 and .2 and .9 similarly is half way between .8 and 1.0. The dials of course match in .1 mil clicks.

Lets look at Mil, MOA and IPHY. Assuming that the dials turn and adjust as advertised what happens when you put on one click.

Mils: .1 Mil (1/10 mil) or .348 MOA or .36 IPHY
MOA: 1/4 (.25 MOA) or .26175 IPHY or .087 Mils
IPHY: .25 IPHY, .23875 MOA or .086565 Mils

Do all thes numbers really mean anything in the final analysis of getting rounds on target?

NO

What it does show is that Mils even when in 1/10 clicks are the coarsest of movements. MOA is 2nd and IPHY is the most refined.

If your ballistics program spits out in Mils and you have a Mil/Mil scope you are golden. Similarly with MOA or IPHY. Now if you have a MIl / MOA scope you suddenly need to know two distinctly different things.

1st: MOA to dial on the elevation/wind


2nd: Mils to HOLD the correction.

The key is the transition between 1st and 2nd which is what snipers have been and still do to this day. They dial in MOA and Hold in Mils. Some silly folks even go so far as to hold elevation in mils and wind in MOA. (You want to talk about holding on to the past....

)

Now here is the engeneering rub. Lets say you have 90 "clicks" per elevation on your dials. 1/10 mil buys you 9 Mils per revolution, not bad. 1/4 MOA or IPHY buy you 22.5 MOA/IPHY per revolution. In the Mil knob you will get more UP per revolution because as the math above shows it is a larger adjustment. In close that may not be a huge factor but lets say at 1K the difference in a click is 3.6" and 2.5". Things only get bigger from there.

Speaking of long range.
1 Mil at 1K is 36".
1 MOA at 1K is 10.47".
1 IPHY at 1K is 10".

At 1K if I miss my guess of 3/4 of an MOA or IPHY vs 1/2 of an MOA/IPHY my margin of error will be significantly less than a 1/10 Mil error in judgement. Obviously this becomes more pronounced at further distances.

All the above matters not to me as I speak and can translate all three languages will equal ease as I drive all three on a regular basis. What may matter to you is the ease of computation of ranging formulas and the precision that your eye will be able to determine. Just get the knobs to match the turrets and your life will be much easier

Cheers,

Doc

 

[jeffersonv]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jeffersonv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
.................
IPHY values change every time your range changes. You will be constantly doing math in your head, especially when you start splitting the hundred yard increments up. How many 1/4 inch clicks do you need to move 9" at 350 yards? Not too difficult but it does take some figuring. Then if you change your range again, you need to change your values again. This might be fine on a relaxing day at the range, but maybe not so good when the adrenaline is flowing.

Mils don't require any such calculating. "There is no guessing it is all reading." A mil is a mil at any range.
If you have a problem with mils being based on 10 you're in luck. You can use your fingers and toes to practice with!

</div></div>
Your thinking is flawed and this common mistake is one of Lowlight's arguments....
People should not mix angular measurements with linear measurements.

IPHY values don't change with range any more than Mil values or MOA values do.
All angular measurements remain the same at any range.
It is only in actual ranging with a reticle that we equate them with linear measurements, and all of them require calculations, or a mil-dot master, or some form of translation.

Adjustments and reticles in any of these scopes are angular.
There are no 1/4" adjustments in any scope, or centimeter adjustments.
They are 1/4 IPHY(angular), or MOA(angular), or Mil (angular).
</div></div>

Come on now. My explanation may be a little flawed, buy my thinking isn't.
Careful please.
The 1/4" per click at one hundred yards turns out to be what at 250 yards 5/8 inch? Now figure THAT in to your IHPY calculations. Then, once you have that change the 1 click value AGAIN when your yardage changes.

Are you trying to say that you don't have to make calculation changes to count your click values as the yardage changes with IHPY?
If you are, and after careful consideration, I would have to say your thinking is flawed.

Also you say, "It is only in actual ranging with a reticle that we equate them with linear measurements, and all of them require calculations, or a mil-dot master, or some form of translation."
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Not true!!</span>

We do not ever need to equate anything with linear measurements when dealing with mils because we don't care, only with IHPY. Also, mils DO NOT require calculations or a mil-dot master or some form of translation. Just dial the turret the exact amount from the reading you take from the reticle with your eyeball. Get it?

 

[ewoaf]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

wrong again jeff...why would you have to calculate a correction for two or more ranges at once?....if you miss by 1/4 iphy at 100 (oviously .25 inches) you click once...if you miss by .25 iphy at 250, you still click once. an iphy is an pihy at whatever range you are operating at.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

There are three common units of <span style="font-style: italic">angular</span> measurement in use in scope adjustments and reticles.

Milliradians, MOA, and IPHY.

All are measurements of <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">angle</span></span>.

As long as the scope in question adjusts in the same system the reticle is graduated in, all are used identically, save for the fact that the value of a single unit of adjustment, i.e., a click, will change by a different factor with distance.

 

[doc76251]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Jeff,

You are in over your head if you continue down this road.

A 1/4" "click" at 100 yards will still subtend 1/4 IPHY at any range you are so inclined to line it up at.

IF you would like to know the liniear measurement for the angle of arc at a specific distance then YES you will need to do some math. That being said, that ain't what we're talking about here.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Doc,

You're using "paper" logic in terms of the reticle in your course and fine debate.

The idea of the reticle, particularly the Mil reticle is its use in the field. No one is holding a .25 MOA accuracy beyond those fancy bagged in groups at 100 yards. Most are only able to engage about a 2 MOA target with any consistency under field conditions, usually more so the idea you can bare down to 1/4 MOA on the reticle or with the adjustment is a bit over kill...

sure the numbers are all in MOAs favor, but in practical application, not so much. It's easier to think, 1 - 10 across the reticle, and 1 -10 across the turrets, instead of the idea you can break up 2 MOA into quarters quickly and easily. First you have to break it into 1 MOA then into 1/4s. Which if you look at field math... for every 1/4 mil you see you can call it 1 MOA, so you are breaking a 1/4 Mil into 4 parts where the Mil is only being broken down into 2 parts. Look at a "Dot" in a mil dot scope and you're trying to tell someone they can break that "dot" into 4 parts. Nah...

So far I have found the only people excelling with MOA are guys that go out on their own and validate their own thinking on the subject because when they show up to use it against others, it doesn't work as well as it did on paper. If you can see a 1/2 MOA at 1K in your reticle, good on ya, I doubt I can.

But to each their own...I tried it like I said and completely tossed it out as a nice idea on paper. They may look like they match, IPHY / MOA scopes, but they really don't when you break it down to a usable system. And I get it, some people work hard and think they have it, but I guarantee none of them have put a PACT Timer on themselves. So far it's only okay for the guy sitting by himself working on it, not for practical application across the system.

Course isn't always bad - as this isn't benchrest... it tactical applications.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Oh, and not to completely look like I am down on the idea...

a scope with 2 MOA lines in the reticle and adjusted by 1/2 MOA turrets would be okay and not nearly as "off" as the others out there... 1 MOA lines with 1 MOA would be even better but the lines would get thick after a while, so 2 MOA is fine, that is about 1/2 Mil anyway.

 

[Guest]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I own and use both, so I have no brand loyalty.

The advantage of IPHY is that it does not require a calculator or slide rule to use in the field.

You can do the IPHY math in your head easily, or with a stick in the dirt without difficulty. This isn't possible for MIL based systems unless you are a math genius (e.g. MIL:60 x 27.778, vs MOA:60 x 100). Even a TMOA reticle is still do-able. Just take away 5 yards for every hundred after the pencil is down.

I like the pact timer idea, and it will prove my point here if you try it. Take the calculators, charts and slide rules away and do the math with a pencil and see which shooter is firing first..... or at all.

With a 1moa spacing reticle, it's not a problem at all to identify a 1/2 MOA at any distance. And this is breaking down a smaller area.... less than 2/10ths of a MIL.

MILS have the clear advantage of being in more common usage and are the more likely candidate to stick around as such. Not because they are more accurate, innately superior, or possess any special mojo. I do think many people overlook IPHY/SMOA and leap toward MIL/MIL systems for these reasons though.

I can't find digital micrometers that measure groups in Milradians, so I think we are all going to have to live with both in some respect... We're smart, and we can handle that ;-)

Again, I have both, use both, and like both. But for different reasons. It's not religious to me. Other than the tool-less IPHY math, there's not one practical thing I can't do with MILS/MOA or vice versa.

--Fargo007

 

[doc76251]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, and not to completely look like I am down on the idea...

a scope with 2 MOA lines in the reticle and adjusted by 1/2 MOA turrets would be okay and not nearly as "off" as the others out there... 1 MOA lines with 1 MOA would be even better but the lines would get thick after a while, so 2 MOA is fine, that is about 1/2 Mil anyway. </div></div>

I hear you Frank and it's all cool. Your right nobody is holding a 1/4 MOA at distance but were talking about ranging and IMHO the more precise I can judge the space between the stadia the better. In this case smaller the white space the better.

FWIW the MDMOA has 1 IPHY stadia and of course you can get the knobs in 1/4's and halves.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[gugubica]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

For this debate to be fair, a distinction needs to be made.
There are two uses for a reticle that is subtended, ranging and corrections (either held or dailed).

Just so everybody knows (as I think some don't) corrections have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with a linier measurement. This is true in any matching system you choose.

You shoot, see the your shot hit to the right and low of the target. You look at your reticle and see the it is X number of marks right and X number of marks low.

You eigther hold or dail that number. Period, end of story, for any system. Both mils and MOA/IPHY.

The other use is ranging. This boils down to personal opinion. Do you want to use a calculator, do you want to use a MDM? Do you see objects in inches or centimeters?

I like MOA, personally because I find it easier to break the space between hashes (or dots) into halfs instead of 10ths. And I see objects in inches (easy math).

I will say that the advent of hashed mil reticles is a HUGE leap forward (I loath mildots).



So, in summation, corrections require no math for either system.

Ranging is the primary difference. And, lets be honest, if you really really really have to have a first round hit, ranging with a reticle is ill-advised anyway (it is always an estimation, period).

 

[jeffersonv]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

You guys are right.
It occurred to me that you were using matching moa/moa. That is such a rare configuration in my experience that I neglected to consider it.
My mistake.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

if you use centimeters there is no math either so the idea that IPHY has a no math advantage is false. There is as much or as little math as you want it just depends on where you want to go.

It's all in the prep and the charts are pretty simple if you take the time to set them up right.

 

[Rafael]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you use centimeters there is no math either so the idea that IPHY has a no math advantage is false. There is as much or as little math as you want it just depends on where you want to go.

It's all in the prep and the charts are pretty simple if you take the time to set them up right. </div></div>
Makes good sense! No argument here.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Your thinking is flawed and this common mistake is one of Lowlight's arguments....
People should not mix angular measurements with linear measurements.
</div></div>

There are those that get this and those that don't. Those that don't seem not to care to understand the difference. No-one here learned an angular measurement system in school based on inches, yards, meters, etc. - they learned one (high school geometry) based on UNITS. Units can be transferred to ANY linear measurement system.

IPHY as LL said requires additional translation that angular systems, be it mil or MOA, do not require.

One also cannot say that "the military" has standardized on any one particular thing. Here are a few examples. Arty mils are not the same as "sniper" mils. The M24 SWS commonly used daylight scope has a mil-radian reticle, a MOA elevation knob, and a half MOA windage knob. Depending on which branch of the military and what era of their documentation you use zeros are established at various distances - sometimes yards, sometimes meters. Qualification courses are sometimes in yards, sometimes in meters.

IPHY is for people that don't care to understand the truth. More power to them if that is what they want to do, just don't extol its virtues without expecting to get confronted with the facts.

 

[Pete E]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You can do the IPHY math in your head easily, or with a stick in the dirt without difficulty. This isn't possible for MIL based systems unless you are a math genius (e.g. MIL:60 x 27.778, vs MOA:60 x 100).
</div></div>

Fargo,

Can you explain why "Mils math" is more complicated? Are you saying its complicated when you try to use it with Imperial measurements for range finding?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I can't find digital micrometers that measure groups in Milradians, so I think we are all going to have to live with both in some respect...
</div></div>

Again, I'm new to this type of rifle shooting, so are you saying you can buy a micrometer that reads in MOA?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,

Peter

 

[gugubica]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Pete, "mils math" is more complicated if you use inches for target size. If you use centimeters for target size, it really is just as simple.

 

[Rafael]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NineHotel</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Your thinking is flawed and this common mistake is one of Lowlight's arguments....
People should not mix angular measurements with linear measurements.
</div></div>

There are those that get this and those that don't. Those that don't seem not to care to understand the difference. No-one here learned an angular measurement system in school based on inches, yards, meters, etc. - they learned one (high school geometry) based on UNITS. Units can be transferred to ANY linear measurement system.

IPHY as LL said requires additional translation that angular systems, be it mil or MOA, do not require.

One also cannot say that "the military" has standardized on any one particular thing. Here are a few examples. Arty mils are not the same as "sniper" mils. The M24 SWS commonly used daylight scope has a mil-radian reticle, a MOA elevation knob, and a half MOA windage knob. Depending on which branch of the military and what era of their documentation you use zeros are established at various distances - sometimes yards, sometimes meters. Qualification courses are sometimes in yards, sometimes in meters.

IPHY is for people that don't care to understand the truth. More power to them if that is what they want to do, just don't extol its virtues without expecting to get confronted with the facts. </div></div>

Leo, my good friend, I agree with you on the angular thing, but for us to agree with the IPHY thing we will have to discuss this further.
Or...am I missing something and need a good kick in the head from you?

IPHY is angular, just as MOA and mils. You know what IPHY abbreviates, and that is an angular measurement. 1" per hundred yards is an angular measurement just a .10472" per hundred yards, just as 3.6" per hundred yards.
Most of those on this board learned degrees as a unit of angular measure in school, and MOA is based on degrees. My point is that the unit of measure does not make a difference.

Problem:
An object in the distance is of known linear height.
Once a reading of that object is taken with any reticle, math is required to calculate the range from the angular reading.
How is it different, other than units of measure?
The calculations are not more complex in IPHY than in MOA or Mils, though one can find specific cases with each system where the result is easy to arrive at using easy whole numbers. Who is lying and what are they lying about?

Don't force me to call you tonight!

I probably should since we have not talked for a while.

 

[Rafael]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Your thinking is flawed and this common mistake is one of Lowlight's arguments....
People should not mix angular measurements with linear measurements. </div></div>

I should have been more clear with this statement.
What I meant was that Lowlight has pointed out, many times, the mistakes people make when trying to directly associate MOA with inches(for instance) and the resulting error in calculations......and that one should not directly equate an angular measurement system with linear measurements unless one knows the equation to be true. I agree with his premise.

There is a time for converting angular measurement to linear, but one should apply the equations correctly.

 

[Guest]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pete E</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You can do the IPHY math in your head easily, or with a stick in the dirt without difficulty. This isn't possible for MIL based systems unless you are a math genius (e.g. MIL:60 x 27.778, vs MOA:60 x 100).
</div></div>

Fargo,

Can you explain why "Mils math" is more complicated? Are you saying its complicated when you try to use it with Imperial measurements for range finding?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I can't find digital micrometers that measure groups in Milradians, so I think we are all going to have to live with both in some respect...
</div></div>

Again, I'm new to this type of rifle shooting, so are you saying you can buy a micrometer that reads in MOA?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,

Peter
</div></div>

I'd be happy to explain Pete.

An example equation for a range estimation would be like this.

A 60" tall target that you are measuring with your reticle vertically.

In MILS, your equation would look like this:

60 x 27.778 = 1666.68 / 2.2 MILS = 757, roughly 750 yards.

You have to multiply 60 by 27.778, which is absolutely not do-able without a calculator or slide rule.

In IPHY/SMOA, your equation would look like this:

60 x 100 = 6000 / 8 = 750

It's the first part of the equation that is the most difficult.

In MILS, you must use extra equipment to calculate it. In MOA, you simply add 2 zeros and move on. The two systems are equal from that point on, except for the fact that in MOA, you are more often than not going to be dealing with easy to divide whole numbers or .5's rather than integers (as in 2.2 MILS).

Try each of these equations with a pencil and see which one you could do (or do faster if you are jack-math-diesel) if there were no calculator or slide rule available.

The reference to the micrometers was a joke. They measure in inches or mm. Shot groups are measured in inches, and then translated by multiplication to MOA based on the distance they were fired at.

e.g. = a 5 shot group of 2 inches:

100y = 2MOA
200y = 1MOA
400y = .5MOA

Nobody ever translates them to MILS, so the point of the joke was that you still need to know how to figure out what MOA is. Even for scaling targets to shoot at at different ranges.

For instance, take a 10" sil target that you feel represents a 36" presentation and put it at 200Y:

36 / 10 x 200 = 720

That would provide a sight picture equivalent in size to a 36" target, 720y shot. It would NOT however introduce ANY of the environmental conditions that make shooting that distance challenging. .... Like it or not, you're working with MOA here too.

I concede technically that starting with the estimated size of an object in centimeters would even the playing field mathematically, but Centimeters???

(Now is ze time on shprockets ven ve dance.....)

I own and enjoy using both systems, but for the way most people are going to try and use them practically, I can't ignore the merits of the tool-free IPHY system, or likewise the widespread use of MILS.

Why do we have to be in one camp or the other?

Become proficient with both. There's never anything gained by ignoring or fearing alternate approaches.

--Fargo007

 

[Lindy]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IPHY is angular, just as MOA and mils.</div></div>

Correct. In fact, another way to look at 1 inch per hundred yards is that it's about 0.95 MOA. It's not particularly handy to do that, but it does demonstrate that IPHY <span style="font-weight: bold"> is </span> a unit of angular measurement.

 

[Pete E]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

Fargo,

Thanks for the explanations..I think the crux of the matter is that its easier to keep things either MOA/Imperial or Mils/Metric; the killer math comes when you try to switch from one to the other.

I’ll be honest and say I am new to this long range rifle shooting, but many years ago, I was a crewman driver of a Fox CVR (W) light recce vehicle.

A few times a year we would head off to the ranges and rattles some rounds out to about 3Km or so with the 30mm RARDAN main gun..I never actually got to do my gunnery course, but once the gunners had finished shooting their qualification, us drivers would get go; although it was more "plinking" than anything serious.

This was worlds away from the computer driven fire control systems used today, being good old “steam gunnery” using optics sights coupled with manual traverse and elevation controls.

The reason I mention this was that the sight was graduated in what we no-gunners referred to as “hash marks”, but I know realise were mils...And the principle for correcting the fall of shot using the graticule was exactly the same...You can also see why thinking in meters ect is not a problem for me either!

Regards,

Peter

PS Sorry I missed the joke about the micrometer; I thought you guys had come up with a way of programming range into digital micrometer so it would measure directly in MOA!

 

[CoryT]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

So use target size in yards (or meters) * 1000 / mils. Npw your math is exactly the same, as I pointed out in a different thread.

Mils became standard because of artillery, which trickled down to MG's and to snipers. Since the military standardized on mils, that's what most people use, there's just more mil related info out there.

In the long run, it makes absolutely no differance what system is being used, what matters is the proficiency of the operator with the chosen system.

I ran (and still run) mil reticles with MOA knobs, it never seemed to bother me much. Matching turrets are nice for zeroing, less so for a live shot. If I miss, I hold, I don't dial. My dope card has the knob setting for a distance, so I don't even really care what the knob is calibrated in, just what it needs to read for a given distance. Holdovers / holdunders are calculated and written in the log using a calculator, not in my head, on the fly. Why would I want to do math in my head under stress at all?

You get in your hide. The primary target range is selected and dialed on, say 400 yards. The range card now gets a column for Up/down in mils from 400 from the dope book. An immediate threat pops up at 200 and I just use the hold off the card.

The superior system is the one the user can best employ and has the best compatibility with the group he works in.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IPHY is angular, just as MOA and mils.</div></div>

Correct. In fact, another way to look at 1 inch per hundred yards is that it's about 0.95 MOA. It's not particularly handy to do that, but it does demonstrate that IPHY <span style="font-weight: bold"> is </span> a unit of angular measurement.

</div></div>

INCH is a measurement of length:

"noun
1.a unit of length, 1/12 foot, equivalent to 2.54 centimeters."


A degree is defined as follows, of which a minute is a sub-graduation:

"Geometry. the 360th part of a complete angle or turn, often represented by the sign°, as in 45°, which is read as 45 degrees. Compare angle 1 (def. 1c).'

Apply a few more geometric definitions:

"POINT - Mathematics
1. A dimensionless geometric object having no properties except location."

and:

"RAY - 7. Mathematics.
a. one of a system of straight lines emanating from a point.

Angular measurements, such as MOA and mil, define an angular difference between two rays emanating from the same point. At a specific distance from the origin point you can measure the distance between two two rays in order to determine the linear distance between them.

Now, given the facts above, please show me how IPHY is an angular measurement system.

A MOA or a mil is the same distance regardless of what linear measurement system you employ to measure the distance between the two rays.

Can you please back me into how IPHY is an angular system based on the info above? I'm still missing it.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

An inch is certainly a unit of linear measurement.

So is a centimeter - but one-tenth of a milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is one centimeter at a distance of 100 meters, just as an IPHY is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is one inch at a distance 100 yards.

And a yard is a unit of linear measurement - and a milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is one yard at a distance of 1000 yards.

And, as I noted above, an IPHY is about 0.95 MOA, so, since that relationship holds at any distance measured in any unit, it must in fact be a unit of angular measurement.

 

[Pete E]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

IPHY is the angle subtended between two rays 1" inch a part at one hundred yards...

Similarly we used to say that the Mil was the angle subtended by 1m at 1000m...strictly speaking thats not totally correct, but it allowed people to visualise it and understand the concept..

Its the same with IPHY, its simply a method of allowing people to visuablize and understand an anglular measurement...

Where its is different to Mils and MOA is that its not rooted in the true geometery of a circle...

 

[Rafael]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

The angular differential between a ray pointing at distant point A and another ray pointing 1" per hundred yards above distant point A is an angular measurement.

It is no different than a measurement of 1.047" above point A, which would be MOA.....or a measurement of 3.6" above point A which would be a Mil.

Measurements are constructs of man.
In one case man divided a circle into 360 degrees and further broke it down into 60 minutes per degree for a total of 21,600 or so minutes.

Same with Mils, but different numbers.

IPHY just has about 22,620 graduations for a full rotation.

All 3 were invented by man to apply finite measurement to infinite adjustments.

 

[Rafael]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

I must be the slowest thinker, once again.

I should have finished the 9th grade.

 

[sub2.908cm/100m]

Re: Why Mils over IPHY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">An inch is certainly a unit of linear measurement.

So is a centimeter - but one-tenth of a milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is one centimeter at a distance of 100 meters, just as an IPHY is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is one inch at a distance 100 yards.

And a yard is a unit of linear measurement - and a milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is one yard at a distance of 1000 yards.

And, as I noted above, an IPHY is about 0.95 MOA, so, since that relationship holds at any distance measured in any unit, it must in fact be a unit of angular measurement.
</div></div>
Good, now we're on to something, then cm/100m...ok CMPHM, is an angular measurement just as IPHY...

One step closer to "metric scopes"