Rifle Scopes Yards or Meters

[Hgold]

So I finally got myself a mil/mil scope. And Im still trying to get used to it. At the minute I have it zero'd for 150 meters.

But I just cant help but wonder, does everybody else with mil/mil use meters?

I guess theres no reason why you cant use yards (except the math wont be as easy to work out). But Im having some worries that if and when I get used to mil/mil what happens when I go to the range and try to pick up my buddies gun and Im left scratching my heading trying to remember MOA.... I guess Im just a bit worried that the majority of the guns at the range (in the range here dont know about elsewhere) is in MOA and yards and the thoughts of not being able to pick up any rifle and confidently adjust it is a bit daunting.

Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[BAGunner]

Re: Yards or Meters

It's fine to use yardage. You just need to remember 1mil = 0.1 yd @ 100yd. And 0.1yd = 3.6in.

Most likely, you will be using mil measure from the reticle to dial the knobs, so no math is involved.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Yards or Meters

What does yards or meters have to do with it when it comes to using your scope and your dope?

Your dope is your dope, end of story, if you use 2.2 mils for 400 yards and maybe 2.4 for meters, why does it matter.

If your are ranging there are differences, but really, with a card or a calculator, does it matter, no, this is a foolish argument or debate.

Yes most countries use meters with mils because they are fully metric, but for your dope, there is no reason to use one over another.

Take MOA, how is 7.5 or 8 MOA easier to figure than using 2,2 mils ? Your are getting the same results at the same yardage, where is the figuring? And how is one easier, ok, mils are smaller numbers and I think they are easier but really it's the same thing. And if you know the MOA for a rifle, just divide by 3.43 to get the same number in mils. If your buddy doesn't have his dope, why do you need to figure it. His rifle is his rifle. If you know the mils, multiply it by it 3.43, there is your MOA, but that is for your rifle, not his.

Let's be honest here, nobody is doing the calculations long hand, and if you are I want to see it. We have ballistic calculators, and more charts out there than you fit on this page, so why would you. If youre gonna add in 3 or more MOA you can easily figure 1 mil more for the next 100 yard line.

Stop thinking in terms of the math, the math is a foolish way to approach this, because while the math drives the facts in the background, they shouldn't be a factor when it comes time to actually shoot the rifle.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Yards or Meters

I once had a student complain mightly that doing all this math was impossible, no one does this in the field, there must be a simple way.....

Did you consider writing it down? Really, just do the calculation once, then you are done. Read the card, drive on. I suppose you will need to half or even quarter a value to fine tune, but that's the most math you should be doing while on the gun.

Since the would does not come with range markers and the target is rarely standing on an even number anyway, who really cares what you range in? You have a card with some numbers on one side, match the number the target is on, read the elevation for that number, shoot the SOB.

You will need to use the same unit of measure each time, but otherwise, it makes no differance.

One of these days I'm going to make up a range card in rods, or chains or some such, just to screw with some people. Then do a MilDot master slide and start calling out, "It's 22 chains, come up 11 minutes, hold left edge"

 

[Chiller]

Re: Yards or Meters

that is the joy of mil/mil.

a mil is a mil is a mil. it is an absolute angular measurment.

yards and meters have no bearing on it. if you are using a mil/mil FFP scope you just need to learn to talk the talk. a miss by .1 mil at 100 or 1000 yards/meters you make that .1 mil change and send again (assuming you did everything right the first time)

 

[kombar]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that is the joy of mil/mil.

a mil is a mil is a mil. it is an absolute angular measurment.

yards and meters have no bearing on it. if you are using a mil/mil FFP scope you just need to learn to talk the talk. a miss by .1 mil at 100 or 1000 yards/meters you make that .1 mil change and send again (assuming you did everything right the first time)</div></div>

That's not really an argument for mil/mil, since it applies to any system of angular measurement, MOA included.

The real advantage to using adjustments in 1/10 mrad is that since the reticle can be visually broken down into 10ths, the number of clicks required for a correction will match the value read on the reticle. Now, this would also be the case with an MOA/MOA scope which adjusted in whole MOA, the only problems being that no one currently manufactures such a scope, and that the adjustment value would be too coarse for some applications.

 

[Boomholzer]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kombar</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that is the joy of mil/mil.

a mil is a mil is a mil. it is an absolute angular measurment.

yards and meters have no bearing on it. if you are using a mil/mil FFP scope you just need to learn to talk the talk. a miss by .1 mil at 100 or 1000 yards/meters you make that .1 mil change and send again (assuming you did everything right the first time)</div></div>

That's not really an argument for mil/mil, since it applies to any system of angular measurement, MOA included.

The real advantage to using adjustments in 1/10 mrad is that since the reticle can be visually broken down into 10ths, the number of clicks required for a correction will match the value read on the reticle. Now, this would also be the case with an MOA/MOA scope which adjusted in whole MOA, the only problems being that no one currently manufactures such a scope, and that the adjustment value would be too coarse for some applications. </div></div>

MOA/MOA is available. Are you saying you can't visually break down a MOA reticle to 0.25 MOA?

I think a greater point is popularity and military convention. On the firing line, you might have 1 or 2 out of 20 running MOA reticles. So common communication and language can be a factor.

 

[glock24]

Re: Yards or Meters

As a mil/mil user, I keep my logbook in meters. If you're worried about shooting at yard-based rifle ranges, consider keeping your logbook in both yards and meters;

100 meters & 109 yards
200 meters & 218 yards
300 meters & 328 yards
etc, etc

Worrying about picking up another rifle that uses MOA/MOA just sounds silly to me. Shoot your own rifle.

 

[Graham]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a mil/mil user, I keep my logbook in meters.</div></div>Yards or meters doesn't matter, because the distance is the same regardless of what units you measure it in.

 

[azimutha]

Re: Yards or Meters

If I shot where I used to go exclusively and set up my own targets, I'd consider meters because the math is just a little easier (not related to the angular measurements in mils) but just because everything is in decimal units. However, it's just 20 minutes on smooth roads to the range, where the choices are 100, 200 and 300 yards. Better to shoot as much as possible in a quality way than worry about one system or the other.

 

[rezmedic54]

Re: Yards or Meters

I use MOA/MOA foe me it's easier. I have a friend that just can't get the concept of it so he uses clicks. It boils down to what works for you.

 

[glock24]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yards or meters doesn't matter, because the distance is the same regardless of what units you measure it in. </div></div>

That's all well and good, but in your logbook, you must designate some unit of linear distance that corresponds to your bullet's drop in angular distance. What linear distance units do you have in your logbook? I believe that is the question the OP is trying to ask.

Am I missing something? Are everyone's logbooks unit-less? I don't think so . . .

100 - 0.0 mils
200 - 0.6 mils
300 - 1.3 mils

Wait . . .what?

(Yes, I understand that with angular mils you can technically fill in the blank with inches, fathoms, light-years, or microns. But who does that?)

 

[Rob01]

Re: Yards or Meters

I think what Graham was saying is that just because you use mil/mil doesn't mean you need to use meters. I use all mil/mil scopes and my data is in yards as when you go to competitions or most anywhere else in the States the ranges are set up in yards. It just makes life easier. No converting meters to yards.

 

[glock24]

Re: Yards or Meters

I think you might be right Rob. I misunderstood Graham's comment. Sorry man!

And I agree, a mil/mil user is certainly not required to use meters.

The one and only reason I prefer meters is because from an early age I had a job that required converting inches to millimeters. And as some of you know;

inches x 25.4 = millimeters.

There is nothing particularly special about that formula, but it is second nature to me at this point. Later, when I started learning precision rifle, you can imagine my delight when I ran across the below formula for ranging targets with a mil-scale reticle;

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Target size (inches) x 25.4</span> = range in <span style="font-weight: bold">meters</span>
target size (mils)

For me, this ranging formula is now second nature also, and therefore I naturally migrated to using meters in my logbook. Your mileage may vary, and I can certainly appreciate the dilemma of using meters when shooting at a rifle range established in yards. Per my first post, one solution is to simply list both units in your logbook. This will at least eliminate the need for unit conversions before shooting.

 

[dcjs]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Target size (inches) x 25.4</span> = range in <span style="font-weight: bold">meters</span>
target size (mils)</div></div>
There's nothing special about that formula either, you can rephrase it for calculating the range in yards simply by substituting the constant for a different one.

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Target size (inches) x 27.78</span> = range in <span style="font-weight: bold">yards</span>
target size (mils)

The real simplification happens when you <span style="font-weight: bold">stop using different units of measurement for the target size and the range</span>. This is why mils and meters are "easier" than mils, yards and inches, because then you can eliminate that odd constant altogether and reduce math to a bare minimum.

If you use decimal fractions of yards for the target size, there's no difference between using meters or yards any more.

Example using inches:

<span style="text-decoration: underline">18 inches x 27.78</span> = 217 yards
2.3 mils

Example using yards throughout:

<span style="text-decoration: underline">0,5 yards x 1000</span> = 217 yards
2.3 mils

In practice, you will start to incorporate the "1000" constant into your memorized target sizes, so an 18"/0.5 yards target becomes a "500". Now you just have to divide that number by the mil value it subtends in the scope and you have your range. Same thing whether you start out with yards or meters for the target size.

I'll repeat this once again: The problem that meters or yards, it's using a different unit of measuremnt for target size and target distance. Using meters throughout, there is no odd conversion factor between the two, it's just shifting commas.

A dedicated ranging scale in the reticle will further simplify math by replacing the division with a simple multiplication. That's the easiest it will ever get using stadiametric ranging.

 

[glock24]

Re: Yards or Meters

Fair enough, but I don't think I'll ever be able to describe common target sizes in anything other than inches. Fractions of meters (or even yards) is just too strange for me. Perhaps it is an ignorant American thing.

I prefer to shoot little things, and I know the dimensions of little things best when I'm using inches.

A 0.333 yard diameter steel plate (12") or a 0.0762 meter diameter clay pigeon (3") just seems silly to me. I might be simplifying the ranging equation, but i'm also complicating my measurement system!

 

[Sami]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough, but I don't think I'll ever be able to describe common target sizes in anything other than inches. Fractions of meters (or even yards) is just too strange for me. Perhaps it is an ignorant American thing.

I prefer to shoot little things, and I know the dimensions of little things best when I'm using inches.

A 0.333 yard diameter steel plate (12") or a 0.0762 meter diameter clay pigeon (3") just seems silly to me. I might be simplifying the ranging equation, but i'm also complicating my measurement system!
</div></div>

Nothing really hard about it but I would use centimeters as your base unit. Since these are all estimates, you could simply use 1ft = 30cm, 1" = 2.5cm.

Upper torso of a man = 1m = 100cm.
Height of an average whitetail = 1m = 100cm.
12" steel plate = 30cm.

Now the calculation is rather easy (note, mrad, not 0.1mrad):

D [m] = h [cm] / mrad
mrad = h [cm] / D [m]

Zeiss' custom FinDot reticle uses 1m height and 50cm width on their PSO style reticle. Quite useful reticle type for military applications and when hunting larger game.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real simplification happens when you <span style="font-weight: bold">stop using different units of measurement for the target size and the range</span>. This is why mils and meters are "easier" than mils, yards and inches, because then you can eliminate that odd constant altogether and reduce math to a bare minimum.

</div></div>

That would work if you live in a country that uses the metric system but in the US you get target sizes in inches and ranges are for the most part in yards. You have to convert somewhere. Having data in yards helps from converting meter data to yards to dial on elevation and using the target in inches to range in yards ranging formula keeps you in the yards as well.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough, but I don't think I'll ever be able to describe common target sizes in anything other than inches. Fractions of meters (or even yards) is just too strange for me. Perhaps it is an ignorant American thing.

I prefer to shoot little things, and I know the dimensions of little things best when I'm using inches.

A 0.333 yard diameter steel plate (12") or a 0.0762 meter diameter clay pigeon (3") just seems silly to me. I might be simplifying the ranging equation, but i'm also complicating my measurement system!
</div></div>

Some people are just too thick to get it...

Seriously 25.4 is easier then 27.7 when you are doing the math... really, easier. I don't know how many times I have to post it, there is no reason to do any math if you properly prepare yourself for any size target you want.

I mean first off, a Mil Dot Master works... enough said !

But come on, you guys are gonna sit here after how many times and make the "ranging is easier" or I think in Inches or I use Meters, Yards etc with a Mil scope because that is how I think... argument when we have shown you over and over that you don't have to do the long hand math so it is not "easier" if you are using the mil formula or the MOA formula of any kind in the field with a calculator you are wrong. You can make this any way you like, range is yards,/meters one for clay pidgins, cans of PBR, the tire on your wife's car, whatever you like. Look Ma' no math.

glock24 you should stick to attacking me via PM I think you are better suited for it then justifying why it's "easier" to range things your way.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean first off, a Mil Dot Master works... enough said !

</div></div>

LOL I almost went back in my post and put that in there but didn't want to bring that into the mix LOL Simple tool that works in both yards and meters.

Also got a card just like above, although a little more detailed, that stays with my gear at all times.

 

[Mike]

Re: Yards or Meters

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

I mean first off, a Mil Dot Master works... enough said !
</div></div>

If this doesn't give you an epiphany, turn in your rifle. If you are trying to mil something (using either MOA or Mil) of which you know the measurement and you're not using a mil-dot master, you're an idiot. It works, It's fast, it's dead nuts accurate, it's waterproof, it doesn't need batteries and it weighs virtually nothing.

Oh, and I need to reiterate it's dead-nutz accurate.

Get a mil-dot master and be done.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Yards or Meters

I seriously think people who over do this stuff, including all kinds of twisted justifications are doing so just to make themselves feel smarter so they can spit out a bunch of numbers when they talk.

Why these conversations turns towards, "easier math" when they are clearly doing the exact same "long hand" with nothing more than a different constant is beyond me... plus the whole, "I think in X" cracks me up.

If you can't drop down and range and engage your target in less than 60 seconds you're doing it wrong... heck Lindy has that chart where it gives you the Dope to the target and not even the Range, so he completely skips a step. Read .6 mils on a target of "X" amount wide and the answer is 3.8 Mils nothing more needed, dial and deliver.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Yards or Meters

Doing the math is only good to know as a last resort. Being prepared with tools that will help you range more efficiently is the best advice.

The most important tool in my ruck as far as ranging goes is the spare battery for my LRF. If that's down, I have more than one device that will do the math for me if I happen to not have the LRF up, and yes, the Mildot Master is the most foolproof, weatherproof, technofailure-proof tool I have.

 

[dcjs]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would work if you live in a country that uses the metric system but in the US you get target sizes in inches and ranges are for the most part in yards. You have to convert somewhere.</div></div>
Well, I don't have any illusions about converting the general Public in the US to using the metric system. I just wanted to make it very clear where the problem (having to use an odd conversion factor) with the imperial system comes from, and that it's not because meters are somehow magically "better" but because inches cannot be converted to yards as easily as centimeters can be converted to meters.

I know how hard it is to make the mental leap from one system to the other. Using a lathe or milling machine with adjustemnts calibrated in inches is no fun at all for me, and a calculator becomes an absolute necessity if you think metric.

If you want to (or can't help but) stick to inches for target size, there's absolutely no point in using meters over yards for target distance.

A Mildot Master is nice, but you still have to get off the scope, lose your sight picture, manipulate the Mildot Master and then reacquire your target. Dedicated ranging brackets work with any known size target, and if properly executed, they allow distance calculations that are quite accurate within reasonable ranges, and with a formula
that is so easy you can do it in your head, which means no losing the sight picture to look at tables or do calculations.

 

[AR4U]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough, but I don't think I'll ever be able to describe common target sizes in anything other than inches. Fractions of meters (or even yards) is just too strange for me. Perhaps it is an ignorant American thing.

I prefer to shoot little things, and I know the dimensions of little things best when I'm using inches.

A 0.333 yard diameter steel plate (12") or a 0.0762 meter diameter clay pigeon (3") just seems silly to me. I might be simplifying the ranging equation, but i'm also complicating my measurement system!
</div></div>

Some people are just too thick to get it...

Seriously 25.4 is easier then 27.7 when you are doing the math... really, easier. I don't know how many times I have to post it, there is no reason to do any math if you properly prepare yourself for any size target you want.

I mean first off, a Mil Dot Master works... enough said !

But come on, you guys are gonna sit here after how many times and make the "ranging is easier" or I think in Inches or I use Meters, Yards etc with a Mil scope because that is how I think... argument when we have shown you over and over that you don't have to do the long hand math so it is not "easier" if you are using the mil formula or the MOA formula of any kind in the field with a calculator you are wrong. You can make this any way you like, range is yards,/meters one for clay pidgins, cans of PBR, the tire on your wife's car, whatever you like. Look Ma' no math.

glock24 you should stick to attacking me via PM I think you are better suited for it then justifying why it's "easier" to range things your way. </div></div>

Frank, why do you have yellow/red regions on that table?

Does that demarcate a measurement that's borderline/not precise enough to estimate range within the danger space of your rifle?

 

[glock24]

Re: Yards or Meters

Okay, I will give it a try. This is actually the first time I've seen it presented in this format. But I'll still keep my formula for target sizes that aren't on my new handy dandy chart.

 

[AMTeam4]

Re: Yards or Meters

When I was in the Marines my platoon switched from ranging in yards to meters.
The reasoning was because our Vector/DAGR kits were set in meters and our range cards would correlate with our maps better. Keeping our thinking in meters helped with communication with other supporting units.

There was always the debate that the math was easier when ranging in meters but I never saw the "great advantage".

When I started shooting in the civilian world I reverted back to ranging in yards.
Pretty much all rifle ranges are in yards and the majority of shooters measure in yards. (in the US) Making it easier to share ranges and dopes.

Other than keeping equipment uniformity while working in the military or certain government sectors I don't see an advantage in ranging in meters.



Thanks Lowlight and Glock24 for the interesting charts. I'll have to play around with those.

 

[Truck10]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AR4U</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough, but I don't think I'll ever be able to describe common target sizes in anything other than inches. Fractions of meters (or even yards) is just too strange for me. Perhaps it is an ignorant American thing.

I prefer to shoot little things, and I know the dimensions of little things best when I'm using inches.

A 0.333 yard diameter steel plate (12") or a 0.0762 meter diameter clay pigeon (3") just seems silly to me. I might be simplifying the ranging equation, but i'm also complicating my measurement system!
</div></div>

Some people are just too thick to get it...

Seriously 25.4 is easier then 27.7 when you are doing the math... really, easier. I don't know how many times I have to post it, there is no reason to do any math if you properly prepare yourself for any size target you want.

I mean first off, a Mil Dot Master works... enough said !

But come on, you guys are gonna sit here after how many times and make the "ranging is easier" or I think in Inches or I use Meters, Yards etc with a Mil scope because that is how I think... argument when we have shown you over and over that you don't have to do the long hand math so it is not "easier" if you are using the mil formula or the MOA formula of any kind in the field with a calculator you are wrong. You can make this any way you like, range is yards,/meters one for clay pidgins, cans of PBR, the tire on your wife's car, whatever you like. Look Ma' no math.

glock24 you should stick to attacking me via PM I think you are better suited for it then justifying why it's "easier" to range things your way. </div></div>

Frank, why do you have yellow/red regions on that table?

Does that demarcate a measurement that's borderline/not precise enough to estimate range within the danger space of your rifle? </div></div>

I believe that this is around the distance when the standard .308 becomes subsonic, indicating the target may be out of range.

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: Yards or Meters

Mils and meters rule

Of course you can work with anything (MOA/MOA, MOA/Mil, etc.), and using tables,stadia lines, and LRF makes much of the discussion a moot point.

But you really can't compare a decimal system the measures both range and target size in the same units (and matches seamlessly) with a fractional system that uses yds and inches (and MOA don't match exatly with meters or yds). Basic math.

You could get the same effect with yds (or any other unit of measure), IF you use yds for both range and object size, AND use yds in a decimal way. But nobody thinks that way.

People that argue that "they are the same" probably never took full advantage of the metric system because of their familiarity with the US system, for example if you use meters but keep thinking object size in inches, or continuosly converting MOA data to mils it does not make sense. And mils do not make sense in games where the bullseye is in MOA and ranges in yds.

To take full advantage of a mil/mil scope you have to use mils for windage, elevation, holds, etc. and meters for everything else. Once you convert, easy as pie. Difficult to understand if you don't try.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 10Truck</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AR4U</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough, but I don't think I'll ever be able to describe common target sizes in anything other than inches. Fractions of meters (or even yards) is just too strange for me. Perhaps it is an ignorant American thing.

I prefer to shoot little things, and I know the dimensions of little things best when I'm using inches.

A 0.333 yard diameter steel plate (12") or a 0.0762 meter diameter clay pigeon (3") just seems silly to me. I might be simplifying the ranging equation, but i'm also complicating my measurement system!
</div></div>

Some people are just too thick to get it...

Seriously 25.4 is easier then 27.7 when you are doing the math... really, easier. I don't know how many times I have to post it, there is no reason to do any math if you properly prepare yourself for any size target you want.

I mean first off, a Mil Dot Master works... enough said !

But come on, you guys are gonna sit here after how many times and make the "ranging is easier" or I think in Inches or I use Meters, Yards etc with a Mil scope because that is how I think... argument when we have shown you over and over that you don't have to do the long hand math so it is not "easier" if you are using the mil formula or the MOA formula of any kind in the field with a calculator you are wrong. You can make this any way you like, range is yards,/meters one for clay pidgins, cans of PBR, the tire on your wife's car, whatever you like. Look Ma' no math.

glock24 you should stick to attacking me via PM I think you are better suited for it then justifying why it's "easier" to range things your way. </div></div>

Frank, why do you have yellow/red regions on that table?

Does that demarcate a measurement that's borderline/not precise enough to estimate range within the danger space of your rifle? </div></div>

I believe that this is around the distance when the standard .308 becomes subsonic, indicating the target may be out of range.</div></div>

I liked the colors and did this just as an example, the colors are close to when a 308 will fall off but honestly they are just for effect.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Okay, I will give it a try. This is actually the first time I've seen it presented in this format. <span style="font-style: italic"> But I'll still keep my formula for target sizes that aren't on my new handy dandy chart.</span>


</div></div>

Well of course the formula is in just about every datebook out there, so keeping it is really not an option. However a Mil Dot Master means you never run across a target that is "not in there" because they are all in there...

 

[glock24]

Re: Yards or Meters

I dusted off my mil-dot master.

I don't understand how it outputs in meters. I also don't understand how it works with a target that measures less than 1 mil.

I'm really not seeing the advantage. Time for a Sniper's Hide Google search.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Re: Yards or Meters

To output in meters, flip the insert around. To get ranges for targets that measure less than one mil use the MILS side of the Bullet Drop column. Bullet Drop inches are your target dimension, line them up with the corresponding MILS, and read Target Range on the left as normal. The Mildot Master works plain and simple, it just takes a little familiarization.

 

[glock24]

Re: Yards or Meters

Very awesome! Now I get it.

Thanks gentlemen.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Yards or Meters

MilDot Master is cute (wish I remembered where I put mine). On the other hand, a PDA with a decent ballistic comp (with a range calculator) helps. And a solar charger provides relief in the (hopefully rare) cases when the battery runs out of juice. Much more convenient to compute the adjustments on the spot for the actual weather and range, than to interpolate range cards and correct them for temperature, pressure & altitude.

Coincidentally, ranging in meters is easier for those who grew up with it (e.g., I still need a handbook to figure how many inches are in one foot, or how many feet/foots in one yard

). Having one less multiplier in the formulas and correlating with the maps - doesn't hurt either.

And for those used to imperial system - transition to metric should be easier than the opposite way because memorizing one number <span style="font-weight: bold">10</span> isn't that hard, and everything is a multiple of it with the name suggesting the number of zeroes against meter: <span style="text-decoration: underline">milli</span>meter, <span style="text-decoration: underline">centi</span>meter, meter, <span style="text-decoration: underline">kilo</span>meter...

 

[gstaylorg]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #FF0000">
Some people are just too thick to get it... </span>
</div></div>

This.

This topic comes up so often I usually no longer have the energy to respond. My advice: go shoot a mil/mil scope for a while. Long enough to get used to the horribly complicated process <span style="font-style: italic">(sarcasm)</span> of using a decimal-based turret adjustment (0.1 mil increments). Then switch back to MOA and you will understand. It's that simple.

 

[Aqua Mark]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I dusted off my mil-dot master.
I don't understand how it outputs in meters. I also don't understand how it works with a target that measures less than 1 mil.
I'm really not seeing the advantage. Time for a Sniper's Hide Google search. </div></div>

Sir

You would need to buy the metric slide insert for the Mildot Master.

http://www.triadtactical.com/Mil-Dot-Master/

If you ever want to experiment with different (known) Yard and Meter ranges for zeroing and dope, this link has had a few thousand hits with a lot of happy shooters using the free targets.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2446827

Have a good weekend everyone.

mark

 

[Guest]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real simplification happens when you <span style="font-weight: bold">stop using different units of measurement for the target size and the range</span>. This is why mils and meters are "easier" than mils, yards and inches, because then you can eliminate that odd constant altogether and reduce math to a bare minimum.

</div></div>

That would work if you live in a country that uses the metric system but in the US you get target sizes in inches and ranges are for the most part in yards. You have to convert somewhere. </div></div>
An that is why I like a IPHY reticle with IPHY knobs, nothing to convert.
Target in inchs / reticle subtention X 100 = yardage. Most of the math can be done in your head while still eyeballing the target. Then just hold your up + wind, an shoot.

 

[Killer Spade 13]

Re: Yards or Meters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I once had a student complain mightly that doing all this math was impossible, no one does this in the field, there must be a simple way.....

Did you consider writing it down? Really, just do the calculation once, then you are done. Read the card, drive on. I suppose you will need to half or even quarter a value to fine tune, but that's the most math you should be doing while on the gun.

Since the would does not come with range markers and the target is rarely standing on an even number anyway, who really cares what you range in? You have a card with some numbers on one side, match the number the target is on, read the elevation for that number, shoot the SOB.

You will need to use the same unit of measure each time, but otherwise, it makes no differance.

One of these days I'm going to make up a range card in rods, or chains or some such, just to screw with some people. Then do a MilDot master slide and start calling out, "It's 22 chains, come up 11 minutes, hold left edge" </div></div>

A smart man . . .