Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Do many here use MILS?

Nice Bogus post......

Not exactly... A radian, or a radian/1000 for that mater, is a unit of angle not of distance. An angle can't equal a distance. In other words, units can't be mixed. The expressions shown are approximations not actual equalities. The approximations applicable because the angles are small.

Also, radian is the derived unit of plane angle in the SI units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

Agreed, Most of the people I know enjoy the challenge of shooting long range tactical matches. They also help prepare you for long range hunting in varying conditions. The military adopted Mils and at most of the high end tactical matches you will have military shooter there, so who better to learn from and adopt techniques that work. Most shooting disciplines are molded by the top shooters and techniques that work. No interest here of being a sniper, just like hitting random long range targets. And for those that poke fun at the abilities of some of the tactical shooters feel free to come out and shoot a match such as ASC, it might be an eye opener. With that said at these matches you will hear most corrections called in Mils. I shoot MOA and so does my shooting partner so it works fine. If I shot alone I would be at a big disadvantage in this discipline.

Exactly.

Furthermore, the fact that we use radians in divisions of 10 signals a metric unit of measure.

Back in the day of being a Fire Suport Man (enlisted FO) we used mils to calculate deviation corrections to the observed fall of shot in relation to the target.

Our binos had a reticle with an index every 10 mils. In practice, we rounded distance from observer to target to the nearest 1000 meters, then used that factor to multiply by the measured deviation in mils, to determine a correction in meters we would send back to the FDC.

For example, target 2800 meters from observer gets an O-T factor of 3. An impact observed 20 mils left of target, would be multiplied by 3, for a correction of "Right Six Zero" (60 meters)

Our compasses had a mil and degree index. A full circle had 6400 mils.

Here's the part where it goes to hell, a circle with a radius of 1000 meters, has a circumference of something like 6283 meters....

Please note the lack of any other particular units in this definition of the radian.

Similarly, suppose we have the circumference of a circle and divide into 360 equal segments, and two rays drawn outward from the center of the circle to intersect two adjacent segment nodes, then the angle between the rays is one degree.

Degrees and radians are both derived units of angle. As is MIL (radian/1000) and MOA (angle/60). Although an MOA (minute of angle should be called MOD or minute of degree).

I suspect most shooters think in terms of subtension, or distance (e.g., inches, centimeters, yards, meters, etal.) at range when using either MOA or MILs. I know I did. It can cause a lot of confusion.

To the OP's original question: I do use MILs and MOA's in the field; very poorly as a range finder, but with moderate success for hold overs and hold offs.

Sunday a buddy and I were shooting rocks out to 3/4 mile... he runs MIL/MIL (SS 12x) on his .300.... and I run the fine Nightforce MOAR reticle on my .260...

Simply remembering a MIL is about 3.5 MOA in the reticle allowed me to spot and call his misses in MILs.... and visa versa.

Another way to run a SFP MOA reticle is to simply dial it back in power to make the MOA marks correlate to MILS. Set at 22x I have 1 MOA marks in the reticle, on 11x they're 2 MOA.... So, at 12x they're close enough to 1.8..... or about a Half-MIL... to allow me to spot and call in MILs with no math to be done.

This schitt seems a lot harder than it is... taking the leap to MILs will provide a more universal language, and is quite a boon when that's what your spotter is set-up for. I don't think it makes first round hits easier at known distances... but, having a reticle that matches the turret certainly makes second shot corrections much easier and far more accurate.

I'm at ease with MOA and Mils in any variation,if only because it's all I've ever done.

That being said,for a flying headstart for a Newb,the Mil/Mil relationship and driving in 1/10th's is very easy for folks to cypher. There has been alotta Fixed [bleep] sold very recently,due that ease and fresh look at things,via them who ain't ever dabbled subtension or a turret before. The impetus isn't as a range determination vehicle(which is folly at best),but as a means of arranging CBS POA/POI intersections.

I'll try to remember to take a pic today,of the system that is bolstering them sales,by letting folks see with their own eyes...how dots is quickly connected and reliably.

A 5 Minute Tutorial and they's off and runnin',blowing their own minds.

Thanks

I am the OP and asked the question. I can get/grasp the concept. What is still bugging me is the same mantra of "spotting the miss and correcting"

In my initial scenario with the antelope miss....I DO NOT have any spotters or binos with MIL reticle. If I hunt with a Bud and we are doing this, I've either already tagged out and rifle is stored, or I am guiding a Bud as a freebie and not hunting at all. Point is I doubt I would be down behind a rifle with Mil reticle watching him shoot(maybe this is my big F up?)

It would take me quite a while to think in Mils re: the miss. Should I see dirt puff just off the front brisket and behind, my first thought would be same as example "Dude, you wiffed wide right by a foot".

Someone would have to be doing some sort of reconfiguring of the next hold. Whether he holds off his estimation of 1 foot and lines up the next partial Mil or whatever. Something needs to be done.

Or you could break down the scenario and tell me how if I missed "guessing" the wind at that distance I have no business shooting that far. That's fine. I wouldn't anyhow. It was just a random scenario with non-round distance factors. But reading wind is still a "guess" or educated estimate. The Formidotilis guy said he botched a wind call under 400 yards and missed an Elk. He claims to have shot several Tac Matches and claims to be quite accomplished. Seems it can happen in the real world.

I understand the concept of running down to the 300 yard target that was a 5" off shot. I can afford a sharpie and make a large line visible in the rifle scope reticle in order to use the Mil to adjust hold off/dial correction.....But if I am looking through a Zeiss spotter on 45X and can see the 1" grid on the target and can tell that it's 5" left, but perfectly centered, isn't all the other stuff BS and making THAT harder than it needs be?

I am not trying to be obstinate. I would guess that if I purchased my own scope in Mils I could learn it better 1st hand rather than reading it. I do get that I could make a drop/wind chart in Mils vs MOA. Ballistic Aps give correction in Mils also. Not a big deal.

Just having a hard time with everyone relying on "seeing the splash" and "Adjust accordingly to the appropriate Mil in the reticle". I don't see how this really is practical in many hunting scenarios in areas other than Wyoming.

And the discussion of using Mils as a rangefinder can stop. Not at all interested in that. If my LRF is broken or out of juice, I'd never shoot. Borrow one, or it's back to how hunting was in 1979.....250 yards/meter and under.

The 10% fudge factor for yards vs meters a great tip and I will learn it and remember it.

If I miss.... and the spotter says "a foot left".... I just hold off the approximate 12" and send the second. Doesn't matter if it's MOA, IPHY, or MIL.... when someone says "a foot", it'll require math to make the correction on the turret....

Binos/spotting scopes with MIL/MOA reticles are quite handy and universal in all situations, paper target grids and approximations of animal parts in inches notwithstanding.

Do you even know how to read mirage and can you reliably read bullet trace? If you can't do these two things, then yes, it would be of no use to you. To those of us with the training, with a similarly trained spotter, it only takes 2 or 3 seconds to send that second round.

Funny how threads morph, huh? Unfortunately as an OP, you can't make people post only what you want them to; the discussion will always take twists and turns.

Some of the idiotic, ignorant posts declaring that anyone who uses their reticle to range a target who isn't a trained sniper is just a "wannabe" are just that; Idiotic and Ignorant.

Pitiful and Pathetic also come to mind.

A rifle and scope are nothing more than tools. Disparaging someone who wants to be able to use those tools for what they're made and are capable of is what is really phhuckking funny and illustrates lack of knowledge.

Your original question to the board was about how many long range shooters use a scope set up in mil. It has been answered somewhat.



I think your real question is what is the best set up to use to be able to consistently hit targets at any range.



The answer to that will best be found by asking others that do more than hunt.

Whether you're shooting a rifle, pistol, shotgun or bow, you need to find out how the guys who compete configure their tools. In these games, usually only first round hits count or matter and that should tell you something.


Wanna have a pistol that shoots lights-out? See what IPSC or 3-Gun shooters are using. Want a shotgun that shoots where you look, is fitted properly, etc? See how the Sporting Clay competitors configure and fit their shotguns. Same goes with a rifle.

There's a reason practical rifle competitors use reticles set up in either MOA or mil and it's directly applicable to long range hunting. Just as many things pistol and shotgunners do to their weapons to hit more targets consistently are directly applicable to hunting.

Whether you choose an MOA or mil reticle really doesn't matter, just pick one and go with it. Either one will result in more first round hits than reticles with lesser information. That is if you actually practice.

You are correct, that was the initial question. Was a barometer of sorts, to see who used Mils in HUNTING.

And I am anxious to see what others are using for a set up. That's spot on. My only competition is in 3D archery. I'm quite serious about it. And I do need to look at what the guys who win are running, and why.

"isn't all the other stuff BS and making THAT harder than it needs be?"

It seems it is to hard, you should just stay with what you are comfortable with.

There has been some great advice and insight given here by some posters and it has been rebuked by folks that really don't have and idea about what they are speaking of.

If mils or moa or whatever just does not appeal to you then don't bother with it, make your call in inches or whatever you speak in.

I personally like the mil system and have converted most of my equipment as such.
In the end whether moa or mil they are just tools and if you want to be proficient in spotting hits at distance in a mils reference then the only way is to get equipment set up for mils and learn to use it.

I guess I will be odd man out as I think MOA/MOA is decided superior to MILs in a hunting optic.

1 MOA is a better �size� to work with for shooting. A MIL is too large and, when working wind, even reticles such as Leupold's TMR with � MIL hashes, is courser than I prefer. Working in � MOA increments on wind holds supplies all the precision I can use from field shooting positions and allows me to get my focus off the reticle and on the target.

MOA is pretty much the universal unit of measurement for rifle accuracy (in the USA) and even the guys who are dedicated to MILs usually discuss groups size or hit potential in MOA or the approximation inches at 100yds. Because we use the US customary units for linear measurements MILS has a hard time translating to accuracy standards or hit potential. So if you go to MILS you will still use MOA. Why use 2 systems?

Being able to determine linear measurements in inches is very useful if you wish to check a buck antler spread or tine length. MOA is quite a bit faster and simpler to work with if you are using yards for distance and inches for measurements. I am not sure what the minimums for B&C alltime are in centimeters.

MOA works better for quick wind drift formulas. As an example my 243 Win/105gr VLD @ my standard density (85%) has a Range / 2 = MOA drift in 10mph crosswind. This is an approximation but holds very close.

Example:
10 mph drift at 500yds is approximately 2.5 MOA
10 mph drift at 1000yds is approximately 5.0 MOA

My .264 Win Mag/ 140gr VLD @ 3250fps @ my standard density uses the same formula but is modified by subtracting 1 MOA from the Range / 2 formula.

Example:
10 mph drift at 500yds is approximately 1.5 MOA
10 mph drift at 1000yds is approximately 4.0 MOA

Wind drift has a tendency to work out in a linear manner as far as MOA holds.

I believe it is easier for a spotter to give MOA corrections than MIL corrections when using non reticle equipped spotting scope. Most all of us do not use a spotting scope with a reticle. When I am looking at a buck 800yds away I can �see� MOA easily because his back to brisket is 2.5 MOA. His back to brisket is also .7 MILs but it is much clumsier as nothing in the shooters reticle is exactly or easily broken down into a .7 increment.

Matching reticle to adjustments makes sense and there are more options in MIL/MIL but that is changing.

Short answer is if you are used to US customary units for range and measurements then MOA has a lot to offer.



Shane,

You hit one issue with MILs, as a MIL is not always a MIL. In real mathematics there are 6283.185 (2 X pie X 1000) Milradians in a circle. The US military rounded to 6400 to make the arty calculations simpler. Other countries rounded to 6300 or even 6000 (damn Russkies).

Some ballistic programs, when computing the bore angle, use real calculus radians and some use the 6400 approximation. This also applies to scope manufacturing concerning reticle subtension and click values.