I'm having a creedmoor built. Going to top it with nightforce shv 4-14x50 f1. It comes in mil or moa. I have no experience with either. Call me a dumbass. That's fine. Only thing I've ever used is the rapid-z. For my hunting in MS, 200-300 yards is max. But I'd like to target shoot further. For a newbie. Mil or moa?
Thanks.
Six of one half dozen of another.
If you are not schooled in one or the other go Mils, better and simpler.
They both work and I use both.
Both work but the market is trending towards MRAD. I prefer mil adjustments when I have the option.
dude are you trying to kick an ant pile?
I'm your huckleberry. I'm just asking. Either you have an answer or not.
Either one. Not an answer but an opinion.
Both work, but MRAD is more intuitive.
Mil for me, given the choice.
This is kind of like a metric vs imperial units question. Millimeters and kilograms are more logical given the orders of ten, but if you grew up with feet and pounds, it's harder to accept the change, at least for me.
I do have one mil scope and I like it.
As stated both work. I like mils much better. Its faster. With moa, you have to take your total number of clicks and divide by 4. (4 clicks per 1 moa) That takes a little longer,and allow for a possible math mistake, if you are in a hurry. With mils its is easier. As an example, 11 clicks is 1.1 mils, 23 clicks is 2.3mils ect. No dividing. Simply turn to 2.3 on your turret, and you are ready to go. If starting new,mils is the way I would go. Good luck.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
Yep.
To keep it simple I want the reticle and the turret to both be the same format, mils for me.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
just trying to explain it on a basic easy to understand level to someone who hasn't dealt with either.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
just trying to explain it on a basic easy to understand level to someone who hasn't dealt with either.
thanks. I need it basic.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
just trying to explain it on a basic easy to understand level to someone who hasn't dealt with either.
Still there shouldn't be a need for division. If your scope is MOA make the drop chart that way too. If it says put on xxx MOA just dial in xxx MOA.
As a side note, my geovids give me mil drop info in clicks,which I then dial in mils. This system has thus far been very quick,and very precise.
I know this sounds funny, but don't make drop charts in terms of drop. Set them up in terms of angular correction, whether the measurement is in milliradians or minutes of angle it works the same.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
just trying to explain it on a basic easy to understand level to someone who hasn't dealt with either.
Still there shouldn't be a need for division. If your scope is MOA make the drop chart that way too. If it says put on xxx MOA just dial in xxx MOA.
good point. I helpi g a new guy understand the difference between the two. When I shot with moa, I did precisely this as well.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
just trying to explain it on a basic easy to understand level to someone who hasn't dealt with either.
Still there shouldn't be a need for division. If your scope is MOA make the drop chart that way too. If it says put on xxx MOA just dial in xxx MOA.
good point. I helpi g a new guy understand the difference between the two. When I shot with moa, I did precisely this as well.
I respectfully submit that introducing clicks and their associated actual drop to the situation actually complicates things for a naive person. If my scope came from Venus and had units of peedwiddles of angle, I'd just make the chart in peedwiddles and dial directly.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
just trying to explain it on a basic easy to understand level to someone who hasn't dealt with either.
I understand. On some hunting optics, counting clicks is the only way to do it as the turrets aren't labeled. However, the best advise to someone new to twisting knobs is to stop thinking about clicks. The # of clicks is irrelevant when you have turrets clearly marked in MOA or MRAD.
mathman put it well. Whatever scale your scope and reticle are based off of, make your charts for that. It keeps everything fast and simple.
You are doing it wrong with either system if you are thinking in clicks.
just trying to explain it on a basic easy to understand level to someone who hasn't dealt with either.
I understand.
On some hunting optics, counting clicks is the only way to do it as the turrets aren't labeled. However, the best advise to someone new to twisting knobs is to stop thinking about clicks. The # of clicks is irrelevant when you have turrets clearly marked in MOA or MRAD.
That would make such a scope unsuitable for the purpose of dialing. For example, my 3-9x42 Meopro is definitely a set and forget scope.
That makes sense. I tend to think in clicks sometimes,only because my first lr scope was a leupold various xII with target turrets. It had no numbers on the turrets, which needless to say, made the adjusting more difficult. With today's greatly improved equip,you don't have to think in terms of clicks.
Yep. That's one of the reasons I did not care for the Meopta and Zeiss Conquest on certain rifles. I replaced with a Leupold VX3i with CDS turret.
Even with well marked turrets, I still think mrads have an advantage. My scopes adjust 5 mils per revolution. The equivalent MOA scopes would be 15 minutes per revolution. For an 850 yard shot that may require 6.2 mils/21.3 minutes of correction. With the mrad scope, that is one turn plus 1.2 mils. With the MOA scope, it is one turn plus 6.3 minutes. It is hardly challenging to break that 6.3 minutes into 6 minutes plus one click but it is something extra to think about. Obviously, you can set up your drop chart to display that correction as 21.25 minutes but why add an extra decimal place if you don't need to? You are also needing to think in quarters rather than tenths for the final adjustment. If you have the option to go base 10, it seems logical to do so. I know our country hasn't, but that is another matter.
I maintain that if your approach is in terms of angles then just turn the knob to the closest one matching the correction on your chart. That would work even if your units were in a base 7 number system.
I maintain that if your approach is in terms of angles then just turn the knob to the closest one matching the correction on your chart. That would work even if your units were in a base 7 number system.
True, but there's less thinking involved with base 10 compared to fractional quarters because the numbers on your chart and turret match. No rounding or approximating at all.
So what if my chart calls for .13 mils?
You need to change your chart
The same could be done by pre-rounding on an MOA chart.
True, but the rounded numbers on a MRAD chart each represent a click on the turret, which isn't the case with even rounded figures on an MOA chart. Again, both work and it's not a huge deal, just one less thing to think about.
Eg.
MRAD dope of 5.3 equals dialing to the "5" plus 3 clicks.
MOA dope of 5.75 equals dialing to the "5" plus 3 clicks.
One is more intuitive than the other.
Plus, the brain tends to work better and faster with smaller numbers, so it's quicker to see "12.4 Mil" and figure out that you need two full revolutions on a 5 Mil turret, then dial to the 2 and add 4 clicks, than it is to see "42.5 MOA" and divide by 15 for a 15 MOA turret, get 2 full revolutions, dial to the 12, and add 2 clicks.
It's just a minor speed and simplicitly difference.
Call me a dumbass.
Thanks.
You're a dumbass.
You're welcome,
Dave
It only matters when your on a team.
If the group speaks in MRAD, go that way.
Trying to a conversion on the fly sucks!!
So if you have a spotter, make sure your speaking the same language.
OH... if your using ballistic Calculators some of the older portable ones' only do Mil's.....
New ones will do either.
Just say'n
Thanks for the info.
Gonna go with mil.
Thank you. I am complete.
Call me a dumbass.
Thanks.
You're a dumbass.
You're welcome,
Dave
I re-read that and almost spilled my coffee ! LMAO Gary
If you can't think of the distance you need to adjust/move POI to in MILS, you're going to have difficulty with Mils on the turrets.
If you can, then MILS are a little simpler, as is all the metric system............but as someone else said, you can't be trying to do conversions on the fly.
JMHO
MM
If you can't think of the distance you need to adjust/move POI to in MILS, you're going to have difficulty with Mils on the turrets.
If you can, then MILS are a little simpler, as is all the metric system............but as someone else said, you can't be trying to do conversions on the fly.
JMHO
MM
Why do you need to do any conversions? The reticle will tell you how many mils you need to adjust.
John
Finally. Someone mentions the reticle.
To add... with the growing majority using laser rangefinders today, it has lost much of its importance in the field.
Having matching reticles and turrets is assumed in this comparison.
Having matching reticles and turrets is assumed in this comparison.
Never underestimate the potential retardation of your fellow man.
Dave
Having matching reticles and turrets is assumed in this comparison.
Never underestimate the potential retardation of your fellow man.
Dave
Good point, Dave. I mean Clark. Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep it in mind.
My brain works in inches I tried mils they're ok but at this point it would cost 15 to 20 k to switch to mils from MOA. Not to mention all my hunting group runs MOA and spots and calls correction in MOA. Mils calls I need a reticle to call correction I can't just figure hit/ miss correction at a given distance is mils with out a reticle as a measure stick. With MOA its close enough to an inch I know the range say 750 yards my buddy hits 15 inches right I call move 2 MOA left he corrects 2 MOA left and he is on target. With mils I would have to judge the hit in the metric system. Which would be easier with a spotter with reticle. But I just find MOA easier. Not to mention the 1/4 MOA is more precise than mils. Even when rounding. There are 4 1/4-.25" in an MOA a mil is 3.6 MOA at 100 so the mil .1 = .36" and a MOA 1/4 = .25". SO even rounding MOA is more precise than mils. By a small fraction but still more precise.
One question I have for Jordan and Travis, is/ would or do you use meters instead of yards when using mils to simplify the whole process and stay completely on the metric system. Jordan being from the north I would guess yes but would like to hear your process. Clark I would guess has his tongue stuck to some window somewhere. LOL. Clark that Tract reticle really really sucks bad. Hope they get a MOA-MOA unit soon. It would be UBEr.
The best advice I have ever heard on this issue. Was pick one. MOA or MILS and stick with it, practice it, teach your buddies how to use it come up with what works best for your crew and enjoy.
I think its more about the indian than the arrow....
Hell I have a scope that moves in cm/click... That one is a set and forget, but numbers are numbers, if you use something long enough to be proficient at it, it really doesn't matter what the underlying system is.
FredIII,
It's pretty fricking easy to plug your data into Ballistic AE and have it spit out a chart for drop in Mils based on yards to target.
i.e. 200 yard zero,
300 yards = 0.3 mils
400 yards = 0.7 mils
500 yards = 1.1 mils
And so on....
Kimber man. I was referring to windage and making correction I am fully aware of ballistic calculators and the usefulness of them, thanks. But if a simple switch in your range finder takes you to meters why not just run mils and meters.
I have been using MOA for about 20 years and changing is not in the cards but for those who use mils why not use meters like the military.
That would be Pretty frickn easy no!!! Not everyone is what/who you think. 😉.
Ok so if you miss a shot at say 900 yards buy 3ft right and a ft low. In mils how in your head do you convert that into mils with out reading the reticle. In MOA I can do the correction in my head on the fly. No app needed no graph needed just adjust and shoot.
900yards 1' low = 1 1/4 MOA up. 3' right is 6moa left. How do you figure mils with out a reticle to scale with.
With MOA I can use any reticle and do the math in my head. I concede reticles with MOA MOA makes it easier by far as would mil mil. But what if your spotter doesn't have a reticle for reference. I would also add that mils has been a favorite for the reason the reticle matched the adjustment on the turret which was a great advantage, but with MOA MOA scopes popping up everywhere it really boils down to the shooter and if he thinks in America standard or metric.
Ok so if you miss a shot at say 900 yards buy 3ft right and a ft low. In mils how in your head do you convert that into mils with out reading the reticle. In MOA I can do the correction in my head on the fly.
You don't.
You use the reticle.
Dave
One question I have for Jordan and Travis, is/ would or do you use meters instead of yards when using mils to simplify the whole process and stay completely on the metric system. Jordan being from the north I would guess yes but would like to hear your process. Clark I would guess has his tongue stuck to some window somewhere. LOL. Clark that Tract reticle really really sucks bad. Hope they get a MOA-MOA unit soon. It would be UBEr.
Negative.
I hate the metric system and I hate foreigners.
(No offense to Jordan)
Dave
Is Canada not in the USA I thought the libs annexed it after the election.
That place is gayer than AIDS.
Dave
If you can't think of the distance you need to adjust/move POI to in MILS, you're going to have difficulty with Mils on the turrets.
If you can, then MILS are a little simpler, as is all the metric system............but as someone else said, you can't be trying to do conversions on the fly.
JMHO
MM
Why do you need to do any conversions? The reticle will tell you how many mils you need to adjust.
John
The reticle will only tell you how much to adjust if you can range to with 25 meters or so on long shots, say +500 meters.
Kinda thinking you will still need a range finder to get the distance accurate enough for those kind of shots.
MM
If you can't think of the distance you need to adjust/move POI to in MILS, you're going to have difficulty with Mils on the turrets.
If you can, then MILS are a little simpler, as is all the metric system............but as someone else said, you can't be trying to do conversions on the fly.
JMHO
MM
Why do you need to do any conversions? The reticle will tell you how many mils you need to adjust.
John
The reticle will only tell you how much to adjust if you can range to with 25 meters or so on long shots, say +500 meters.
Kinda thinking you will still need a range finder to get the distance accurate enough for those kind of shots.
MM
Not sure I'm following you. Of course you use a range finder. My range finder tells me 419 yards. In my chosen load, that takes 1.9 mils of elevation added. I dial in 1.9 mils, hold for wind and squeeze the trigger. What conversion is needed?
If I miss, I note where the bullet splashed in the reticle. Say .8 mils right and .4 mils high. I hold .8 mils left and .4 mils lower and send another. I still don't understand the reason people feel the need to convert inches to mils.
John
My brain works in inches I tried mils they're ok but at this point it would cost 15 to 20 k to switch to mils from MOA. Not to mention all my hunting group runs MOA and spots and calls correction in MOA. Mils calls I need a reticle to call correction I can't just figure hit/ miss correction at a given distance is mils with out a reticle as a measure stick. With MOA its close enough to an inch I know the range say 750 yards my buddy hits 15 inches right I call move 2 MOA left he corrects 2 MOA left and he is on target. With mils I would have to judge the hit in the metric system. Which would be easier with a spotter with reticle. But I just find MOA easier. Not to mention the 1/4 MOA is more precise than mils. Even when rounding. There are 4 1/4-.25" in an MOA a mil is 3.6 MOA at 100 so the mil .1 = .36" and a MOA 1/4 = .25". SO even rounding MOA is more precise than mils. By a small fraction but still more precise.
One question I have for Jordan and Travis, is/ would or do you use meters instead of yards when using mils to simplify the whole process and stay completely on the metric system. Jordan being from the north I would guess yes but would like to hear your process. Clark I would guess has his tongue stuck to some window somewhere. LOL. Clark that Tract reticle really really sucks bad. Hope they get a MOA-MOA unit soon. It would be UBEr.
The best advice I have ever heard on this issue. Was pick one. MOA or MILS and stick with it, practice it, teach your buddies how to use it come up with what works best for your crew and enjoy.
The unit of measure you use for distance really doesn't matter, as long as you have a consistent point of reference. I used to use yards, but because I have tape measures that measure in inches as well as centimeters, I simply switched my RF to meters and print all my dope charts in meters, so that 0.1 Mil at 100 meters would be easily measurable as 1 cm. I design my own 100m targets on my computer, and I use a grid with 1 cm squares for Mil scopes or 1" squares for MOA scopes. That gives a quick point of reference for preliminary group measurement and tracking tests. The ONLY reason that lineal measurements even matter to me is for recording and observing group size. Aside from that, angular measurements are all a guy needs.
For making shot corrections at distance, you need to have a reference "ruler" for measurements. It's impossible for you and your spotter to know exactly what you both are talking about when you spot a miss at 800 yards and say '15" to the left'. Your spotter's estimation of 15" might actually be 20", or your 15" might actually be 10". Absolute, lineal measurements don't work unless you have a point of reference like a grid chart or a yard stick set up at the target. So you need a ruler in order to make sure you and your spotter are on the same page. Whether that reference is in the form of angular increments in your reticle, or a grid chart on your target, you need a common measurement language between you. Obviously it's not practical to have a grid chart that covers your target plus 5' on either side, so even with a 1'x1' grid chart, it's still possible to miss wide and be guessing about the correction needed. The only universal solution is to use a measurement ruler that can be moved on the fly to subtend the angular distance from the target to the POI, and for the units of measurement to be in a common language between you and your spotter. That means you both have reticles with angular increments using either MOA or Mils.
When I decided to switch from MOA to Mils, I had to make a mass migration, as well. It took a while, but I eventually sold off all my MOA scopes and bought the Mil scopes that I wanted (I still have a single MOA scope that is going strong). I bought a spotter eye piece with a Mil reticle, and life is good. Converting from MOA to Mils is a bit of a pain when a shooting buddy has an MOA scope, but it's manageable.
You asked about my process. I measure groups in MOA (because that's a universal language among guys who care about group size), and make shot corrections in Mils. I shoot paper at 100-200m, and rocks and steel for anything beyond that. It's a pretty simple system. It really doesn't matter if you're measuring distance in meters, yards, furlongs, or decimeters- angular measurements are consistent, regardless of the chosen unit of distance.
Bottom line is, you should be giving shot corrections in angular terms, not lineal measurements. Best case is when you and your spotter both have a reticle with angular measurements in the same units of measure, but even if you don't, you can still use terms that are consistent like "hold 1 target width to the right", or "hold on the left edge of the target", or something that is objective rather than being subjective with no point of reference, like trying to estimate inches of correction.
One question I have for Jordan and Travis, is/ would or do you use meters instead of yards when using mils to simplify the whole process and stay completely on the metric system. Jordan being from the north I would guess yes but would like to hear your process. Clark I would guess has his tongue stuck to some window somewhere. LOL. Clark that Tract reticle really really sucks bad. Hope they get a MOA-MOA unit soon. It would be UBEr.
Negative.
I hate the metric system and I hate foreigners.
(No offense to Jordan)
Dave
Nice cover-up for the man crush you have on me...
That place is gayer than AIDS.
Dave
Yup, I knew it. See above.
If you can't think of the distance you need to adjust/move POI to in MILS, you're going to have difficulty with Mils on the turrets.
If you can, then MILS are a little simpler, as is all the metric system............but as someone else said, you can't be trying to do conversions on the fly.
JMHO
MM
Why do you need to do any conversions? The reticle will tell you how many mils you need to adjust.
John
The reticle will only tell you how much to adjust if you can range to with 25 meters or so on long shots, say +500 meters.
Kinda thinking you will still need a range finder to get the distance accurate enough for those kind of shots.
MM
We're not talking about using the reticle to measure distance to the target, we're talking about using the reticle to correct elevation and windage on a missed shot.
If you can't think of the distance you need to adjust/move POI to in MILS, you're going to have difficulty with Mils on the turrets.
If you can, then MILS are a little simpler, as is all the metric system............but as someone else said, you can't be trying to do conversions on the fly.
JMHO
MM
Why do you need to do any conversions? The reticle will tell you how many mils you need to adjust.
John
The reticle will only tell you how much to adjust if you can range to with 25 meters or so on long shots, say +500 meters.
Kinda thinking you will still need a range finder to get the distance accurate enough for those kind of shots.
MM
WTF are you talking about?
Travis
The unit of measure you use for distance really doesn't matter
You summed that up pretty well.
Clark
Nice cover-up for the man crush you have on me...
I got a rager.
PM sent.
Weiner
My brain works in inches I tried mils they're ok but at this point it would cost 15 to 20 k to switch to mils from MOA. Not to mention all my hunting group runs MOA and spots and calls correction in MOA. Mils calls I need a reticle to call correction I can't just figure hit/ miss correction at a given distance is mils with out a reticle as a measure stick. With MOA its close enough to an inch I know the range say 750 yards my buddy hits 15 inches right I call move 2 MOA left he corrects 2 MOA left and he is on target. With mils I would have to judge the hit in the metric system. Which would be easier with a spotter with reticle. But I just find MOA easier. Not to mention the 1/4 MOA is more precise than mils. Even when rounding. There are 4 1/4-.25" in an MOA a mil is 3.6 MOA at 100 so the mil .1 = .36" and a MOA 1/4 = .25". SO even rounding MOA is more precise than mils. By a small fraction but still more precise.
One question I have for Jordan and Travis, is/ would or do you use meters instead of yards when using mils to simplify the whole process and stay completely on the metric system. Jordan being from the north I would guess yes but would like to hear your process. Clark I would guess has his tongue stuck to some window somewhere. LOL. Clark that Tract reticle really really sucks bad. Hope they get a MOA-MOA unit soon. It would be UBEr.
The best advice I have ever heard on this issue. Was pick one. MOA or MILS and stick with it, practice it, teach your buddies how to use it come up with what works best for your crew and enjoy.
The unit of measure you use for distance really doesn't matter, as long as you have a consistent point of reference. I used to use yards, but because I have tape measures that measure in inches as well as centimeters, I simply switched my RF to meters and print all my dope charts in meters, so that 0.1 Mil at 100 meters would be easily measurable as 1 cm. I design my own 100m targets on my computer, and I use a grid with 1 cm squares for Mil scopes or 1" squares for MOA scopes. That gives a quick point of reference for preliminary group measurement and tracking tests. The ONLY reason that lineal measurements even matter to me is for recording and observing group size. Aside from that, angular measurements are all a guy needs.
For making shot corrections at distance, you need to have a reference "ruler" for measurements. It's impossible for you and your spotter to know exactly what you both are talking about when you spot a miss at 800 yards and say '15" to the left'. Your spotter's estimation of 15" might actually be 20", or your 15" might actually be 10". Absolute, lineal measurements don't work unless you have a point of reference like a grid chart or a yard stick set up at the target. So you need a ruler in order to make sure you and your spotter are on the same page. Whether that reference is in the form of angular increments in your reticle, or a grid chart on your target, you need a common measurement language between you. Obviously it's not practical to have a grid chart that covers your target plus 5' on either side, so even with a 1'x1' grid chart, it's still possible to miss wide and be guessing about the correction needed. The only universal solution is to use a measurement ruler that can be moved on the fly to subtend the angular distance from the target to the POI, and for the units of measurement to be in a common language between you and your spotter. That means you both have reticles with angular increments using either MOA or Mils.
When I decided to switch from MOA to Mils, I had to make a mass migration, as well. It took a while, but I eventually sold off all my MOA scopes and bought the Mil scopes that I wanted (I still have a single MOA scope that is going strong). I bought a spotter eye piece with a Mil reticle, and life is good. Converting from MOA to Mils is a bit of a pain when a shooting buddy has an MOA scope, but it's manageable.
You asked about my process. I measure groups in MOA (because that's a universal language among guys who care about group size), and make shot corrections in Mils. I shoot paper at 100-200m, and rocks and steel for anything beyond that. It's a pretty simple system. It really doesn't matter if you're measuring distance in meters, yards, furlongs, or decimeters- angular measurements are consistent, regardless of the chosen unit of distance.
Bottom line is, you should be giving shot corrections in angular terms, not lineal measurements. Best case is when you and your spotter both have a reticle with angular measurements in the same units of measure, but even if you don't, you can still use terms that are consistent like "hold 1 target width to the right", or "hold on the left edge of the target", or something that is objective rather than being subjective with no point of reference, like trying to estimate inches of correction.
I agree. The correction I'm speaking to is a guess (well practiced and educated guess but still a guess ) and all are with out a reticle to measure against. I could not even begin to correct mils by using objects around the target as scale. With out a slide rule. But I do pretty good in MOA.
That said I do agree everything tightens up when reticles are used as rulers.
Nice cover-up for the man crush you have on me...
I got a rager.
PM sent.
Weiner
.
One goat, one damn time!!!!! only one time.😏
If you shoot past MPBR (and inside it as well) you are doing yourself and whoever is shooting with you a huge disservice not running a ruler in both scope and spotter.
MIL or MOA is inconsequential to me as long as my turrets and reticle match.
Tanner
As long as the scope isn't too top heavy I don't mind moa or mil.
Nice cover-up for the man crush you have on me...
I got a rager.
PM sent.
Weiner
Didn't get a PM.
My heart is broken.
If you shoot past MPBR (and inside it as well) you are doing yourself and whoever is shooting with you a huge disservice not running a ruler in both scope and spotter.
Yep.
Clark
Didn't get a PM.
My heart is broken.
Time heals all wounds.
Even the ones we don't remember.
On weekdays.
Dave
If I miss, I note where the bullet splashed in the reticle. Say .8 mils right and .4 mils high. I hold .8 mils left and .4 mils lower and send another. I still don't understand the reason people feel the need to convert inches to mils.
John
Yeah, that works on just fine paper targets where you can come back to original POA & adjust per what the reticle tells you; not so much on an animal that will move from where it was when you shot as well as the scope moving with the recoil so not really being able to easily see POI.
As for the conversion comment, just intended for people than can't "think" in mils/metric..........obviously you can't be successful trying to make a conversion while trying to aim & shoot.........sorry about the confusion.
MM
If I miss, I note where the bullet splashed in the reticle. Say .8 mils right and .4 mils high. I hold .8 mils left and .4 mils lower and send another. I still don't understand the reason people feel the need to convert inches to mils.
John
Yeah, that works on just fine paper targets where you can come back to original POA & adjust per what the reticle tells you; not so much on an animal that will move from where it was when you shot as well as the scope moving with the recoil so not really being able to easily see POI.
As for the conversion comment, just intended for people than can't "think" in mils/metric..........obviously you can't be successful trying to make a conversion while trying to aim & shoot.........sorry about the confusion.
MM
Goodness..holy dog balls
This thread is where real life and theories collide, pretty telling.
This thread is where real life and theories collide, pretty telling.
It's more than hilarious.
And getting more hilarious'er by the day.
Clark
If I miss, I note where the bullet splashed in the reticle. Say .8 mils right and .4 mils high. I hold .8 mils left and .4 mils lower and send another. I still don't understand the reason people feel the need to convert inches to mils.
John
Yeah, that works on just fine paper targets where you can come back to original POA & adjust per what the reticle tells you; not so much on an animal that will move from where it was when you shot as well as the scope moving with the recoil so not really being able to easily see POI.
As for the conversion comment, just intended for people than can't "think" in mils/metric..........obviously you can't be successful trying to make a conversion while trying to aim & shoot.........sorry about the confusion.
MM
I've killed a whole lot of living things using the reticle in a scope- quite a few were moving. Safe to say I've spotted as many being killed by others.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Didn't get a PM.
My heart is broken.
Time heals all wounds.
Said flave to that darn goat.
On weekdays.
Dave
FIXED IT.
I've killed a whole lot of living things using the reticle in a scope- quite a few were moving. Safe to say I've spotted as many being killed by others.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Too bad your reading comprehension doesn't match your world class BS.
MM
I've killed a whole lot of living things using the reticle in a scope- quite a few were moving. Safe to say I've spotted as many being killed by others.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Too bad your reading comprehension doesn't match your world class BS.
MM
Please regale me as the only BS posted has been someone stating that you can't use a reticle to make corrections on an animal that might move. Well, that and stating that one should do a "conversion" of angular measurements to a linear one....
Though I've never shot "movers"...?
![[Linked Image]](http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbpvo3ktf.jpg)
If I miss, I note where the bullet splashed in the reticle. Say .8 mils right and .4 mils high. I hold .8 mils left and .4 mils lower and send another. I still don't understand the reason people feel the need to convert inches to mils.
John
Yeah, that works on just fine paper targets where you can come back to original POA & adjust per what the reticle tells you; not so much on an animal that will move from where it was when you shot as well as the scope moving with the recoil so not really being able to easily see POI.
As for the conversion comment, just intended for people than can't "think" in mils/metric..........obviously you can't be successful trying to make a conversion while trying to aim & shoot.........sorry about the confusion.
MM
MM,
What scopes with mil based hash marks and mil turrets have you hunted with or shot with at all? How many rounds would you estimate you have shot using said scopes and under what circumstances?
Thanks,
John
If I miss, I note where the bullet splashed in the reticle. Say .8 mils right and .4 mils high. I hold .8 mils left and .4 mils lower and send another. I still don't understand the reason people feel the need to convert inches to mils.
John
Yeah, that works on just fine paper targets where you can come back to original POA & adjust per what the reticle tells you; not so much on an animal that will move from where it was when you shot as well as the scope moving with the recoil so not really being able to easily see POI.
As for the conversion comment, just intended for people than can't "think" in mils/metric..........obviously you can't be successful trying to make a conversion while trying to aim & shoot.........sorry about the confusion.
MM
MM,
What scopes with mil based hash marks and mil turrets have you hunted with or shot with at all? How many rounds would you estimate you have shot using said scopes and under what circumstances?
Thanks,
John
Just compare your dicks and save us the drama.
If you are not directly dialing range then you are doing it wrong.
Converting a range into mil or MOA drop and then dialing said correction is so 1990s.
Hey Spray Tan, you're back!
Doesn't matter which one you use as long as your reticle and turrets match. Which, of course, if you're not using a freakin' relic of an optic, they will.
There is no math involved either way.
There is no conversion involved either way.
Your units could be in Cheeseburgers. It doesn't matter. If you see your shot missed left by 4.3 Cheeseburgers (using your reticle), you dial right or hold by 4.3 Cheeseburgers. Make your correction, pull the trigger. Done. Nowhere in that scenario was there any math or conversion or inches or centimeters. If I am ranging a target with a laser, I get a reading of 1,028 yards. I plug that into my ballistic solver and it spits out a ballistic solution: 7.8 mil up, 0.2 mil left. I dial my scope to 7.8 and 0.2. Done. Again... zero math. No math. Absolutely nadda maths. And I don't care what the units are. Mil, MOA, Cheeseburgers. Doesn't matter.
You don't spot your shot in feet or inches. That's ridiculous. Nobody looks through their scope and says, "Oh, I missed by 4.7 feet. Ok, now I gotta convert that to centimeters..." No. Doesn't happen. Will never happen if you're doing it right.
If you are RANGING with your reticle, there is math involved. But the formulas are easy. And it doesn't matter what units you're using as their is a formula for each. I use mils. But I measure distance and dimension in feet and inches and yards. Doesn't matter. The formula for that is simple:
(Target Height in Inches x 27.77) / Height in Mils through the reticle = Range in Yards
Not that hard. I'm gonna be using a calculator anyway.
Now go shoot yer sticks!
Anyone have a recco for a Mil/Mill or MOA/MOA, 1" tube scope that's about the size of a Leupy 6x42? The SWFA 6x42 is a beast IMO.
Your right FourT6. Still some like to argue the fact that 1/4 inch MOA is more precise than 1/10MIL. But what the is 0.1 at 100yds? 90 % more use of the military accepted MIL than MOA. I use MOA because every one I know uses it. But I have a few military type buddies and they shoot MIL. They kick my ass at the range but they had all their rifle barrels and 10's of thousand of rounds paid for by taxpayers. LOL
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Your right FourT6. Still some like to argue the fact that 1/4 inch MOA is more precise than 1/10MIL. But what the is 0.1 at 100yds? 90 % more use of the military accepted MIL than MOA. I use MOA because every one I know uses it. But I have a few military type buddies and they shoot MIL. They kick my ass at the range but they had all their rifle barrels and 10's of thousand of rounds paid for by taxpayers. LOL
It does actually make a difference to some. Sometimes your rifle's zero is between two clicks. A 0.1 mil difference at 1,000 yards is 3.6 inches. Not a lot. But if you shoot competitions, that matters. Some of the matches I shoot have 1 MOA targets. So at 1,000 yards you're trying to hit a 10" target. 3.6 inches is a significant margin for that size of target, at that distance.
MOA is a little more fine for zeroing. But most people won't notice. Some optics, like the Vortex Razor HD, have a click-less zero, letting you zero between whole clicks.
This is all really semantic though, from what I've been told.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Who cares? It doesn't matter and you will never be in a position where you need to figure it out in the field.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Who cares?! It doesn't matter and you will never be in a position where you need to figure it out in the field.
I won't? I've had to figure it in the field before, but I was using MOA and it was an easy division in my head. I was just wondering what math you use for MIL, since I don't use it.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Who cares?! It doesn't matter and you will never be in a position where you need to figure it out in the field.
I won't? I've had to figure it in the field before, but I was using MOA and it was an easy division in my head. I was just wondering what math you use for MIL, since I don't use it.
24 incehs at 400 yards is 1.667 Mil. The math is pretty easy. But I have no idea why anybody would need to do that conversion. Why did you?
allow me to tackle that math problem. Correct me if I'm wrong.
one mil at 1000 yds = 36"
(72" x 1000) /5 mils= range 0f 14,400 inches, Divide by 36, range is 400 yds
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
No need to do math. Look through your scope. It has a measuring stick. But you already knew that, so I anticipate a rebuttal. LOL
Cuzz I wasn't shooting from my house or around electronics.
So what is the math to get to 1.667
Cuzz I wasn't shooting from my house or around electronics.
WTF are you talking about? Around electronics? Dude, you are in a totally different mental spot than what anybody is talking about here.
So what is the math to get to 1.667
24 divided by 4, divided by 3.6 = 1.667
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
No need to do math. Look through your scope. It has a measuring stick. But you already knew that, so I anticipate a rebuttal. LOL
Gotcha. So obviously all MIL scopes have MIL reticles then. Thanks.
Cuzz I wasn't shooting from my house or around electronics.
WTF are you talking about? Around electronics? Dude, you are in a totally different mental spot than what anybody is talking about here.
So what is the math to get to 1.667
24 divided by 4, divided by 3.6 = 1.667
Ok, more math, gotcha.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
No need to do math. Look through your scope. It has a measuring stick. But you already knew that, so I anticipate a rebuttal. LOL
Gotcha. So obviously all MIL scopes have MIL reticles then. Thanks.
This entire conversation/thread was prefaced with the notion that one's reticle and turrets match. That's the standard used today. If you're using a scope from 1983, with an MOA reticle and MRAD turrets then you're are probably a masochist.
If your reticle matches your turrets, there is no math. Jesus. Can you even buy a decent scope these days where they don't match? Maybe some 3rd-world off brand Smut & Linder?
Show up at a competition and ask if anybody is running a mis-matched scope.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
No need to do math. Look through your scope. It has a measuring stick. But you already knew that, so I anticipate a rebuttal. LOL
Gotcha. So obviously all MIL scopes have MIL reticles then. Thanks.
This entire conversation/thread was prefaced with the notion that one's reticle and turrets match. That's the standard used today. If you're using a scope from 1983, with an MOA reticle and MRAD turrets then you're are probably a masochist.
Didn't say that either. Wasn't aware that all MRAD turret scopes had MIL dot reticles, cuzz not all my MOA turret scopes have dot reticles.
Or should I say DOT reticles in the MRAD scope, cuzz I know some have been mismatched.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
No need to do math. Look through your scope. It has a measuring stick. But you already knew that, so I anticipate a rebuttal. LOL
Gotcha. So obviously all MIL scopes have MIL reticles then. Thanks.
This entire conversation/thread was prefaced with the notion that one's reticle and turrets match. That's the standard used today. If you're using a scope from 1983, with an MOA reticle and MRAD turrets then you're are probably a masochist.
If your reticle matches your turrets, there is no math. Jesus. Can you even buy a decent scope these days where they don't match? Maybe some 3rd-world off brand Smut & Linder?
Show up at a competition and ask if anybody is running a mis-matched scope.
Again, reading comprehension ain't your strong point, but I'm sure you impress the family.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
No need to do math. Look through your scope. It has a measuring stick. But you already knew that, so I anticipate a rebuttal. LOL
Gotcha. So obviously all MIL scopes have MIL reticles then. Thanks.
This entire conversation/thread was prefaced with the notion that one's reticle and turrets match. That's the standard used today. If you're using a scope from 1983, with an MOA reticle and MRAD turrets then you're are probably a masochist.
Didn't say that either. Wasn't aware that all MRAD turret scopes had MIL dot reticles, cuzz not all my MOA turret scopes have dot reticles.
Is English your native language? I'm not asking that to pick a fight. Maybe something is getting lost in translation here...
Hey FourT6 cool down a bit. Your the new guy here and the old boys are just messing with you. You stand to get a wealth of info from these guys but you need to jump through a few hoops to see if your a passerby or a serious guy.
Welcome to the fire.
Anybody who has used both MOA and MRAD scopes extensively knows the advantages to both. Try using one of each for a while, and you'll see what myself and others are talking about...
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Scott,
If a guy actually misses by 24 inches (that is 2 feet or 61 centimeters for our European friends) at 400yds I hope we can all agree the unit of measurement in his reticle and adjustments was not the problem.
Just Sayin.
The smart fellows simply dialed to 400 and get a first round hit.
Seems simple.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
This many.
Travis
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Whats the MOA adjustment if you are 17 low at 527 yards?
I realize that. I am assuming you didn't do the long division on the fly in your head though. Atleast I can't
I realize that. I am assuming you didn't do the long division on the fly in your head though. Atleast I can't
17 divided by 5.2 ain't long division.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Scott,
If a guy actually misses by 24 inches (that is 2 feet or 61 centimeters for our European friends) at 400yds I hope we can all agree the unit of measurement in his reticle and adjustments was not the problem.
Just Sayin.
The smart fellows simply dialed to 400 and get a first round hit.
Seems simple.
But don't you got to start at the start? I have a rifle in one hand, a scope in the other. I slap the scope on the rifle. My box of ammo shows that I am 24" low at 400 yards with a 100 yard zero.
I shoot and get on the paper at 100. Now I want to ring the steel at 400. How do I just simply dial, cuzz I don't know what to dial in.
As I said, I don't know the math for MIL.
I know if my box of ammo states that I am 24" low at 400 yards then I need to put my MOA dial to 6.
1 Mil is 3.6" per 100 yards, so 14.4" per mil at 400 yards. If you were going to do it that way, it's simply 24 divided by 14.4, or about 1.6 Mil.
1 Mil is 3.6" per 100 yards, so 14.4" per mil at 400 yards. If you were going to do it that way, it's simply 24 divided by 14.4, or about 1.6 Mil.
Perfect.
There is no math involved either way.
Your units could be in Cheeseburgers. It doesn't matter. If you see your shot missed left by 4.3 Cheeseburgers (using your reticle), you dial right or hold by 4.3 Cheeseburgers. Make your correction, pull the trigger. Done. Nowhere in that scenario was there any math or conversion or inches or centimeters.
I'm off by 4.3 cheeseburgers and I want to be at zero. 4.3 cheeseburgers minus 4.3 cheeseburgers equal (puts me at) zero. Vwalla! Math.
I realize that. I am assuming you didn't do the long division on the fly in your head though. Atleast I can't
17 divided by 5.2 ain't long division.
Haha ok.....
Scroll down on the
What's MOA web page for links to some of the best YouTube videos on the MOA/Mils subject featuring an experienced sniper team leader and sniper instructor.
I just test drove some nosler rdf's. My target was at 745 yards away. I struck 1 full mil above my dope for the match burner I usually shoot.
So if you are down 24 inches at 400 yards, how many MIL is that?
Scott,
If a guy actually misses by 24 inches (that is 2 feet or 61 centimeters for our European friends) at 400yds I hope we can all agree the unit of measurement in his reticle and adjustments was not the problem.
Just Sayin.
The smart fellows simply dialed to 400 and get a first round hit.
Seems simple.
But don't you got to start at the start? I have a rifle in one hand, a scope in the other. I slap the scope on the rifle. My box of ammo shows that I am 24" low at 400 yards with a 100 yard zero.
I shoot and get on the paper at 100. Now I want to ring the steel at 400. How do I just simply dial, cuzz I don't know what to dial in.
As I said, I don't know the math for MIL.
I know if my box of ammo states that I am 24" low at 400 yards then I need to put my MOA dial to 6.
Point taken.
My inference was that a guy missed at 400yds by 2 feet and was trying to correct for another shot.
![[Linked Image]](http://s744.photobucket.com/user/Vereor1/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbpvo3ktf.jpg.html)