the way I read it mil is actually a "decimeter" or 10cm at 100 meters? I don't understand why they say .1 mil instead of just saying 1 cm.. unless .1 mil is a different distance at different distances, am I right?
Rifle Scopes Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
- Thread starter the once-ler
- Start date
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Because mil is not a linear measurement, it is a trig unit of measurement. http://www.mil-dot.com/media/1027/the_derivation_of_the_range_estimation_equations.pdf
1 mil = 1 mil at all distances.
Because mil is not a linear measurement, it is a trig unit of measurement. http://www.mil-dot.com/media/1027/the_derivation_of_the_range_estimation_equations.pdf
1 mil = 1 mil at all distances.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
It is a 1 to 1000 correlation.
At 100 meters, 1 mill is one decimeter, at 1000 meters it's one meter.
At 100 meters 0.1 mill is 1 centimer (~.254")
You can do the rest of the math.
It is a 1 to 1000 correlation.
At 100 meters, 1 mill is one decimeter, at 1000 meters it's one meter.
At 100 meters 0.1 mill is 1 centimer (~.254")
You can do the rest of the math.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
At a 100 yards it equals 3.6". At a 1000 yards it equals one yard. At 1000 fathoms it equals 1 fathom.
As has been stated, it has noting to do with linear measure. If you miss, read the reticle. It will tell you how, and how much to dial.
At a 100 yards it equals 3.6". At a 1000 yards it equals one yard. At 1000 fathoms it equals 1 fathom.
As has been stated, it has noting to do with linear measure. If you miss, read the reticle. It will tell you how, and how much to dial.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: billyburl2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At a 100 yards it equals 3.6". At a 1000 yards it equals one yard. At 1000 fathoms it equals 1 fathom.
As has been stated, it has noting to do with linear measure. If you miss, read the reticle. It will tell you how, and how much to dial. </div></div>
+1
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: billyburl2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At a 100 yards it equals 3.6". At a 1000 yards it equals one yard. At 1000 fathoms it equals 1 fathom.
As has been stated, it has noting to do with linear measure. If you miss, read the reticle. It will tell you how, and how much to dial. </div></div>
+1
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
I never was that good at math, trying to grasp this.
I never was that good at math, trying to grasp this.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
It doesnt matter , a mil is a mil. Get a hash reticle use it like a tape measure to call corrections. Learn mil formulas if you wanna estimate range with it. Dont overthink it.
It doesnt matter , a mil is a mil. Get a hash reticle use it like a tape measure to call corrections. Learn mil formulas if you wanna estimate range with it. Dont overthink it.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
To go along with gstaylorg's picture, the mil or mrad stands for milli-radian.
The word "milli" is scientific notation for 1/1000th of something.
The word "radian" is a measure of angle, kinda like a "degree".
To go along with gstaylorg's picture, the mil or mrad stands for milli-radian.
The word "milli" is scientific notation for 1/1000th of something.
The word "radian" is a measure of angle, kinda like a "degree".
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
"mil" is not an abbreviation for a metric system value of distance strictly speaking (not cm, mm, dm, etc). I think thats whats confusing you unless I am mistaken
check this site out
http://www.mil-dot.com/articles/the-mildot-reticle
"mil" is not an abbreviation for a metric system value of distance strictly speaking (not cm, mm, dm, etc). I think thats whats confusing you unless I am mistaken
check this site out
http://www.mil-dot.com/articles/the-mildot-reticle
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never was that good at math, trying to grasp this. </div></div>
Which part is the most confusing, the arc or the difference in measurement?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never was that good at math, trying to grasp this. </div></div>
Which part is the most confusing, the arc or the difference in measurement?
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
its been said already (basically)
a mil is 1/1000 of the distance. no matter what the distance.
since many folks use yards here, 100 yards contains 3600 inches. therefore 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yards.
from there multiply, 200 yards 7.2, 300 yards 10.8 etc.
the fact that a mil measures an arc is (almost) beside the point.
there are some good videos on youtube about using mil/mil for ranging, holdover and so forth.
its been said already (basically)
a mil is 1/1000 of the distance. no matter what the distance.
since many folks use yards here, 100 yards contains 3600 inches. therefore 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yards.
from there multiply, 200 yards 7.2, 300 yards 10.8 etc.
the fact that a mil measures an arc is (almost) beside the point.
there are some good videos on youtube about using mil/mil for ranging, holdover and so forth.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
To OP's original question, the arc is important.
The holes on the target, lets say 1 mil apart, are not linear.
They represent the radian arc, or the milliradian arc subtended by the angle back at the shooter.
The distance to the target, 100Y or 3600" is the linear measurement, which is equal to 1 radian, 1000 mils.
Although we measure the holes in the target with a ruler or caliper, those two points are part of a circle.
The shooter sets the angle, the distance to the target is the radius, and the holes in the target are the arc.
In exaggeration, if we were to add 1.5k mils of elevation, the poi would not be 157 yards above the target, we would be shooting straight up in the air. 3k mils of elevation and we would be shooting in the opposite direction.
In a mildot scope, we use the reticle to measure the arc and the knobs to change the angle.
The same can be done with an moa/moa scope. Some folks like the fact that 1 moa is close to 1" @100Y.
Either way, if you have matching turrets and reticle, there is no math needed.
To OP's original question, the arc is important.
The holes on the target, lets say 1 mil apart, are not linear.
They represent the radian arc, or the milliradian arc subtended by the angle back at the shooter.
The distance to the target, 100Y or 3600" is the linear measurement, which is equal to 1 radian, 1000 mils.
Although we measure the holes in the target with a ruler or caliper, those two points are part of a circle.
The shooter sets the angle, the distance to the target is the radius, and the holes in the target are the arc.
In exaggeration, if we were to add 1.5k mils of elevation, the poi would not be 157 yards above the target, we would be shooting straight up in the air. 3k mils of elevation and we would be shooting in the opposite direction.
In a mildot scope, we use the reticle to measure the arc and the knobs to change the angle.
The same can be done with an moa/moa scope. Some folks like the fact that 1 moa is close to 1" @100Y.
Either way, if you have matching turrets and reticle, there is no math needed.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never was that good at math, trying to grasp this. </div></div>
Which part is the most confusing, the arc or the difference in measurement?
</div></div>
I understand the Arc that's easy I understand the relativity between 1/1000th of the distance. But it's the math between to get the distance to the target or the size of the target,Im still reading the artcle and it's helping.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I never was that good at math, trying to grasp this. </div></div>
Which part is the most confusing, the arc or the difference in measurement?
</div></div>
I understand the Arc that's easy I understand the relativity between 1/1000th of the distance. But it's the math between to get the distance to the target or the size of the target,Im still reading the artcle and it's helping.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
If you are used to measuring in inches, as most are. The formula for ranging with the reticle is target size X 27.78 / mils on the reticle. A human head is roughly 9" tall 9x27.78=250.02/.6mils=416.7 yards.
Or the way I do it is whip out the LRF...
If you are used to measuring in inches, as most are. The formula for ranging with the reticle is target size X 27.78 / mils on the reticle. A human head is roughly 9" tall 9x27.78=250.02/.6mils=416.7 yards.
Or the way I do it is whip out the LRF...
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
I have to use trig to explain it -- maybe this will help, maybe it won't.
The distance to a target and the height are related by this equation:
tan(angle) = height/range
where "height" is a drop, height of a target, or just some length at the "range". tan() is the trig function tangent.
Note that "angle" is in radians (as they always are in trig). A milliradian, is just an angle and is equal to 0.001 radians.
On a side note, there are 2*pi radians per 360 degrees. One radian is about 57.3 degrees. One milliradian is 57.3/1000 or 0.0573 degrees or 60*0.0573 = 3.44 minutes of angle. [Blame any round off on Windows Calculator!]
This gives:
tan(0.001) = height/range
For small angles (and 0.001 certainly qualifies), tan(angle) ~ angle. My calculator gives tan(0.001) = 0.0010000003. Making this substitution gives:
0.001 = height/range
You can rearrange this equation to give you:
height = 0.001*range
or
0.001/height = range
This is where the factor of 1000 comes from.
So, for a range of 100 yards (or 3600 inches), the height is 3.6" at 100 yards for one mil. As the range increases, the height increases (7.2" for 200 yards, etc).
The small angle approximation, tan(angle) ~ angle, does break down when angles get big enough (error is a little over 1% at 0.2 radians or about 11.5 degrees)
Brad
I have to use trig to explain it -- maybe this will help, maybe it won't.
The distance to a target and the height are related by this equation:
tan(angle) = height/range
where "height" is a drop, height of a target, or just some length at the "range". tan() is the trig function tangent.
Note that "angle" is in radians (as they always are in trig). A milliradian, is just an angle and is equal to 0.001 radians.
On a side note, there are 2*pi radians per 360 degrees. One radian is about 57.3 degrees. One milliradian is 57.3/1000 or 0.0573 degrees or 60*0.0573 = 3.44 minutes of angle. [Blame any round off on Windows Calculator!]
This gives:
tan(0.001) = height/range
For small angles (and 0.001 certainly qualifies), tan(angle) ~ angle. My calculator gives tan(0.001) = 0.0010000003. Making this substitution gives:
0.001 = height/range
You can rearrange this equation to give you:
height = 0.001*range
or
0.001/height = range
This is where the factor of 1000 comes from.
So, for a range of 100 yards (or 3600 inches), the height is 3.6" at 100 yards for one mil. As the range increases, the height increases (7.2" for 200 yards, etc).
The small angle approximation, tan(angle) ~ angle, does break down when angles get big enough (error is a little over 1% at 0.2 radians or about 11.5 degrees)
Brad
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Math is not really needed. Just read the reticle where your impact hits and dial as necessary as was stated above.
If your bullet hits 1.2 mils low, come up 1.2 mils. Simple?
mil =
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 donkey at 1000 donkeys.
etc.
KISS method works really well here.
Math is not really needed. Just read the reticle where your impact hits and dial as necessary as was stated above.
If your bullet hits 1.2 mils low, come up 1.2 mils. Simple?
mil =
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 donkey at 1000 donkeys.
etc.
KISS method works really well here.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jeffersonv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Math is not really needed. Just read the reticle where your impact hits and dial as necessary as was stated above.
If your bullet hits 1.2 mils low, come up 1.2 mils. Simple?
mil =
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 donkey at 1000 donkeys.
etc.
KISS method works really well here. </div></div>
Agreed. For someone who has stated that they are not strong on math I think the above post is probably just going to confuse them. A mil is a mil. Don't worry about the math. Buy a range finder for ranging. Use your reticle to correct. Get matching turrets. Keep it simple stupid.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jeffersonv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Math is not really needed. Just read the reticle where your impact hits and dial as necessary as was stated above.
If your bullet hits 1.2 mils low, come up 1.2 mils. Simple?
mil =
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 donkey at 1000 donkeys.
etc.
KISS method works really well here. </div></div>
Agreed. For someone who has stated that they are not strong on math I think the above post is probably just going to confuse them. A mil is a mil. Don't worry about the math. Buy a range finder for ranging. Use your reticle to correct. Get matching turrets. Keep it simple stupid.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
like I said I understand the 1/1000 I dont have a LRF YET! but after reading the article it's starting to sink in a little more.
like I said I understand the 1/1000 I dont have a LRF YET! but after reading the article it's starting to sink in a little more.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In exaggeration, if we were to add 1.5k mils of elevation, the poi would not be 157 yards above the target, we would be shooting straight up in the air. 3k mils of elevation and we would be shooting in the opposite direction.
</div></div>
To add to this, a complete circle is 2*pi radians.
This means, to exaggeration and mathematical hilarity, 3,141.6 mils of elevation would have you shooting directly behind you 180 degrees from the target. 6,283.2 mils would have you shooting dead center at the original target...
-edit-
Fixed my math...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: roggom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In exaggeration, if we were to add 1.5k mils of elevation, the poi would not be 157 yards above the target, we would be shooting straight up in the air. 3k mils of elevation and we would be shooting in the opposite direction.
</div></div>
To add to this, a complete circle is 2*pi radians.
This means, to exaggeration and mathematical hilarity, 3,141.6 mils of elevation would have you shooting directly behind you 180 degrees from the target. 6,283.2 mils would have you shooting dead center at the original target...
-edit-
Fixed my math...
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: xaved</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To add to this, a complete circle is 2*pi radians.
This means, to exaggeration and mathematical hilarity, 3,1415.9 mils of elevation would have you shooting directly behind you 180 degrees from the target. 6,2831.8 mils would have you shooting dead center at the original target.. </div></div>
4 digits between the , and the . Might be that new "mathematical hilarity"?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: xaved</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To add to this, a complete circle is 2*pi radians.
This means, to exaggeration and mathematical hilarity, 3,1415.9 mils of elevation would have you shooting directly behind you 180 degrees from the target. 6,2831.8 mils would have you shooting dead center at the original target.. </div></div>
4 digits between the , and the . Might be that new "mathematical hilarity"?
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Gappa,
No disrespect, but I recommend you stop spending ass-tons on new high end optics and spend some money on professional instruction in basic marksmanship and optics function/use.
It's great that you are getting into long range shooting (or shooting at all), but some of the questions seem incredibly simplistic for someone who has spent over $10,000 in the past 2 months on optics.
Simultaneous threads of "Look at my new S&B" and "What is a mil?" put a wrinkle in the "serious tactical marksman" part of your resume.
Gappa,
No disrespect, but I recommend you stop spending ass-tons on new high end optics and spend some money on professional instruction in basic marksmanship and optics function/use.
It's great that you are getting into long range shooting (or shooting at all), but some of the questions seem incredibly simplistic for someone who has spent over $10,000 in the past 2 months on optics.
Simultaneous threads of "Look at my new S&B" and "What is a mil?" put a wrinkle in the "serious tactical marksman" part of your resume.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gappa,
No disrespect, but I recommend you stop spending ass-tons on new high end optics and spend some money on professional instruction in basic marksmanship and optics function/use.
It's great that you are getting into long range shooting (or shooting at all), but some of the questions seem incredibly simplistic for someone who has spent over $10,000 in the past 2 months on optics.
Simultaneous threads of "Look at my new S&B" and "What is a mil?" put a wrinkle in the "serious tactical marksman" part of your resume. </div></div>
Good advice, but it is probably too late.
He should have spent on training the money he just spent on optics. If you have $10k to spend, it is better to spend $1k on optics and $9k on training and instruction than the other way around.
As a general observation, people who are willing to drop that much money on gear without understanding the application or the skills required are usually damn near untrainable.
Of course, there are exceptions and I hope Gappa is one of them. Then again, I do not think I've ever seen one of these exceptions. It is kinda like a unicorn, everyone has heard of one, but none has seen it.
ILya
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gappa,
No disrespect, but I recommend you stop spending ass-tons on new high end optics and spend some money on professional instruction in basic marksmanship and optics function/use.
It's great that you are getting into long range shooting (or shooting at all), but some of the questions seem incredibly simplistic for someone who has spent over $10,000 in the past 2 months on optics.
Simultaneous threads of "Look at my new S&B" and "What is a mil?" put a wrinkle in the "serious tactical marksman" part of your resume. </div></div>
Good advice, but it is probably too late.
He should have spent on training the money he just spent on optics. If you have $10k to spend, it is better to spend $1k on optics and $9k on training and instruction than the other way around.
As a general observation, people who are willing to drop that much money on gear without understanding the application or the skills required are usually damn near untrainable.
Of course, there are exceptions and I hope Gappa is one of them. Then again, I do not think I've ever seen one of these exceptions. It is kinda like a unicorn, everyone has heard of one, but none has seen it.
ILya
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
From another thread here on the Hide:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW i did use 1 layer of brown shipping tape in my Leupold mount with that Premier and it worked very well. when I took it out it still looked new. </div></div>
Check your fire!
You took an incredibly well-made scope, and mated it to very well-made, very precise rings, and between them you put brown shipping tape?
And gunsmithing is a hobby?
I think I might know what was wrong with previous scopes.
From another thread here on the Hide:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW i did use 1 layer of brown shipping tape in my Leupold mount with that Premier and it worked very well. when I took it out it still looked new. </div></div>
Check your fire!
You took an incredibly well-made scope, and mated it to very well-made, very precise rings, and between them you put brown shipping tape?
And gunsmithing is a hobby?
I think I might know what was wrong with previous scopes.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
So Gappa, got your scope mounted yet?
OFG
So Gappa, got your scope mounted yet?
OFG
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oldfatguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So Gappa, got your scope mounted yet?
OFG </div></div>
From another board, Gappa has sent back the S&B, didn't like the tunneling and wasn't happy with the eye box.
I recommended Hensoldt, no tunneling and great eye box.
He is considering a Vortex Viper.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oldfatguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So Gappa, got your scope mounted yet?
OFG </div></div>
From another board, Gappa has sent back the S&B, didn't like the tunneling and wasn't happy with the eye box.
I recommended Hensoldt, no tunneling and great eye box.
He is considering a Vortex Viper.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oldfatguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So Gappa, got your scope mounted yet?
OFG </div></div>
From another board, Gappa has sent back the S&B, didn't like the tunneling and wasn't happy with the eye box.
I recommended Hensoldt, no tunneling and great eye box.
He is considering a Vortex Viper. </div></div>
WOW.....I would never dream of sending my S&B back
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oldfatguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So Gappa, got your scope mounted yet?
OFG </div></div>
From another board, Gappa has sent back the S&B, didn't like the tunneling and wasn't happy with the eye box.
I recommended Hensoldt, no tunneling and great eye box.
He is considering a Vortex Viper. </div></div>
WOW.....I would never dream of sending my S&B back
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Truckman11</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WOW.....I would never dream of sending my S&B back </div></div>
I'll think about it when I see the credit card statement but than I will keep it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Truckman11</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WOW.....I would never dream of sending my S&B back </div></div>
I'll think about it when I see the credit card statement but than I will keep it.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
I have found that MRAD is much easier than MOA. Like they've said above, 1 mil = 1 mil at all distances and when you are working with FFP and a mil/mil reticle what you see is what you need to adjust. If you miss and your point of impact was 1.5 mil left and .5 mil high just adjust your reticle 1.5 mil right and .5 mil low and you will be dead on.
Range estimation with MRAD is way easier too. Check out shooterready.com and try their simulation out with mil/mil and use the FFP. That should give you some practice with it and give you a better idea of how it works.
I have found that MRAD is much easier than MOA. Like they've said above, 1 mil = 1 mil at all distances and when you are working with FFP and a mil/mil reticle what you see is what you need to adjust. If you miss and your point of impact was 1.5 mil left and .5 mil high just adjust your reticle 1.5 mil right and .5 mil low and you will be dead on.
Range estimation with MRAD is way easier too. Check out shooterready.com and try their simulation out with mil/mil and use the FFP. That should give you some practice with it and give you a better idea of how it works.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
hrndymax, thats a really nice website. Do you or have you used it often?
hrndymax, thats a really nice website. Do you or have you used it often?
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hrndyamax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have found that MRAD is much easier than MOA. Like they've said above, 1 mil = 1 mil at all distances and when you are working with FFP and a mil/mil reticle what you see is what you need to adjust. If you miss and your point of impact was 1.5 mil left and .5 mil high just adjust your reticle 1.5 mil right and .5 mil low and you will be dead on.
Range estimation with MRAD is way easier too. Check out shooterready.com and try their simulation out with mil/mil and use the FFP. That should give you some practice with it and give you a better idea of how it works. </div></div>
I don't get this at all.
You can do the exact same thing with moa/moa. As long as your reticle and your turrets are the same, it doesn't matter what actual unit you're using, you can read the reticle and dial it directly.
As for ranging, how is mil easier? The mil formula is target height in yards divided by your mil reading of it, multiplied by 1000. The moa formula is target height in inches, divided by your moa reading of it, multiplied by 100. Both of those give you the number of yards to the target.
What part of that is easier in mil? Honestly, I think in inches easier than I think in yards as far as object size is concerned, moa is easier.
I happen to use mils, but just because they're the new popular thing, and I want to make sure I'm invited to the ice cream socials and shit.
(I like shooterready.com, but have a hell of a time reading the size in mils of the targets, the difference between .7 and .8 is tough, and the reticle options they have don't make it any easier)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hrndyamax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have found that MRAD is much easier than MOA. Like they've said above, 1 mil = 1 mil at all distances and when you are working with FFP and a mil/mil reticle what you see is what you need to adjust. If you miss and your point of impact was 1.5 mil left and .5 mil high just adjust your reticle 1.5 mil right and .5 mil low and you will be dead on.
Range estimation with MRAD is way easier too. Check out shooterready.com and try their simulation out with mil/mil and use the FFP. That should give you some practice with it and give you a better idea of how it works. </div></div>
I don't get this at all.
You can do the exact same thing with moa/moa. As long as your reticle and your turrets are the same, it doesn't matter what actual unit you're using, you can read the reticle and dial it directly.
As for ranging, how is mil easier? The mil formula is target height in yards divided by your mil reading of it, multiplied by 1000. The moa formula is target height in inches, divided by your moa reading of it, multiplied by 100. Both of those give you the number of yards to the target.
What part of that is easier in mil? Honestly, I think in inches easier than I think in yards as far as object size is concerned, moa is easier.
I happen to use mils, but just because they're the new popular thing, and I want to make sure I'm invited to the ice cream socials and shit.
(I like shooterready.com, but have a hell of a time reading the size in mils of the targets, the difference between .7 and .8 is tough, and the reticle options they have don't make it any easier)
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultraman550</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hrndymax, thats a really nice website. Do you or have you used it often? </div></div>
I've used it off and on as just a touch base range estimating simulator. It is definitely very helpful
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultraman550</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hrndymax, thats a really nice website. Do you or have you used it often? </div></div>
I've used it off and on as just a touch base range estimating simulator. It is definitely very helpful
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Helter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hrndyamax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have found that MRAD is much easier than MOA. Like they've said above, 1 mil = 1 mil at all distances and when you are working with FFP and a mil/mil reticle what you see is what you need to adjust. If you miss and your point of impact was 1.5 mil left and .5 mil high just adjust your reticle 1.5 mil right and .5 mil low and you will be dead on.
Range estimation with MRAD is way easier too. Check out shooterready.com and try their simulation out with mil/mil and use the FFP. That should give you some practice with it and give you a better idea of how it works. </div></div>
I don't get this at all.
You can do the exact same thing with moa/moa. As long as your reticle and your turrets are the same, it doesn't matter what actual unit you're using, you can read the reticle and dial it directly.
As for ranging, how is mil easier? The mil formula is target height in yards divided by your mil reading of it, multiplied by 1000. The moa formula is target height in inches, divided by your moa reading of it, multiplied by 100. Both of those give you the number of yards to the target.
What part of that is easier in mil? Honestly, I think in inches easier than I think in yards as far as object size is concerned, moa is easier.
I happen to use mils, but just because they're the new popular thing, and I want to make sure I'm invited to the ice cream socials and shit.
(I like shooterready.com, but have a hell of a time reading the size in mils of the targets, the difference between .7 and .8 is tough, and the reticle options they have don't make it any easier) </div></div>
Whatever works for you man. The reason why I said it was easier is right now I'm working with a mil/moa system. I also want to stay with the times and looked into mil/mil systems. By keeping the reticle and turrets the same things were way simplified. There really is no difference between mil/mil and moa/moa they both work the same.
I was using a different formula though for the mil/mil. I;m using this:
Target size (inches)* 27.778 / mils read
This seems to get me on target pretty fast and right in the ballpark of about 10-15yds. So that being said right now I am just sitting on my Nikon probably going to sell eventually and save for new glass.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Helter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hrndyamax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have found that MRAD is much easier than MOA. Like they've said above, 1 mil = 1 mil at all distances and when you are working with FFP and a mil/mil reticle what you see is what you need to adjust. If you miss and your point of impact was 1.5 mil left and .5 mil high just adjust your reticle 1.5 mil right and .5 mil low and you will be dead on.
Range estimation with MRAD is way easier too. Check out shooterready.com and try their simulation out with mil/mil and use the FFP. That should give you some practice with it and give you a better idea of how it works. </div></div>
I don't get this at all.
You can do the exact same thing with moa/moa. As long as your reticle and your turrets are the same, it doesn't matter what actual unit you're using, you can read the reticle and dial it directly.
As for ranging, how is mil easier? The mil formula is target height in yards divided by your mil reading of it, multiplied by 1000. The moa formula is target height in inches, divided by your moa reading of it, multiplied by 100. Both of those give you the number of yards to the target.
What part of that is easier in mil? Honestly, I think in inches easier than I think in yards as far as object size is concerned, moa is easier.
I happen to use mils, but just because they're the new popular thing, and I want to make sure I'm invited to the ice cream socials and shit.
(I like shooterready.com, but have a hell of a time reading the size in mils of the targets, the difference between .7 and .8 is tough, and the reticle options they have don't make it any easier) </div></div>
Whatever works for you man. The reason why I said it was easier is right now I'm working with a mil/moa system. I also want to stay with the times and looked into mil/mil systems. By keeping the reticle and turrets the same things were way simplified. There really is no difference between mil/mil and moa/moa they both work the same.
I was using a different formula though for the mil/mil. I;m using this:
Target size (inches)* 27.778 / mils read
This seems to get me on target pretty fast and right in the ballpark of about 10-15yds. So that being said right now I am just sitting on my Nikon probably going to sell eventually and save for new glass.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Sooooooo, what with this Gappa dude anyway? Why he not like S&B & why he not get mil/mil concept I dun get it....... Confused. I feel smarter (because of you responders) yet stupider (because of OP) at the same time after reading this. Anyway I'm still glad I read whole thing because I'm now learning the whole MIL/MIL & MOA/MOA, I have both types too & you guys are helping with your knowledge. I can't wait to use this knowledge in the field. But for now off to that shooteready place some of you guys speak of......
Sooooooo, what with this Gappa dude anyway? Why he not like S&B & why he not get mil/mil concept I dun get it....... Confused. I feel smarter (because of you responders) yet stupider (because of OP) at the same time after reading this. Anyway I'm still glad I read whole thing because I'm now learning the whole MIL/MIL & MOA/MOA, I have both types too & you guys are helping with your knowledge. I can't wait to use this knowledge in the field. But for now off to that shooteready place some of you guys speak of......
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
You guys don't explain things very well lol.
A mil is a mil, its an angular measurement. We get that.
What a newbie wants to know is how you go about using the whole system and is it easier than the moa system..
We're used to inch measurements an inch at 100 is 6" at 600.
The first useful thing I've read is that with an FFP scope 1.5 mils in the reticle is 1.5 on the dial.
It is not that way with your standard luepold moa scope because you have no inch hash marks in the scope.
Does the moa vortex Scopes have inch marks?
The mil spec is tough because if I'm 1.5" off on target at 200 yrds how do I figure out how many mils to move
You guys don't explain things very well lol.
A mil is a mil, its an angular measurement. We get that.
What a newbie wants to know is how you go about using the whole system and is it easier than the moa system..
We're used to inch measurements an inch at 100 is 6" at 600.
The first useful thing I've read is that with an FFP scope 1.5 mils in the reticle is 1.5 on the dial.
It is not that way with your standard luepold moa scope because you have no inch hash marks in the scope.
Does the moa vortex Scopes have inch marks?
The mil spec is tough because if I'm 1.5" off on target at 200 yrds how do I figure out how many mils to move
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mnitzh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys don't explain things very well lol.
A mil is a mil, its an angular measurement. We get that.
What a newbie wants to know is how you go about using the whole system and is it easier than the moa system..
We're used to inch measurements an inch at 100 is 6" at 600.
The first useful thing I've read is that with an FFP scope 1.5 mils in the reticle is 1.5 on the dial.
It is not that way with your standard luepold moa scope
because you have no inch hash marks in the scope.
Does the moa vortex Scopes have inch marks?
The mil spec is tough because if I'm 1.5" off on target at 200 yrds how do I figure out how many mils to move </div></div>
You're thinking in linear measurements again. If you have matching reticle and turrets, be they moa or mil, you read your miss in the reticle and adjust accordingly on the turrets. So if you read that you missed by 1.5 mills left you'd dial 1.5 mils right and so on. Same for moa. If you read 1.5 moa left dial 1.5 moa right. The important part is to have matching reticle and turrets and preferably ffp so that no matter what power you're on the reticle reads true.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mnitzh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys don't explain things very well lol.
A mil is a mil, its an angular measurement. We get that.
What a newbie wants to know is how you go about using the whole system and is it easier than the moa system..
We're used to inch measurements an inch at 100 is 6" at 600.
The first useful thing I've read is that with an FFP scope 1.5 mils in the reticle is 1.5 on the dial.
It is not that way with your standard luepold moa scope
because you have no inch hash marks in the scope.
Does the moa vortex Scopes have inch marks?
The mil spec is tough because if I'm 1.5" off on target at 200 yrds how do I figure out how many mils to move </div></div>
You're thinking in linear measurements again. If you have matching reticle and turrets, be they moa or mil, you read your miss in the reticle and adjust accordingly on the turrets. So if you read that you missed by 1.5 mills left you'd dial 1.5 mils right and so on. Same for moa. If you read 1.5 moa left dial 1.5 moa right. The important part is to have matching reticle and turrets and preferably ffp so that no matter what power you're on the reticle reads true.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
You have a ruler in front of you, in fact you have a magnified ruler, so measure the distance in your ruler and adjust accordingly. 1.5" at 200 is .2 mils on the scope.
But really, who cares how many inches off you are at 200, see the impact and measure over with the reticle and adjust on the turret exactly what the reticle measures. You don' think, you read, and there is no reason to use to how far away you are in inches. That is an extra step that is unnecessary. If you do go downrange and say, I am 1.5" off, you know that .1 mils equals .36" at 100, so you are .2 mils off at 200. (.36x2, x2...1.44" ) same exact math as trying to figure out how many MOA off you are based on your scope adjustment of .25".
And it's not "mil spec' it just a mil, comprehension is what is required, not saying, "well I think in inches" okay, but you still know what a 10 pennies means. Because a mil is money, 10 pennies to a dime and we divide the mil into 10 to get 1, so its combinations of pennies and dimes.
You have a ruler in front of you, in fact you have a magnified ruler, so measure the distance in your ruler and adjust accordingly. 1.5" at 200 is .2 mils on the scope.
But really, who cares how many inches off you are at 200, see the impact and measure over with the reticle and adjust on the turret exactly what the reticle measures. You don' think, you read, and there is no reason to use to how far away you are in inches. That is an extra step that is unnecessary. If you do go downrange and say, I am 1.5" off, you know that .1 mils equals .36" at 100, so you are .2 mils off at 200. (.36x2, x2...1.44" ) same exact math as trying to figure out how many MOA off you are based on your scope adjustment of .25".
And it's not "mil spec' it just a mil, comprehension is what is required, not saying, "well I think in inches" okay, but you still know what a 10 pennies means. Because a mil is money, 10 pennies to a dime and we divide the mil into 10 to get 1, so its combinations of pennies and dimes.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Sounds great as long as you can see your impact through the scope. Do you think at 600 yrds ill be able to see it through a 24x scope? I'm looking at the vortex PST 6-24
Sounds great as long as you can see your impact through the scope. Do you think at 600 yrds ill be able to see it through a 24x scope? I'm looking at the vortex PST 6-24
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
It may be helpful if you watch the Finn Accuracy video of a shooter using the MSR reticle. A Google search of "FinnAccuracy MSR" should get you there.
The video is through the scope. The shooter shoots at his torso target, you see the impact left or right of the target. He moves over one of the multiple mil measuring devices in the reticle, takes his measurement in mils from target center mass to actual impact, adjusts his turrets and the next shot is center mass.
Helped me understand that mil has nothing to do with math. Just measure, adjust and hit. Automatic expert rifleman nothing else to it.
It may be helpful if you watch the Finn Accuracy video of a shooter using the MSR reticle. A Google search of "FinnAccuracy MSR" should get you there.
The video is through the scope. The shooter shoots at his torso target, you see the impact left or right of the target. He moves over one of the multiple mil measuring devices in the reticle, takes his measurement in mils from target center mass to actual impact, adjusts his turrets and the next shot is center mass.
Helped me understand that mil has nothing to do with math. Just measure, adjust and hit. Automatic expert rifleman nothing else to it.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
And this shooting method works only for FFP Scopes right?!
And this shooting method works only for FFP Scopes right?!
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Actually, it can be done with a SFP scope, as long as the turrets and reticle match. Otherwise, you have to do a conversion. For a SFP scope, the manufacturer will tell you at which magnification the reticle is calibrated. Usually it's the highest mag, but not always. Depends on the scope.
Obviously, it's easiest with FFP. No matter what mag you're on, the reticle is calibrated as it changes in apparent size proportionally in accordance with magnification, so no thought is required.
With a SFP scope, let's say a Nightforce 5.5-22x56 for example, the reticle is calibrated at 22X mag. If you dial the mag down to 11X, an object seen through the scope appears to be half the size relative to the reticle it did at 22X, because the reticle does not change size as the mag is dialed down. That means each hashmark on the reticle now subtends twice the arc length it did at 22X. In other words, the reticle didn't change size, but the object shrunk in apparent size by half, so each hashmark subtends twice the arc length relative to the object as they did at 22X. Therefore, the estimated size of an object (or estimated distance between POA and POI) made using the reticle at 11X is only half of the true value. So you would need to double any hold or adjustment made using the reticle with the scope on 11X.
The major caveat to using this approach with a SFP scope is that the eyepiece may not have an "11X" mark on the mag dial. Even of it does have an 11X mark, the actual magnification may be 11.4X or 10.7X when you actually have the eyepiece lined up to that mark. So you need to know exactly what mag a specific mark represents, which can be done at the range using a calibrated grid at an exact known distance. Some people will go to this length to specifically characterize their equipment, however, most won't.
Depending on what you're doing, it may be that this approach with a SFP scope, even if it's not dead on, will be close enough to allow the correct hold or adjustment. For example, you're using your NF 5.5-22X at 100 yd set on what you think is "11X", and you see that your impact was exactly 0.5 mil low by the reticle hashmarks. This would mean that you'd have read the POI as being <span style="text-decoration: underline">1.0 mil low</span> <span style="font-style: italic">if the scope had been set on 22X</span>. In this example, chances are pretty good that making a correction based on your 1.0 mil low estimate (0.5 mil by the reticle hashmark x 2) would put you pretty close at 100 yd. However, the longer the range, the more you might be off. In general, although you <span style="font-style: italic">can</span> do it with a SFP scope, it's not ideal. Plus, it's one more thing you have to think about if you're not using FFP.
Actually, it can be done with a SFP scope, as long as the turrets and reticle match. Otherwise, you have to do a conversion. For a SFP scope, the manufacturer will tell you at which magnification the reticle is calibrated. Usually it's the highest mag, but not always. Depends on the scope.
Obviously, it's easiest with FFP. No matter what mag you're on, the reticle is calibrated as it changes in apparent size proportionally in accordance with magnification, so no thought is required.
With a SFP scope, let's say a Nightforce 5.5-22x56 for example, the reticle is calibrated at 22X mag. If you dial the mag down to 11X, an object seen through the scope appears to be half the size relative to the reticle it did at 22X, because the reticle does not change size as the mag is dialed down. That means each hashmark on the reticle now subtends twice the arc length it did at 22X. In other words, the reticle didn't change size, but the object shrunk in apparent size by half, so each hashmark subtends twice the arc length relative to the object as they did at 22X. Therefore, the estimated size of an object (or estimated distance between POA and POI) made using the reticle at 11X is only half of the true value. So you would need to double any hold or adjustment made using the reticle with the scope on 11X.
The major caveat to using this approach with a SFP scope is that the eyepiece may not have an "11X" mark on the mag dial. Even of it does have an 11X mark, the actual magnification may be 11.4X or 10.7X when you actually have the eyepiece lined up to that mark. So you need to know exactly what mag a specific mark represents, which can be done at the range using a calibrated grid at an exact known distance. Some people will go to this length to specifically characterize their equipment, however, most won't.
Depending on what you're doing, it may be that this approach with a SFP scope, even if it's not dead on, will be close enough to allow the correct hold or adjustment. For example, you're using your NF 5.5-22X at 100 yd set on what you think is "11X", and you see that your impact was exactly 0.5 mil low by the reticle hashmarks. This would mean that you'd have read the POI as being <span style="text-decoration: underline">1.0 mil low</span> <span style="font-style: italic">if the scope had been set on 22X</span>. In this example, chances are pretty good that making a correction based on your 1.0 mil low estimate (0.5 mil by the reticle hashmark x 2) would put you pretty close at 100 yd. However, the longer the range, the more you might be off. In general, although you <span style="font-style: italic">can</span> do it with a SFP scope, it's not ideal. Plus, it's one more thing you have to think about if you're not using FFP.
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Just a student at this point by I'll try to answer.
It works for SFP also as long as you are on the setting the reticle is calibrated to. Your manufacturer will specify what magnifaction you must be at to "mil" your target.
It will work at other magnifications but you will need to use some math (simple math if I remember right) to make your adjustments.
Edit - Sorry I did a quick answer from page 6 and did not realize you had a full explanation ^^^^^
Just a student at this point by I'll try to answer.
It works for SFP also as long as you are on the setting the reticle is calibrated to. Your manufacturer will specify what magnifaction you must be at to "mil" your target.
It will work at other magnifications but you will need to use some math (simple math if I remember right) to make your adjustments.
Edit - Sorry I did a quick answer from page 6 and did not realize you had a full explanation ^^^^^
Re: Just want to make sure I understand "mil"
Thanks guys that helps explain why people are going that route.
Thanks guys that helps explain why people are going that route.
