Alright, it already sounds and feels like a stupid question but I'm having trouble with this. I've always shot a mil dot reticle but with MOA turrets and have decided to go to mil turrets in the 1/10th style clicks for the extra precision. My question is really a matter of validation for hold-offs, I assume that one mil dot distance (from center of dot to center of dot) equates to one mil, and since I range using that distance in a 10 point scale between dots, can I think of the distance dot to dot as one mil and use it for holdover? I.E.- if I range my target at 550yds and my DOPE calls for 3.2 mil elevation and 1.6 mil hold for full value wind, can I hold 3.2 mil dots high and 1.6 mil dots into my wind and be where I need to be? I figure it won't be exact, but if I don't have time to dial and need a quick shot would that work? I'm still kinda new to all of this and I'm trying to learn as much as I can so if this is right yay for me, but if not can yall show me the error of my ways?
- Thread starter FosterEDC
- Start date
If you have a FFP scope then yes those holds will work on any magnification.
If you have a SFP scope the mil values will only be accurate at one magnification.
Holdovers/holdoffs are much more accurate than most people think. Especially with reticles designed for such.
If you have a SFP scope the mil values will only be accurate at one magnification.
Holdovers/holdoffs are much more accurate than most people think. Especially with reticles designed for such.
First off, what makes you think mils are extra precise? On the contrary,
--1 MOA is 1.047" at 100 yards; therefore your 1/4 MOA clicks on a scope moves POI .26175" per click
--1 MIL is 3.6" at 100 yards; therefore your .1 MIL click on a scope moves POI .36" per click.
You are moving more distance per click with MIL. That being said, I find MILs easier to process in my head and there are no conversions needed since everything is in MILS. Maybe that was what you meant. And from a realistic point of view, we're only talking about .09825" (read: generally irrelevant) of difference between the two.
MILs as well as MOA are ANGULAR measurements. So, 1 MIL is 1 MIL if its at 100 yards or 1000 yards. NOTE: this is a perception thing, from the shooter, 1 MIL at 100 is 3.6" but 1 MIL at 1000 is 36" but it will still fill the center to center MILDOT idea you have in your post at either distance. Your holdover idea is correct. If you are capable of holding 3.2 MILS, then yes in theory it would be a perfect holdover. One caveat to all this lies in where your reticle is in your scope. A First Focal Plane, or FFP will be metrically correct on any power, or zoom level. A Second Focal Plane, or SPF will be correct on only one power level; generally a higher setting. (e.g. lets say a scope is a 5-20 power, FFP scope, they would have it correct on, say 20x. So then it would only be correct on 20x; but you can use it on 10x, in theory, as long as you double the MILS reading you get, or half the MILDOTs you are ranging with. Make sense? Hope so! Read a lot on here and get out and shoot!
[MENTION=15834]steve123[/MENTION]
You are very right with the holdovers being more accurate than most think. It is the exact same thing the turrets would do (essentially), as long as the shooter can hold correctly. And yes it is a lot easier nowadays with the reticle choices that are out there.
--1 MOA is 1.047" at 100 yards; therefore your 1/4 MOA clicks on a scope moves POI .26175" per click
--1 MIL is 3.6" at 100 yards; therefore your .1 MIL click on a scope moves POI .36" per click.
You are moving more distance per click with MIL. That being said, I find MILs easier to process in my head and there are no conversions needed since everything is in MILS. Maybe that was what you meant. And from a realistic point of view, we're only talking about .09825" (read: generally irrelevant) of difference between the two.
MILs as well as MOA are ANGULAR measurements. So, 1 MIL is 1 MIL if its at 100 yards or 1000 yards. NOTE: this is a perception thing, from the shooter, 1 MIL at 100 is 3.6" but 1 MIL at 1000 is 36" but it will still fill the center to center MILDOT idea you have in your post at either distance. Your holdover idea is correct. If you are capable of holding 3.2 MILS, then yes in theory it would be a perfect holdover. One caveat to all this lies in where your reticle is in your scope. A First Focal Plane, or FFP will be metrically correct on any power, or zoom level. A Second Focal Plane, or SPF will be correct on only one power level; generally a higher setting. (e.g. lets say a scope is a 5-20 power, FFP scope, they would have it correct on, say 20x. So then it would only be correct on 20x; but you can use it on 10x, in theory, as long as you double the MILS reading you get, or half the MILDOTs you are ranging with. Make sense? Hope so! Read a lot on here and get out and shoot!
[MENTION=15834]steve123[/MENTION]
You are very right with the holdovers being more accurate than most think. It is the exact same thing the turrets would do (essentially), as long as the shooter can hold correctly. And yes it is a lot easier nowadays with the reticle choices that are out there.
Last edited:
0311 Hesco, that's exactly what I meant, that the mil system makes math easier, not necessarily more precise. I knew my scope right now is SFP and that its only accurate ranging on 12x, but I didn't know about the half power ranging by doubling the mils. That's some interesting stuff.
it also works the other way too... if your scope goes to 24x you can do ranging at that mag too, by halving the mills.... really any magnification could be used, as long as you apply the right corrections. In practice however, trying to do too much math, quickly, in your head is a recipe for an error in applying the correction factors, and that will almost allays ensure a miss.
hesco pretty much nailed it i dont really adjust for wind i hold over since it changes all the time i do adjust for elevation but where i hunt and shoot there really isnt much wind to start with and even with full value wind its off by like and inch or so i dont shoot that far for wind to be a huge factor.
+1 from me.
I used hold-over and kentucky windage more often than I ever expected too, especially when faced with an unfamiliar rig or my own lack of trigger time
However hitting a centre of mass does not equate to tactical paper punching - so it might not be accurate enough for some of the competitive shooting that some people do on this board?
Last edited:
Not to sound to ignorant but I don't understand what you mean?
how many mils in a mil dot?
Either way, have you optically checked the rifle scope, meaning have you made sure that the reticle measures correctly when the magnification is at 12x? If it doesn't, are you able to mark on the magnification ring the point at which the reticle is accurate?
You have a SFP scope. I am assuming that the scope is designed such that the reticle measures things correctly at a full magnification of 12x and that full magnification is power all the way up until the magnification ring stops.
Either way, have you optically checked the rifle scope, meaning have you made sure that the reticle measures correctly when the magnification is at 12x? If it doesn't, are you able to mark on the magnification ring the point at which the reticle is accurate?
Last edited:
It's an interesting exercise to have a firing line of students do this using a piece of 8.5x11 paper they just zeroed on. With the SFP scopes set at their "published accurate" magnification setting it is cool to see the spread they come up with. FFP and SFP's alike.
A FFP scope should be checked this way too. Not so much the halfway point, but it's nice to know the reticle subtends as you expect it to. It only takes a second or two to do it, and is very easy with an MDM. MIL it longways, set the distance to 100Y (or wherever it is), then look for the inches that line up with the MILS column that you read. If you came up with 11, she's reading correctly. By hard stop, he means when it's turned all the way up to where it stops, which may or may not perfectly line up with the numeric marker. Graham is suggesting to find that point where it DOES read perfectly, and mark it.
To find your halfway point for an SFP, do the above and record your findings. Then turn it down to where you think halfway is, then MIL the same paper, the same way, again. Make small adjustments to the mag ring as needed until you get it set that you're reading exactly twice the inches (half the MILS) that you got the first time. Once you do, that's the point you want to mark on the mag ring as a halfway point.
Hope that helps you out,
--Fargo007
A FFP scope should be checked this way too. Not so much the halfway point, but it's nice to know the reticle subtends as you expect it to. It only takes a second or two to do it, and is very easy with an MDM. MIL it longways, set the distance to 100Y (or wherever it is), then look for the inches that line up with the MILS column that you read. If you came up with 11, she's reading correctly. By hard stop, he means when it's turned all the way up to where it stops, which may or may not perfectly line up with the numeric marker. Graham is suggesting to find that point where it DOES read perfectly, and mark it.
To find your halfway point for an SFP, do the above and record your findings. Then turn it down to where you think halfway is, then MIL the same paper, the same way, again. Make small adjustments to the mag ring as needed until you get it set that you're reading exactly twice the inches (half the MILS) that you got the first time. Once you do, that's the point you want to mark on the mag ring as a halfway point.
Hope that helps you out,
--Fargo007
Last edited:
Ah! Yes I have checked with a buddies range finder and with the best of my abilities to mil it out correctly and my 2nd grade math skills I'm around +\- 2yards off in most cases. When I wasn't I re-mil'd it and was back within +\- 2yards.
how many mils in a mil dot?
You're not 'Milling' anything 'out', you are measuring the distance between reticle gradiations.
And if you mean to say that you are always milling targets to within two yards, I don't believe you.
2 yards isn't going to cut it. Neither is a laser range finder. You will need to be more accurate than that. Get a measuring tape.
You're not 'Milling' anything 'out', you are measuring the distance between reticle gradiations.
And if you mean to say that you are always milling targets to within two yards, I don't believe you.
Last edited:
I agree 2yds isn't going to cut it, but this is simply my friend and I practicing reading range with a mil dot reticle and justifying it with a range finder. The closest dedicated rifle range is more than 100 miles from where I live and I don't have the time or ability to really practice. These range estimations are rarely over 150yrds and are just practice. I'll be the first to admit I am an extreme novice when it comes to this stuff because most of my shooting history has been with shotguns or handguns. As for always within 2 yards I never said that, I said in most cases which in my language translates to on average of 60% of the time. I'd never say I can estimate range through a mil dot reticle at a target that's 852.2 yards away and say its 852 or 854 every time, but at 100-150yds I can usually get pretty close. Like I said. Maybe 60% of the time. I'm no grandmaster. Just trying to be a grasshopper one day.
And by re-mil'd it I mean that I took a better estimation of target height in mil dots and re worked the formula. My apologies for not being clear or using improper terminology.
I may be incorrect but did not think all mil-dot scopes used the same spacing also. Haven't the different military services used different variations or have they standardized?
Classic Army and USMC dots were different shapes, but center dot to center dot is one Mil. Same measurement.
Foster, Graham is just trying to help you learn/think. I'm guessing that he's leading towards doing a "tall target" test. Research that or one of the other fella's will jump in to explain the procedure. Too much typing to explain in detail on iPad.
Graham has a point, 2yrds wont cut it but that could just come down to your math being off or your ability to accurately calculate .1 mils. it takes practice.
A mil is a mil. Army uses circles, Marine Corps uses ovals, but a mil is a mil.
Yes and in addition to this, depending on what brand scope you have there, is no set indusrty standard on the size of the 'dot' itself, some are .20 others are .22 and even .24 or .25 mil depending on the manufacturer.
Graham has a point, 2yrds wont cut it but that could just come down to your math being off or your ability to accurately calculate .1 mils. it takes practice.
A mil is a mil. Army uses circles, Marine Corps uses ovals, but a mil is a mil.
not necessarily: (from wiki )
Definitions of the angular mil[edit]
There are 2000π milliradians (≈ 6283.185 mrad) in a circle; thus a milliradian is just under 1⁄6283 of a circle, or ≈ 3.438 minutes of arc. Each of the definitions of the angular mil are similar to that value but are easier to divide into many parts.
1⁄6400 of a circle in NATO countries.
1⁄6283 The “real” trigonometric unit of angular measurement of a circle in use by telescopic sight manufacturers using (stadiametric) rangefinding in reticles.
1⁄6000 of a circle in the former Soviet Union and Finland (Finland phasing out the standard in favour of the NATO standard).
1⁄6300 of a circle in Sweden. The Swedish term for this is streck, literally "line". Sweden (and Finland) have not been part of NATO nor the Warsaw Pact. Note however that Sweden has changed its map grid systems and angular measurement to those used by NATO, so the "streck" measurement is obsolete.
That is a bad assumption.
It will subtend properly at some given power, based on what the manufacturer decided. You need to read the instructions or ask the manufacturer. On some scopes, the power is marked on the ring as to what is the proper setting for proper subtensions.
But you are right, you should check them, as it might be a bit off one way or the other.
Assuming the scope turrets are true MOA. They could also be IPHY or Shooter's MOA, which is 1.00 inches at 100 yards.
And some MOA/MOA scopes have the reticle in true MOA and the turrets in IPHY or vice versa.
how many mils in a mil dot?
Fair enough, but if so, then answer the question and tell me the magnification at which his scope reticle subtends correctly.
Which scopes have IPHY turrets with MOA reticles, or vice versa?
Last edited:
Even so, MOA is still more precise of a measurement than a MIL... and again were talking about .01175" difference between IPHY MOA vs. True MOA here. You think that really matters for a new shooter? Let's not make him drink from a fire hose here.
Didn't know they made scopes in shooter's MOA or a combination of the two. Interesting concept, I guess. Can you name a couple? seems like maybe a hunting scope or a benchrest might, but I don't see how that would be helpful. Thanks.
I'm still wondering why my post is quoted in #24 and then the irrelevance under it...
I have seen references here in SH to scopes with IPHY and true MOA mismatches. Not sure which ones, but it is worth checking any MOA scope to make SURE.
As for mils or MOA being more precise, only if you compare 1/4 MOA to 0.1 mil adjustments. 1/2 MOA is more coarse than 0.1 mil. And if it were that big of a deal, someone would make a scope with 0.05 mil adjustments.
As to what power is proper for the subtensions be to correct, that can only be answered by the maker of the scope or by testing. And the maker of the scope will tell you what the DESIGN power is. Testing will tell you what is correct for YOUR scope.
Not real hard to test. For mil reticle, make a grid that is 3.6" between grid lines. Put up at 100 yards and sight in on the grid. Adjust the power until the mil markings correspond to the grid. Check the power and that is the proper power for the subtensions. Mark it on the scope.
As for mils or MOA being more precise, only if you compare 1/4 MOA to 0.1 mil adjustments. 1/2 MOA is more coarse than 0.1 mil. And if it were that big of a deal, someone would make a scope with 0.05 mil adjustments.
As to what power is proper for the subtensions be to correct, that can only be answered by the maker of the scope or by testing. And the maker of the scope will tell you what the DESIGN power is. Testing will tell you what is correct for YOUR scope.
Not real hard to test. For mil reticle, make a grid that is 3.6" between grid lines. Put up at 100 yards and sight in on the grid. Adjust the power until the mil markings correspond to the grid. Check the power and that is the proper power for the subtensions. Mark it on the scope.
As for mils or MOA being more precise, only if you compare 1/4 MOA to 0.1 mil adjustments. 1/2 MOA is more coarse than 0.1 mil. And if it were that big of a deal, someone would make a scope with 0.05 mil adjustments.
And a .50 BMG is tiny compared to a howitzer. Let me guess you have seen references on here to scopes with 1/2 MOA adjustments too? Nobody cares dude. Not trying to be a jerk but can we get back to the OP's questions and stop playing this game?
OP, have we solved you questions? Or is there more you wanna ask?
I read the question as "How big is a mil dot?" Check your scope manufacturers reticle spec sheet but .2 is a safe bet.
In other words, from the center of reticle to the top of the first dot is .9, center of the dot is 1.0, bottom of the dot 1.1.
In other words, from the center of reticle to the top of the first dot is .9, center of the dot is 1.0, bottom of the dot 1.1.
My 6.5x20 VXIII SFP Leupold ranges at 12x, it didn't come with anything in the literature stating where it was set and it wasn't at the highest power. Also, do to the mag range, I can't range at 1/2 power (no 6x) or double power (no 24x) so it is a very limiting set up. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have gotten that scope. I confirmed it with tall sticks marked every 3.6"...I should probably re-confirm with a tape measure to be 100% sure.
Like this:
Attachments
That's great [MENTION=79345]Pinecone[/MENTION]. You must have missed my point. You must be trying to correct me for at least the third time in this dude's post, unnecessarily. I'll break it down Barney style (this used to work with my Junior Marines): You are going into entirely too much detail for the given questions. You're posts are irrelevant to the question at hand; you are doing no good for anyone reading this except showing that you can complicate simple things. This dude is asking some very simple questions that require very simple answers. At this point, nobody is interested in any kind of combination or tangents or variables you can throw into this thread. Get it?
If you really want to show people how much you know, start your own thread and title it "Look what I can do!" I will surely read it and "like" just so you feel better. Now, can we get back on track? Or do you feel you need to correct me again? Thank you, by the way for being so interested in me. Learn to teach instead of correct; you'll get farther in life.
If you really want to show people how much you know, start your own thread and title it "Look what I can do!" I will surely read it and "like" just so you feel better. Now, can we get back on track? Or do you feel you need to correct me again? Thank you, by the way for being so interested in me. Learn to teach instead of correct; you'll get farther in life.
OK, I can't break it down any farther than this for you, sweetheart. Ready? Is 1.047" or 3.6" a more precise measurement? Maybe this one is easier: is it more precise to measure with 1 pinecone, or 3?
You can also CRAP all over a thread with STUPID. Stop doing it!
And since that is a fact, yes I do believe that is helping. What exactly are you doing?
You can also CRAP all over a thread with STUPID. Stop doing it!
And since that is a fact, yes I do believe that is helping. What exactly are you doing?
And what does that have to do with anything at all?
Scopes adjust in 1/4 or 1/2 MOA or 0.1 mil.
Yes, a 1/4 MOA is a smaller increment than a 0.1 mil. But 0.1 mil is smaller increment than 1/2 MOA.
And BTW, precision is the ability to repeat the measurement, not how accurate you can measure.
Scopes adjust in 1/4 or 1/2 MOA or 0.1 mil.
Yes, a 1/4 MOA is a smaller increment than a 0.1 mil. But 0.1 mil is smaller increment than 1/2 MOA.
And BTW, precision is the ability to repeat the measurement, not how accurate you can measure.
OK, dude. You're right, I should have said that MOA is a more accurate measurement rather than precise. Super duper job. You still have contributed exactly nothing to this thread.
I am done arguing with you, I will not be pulled down to your level any further. Thank you and I award you no points.
...Pearls before swine....
I am done arguing with you, I will not be pulled down to your level any further. Thank you and I award you no points.
...Pearls before swine....
Absolutely correct. No one should argue this point.
I tried the mildot/MOA turret thing early on and it was a disaster for me. You are making a positive step by matching turret/reticle.
BTW, for the OP, here is a link to a diagram of the mildot with measurements.
thankyou
Thanks for all the good info guys, glad to know I was on the right track as far as quick hold overs go regarding mil dots and mil values with my data. Appreciate everything, including the link to the visual breakdown of the reticle. Im more of a visual learner and that helped more than anything.
Alright guys, ive got another question. Im looking at getting my next scope in the MRAD reticle along with 1/10 mil turrets. My question is can I use the MRAD reticle like I use my mildot reticle to figure my range? As far as mildot or hashmark height goes?
