- Thread starter chickon1
- Start date
Shit what a relief. I though I missed 8 pages of MILF MOAN discussion.
But as long as I am here, this is my .02 on the MOA vs MIL discussion.
But as long as I am here, this is my .02 on the MOA vs MIL discussion.
OP is too dumb to be a troll.
He is an imaginary engineer. He missed the class on angles
You really are a special kind of stupid.
How far are you from Mooseye Rd.
Also one other thing. As a machinist I don't use inches. I use milliinches. 0.001" or a thou. Everything I measure is done in thousandths or tenths of thousandths (0.0001" pronounced as a tenth). Every measurement I talk about is in terms of thousandths. For example what I am cutting tonight. 3.369-3.371". Said as three point three seventy +/- a thou.
Here I will do some comparisons as well.
0.0001"@1" = 1/10 mil
0.001" @1" = 1mil.
1 head @1000 head lengths = 1 mil
1 light year @ 1000 light years = 1 mil
1 squirrel ball @1000 squirrel balls = 1mil
1 opossum ball @1000 opossum balls = 1mil
3.6" @3600" (100 yards) = 1 mil
1 mile @1000 miles = 1mil.
VS
1.047" @ 3600" (100 yards) = 1 MOA
Here I will do some comparisons as well.
0.0001"@1" = 1/10 mil
0.001" @1" = 1mil.
1 head @1000 head lengths = 1 mil
1 light year @ 1000 light years = 1 mil
1 squirrel ball @1000 squirrel balls = 1mil
1 opossum ball @1000 opossum balls = 1mil
3.6" @3600" (100 yards) = 1 mil
1 mile @1000 miles = 1mil.
VS
1.047" @ 3600" (100 yards) = 1 MOA
Last edited:
Added to the Legendary Thread for reasons stated above.
www.snipershide.com
Legendary Thread Reference
Figured it'd be nice to have a place to go to find some of the Legendary threads. They can be old ones (like gecko45), newer ones (like buddly or recoil control bipods), or even as a place to check what looks like it might turn into a Legendary thread. I've seen a few times where different...
www.snipershide.com Beyond the cursory and coincidental "oh yeah, that's kinda neat" fact that 1.047" per 100yd is pretty close to 1.000" per 100yd, there is no benefit to MOA over Mils.
It
Does
Not
Matter
Because
You
Measure
Everything
In
Angles
And
NEVER EVER
Have to convert it to inches, cm, m, yd, mm, km, dm, mi.....
"That was .2 mils left"
<Adjust .2 mils right>
That was .5 MOA high
<HOLD A HALF MOA LOWER NEXT TIME>
By now you'd think the point was made... but that's it. End. No further mathematical gymnastics required.
It
Does
Not
Matter
Because
You
Measure
Everything
In
Angles
And
NEVER EVER
Have to convert it to inches, cm, m, yd, mm, km, dm, mi.....
"That was .2 mils left"
<Adjust .2 mils right>
That was .5 MOA high
<HOLD A HALF MOA LOWER NEXT TIME>
By now you'd think the point was made... but that's it. End. No further mathematical gymnastics required.
Last edited:
Well, how about that. He’s still going.
So you are telling me this guy ( Ryan Cleckner is a former Army Ranger sniper and instructor with the 1st Ranger Battalion of the US Army) is a complete idiot and the other 100 references I have found with MOA use inches and Mil uses meters and there is actual math you can use? I you really don't know this, please watch both videos, you might learn something.
www.nssf.org
What is Minute of Angle?
Minute of Angle (MOA) is an angular measurement, used often in long range shooting, that is 1/60th of one degree of a circle.
www.nssf.org 
So you are telling me this guy ( Ryan Cleckner is a former Army Ranger sniper and instructor with the 1st Ranger Battalion of the US Army) is a complete idiot and the other 100 references I have found with MOA use inches and Mil uses meters and there is actual math you can use? I you really don't know this, please watch both videos, you might learn something.
What is Minute of Angle?
Minute of Angle (MOA) is an angular measurement, used often in long range shooting, that is 1/60th of one degree of a circle.
one flaw in your thinking regarding referencing metric and imperial, Frank mentioned it earlier, you are NOT down range measuring the difference. the reticle, whether mil or moa is a calibrated ruler. in the case of moa, it is known that some manufacturers don't spec their turrets to 1.047 and leave it at 1 inch.
the real question you should be asking yourself is why do you want to convert something from an angle into a linear figure, doesn't make any sense. if under pressure can you think on the fly to make the correction you need? most probably not.
and referencing Ryan Cleckner, you might want to watch this video where he is using a mil scope and trying to convert to moa, cause he thinks in moa, to make his adjustments while zeroing. not having a go a Ryan at all, he knows his stuff. he has been shooting moa most of his life and only changed to mil in the not to distant past going off this video.
please stop flogging a dead horse. people will either entertain you or ignore you. don't be surprised if you are the only one left talking to yourself in this thread...
Thank you for a descent comment that makes sense. I agree there are easier tools to use, but this was the foundation I was talking about that everyone says doesn't exist. Army Snipers use Mil so I'm not sure he is a MOA guy. It is referencing MOA because most hunter use MOA and they don't have crazy reticles like our 2-4K scopes do. This video is 10 years old so the scope craze was just getting going.
But but but I think we got a break through here!!!! People literally don't know this is a thing?
I agree, I'm done with this man.. if people don't want get it, they don't get it and it really doesn't matter to them.
Last edited:
The math only matters if you're using your reticle to measure an object of known size so you can estimate range...
Example: If you look through the scope at a target that you know is 36 inches wide and it brackets at 1 mil then you know the target is 1000 yards away.
So now that you know the range (and assuming you know your bullet drop @ 1000) then you can adjust or hold over by that value.
Estimating range is basically the only time the math comes in to play. And it's a ballpark figure at best.
A good rangefinder pretty much negates having to use the math but it doesn't hurt to know it because, well... caca occurs.
Mike
Example: If you look through the scope at a target that you know is 36 inches wide and it brackets at 1 mil then you know the target is 1000 yards away.
So now that you know the range (and assuming you know your bullet drop @ 1000) then you can adjust or hold over by that value.
Estimating range is basically the only time the math comes in to play. And it's a ballpark figure at best.
A good rangefinder pretty much negates having to use the math but it doesn't hurt to know it because, well... caca occurs.
Mike
No he is not an idiot. I do not think you are either, but it seems that you have ingrained a shortcut into your calculations that is confounding the issue. I have just finished reading this entire thread from start to finish. I can sense your frustration, but I suspect that you are too closely associating meters to MRAD's and MOA to yards. Also, everyone dog piling is probably obfuscating the issue a bit.
Please review starting at the 5:55 mark for a couple of minutes then move to the 8:47 mark in the video link you provided. He is utilizing the MRADs to discuss shooting in yards without converting from MOA's to Mil's.
Then see 15:30 wherein he discusses that mils and MOA's and mils are both being angular units of measurement.
MRAD is a unit of angle. MOA is a unit of angle. The unit of distance that you are measuring is abstract.
Perhaps it will help redefining the terminology.
MRAD = .0572958 degrees <-derived from the Formula (360 /(2 * pi)/1000
MOA = .0166666 degrees <- derived from the formula (1/60)
.0572958 degrees x unit = 1/1000th of the unit in distance.
Stealing Cleckner's example from the video,
Lets assume that your target is an Elk. The Elk is now your unit. The Elk is 1 milliradian tall in your scope. You are 1,000 Elk heights away from your target. If you believe an Elk is 57 inches tall. You are 1,000 (57 inch) units away. You can convert to the Elk being 57,000 inches away. Dividing by 36 inches will give you 1,583 yards to the Elk. If you shot at the Elk and missed by a single MRAD in your scope, then you know that you missed center by one length of Elk, being 57 inches.
If the Elk is 5 milliradians tall in your scope, then the Elk is 5/1000 Elk Heights away from you. Which will mean the Elk is 316.66 yards away. This of course assumes that your estimation of height is correct. If you shot at the Elk and your POI was single MRAD from your POA, in your scope, then you know that you missed your POA by 1/5th of an Elk, or 11.4 inches.
(Someone please check my math. Its late and I have been drinking.)
The shortcut I think you are using, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you are automatically converting everything to inches, then attempting to convert back to Mils or MOAs to make adjustments. I would argue that this is unnecessary. Simply convert the MOAs to Mils if that is your goal and skip the conversion of distance.
Please review starting at the 5:55 mark for a couple of minutes then move to the 8:47 mark in the video link you provided. He is utilizing the MRADs to discuss shooting in yards without converting from MOA's to Mil's.
Then see 15:30 wherein he discusses that mils and MOA's and mils are both being angular units of measurement.
MRAD is a unit of angle. MOA is a unit of angle. The unit of distance that you are measuring is abstract.
Perhaps it will help redefining the terminology.
MRAD = .0572958 degrees <-derived from the Formula (360 /(2 * pi)/1000
MOA = .0166666 degrees <- derived from the formula (1/60)
.0572958 degrees x unit = 1/1000th of the unit in distance.
Stealing Cleckner's example from the video,
Lets assume that your target is an Elk. The Elk is now your unit. The Elk is 1 milliradian tall in your scope. You are 1,000 Elk heights away from your target. If you believe an Elk is 57 inches tall. You are 1,000 (57 inch) units away. You can convert to the Elk being 57,000 inches away. Dividing by 36 inches will give you 1,583 yards to the Elk. If you shot at the Elk and missed by a single MRAD in your scope, then you know that you missed center by one length of Elk, being 57 inches.
If the Elk is 5 milliradians tall in your scope, then the Elk is 5/1000 Elk Heights away from you. Which will mean the Elk is 316.66 yards away. This of course assumes that your estimation of height is correct. If you shot at the Elk and your POI was single MRAD from your POA, in your scope, then you know that you missed your POA by 1/5th of an Elk, or 11.4 inches.
(Someone please check my math. Its late and I have been drinking.)
The shortcut I think you are using, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you are automatically converting everything to inches, then attempting to convert back to Mils or MOAs to make adjustments. I would argue that this is unnecessary. Simply convert the MOAs to Mils if that is your goal and skip the conversion of distance.
Sort of... Like I said it only matters for ranging. If you're shooting somewhere with a predetermined distance to target the math doesn't mean squat... Mils are mils and minutes are minutes.
If my shot is .5 mils left at 200 yards I'm going to click over .5 and keep shooting... I don't care if it was 3.6" left.
Mike
Okay. Target is the bright dot. Let’s say my point of impact was where the crosshairs are. How many inches low and left did I miss?
I'm on my phone... Hard to see... I have an answer but I'm going to keep my mouth shut in hopes that the point is understood.
Mike
Bonus points if you can tell me what day I took that picture on. Hint there is no glare on lens. No optical illusions going onI'm on my phone... Hard to see... I have an answer but I'm going to keep my mouth shut in hopes that the point is understood.
Mike
Like I said, I can barely see it on my phone screen. So it was a WAG. Lol
Mike
Mike
I was saving this one for my last comment.. What triggered this topic my head was this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE ON THIS SITE
Notice how he is "converting everything from yds to mil adjustments? My entire point made here. If you were using MOA adjustments, there would be less backend math involved. He did it for you so that's what make this so great.
This is an awesome tool and would recommend trying what this gentlemen has put together one day on the range.
www.snipershide.com
Notice how he is "converting everything from yds to mil adjustments? My entire point made here. If you were using MOA adjustments, there would be less backend math involved. He did it for you so that's what make this so great.
This is an awesome tool and would recommend trying what this gentlemen has put together one day on the range.
Alternate Range Weaponized Math
Weaponized Math developed by Marc Taylor has changed the way we gather data for our rifles. Doping your rifle has never been so easy.
www.snipershide.com Last edited:
I was just trying to make the simple point that MOA is easier for me to do quickly vs MIL and there is math involved. The formulas are the same, you just have to have a constant value (meters or inches) when applying them. If you want to convert one to the other, then there is more math.
That's it what all this has turned into.. not sure how.. but it did
Couldn’t*
And milliradians aren’t specific to any linear unit of measure.
1 mil @ 100 yards = .1 yards.
1 mil @ 500 yards = .5 yards
1 mil @ 250m = .25m
1 mil @ 1000 miles = 1 mile
The only math involved in mils IF you MUST relate it to a linear distance, which you really don’t and shouldn’t ever until you’re measure the group size and then you’re using a linear measuring tool anyway since you don’t measure group size with your scope, is shifting the decimal. I don’t even consider that math.
I think the confusion is that you want to do math. I get it, you want to go to what you have trained and learned on, and as an engineer, that's math.
The problem is that there really isn't any math involved when you are actually shooting. You might do math to determine range, but once you have range, you rely on your dope to dial the correction. Once you shoot, you our your spotter sees the miss and call the correction by the value of your scope, MOA or MIL, doesn't matter. When you are on the clock, you don't have time to say "I missed 6" at 1000, so I need X correction". Missed by .2, correct by .2, send it. I've yet to see the guy who can accurately measure in inches at 1000yds anyway, unless there is a ruler attached to the target and the area around it.
The problem is that there really isn't any math involved when you are actually shooting. You might do math to determine range, but once you have range, you rely on your dope to dial the correction. Once you shoot, you our your spotter sees the miss and call the correction by the value of your scope, MOA or MIL, doesn't matter. When you are on the clock, you don't have time to say "I missed 6" at 1000, so I need X correction". Missed by .2, correct by .2, send it. I've yet to see the guy who can accurately measure in inches at 1000yds anyway, unless there is a ruler attached to the target and the area around it.
The reason you're getting shitted on like there's no tomorrow is because you think that we're idiots and that you came here like Moses down from the mountain to teach us a revelation.
All of us can derive the distance subtended by an angle at a give range. This isn't new nor rocket science.
You have nothing you can teach us. Go away.
I use the SRS. What is that you might ask?
It's the Skittles Reference System.
It's not MIL, it's not MOA, nor is it IPHY.
So, what is this measuring system based on?
Well, it's skittles you dumbass. If you need a size reference, it readily converts to angular nipples.
I don't have any pics handy, but I'm sure someone here has a pic or two of a Skittles Smuggler.
Little help!!?
Here's the layout of the reticle. I would have made a complete vertical and horizontal reticle, but I ate 'em instead.
Seriously, who doesn't like a bit of Skittles chewing?
Now, I'm sure you'll notice the center Skittle is red. That's your aiming point. I woulda used pink or light brown, but like I said, I ate them.
The center Skittle is known as the head light. It's also been referred to as the turkey popper.
Anyway, we're gonna offer our turrets in a few different configurations.
The most popular will be the 1/2 Skittle and the optic will have at least 36DD elevation with half that much windage.
There will also be a 1/4 Skittle click value but it cuts the available movement in half.
For those looking for a lighter weight system for fall hunting, we're going old Skool and offering short, capped friction adjustable turrets (ala old Leupold Vari-×-II).
The caps are made of cashmere for comfort.
They'll have 34A Skittles of adjustment, but the reticle remains very perky.
Why covered you might ask? Hunting is normally a fall/winter thing. We want to make sure the Skittles aren't damaged due to cold or wet weather.
All you need to do is remove the cover and you can adjust the Skittles as much as you like. Once you place the cover back on the turret and the Skittles will return to their normal state.
The tall turret model will be available throughout the country as spring rolls in. Look for it at your favorite park, restaurant or beach.
The smaller turret model will be available in some office environments throughout the year. Once fall returns, expect to see an increase in the covered turret model.
I was saving this one for my last comment.. What triggered this topic my head was this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE ON THIS SITE
Notice how he is "converting everything from yds to mil adjustments? My entire point made here. If you were using MOA adjustments, there would be less backend math involved. He did it for you so that's what make this so great.
This is an awesome tool and would recommend trying what this gentlemen has put together one day on the range.
Alternate Range Weaponized Math
Weaponized Math developed by Marc Taylor has changed the way we gather data for our rifles. Doping your rifle has never been so easy.
You have zero understanding of what you read in that link. You have zero understanding of the practical application of any of this.
I think this is what is going on:
Cargo cult programming - Wikipedia
There are a group of people who do things because they have seen others do it, but have no understanding of why it's being done that way.
I'm guilty if this myself on occasion. I'm not a general contractor, but when I had to repair a wall in my house I followed what had been done before. I had no idea what the building code was or any of that shit, it was just monkey see, monkey do, monkey cut stud, monkey toe nail stud. Monkey hang drywall (loathsome task). Good monkey, have a peanut! We all do this at times, because none of us can know everything about everything. The difference is I don't come here and tell the contractors they are building houses wrong.
Our OP has seen some stuff on precision rifle, and is copying and repeating what he has heard but with no understanding of the why and the context and application behind it!
I see this a lot at work too. I ask why someone did something and they can't explain it, other than they did it and it worked before. Great, and are the 2 cases the same? Deer in headlights look. The ones that do explain it all are immediatelypunished rewarded with more responsibility, and over average pay rises.
Cargo cult programming - Wikipedia
There are a group of people who do things because they have seen others do it, but have no understanding of why it's being done that way.
I'm guilty if this myself on occasion. I'm not a general contractor, but when I had to repair a wall in my house I followed what had been done before. I had no idea what the building code was or any of that shit, it was just monkey see, monkey do, monkey cut stud, monkey toe nail stud. Monkey hang drywall (loathsome task). Good monkey, have a peanut! We all do this at times, because none of us can know everything about everything. The difference is I don't come here and tell the contractors they are building houses wrong.
Our OP has seen some stuff on precision rifle, and is copying and repeating what he has heard but with no understanding of the why and the context and application behind it!
I see this a lot at work too. I ask why someone did something and they can't explain it, other than they did it and it worked before. Great, and are the 2 cases the same? Deer in headlights look. The ones that do explain it all are immediately
People who shoot get it. People who sit and read about shooting will never get it.
This was in that Stop the debate article.
But I “think” in Inches:"
If you run with the target size x 100.. it's make this pretty damn easy which is my point again. And why do we have to use 27.7 boys and girls.. because it's metric
Mils
Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 27.7 / Mils Observed
TMOA
Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 95.5 / TMOA Observed
IPHY / SMOA
Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 100 / SMOA Observed
But I “think” in Inches:"
Ya. makes sense, just converter one thing too another has nothing to do thing inches or distance in is calculation. You did that calculation separate.
6.3Mils x 3.43 = 21.6 MOA
21.6 MOA / 3.43 = 6.3 Mils
If you run with the target size x 100.. it's make this pretty damn easy which is my point again. And why do we have to use 27.7 boys and girls.. because it's metric
Mils
Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 27.7 / Mils Observed
TMOA
Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 95.5 / TMOA Observed
IPHY / SMOA
Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 100 / SMOA Observed
The ONLY thing fucking funnier than the AMAZINGLY lonnnggggggg list of things you don't know is the list of things you THINK you "know". Congratulations?!?
As per always you'll do best by shutting the fhuqk up; taking notes and applying same. Hint.
I was saving this one for my last comment.. What triggered this topic my head was this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE ON THIS SITE
Notice how he is "converting everything from yds to mil adjustments? My entire point made here. If you were using MOA adjustments, there would be less backend math involved. He did it for you so that's what make this so great.
This is an awesome tool and would recommend trying what this gentlemen has put together one day on the range.
Alternate Range Weaponized Math
Weaponized Math developed by Marc Taylor has changed the way we gather data for our rifles. Doping your rifle has never been so easy.
He’s not converting anything at all......
They took their known dope at 100yd increments across different platforms and came up with a constant value for gravity at each yardage increment.
Are you sure you’re an engineer? If so, please give me the name of the company so I can never use them.
That's pretty much about 90% of the Internet's firearm content creators.
I guess you never taken statistic based calculus
For statistical thinking, what’s needed instead of quadratics and factoring is the incorporation of covariates. This can be as simple as the linear function with two inputs, z = a + bx + cy. This general-purpose form—extended often to more than two variables but remaining linear—is the workhorse of statistical modeling. It’s a first representation of what might be called complexity that more than one variable can play a role.
A powerful way of thinking about functions like z = a + bx + cy is to ask how the output changes when either of the inputs, x or y, is changed.
My outfit has an office in the Fort Walton Beach area. I am sitting here hoping to hell this isn't one of my guys!
@chickon1 has GOT to be a troll. If he was serious he would have by now either (a) figured out @308pirate knows what he’s talking about or (b) completely written us off as hopeless.
Or else he genuinely believes he’s the smartest person on SnipersHide.....hahahahahahahahahahaha
Or else he genuinely believes he’s the smartest person on SnipersHide.....hahahahahahahahahahaha
You're a fucking MORON. There are people here that have forgotten more mathematics than you will ever live to learn.
I am ashamed to be an engineer at this point. I would love to send a transcript of this to your "college" so we can ensure that ANYTHING you engineer never comes into contact with humanity. Is that Moronica U on the island of Moronica?
They did a show about you called ENGINEERING DISASTERS
Moved this to bear pit in case they haven’t seen it yet......
