Rifle Scopes cm and mil turrets
- Thread starter CST
- Start date
Re: cm and mil turrets
Something is off in your calcs,
.1 mil is 1 cm at 100 meters, that is certain fact.
1 Mil is 1 meter at 1000 meters.
Best regards Chris
Something is off in your calcs,
.1 mil is 1 cm at 100 meters, that is certain fact.
1 Mil is 1 meter at 1000 meters.
Best regards Chris
Re: cm and mil turrets
I am not going to actually verify that these are correct but I believe I have id'd your error. Make your distance units the same and you'll fix it.
.1 mil is 1 cm at 100 <span style="font-weight: bold">METERS</span>
.1 mil is .36 inches at 100 <span style="font-weight: bold">YARDS</span>
.1 mil is .39 inches at 100 meters. .1 mil is .36 inches at 100 yards
1cm ALWAYS equals .39" I thought you Asian dudes were good at math!!
BTW- Thanks for hooking up my buddy Joe with a little trailside dentistry!!
Eric
I am not going to actually verify that these are correct but I believe I have id'd your error. Make your distance units the same and you'll fix it.
.1 mil is 1 cm at 100 <span style="font-weight: bold">METERS</span>
.1 mil is .36 inches at 100 <span style="font-weight: bold">YARDS</span>
.1 mil is .39 inches at 100 meters. .1 mil is .36 inches at 100 yards
1cm ALWAYS equals .39" I thought you Asian dudes were good at math!!
BTW- Thanks for hooking up my buddy Joe with a little trailside dentistry!!
Eric
Re: cm and mil turrets
0.1 mil is a 1:10000 ratio as long as you keep the units the same.
1 inch at 10000 inches
1 foot at 10000 foot
1 yard at 10000 yards
1 millimeter at 10000 millimeter
1 centimeter at 10000 centimeter
1 meter at 10000 meter
1 cm at 100 m = .39 inches at <span style="font-weight: bold">109.36 YARDS</span>
0.1 mil is a 1:10000 ratio as long as you keep the units the same.
1 inch at 10000 inches
1 foot at 10000 foot
1 yard at 10000 yards
1 millimeter at 10000 millimeter
1 centimeter at 10000 centimeter
1 meter at 10000 meter
1 cm at 100 m = .39 inches at <span style="font-weight: bold">109.36 YARDS</span>
Re: cm and mil turrets
I got it!!I hate math and my wife wonders why I am shooting precision rifles....she thinks I need to shoot trap and skeet like her... And it doesnt take match to drill a hole into someones mouth!
ITs just weird that some S&B scopes are labeled as .1mrad and some are 1cm..thats why I was confused
I got it!!I hate math and my wife wonders why I am shooting precision rifles....she thinks I need to shoot trap and skeet like her... And it doesnt take match to drill a hole into someones mouth!
ITs just weird that some S&B scopes are labeled as .1mrad and some are 1cm..thats why I was confused
Re: cm and mil turrets
IIRC from Lindy, the 1cm caps are technically wrong, .1mrad is correct. Again from Lindy and I hope Im getting it right, the 1 cm is wrong because we are not subtending measurment, we are subtending arc???
Shane
IIRC from Lindy, the 1cm caps are technically wrong, .1mrad is correct. Again from Lindy and I hope Im getting it right, the 1 cm is wrong because we are not subtending measurment, we are subtending arc???
Shane
Re: cm and mil turrets
S&B marks the CCW turrents in mils and the CW turrents in cm for some reason.
S&B marks the CCW turrents in mils and the CW turrents in cm for some reason.
Re: cm and mil turrets
Shane is correct.
While 1 cm at 100 meters is a correct specification for an angle, just as 1.047 inches at 100 yards is correct, neither is optimal.
The proper term for 1 cm at 100 meters is 0.1 milliradian, which is the preferred terminology for an angle.
The proper term for 1.047 inches at 100 yards is 1 minute of angle, AKA 1 MOA, which is the preferred terminology for an angle.
Shane is correct.
While 1 cm at 100 meters is a correct specification for an angle, just as 1.047 inches at 100 yards is correct, neither is optimal.
The proper term for 1 cm at 100 meters is 0.1 milliradian, which is the preferred terminology for an angle.
The proper term for 1.047 inches at 100 yards is 1 minute of angle, AKA 1 MOA, which is the preferred terminology for an angle.
Re: cm and mil turrets
I beg to differ... "1cm at 100 m" is 100% accurate, and for metric users (everybody but the USA) makes training math challenged people (the vast majority of users everywhere) easier and faster than "0.1 mrad".
I beg to differ... "1cm at 100 m" is 100% accurate, and for metric users (everybody but the USA) makes training math challenged people (the vast majority of users everywhere) easier and faster than "0.1 mrad".
Re: cm and mil turrets
You're welcome to differ.
Most of the people I train are from the U.S.A. But since some of them are not, I speak both systems.
I'm not crippled by being limited to the metric system. Heck, <span style="font-style: italic">anyone</span> can do the metric system - it's easy.
In the U.S., we like things to be hard, which is why the smart people of the world who want a challenge flock to the U.S.
You're welcome to differ.
Most of the people I train are from the U.S.A. But since some of them are not, I speak both systems.
I'm not crippled by being limited to the metric system. Heck, <span style="font-style: italic">anyone</span> can do the metric system - it's easy.
In the U.S., we like things to be hard, which is why the smart people of the world who want a challenge flock to the U.S.
Re: cm and mil turrets
OK then - here's a challenge.
And no - I have not really bothered to work it all out. I like it here in Spain - the food's WAY better
In the majority of scopes the image selection is indeed selected by a system describing an arc. But the system controlling it is not angular - it's in fact linear. SO therefore as selected image is moved off axis from optical zero the arc describes actually reduces the effective vertical/horizontal movement per click as there is a marginal rearward movement associated.
In FFP systems the POI is actually in the bit being arced about. But in SFP systems it can be at the rear of the arcing bit or in the fixed bit - this also affects albeit very very marginally how these two align - I'm informed.
In older type scope where the reticle actually moves about in the field of view. The motion is in reality linear - as such as it rises it effectively moves away from the eye and as such each click is actually affording a different angle.
Good this isn't it.
Simple fact is - it does not really mater once you know what your particular scope does. Especially with SFP telemetric reticles.
What does a .5mrad tick movement equate to in a scope with 1/4moa clicks at 18x if the reticle is calibrated at 10x? If my brain is off tick over it's 4 clicks. But that's why I like FFP - and I'm not a good enough shot to notice whether it's .1mrad or 1cm
OK then - here's a challenge.
And no - I have not really bothered to work it all out. I like it here in Spain - the food's WAY better
In the majority of scopes the image selection is indeed selected by a system describing an arc. But the system controlling it is not angular - it's in fact linear. SO therefore as selected image is moved off axis from optical zero the arc describes actually reduces the effective vertical/horizontal movement per click as there is a marginal rearward movement associated.
In FFP systems the POI is actually in the bit being arced about. But in SFP systems it can be at the rear of the arcing bit or in the fixed bit - this also affects albeit very very marginally how these two align - I'm informed.
In older type scope where the reticle actually moves about in the field of view. The motion is in reality linear - as such as it rises it effectively moves away from the eye and as such each click is actually affording a different angle.
Good this isn't it.
Simple fact is - it does not really mater once you know what your particular scope does. Especially with SFP telemetric reticles.
What does a .5mrad tick movement equate to in a scope with 1/4moa clicks at 18x if the reticle is calibrated at 10x? If my brain is off tick over it's 4 clicks. But that's why I like FFP - and I'm not a good enough shot to notice whether it's .1mrad or 1cm
Re: cm and mil turrets
I think your question is badly stated.
If you are moving 4 clicks on a scope with <span style="font-style: italic">actual</span>, as opposed to nominal, 1/4 MOA clicks, then the POI will move 1 MOA, irrespective of what the scope magnification is. If you want to know how many clicks to adjust for a 0.5 mil change in point of impact, it's just less than 7 clicks, but the reticle specification is irrelevant.
If you're talking about the magnitude of the effect of making a 0.5 mil holdoff on a mil-graduated SFP reticle which is calibrated at 10X and used at 18X, it's 0.28 milliradians - assuming that the power ring is correctly calibrated and used. A 0.28 mil adjustment amounts to 0.98 MOA, so that would take just less than 4 clicks, if you were making the adjustment by dialing the scope rather than holding off.
I prefer FFP, too - I don't own any other kind of scope.
I think your question is badly stated.
If you are moving 4 clicks on a scope with <span style="font-style: italic">actual</span>, as opposed to nominal, 1/4 MOA clicks, then the POI will move 1 MOA, irrespective of what the scope magnification is. If you want to know how many clicks to adjust for a 0.5 mil change in point of impact, it's just less than 7 clicks, but the reticle specification is irrelevant.
If you're talking about the magnitude of the effect of making a 0.5 mil holdoff on a mil-graduated SFP reticle which is calibrated at 10X and used at 18X, it's 0.28 milliradians - assuming that the power ring is correctly calibrated and used. A 0.28 mil adjustment amounts to 0.98 MOA, so that would take just less than 4 clicks, if you were making the adjustment by dialing the scope rather than holding off.
I prefer FFP, too - I don't own any other kind of scope.
Similar threads
