Rifle Scopes In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

[BigBrother]

Kind of an open ended question for you guys-

When I was starting off about a year ago, (mildot reticle, MOA knobs), my train of thought would go something like this:

1. Range estimation with mils (if UD)
2. Lookup (or recall from memory) come ups in MOA, dial it in
3. For adjusting after shot 1, guess about how many inches, click up accordingly @ that distance with relation to MOA. (Though recently I've realized estimating the amount with the reticle is probably easier, even if the measurements don't make for the easiest math)
4. For rough holdover shooting w/ reticle, would just use 1 mil ~= 3.5 MOA

It's the back and forth between inches @ target, MOA, and mils that has me a little confused. Now, before you say it, I know what the clear answer is: MATCHING RETICLES AND KNOBS

, but then I guess I'm asking more about what they train in the USAMU and the Corps. Here's the reason...

I was watching a documentary (or reading an article) on the guy who got the 1200y kill with the M24, and he mentioned that he had to aim something like "400 inches above the target". That's when I started getting confused. Here's why- that seems like real backwards math- he probably wouldn't know that at time of trigger pull, would he? Because that's a vertical measurement, not an angular one, only accurate at one distance. So did he hold over X mils, and just convert backwards for what X mils would be in inches @ 1200 y for the sake of the article? Because you don't really think about hold overs in linear, vertical distance, do you??

So for those who were trained in the armed forces, what measurements are they training you and your spotter to think in? MOA always? Vertical distance at target (inches)? Mils? Just BDC and guess work? I'm confused

I know all this goes out the window if you have a nice Mil/Mil setup, as what you see through the glass is what you get (impact distance, etc.), but I'm asking more for my own edification as plenty of you have used the standard Mil/MOA system in the thick of it, and I want to know how you categorized it in your head.

Thanks!

 

[gugubica]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

I don't really think in units, only numbers. Whatever system you use, you get used to. After a while, you don't think "so many mils at the target and so many MOA on the dails" etc. You just think 2.5 and 3 and a quarter.

That said, I actually have a more dificult time now with matching systems. I got used to mil/MOA. Now I am experimenting with both MOA/MOA and mil/mil. I DO have to think in specific units (for ranging only though) or else I will forget which system I am using. Once I settle on a system and get used to it, it'll be back to just numbers.

If I remember correctly, the guy dailed for a 1000 meter shot and made an educated guess for the additional distance with a holdover (as his dope only went to a grand).

There was a lot of luck involved in this shot. I am not saying it was a lucky shot. He had to be a skilled marksman, but I believe it was a case of "ehh, I'll hold about here, seems about right" and he connected.

I don't think he actually ran any calcs to come up with an exact drop between 1000 and 1200. He just used his instinct and sent one. His instint (honed by training) turned out to be spot on.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

First off, just because someone in the Army did it, or said it doesn't make it even close to right.

Next, there are some serious "training" issues within the Army, especially at the basic school level. Its been deluded, polluted, and so filled with inaccuracies its surprising most guys actually understand what they are saying, which is evident when you read articles like you mentioned when they say they held 400 inches over a target, because you know he probably wasn't thinking 400 inches, I don't know anyone who does. As well like when a Marine states he has to convert yards to meters to use a S&B scope.

I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle about this stuff and use what works for you. If your mind processes it one way, and that works for you, run with it. Sure there are host of methods to get the same firing solutions, and it pays to try out all of them too see which works best for you. But there is no "one" answer to tactical shooting.

For example, you're using 3.5MOA for 1 Mil, but there are lot of uses for fractions of a mil, which make breaking that 3.5MOA up a pain in the ass. So, we actually use 1 MOA for each 1/4 Mil and then 1 Mil becomes 4 MOA with each 1/4 being a full MOA. Much easy to divide the reticle up. But that is minute of man thinking and not meant to help you at an F Class event trying to hit the X ring. So, you have to put the methods into context.

We deal with a lot of guys in the military and each time more and more of them are shaking their heads at what is going on at the Basic Sniper School. Some don't even want to send new guys to the school anymore and prefer the National Guard School, because its not a bunch of guys trying to change the course to fit their understanding. Its what happens when yo have a vague line in a manual, everyone reads it differently and it just depends on who is working that day.

 

[gugubica]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

All very true LL, I would add that the guys that are really good at their craft don't remember dick from basic school. They understand the pricipals and use their own method to get it done.

The basic method of instruction is number based so that it can conform to the biggest possible audience. It sucks. Aplication and usage is a much better way to go about it. You have to do it, and you have to feel it.

Its hard to explain, but if someone just concentrates on the numbers (like the basic school teaches) they will not be very effective. They have to feel it and that feeling is the result of doing it, alot.

I will tell you that the higher level upper unit specific training is much better, more individual focused, and produces better shooters. The basic school sucks and I have heard it is getting worse as they are having to crank out even more numbers (heresay though).

There is a LOT more to effective long range shooting than just knowing what numbers you are supposed to dail.

 

[BigBrother]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

Really interesting stuff guys, I appreciate it.

Ultimately then my one real question, which seems to have been answered, was about the "400 inches high" comment. Angular measurements all seem interchangeable and up to taste, but that way of looking at things just seemed off to me, and I had wanted to catch if there was something I wasn't getting that was taught in the schools.

The only way I can see that type of explanation (assuming the person knows what they're talking about to begin with) would be to remember about how many mils high they were holding, and then, when pressed by the interviewer or reporter, look it up or convert for the sake of a measurement that Joe public would understand in the article. In other words: angular holdover->translation in "target" space. Because otherwise, like I said, thinking in inches for holding high makes no sense to me

 

[sscoyote]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

I'd like to comment on this one as a civilian that likes tactical applications in his shooting/hunting. I like IPHY (inch per hundred yds.), since most of us think in inches. I also use many different reticles and turrets in my shooting and that's the simplest for me generally.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

That is what everyone sees, but nobody seems to understand... when using a reticle and turret system that is exactly the same, and by that I mean, the adjustments are the same as the subtension of the reticle...

you don't "think" you read. which is what makes it better, at least in my opinion.

 

[Carnivore]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is what everyone sees, but nobody seems to understand... when using a reticle and turret system that is exactly the same, and by that I mean, the adjustments are the same as the subtension of the reticle...

you don't "think" you read. which is what makes it better, at least in my opinion.

</div></div>

What Frank says is truth. The more non essential thinking you take out of the equation the less the chance you have for a brain pfart and the more time you have for thinking about what you need to be thinking about.

 

[kombayotch]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

You can't tell a lot people this, you need to show them... it's one of those things that many find hard because they're looking for it to be something complicated when in reality it's so simple, its silly.

 

[Guest]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

A scope thats IPHY both retical an knobs is all I use now. Most every weapon, street sign, tire, personal equipment ect. thats out there, is in print in inchs, not MOA or Mils

Target in inchs/retical subtention, X, 100 = yardage

The MDMOA retical in the USO scopes can be read to 1/4 IPHY only thing easier for me, is a LRF.

 

[BigBrother]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is what everyone sees, but nobody seems to understand... when using a reticle and turret system that is exactly the same, and by that I mean, the adjustments are the same as the subtension of the reticle...

you don't "think" you read. which is what makes it better, at least in my opinion.

</div></div>

Yeah, I get this completely. You only "think" in one space- reticle space. What you see is what you get and what you dial. Just was curious for this case, is all.

EDIT- come to think of it, with matching ones, all that's left is remembering come ups, which is why I don't understand how a simple system like the G36's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G36Reticle.png

or even the SVD's:

http://www.dragunov.net/scopes/svd_ret.jpg

isn't employed. If you have matching reticle and knobs, AND a distance estimator for man-sized target plus demarcations on the reticle for distances for a given load (which the G36 does beautifully), you take a lot of the mental math out of the picture. Almost point and click (minus wind).

 

[Lowlight]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

Ya, and who cares you know how big a street sign is in inches, how does that help you shoot better, and how is that effected by anything else.

your rationalization has no bearing on the shot. And even less on the follow up that shot, if you make a shot and miss the target and there is a car with 22" spinners driving by what does that tell you ?

And if you are talking about ranging, invest in a laser, if you are worried about batteries, change them, if you are worried even more, get a new hobby. its the 21st century, mil'ing a target is a last resort at best, and even then highly flawed in execution.

 

[Guest]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

My responce was for ranging and dialing, the street sign, an 22" homie spinners tells me what I want to know as will.

Does either have anything to do with shooting, I'd say yes,... you may want to hit the target, but then again with a 5mw charged partical beam that part does not matter.

I don't use a LRF much, light is right for me.

Thread Caption---> "In what units do you "think" about adjustment?" That is what my responce was directed towards.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

So, explain how your thinking has anything to do with shooting, especially when you consider no company has yet to equally match the turrets to the reticle the way a Mil adjusted scope does.

Every single Mil Dot reticle, regardless can be broken into 10th, most tactical scopes, at least of any mention adjust in 1/10th mil which matches that break down of the reticle.

Can you simply and easily look at a splash in your reticle and under stress tell me how many .25 MOA or .25" its take up ? On the internet probably so, but in the field or in competition most can't, and that goes beyond a single sampling.

Light is right, with that I agree except when you consider the speed and accuracy in your readings you're giving up. With that thinking why not just iron sights and save even more weight.

 

[BigBrother]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

Rock throwing is also an option

. But seriously folks, thoughts on my post above w.r.t G36 reticle features?

 

[Guest]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

It only has to do with ranging, which I think has a part of shooting in there.
My MDMOA is subtended in 1" IPHY the Knobs are in 1/2" both ways.

"Can you simply and easily look at a splash in your reticle and under stress tell me how many .25 MOA or .25" its take up ?"
No, I can not under stress, but depending on range and round, .25 moa normally won't matter, unless it's paper with scoring rings will it?

"With that thinking why not just iron sights and save even more weight."
I'll tote the glass weight for that.

The light part for me is because Murphy seems to apply(at least with me) with anything, that takes a battery an has a circuit board.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

Ranging is a part of shooting, ranging with your reticle is option within that part... if I range with my laser, that's another, if I opt to use a spotter, or a map, they can be another option, so putting all your importance on it is a personal choice you made, and does not give it any more weight than any other system. I can easily range a target in inches using a mil dot reticle quite fast, so you might want to look at that as a training issue and not one of the equipment.

I can say distance affords me time and opportunity to create a range card, so I can range using both a map and laser never having to use my reticle even in cases where the target is fleeting. and because of my prior planning its twice as fast as using your reticle... target at intersection X = 650 yards, dope it shoot. Or I can just hold and shoot.

Now, I highly doubt you go to the range and shoot nothing but UKD targets so you aren't ranging at all at most ranges, so again, its very low on the priority list of necessary considerations.

The MDMOA is one of the better MOA reticle, but 1, only USO has it, and 2, the only real reference is at the 10MOA point, as it goes big & small every other MOA so a new shooter could in fact get confused near the 5 MOA point, as to whether that is truly 5 MOA, 4MOA or 6, 7, ... its 5 small lines and 4 big ones with little reference between the two. Not to mention on lower powers it gets a little tight in there.

So again as I stated its personal preference thing, so unless everyone can invest in a USO and get it set up specifically that way, I would say the options for successful employment without a whole lot of thinking are limited at best. It requires you to think as much as any other, although I contend still more than Mils.

 

[Lindy]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

I like mildots. But I'd like to see a reticle with dots every 4 IPHY, a large hashmark every two IPHY, and small hashmarks at the one IPHY points.

That would be close to a mildot reticle, but with IPHY graduations.

My problem with IPHY and MOA reticles is that I've never seen one I really like better than a Gen II mildot.

 

[Guest]

Re: In what units do you "think" about adjustment?

Granted I shoot on KD most of the time, but I play with the MD just to stay intune per say, an the LRF humbles me at times depending on target color, angle, an light.We are still trying to get a grip on those issues as well. A correctly drawn range card is hard to beat granted, but times are changing in some areas.

The reason I spoke of signs, weapons, P/E ect. these are in print everywhere, and mostly the item does not change offen. therefore if in a urban or unknown venue this info helps alot. I was up on all things Russian/Chinese/NKPA once, but that was then, and we are talking about now. I feel knowing or having a cheat sheet with a quality retical would still be helpfull, granted it's not as fast as a LRF, but time, an distance is realitive, depending on many things.

If one knows their equipment, has the time, I know, you know, less is more, most of the time. I'm not saying a LRF is not usefull, needed, or not better, than knowing your iron/glass, but old ways die hard. Athough when I played with my First FFP retical,(type 1 moa USO) I seen a need to have one, because I did not have/own a LRF at that time. But I guess my point is this. Many times I had issues with the 1200yd Leica getting a lock, do to fog, rain ect. this is why I spend more time with the MD an getting to know it completely at a glance. I have a problem with equipment that may or may not work when needed, if just on a playfull outing.

Then again if we could get NOBODY to teach me how to properly use the LRF in all things mother an field, that would be great as well.