Or is it my lack of field experience? For hypothetical purposes if you guess your target at 72" and it shows 1.75 mils, your distance is 1045 meters. If your guess is off as little as 2" either way its either 1016 meters or 1074 meters which changes POI 20" up or down with a 300 grain 338 Lapua. Am I doing something wrong?
Rifle Scopes Is Milling Really This Difficult
- Thread starter Dark Horse
- Start date
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
You're not doing anything wrong. Reticle ranging is limited to relatively short distances, because the farther out you go, the more the arrival angle of the bullet increases. That means that the tolerance for range error is decreasing.
On a thousand yard shot with a typical .308, a 20 yard error in range will mean a complete miss on a 20 inch target.
Reticle ranging is a technique which should be used only when no more accurate method of ranging is available.
You're not doing anything wrong. Reticle ranging is limited to relatively short distances, because the farther out you go, the more the arrival angle of the bullet increases. That means that the tolerance for range error is decreasing.
On a thousand yard shot with a typical .308, a 20 yard error in range will mean a complete miss on a 20 inch target.
Reticle ranging is a technique which should be used only when no more accurate method of ranging is available.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Lindy makes an excellent point, one which, I believe, is often not considered, along with a multitude of other essential concepts to good shooting at LR.
Lindy makes an excellent point, one which, I believe, is often not considered, along with a multitude of other essential concepts to good shooting at LR.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Based on a few calculations, the margin of error is so substantial that a miss seems more likely than a hit at anything over 500 meters.
Based on a few calculations, the margin of error is so substantial that a miss seems more likely than a hit at anything over 500 meters.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Thanks for the clarification by the way.
Thanks for the clarification by the way.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dark Horse</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Based on a few calculations, the margin of error is so substantial that a miss seems more likely than a hit at anything over 500 meters. </div></div>
That statement is waaaay overly pessimistic once some skill is acquired through a little training and field practice. 500-600-700 yards is not that difficult as far as drop and small ranging error is concerned. It is out past that range where the 308 is dropping like a stone that first round hit probability goes down....that and wind effects.
The more you practice the better you get, as with most things, and a little hands-on practice goes a long way toward successful achievement.
TC
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dark Horse</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Based on a few calculations, the margin of error is so substantial that a miss seems more likely than a hit at anything over 500 meters. </div></div>
That statement is waaaay overly pessimistic once some skill is acquired through a little training and field practice. 500-600-700 yards is not that difficult as far as drop and small ranging error is concerned. It is out past that range where the 308 is dropping like a stone that first round hit probability goes down....that and wind effects.
The more you practice the better you get, as with most things, and a little hands-on practice goes a long way toward successful achievement.
TC
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
That's true. And an essential skill to master is to be able to break the reticle down finer than 0.1 mil increments.
One way to practice that is to set up a target at a distance where the image size of the target is precisely the resolution you want to practice.
Use the mil relation formula - or a Mildot Master - to calculate the distance you want.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size (inches) * 27.77
distance = -----------------------------
image size in mil
</pre></div></div>
For example, if you want a 12 inch target to measure 1.65 mils, then:
distance = 12 * 27.77 / 1.65 = 202 yards
At 196 yards, that target will measure 1.7 mils.
At 208 yards, that target will measure 1.6 mils.
By moving back and forth between those distances, you can practice reading the reticle to 0.05 mils, and doing that will greatly enhance your accuracy at long distances.
That's true. And an essential skill to master is to be able to break the reticle down finer than 0.1 mil increments.
One way to practice that is to set up a target at a distance where the image size of the target is precisely the resolution you want to practice.
Use the mil relation formula - or a Mildot Master - to calculate the distance you want.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size (inches) * 27.77
distance = -----------------------------
image size in mil
</pre></div></div>
For example, if you want a 12 inch target to measure 1.65 mils, then:
distance = 12 * 27.77 / 1.65 = 202 yards
At 196 yards, that target will measure 1.7 mils.
At 208 yards, that target will measure 1.6 mils.
By moving back and forth between those distances, you can practice reading the reticle to 0.05 mils, and doing that will greatly enhance your accuracy at long distances.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're not doing anything wrong. Reticle ranging is limited to relatively short distances, because the farther out you go, the more the arrival angle of the bullet increases. That means that the tolerance for range error is decreasing.
On a thousand yard shot with a typical .308, a 20 yard error in range will mean a complete miss on a 20 inch target.
Reticle ranging is a technique which should be used only when no more accurate method of ranging is available.
</div></div>
Great post as usual Lindy. Thanks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're not doing anything wrong. Reticle ranging is limited to relatively short distances, because the farther out you go, the more the arrival angle of the bullet increases. That means that the tolerance for range error is decreasing.
On a thousand yard shot with a typical .308, a 20 yard error in range will mean a complete miss on a 20 inch target.
Reticle ranging is a technique which should be used only when no more accurate method of ranging is available.
</div></div>
Great post as usual Lindy. Thanks.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Sorry, but don't understand target that big!
Sorry, but don't understand target that big!
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
I've said in another post, I need to really get better at using all parts of the scope before using it more that "close enough". Lines are a certain Mil, dots are a certain Mil, area between are a certain Mil, center to center is a Mil.
I may be forgetting something. Study the reticle itself would be a very good idea. I've not done enough of that.
Chad
I've said in another post, I need to really get better at using all parts of the scope before using it more that "close enough". Lines are a certain Mil, dots are a certain Mil, area between are a certain Mil, center to center is a Mil.
I may be forgetting something. Study the reticle itself would be a very good idea. I've not done enough of that.
Chad
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Something that has been pounded into my head over and over again when it comes to reticle ranging is 27.778, not 27.77. And range to the 3rd digit of mils, half half half. So take it one more digit. Instead of 2.5 mils half it 2 more digits to 2.562 mils. It takes some practice but actually can be done by halfing them.
Something that has been pounded into my head over and over again when it comes to reticle ranging is 27.778, not 27.77. And range to the 3rd digit of mils, half half half. So take it one more digit. Instead of 2.5 mils half it 2 more digits to 2.562 mils. It takes some practice but actually can be done by halfing them.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Actually, it's what you get by dividing 1000 by 36, which is 27.777777777777...
Round it off where you like. But the difference between 27.77 and the actual value is 0.028 percent (0.00028), which is no difference at all.
As for the ability to mil a target to 3 digits after the decimal point, I'll bet $1000 that no one can do that 2 times out of 3 with a scope of less than 40 power. Provide your own scope.
Actually, it's what you get by dividing 1000 by 36, which is 27.777777777777...
Round it off where you like. But the difference between 27.77 and the actual value is 0.028 percent (0.00028), which is no difference at all.
As for the ability to mil a target to 3 digits after the decimal point, I'll bet $1000 that no one can do that 2 times out of 3 with a scope of less than 40 power. Provide your own scope.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, it's what you get by dividing 1000 by 36, which is 27.777777777777...
Round it off where you like. But the difference between 27.77 and the actual value is 0.028 percent (0.00028), which is no difference at all.
As for the ability to mil a target to 3 digits after the decimal point, I'll bet $1000 that no one can do that 2 times out of 3 with a scope of less than 40 power. Provide your own scope.
</div></div>
I have a hard time getting 3 digits past the decimal very accuratly but the person teaching me about it was ranging targets out to 1100 yards at 20x and getting within 10-15 yards of what the laser would verify. On targets within 600 yards he was getting within a yard or two. He admitted that he has been doing it a long time and practiced a lot but he proved many times how accurately it can be done.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, it's what you get by dividing 1000 by 36, which is 27.777777777777...
Round it off where you like. But the difference between 27.77 and the actual value is 0.028 percent (0.00028), which is no difference at all.
As for the ability to mil a target to 3 digits after the decimal point, I'll bet $1000 that no one can do that 2 times out of 3 with a scope of less than 40 power. Provide your own scope.
</div></div>
I have a hard time getting 3 digits past the decimal very accuratly but the person teaching me about it was ranging targets out to 1100 yards at 20x and getting within 10-15 yards of what the laser would verify. On targets within 600 yards he was getting within a yard or two. He admitted that he has been doing it a long time and practiced a lot but he proved many times how accurately it can be done.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
I do believe that range estimation by mil relation should be practiced often. I also believe that in this day and age, anyone serious about long range shooting should have a LRF in their ruck.
Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
I do believe that range estimation by mil relation should be practiced often. I also believe that in this day and age, anyone serious about long range shooting should have a LRF in their ruck.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Or a target that won't allow you to walk up to him with your tape measure and get his actual sizes...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Or a target that won't allow you to walk up to him with your tape measure and get his actual sizes...
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Oh I agree completly and I'm not arguing. I was just pointing out what I have been taught and what I have seen someone do with it. I can't range very accurate with the reticle but I am getting better. I'm still a fan of a LRF but will continue to practice using the reticle just in case.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Oh I agree completly and I'm not arguing. I was just pointing out what I have been taught and what I have seen someone do with it. I can't range very accurate with the reticle but I am getting better. I'm still a fan of a LRF but will continue to practice using the reticle just in case.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Milling is very difficult at times and the weather is a large factor. Rain , fog , Bright sun light or not enough light all effect your view of the target your trying to range.
My spotter and I always took seperate mil readings. I with the scope and he with the binos. If we came up with the same range then thats what was dialed on the scope. If we had different readings then we split the differance and dialed that on the scope. I still do alot of ranging on woodchucks these days, but the hardest part is not knowing if its a full grown one or a youngin! You can be off over 100 yrds at times.
Milling is very difficult at times and the weather is a large factor. Rain , fog , Bright sun light or not enough light all effect your view of the target your trying to range.
My spotter and I always took seperate mil readings. I with the scope and he with the binos. If we came up with the same range then thats what was dialed on the scope. If we had different readings then we split the differance and dialed that on the scope. I still do alot of ranging on woodchucks these days, but the hardest part is not knowing if its a full grown one or a youngin! You can be off over 100 yrds at times.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Niles Coyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Or a target that won't allow you to walk up to him with your tape measure and get his actual sizes... </div></div>
That was my point all along, practicing the actual range estimation cannot be stressed enough, but if you incorrectly estimate the size of your target by even the slightest margin at longer distances, where does that leave you?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Niles Coyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Or a target that won't allow you to walk up to him with your tape measure and get his actual sizes... </div></div>
That was my point all along, practicing the actual range estimation cannot be stressed enough, but if you incorrectly estimate the size of your target by even the slightest margin at longer distances, where does that leave you?
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
The "Keep Shooting" CD game/trainer is pretty neat for practice. If you have a scope that has half mil lines things become a lot easier also.
I've been thinking same thing, in real world the ideal setup maybe something with a ballistic plex / BDC reticle for aquiring multiple targets quick, and for more precise shoots use a laser rangefinder and a the knobs to dial in crosshairs.
The "Keep Shooting" CD game/trainer is pretty neat for practice. If you have a scope that has half mil lines things become a lot easier also.
I've been thinking same thing, in real world the ideal setup maybe something with a ballistic plex / BDC reticle for aquiring multiple targets quick, and for more precise shoots use a laser rangefinder and a the knobs to dial in crosshairs.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I don't understand why more scopes don't go with something as clean and elegant as the G36 optic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G36Reticle.png
You have a man-sized distance indicator *and* hold over points for common distances. If it's coupled with a BDC, you have it simple as can be, except of course for wind.
Granted it would have to be for a military rig with known ammo/load, but I can't see how you can get any simpler.
I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I don't understand why more scopes don't go with something as clean and elegant as the G36 optic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G36Reticle.png
You have a man-sized distance indicator *and* hold over points for common distances. If it's coupled with a BDC, you have it simple as can be, except of course for wind.
Granted it would have to be for a military rig with known ammo/load, but I can't see how you can get any simpler.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BillPrudden</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Twisted</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And range to the 3rd digit of mils, half half half. So take it one more digit. Instead of 2.5 mils half it 2 more digits to 2.562 mils. It takes some practice but actually can be done by halfing them. </div></div>
Would you mind snapping a few photos, either through a reticle or with one photoshop-imposed on, and walk us through this?
Bill </div></div>
I'm curious to this as well. If you are getting these numbers by looking through a scope with any standard mil reticle, you have a damn good career with the military ahead of you. My eyes can estimate to the tenth without a problem, but to the thousandth...no way brother.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BillPrudden</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Twisted</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And range to the 3rd digit of mils, half half half. So take it one more digit. Instead of 2.5 mils half it 2 more digits to 2.562 mils. It takes some practice but actually can be done by halfing them. </div></div>
Would you mind snapping a few photos, either through a reticle or with one photoshop-imposed on, and walk us through this?
Bill </div></div>
I'm curious to this as well. If you are getting these numbers by looking through a scope with any standard mil reticle, you have a damn good career with the military ahead of you. My eyes can estimate to the tenth without a problem, but to the thousandth...no way brother.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dark Horse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Niles Coyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Or a target that won't allow you to walk up to him with your tape measure and get his actual sizes... </div></div>
That was my point all along, practicing the actual range estimation cannot be stressed enough, but if you incorrectly estimate the size of your target by even the slightest margin at longer distances, where does that leave you? </div></div>
That is why you need to know the equipment size that's fielded these days. A AK47, 91/30 RPK, M16, M14, helmets, mags ect. or whatever, have not changed much. Even when theres a exception most of the time one can note that via other gear the one your going to tag is carrying. Knowing gear/TO&E sizes in the field matters. Granted you may not get the view you want but nothing prefect. Also lighting, color, an angle of the target changes things as well. A LRF is good, until it pukes, long past the wire. Always have a backup plan to complete the task. One may never know how their task plays in the overall game.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dark Horse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Niles Coyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doing it on the range is one thing. Doing it correctly after not sleeping for a day or two makes things a little more interesting.
</div></div>
Or a target that won't allow you to walk up to him with your tape measure and get his actual sizes... </div></div>
That was my point all along, practicing the actual range estimation cannot be stressed enough, but if you incorrectly estimate the size of your target by even the slightest margin at longer distances, where does that leave you? </div></div>
That is why you need to know the equipment size that's fielded these days. A AK47, 91/30 RPK, M16, M14, helmets, mags ect. or whatever, have not changed much. Even when theres a exception most of the time one can note that via other gear the one your going to tag is carrying. Knowing gear/TO&E sizes in the field matters. Granted you may not get the view you want but nothing prefect. Also lighting, color, an angle of the target changes things as well. A LRF is good, until it pukes, long past the wire. Always have a backup plan to complete the task. One may never know how their task plays in the overall game.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
This diagram is an accurate reporduction of the NF MLR ret.
the red marks on the vertical axis (ABC) have been placed precisely to the hundredth. on the horizontal axis to the thousandth. go ahead take a crack at it (using your eyes only), its kind of an expirement. I'd like to average the estimations and see how close to correct the collective is.
This diagram is an accurate reporduction of the NF MLR ret.
the red marks on the vertical axis (ABC) have been placed precisely to the hundredth. on the horizontal axis to the thousandth. go ahead take a crack at it (using your eyes only), its kind of an expirement. I'd like to average the estimations and see how close to correct the collective is.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
Milling is difficult and really is a last resort, or at least should be, there are things a shooter can do before attempting to mil a target. I personally consider it a legacy skill set as it is 2009, and no longer 1969.
But that said, we use it and routinely train people on the finer points of it. And, as it has been said there are a lot of factors that need to be understood to successfully mil a target, especially past 800 yards. Which, really should be an absolute last resort.
We teach to mil to the 100th as the 10th is not quite fine enough for the accuracy capabilities of today's rifles and scopes. To mil to the 100th we look at a target and say," does it look to be .5 or .6, if you're leaning towards .6 it might be .62, if you were leaning towards .5 it might be .57, usually you can adjust your measurement based on whether you feel it is "More" or "Less" than the 10th, then giving it a few 100ths plus or minus.
I won't say you can't measure to the 1000th, but really, I don't see it as being practical, it goes under the accuracy standards I think, but if you can figure out a way to do it, and quickly, why not.
Tons of stuff effect milling, direction of light, color of target, size of target, angle to target, reticle thickness, weather conditions, it can all effect the outcome of your numbers. The key is to get your readings within the danger space of the round you are using. If you're using a 338LM and you mil inside 800m, no problem, 10ths will work, using a 308, 100ths, its all dependent on your skill level.
I personally would recommend a laser, it is the 21st century after all. Then if you want to use milling as a back up, invest in mil dot master or ballistic program to run the numbers quickly. Doing the math long hand with a calculator is as bad as having to mil in the first place. So if you're forced to mil, at least give yourself every advantage possible.
And remember before you look through the scope, look at the target with your eyeballs and ask yourself, how far do you think that target is... don't crawl into the scope and get lost like so many do.
Milling is difficult and really is a last resort, or at least should be, there are things a shooter can do before attempting to mil a target. I personally consider it a legacy skill set as it is 2009, and no longer 1969.
But that said, we use it and routinely train people on the finer points of it. And, as it has been said there are a lot of factors that need to be understood to successfully mil a target, especially past 800 yards. Which, really should be an absolute last resort.
We teach to mil to the 100th as the 10th is not quite fine enough for the accuracy capabilities of today's rifles and scopes. To mil to the 100th we look at a target and say," does it look to be .5 or .6, if you're leaning towards .6 it might be .62, if you were leaning towards .5 it might be .57, usually you can adjust your measurement based on whether you feel it is "More" or "Less" than the 10th, then giving it a few 100ths plus or minus.
I won't say you can't measure to the 1000th, but really, I don't see it as being practical, it goes under the accuracy standards I think, but if you can figure out a way to do it, and quickly, why not.
Tons of stuff effect milling, direction of light, color of target, size of target, angle to target, reticle thickness, weather conditions, it can all effect the outcome of your numbers. The key is to get your readings within the danger space of the round you are using. If you're using a 338LM and you mil inside 800m, no problem, 10ths will work, using a 308, 100ths, its all dependent on your skill level.
I personally would recommend a laser, it is the 21st century after all. Then if you want to use milling as a back up, invest in mil dot master or ballistic program to run the numbers quickly. Doing the math long hand with a calculator is as bad as having to mil in the first place. So if you're forced to mil, at least give yourself every advantage possible.
And remember before you look through the scope, look at the target with your eyeballs and ask yourself, how far do you think that target is... don't crawl into the scope and get lost like so many do.
Re: Is Milling Really This Difficult
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Milling is difficult and really is a last resort, or at least should be, there are things a shooter can do before attempting to mil a target. I personally consider it a legacy skill set as it is 2009, and no longer 1969.
But that said, we use it and routinely train people on the finer points of it. And, as it has been said there are a lot of factors that need to be understood to successfully mil a target, especially past 800 yards. Which, really should be an absolute last resort.
We teach to mil to the 100th as the 10th is not quite fine enough for the accuracy capabilities of today's rifles and scopes. To mil to the 100th we look at a target and say," does it look to be .5 or .6, if you're leaning towards .6 it might be .62, if you were leaning towards .5 it might be .57, usually you can adjust your measurement based on whether you feel it is "More" or "Less" than the 10th, then giving it a few 100ths plus or minus.
I won't say you can't measure to the 1000th, but really, I don't see it as being practical, it goes under the accuracy standards I think, but if you can figure out a way to do it, and quickly, why not.
Tons of stuff effect milling, direction of light, color of target, size of target, angle to target, reticle thickness, weather conditions, it can all effect the outcome of your numbers. The key is to get your readings within the danger space of the round you are using. If you're using a 338LM and you mil inside 800m, no problem, 10ths will work, using a 308, 100ths, its all dependent on your skill level.
I personally would recommend a laser, it is the 21st century after all. Then if you want to use milling as a back up, invest in mil dot master or ballistic program to run the numbers quickly. Doing the math long hand with a calculator is as bad as having to mil in the first place. So if you're forced to mil, at least give yourself every advantage possible.
And remember before you look through the scope, look at the target with your eyeballs and ask yourself, how far do you think that target is... don't crawl into the scope and get lost like so many do. </div></div>
Completely understand all of the above points. I would train to be able to mil to the hundreth as the difference between 1.71 and 1.78 is readable by the trained eye, however 1.710-1712 as an example is not discernible to my eyes and holding the position under stressful conditions would cause more movement of the scope than misreading to the thousandth.
I will continue to include milling in my training...especially since I am not under stressful conditions where a quick, accurate range needs to be aquired through a rangefinder, as well as familiarize myself with equipment dimensions...they are much more consistent in measurements then people. Makes a really good case for having a 5-25 power range...to accurately identifiy all kinds of targets.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Milling is difficult and really is a last resort, or at least should be, there are things a shooter can do before attempting to mil a target. I personally consider it a legacy skill set as it is 2009, and no longer 1969.
But that said, we use it and routinely train people on the finer points of it. And, as it has been said there are a lot of factors that need to be understood to successfully mil a target, especially past 800 yards. Which, really should be an absolute last resort.
We teach to mil to the 100th as the 10th is not quite fine enough for the accuracy capabilities of today's rifles and scopes. To mil to the 100th we look at a target and say," does it look to be .5 or .6, if you're leaning towards .6 it might be .62, if you were leaning towards .5 it might be .57, usually you can adjust your measurement based on whether you feel it is "More" or "Less" than the 10th, then giving it a few 100ths plus or minus.
I won't say you can't measure to the 1000th, but really, I don't see it as being practical, it goes under the accuracy standards I think, but if you can figure out a way to do it, and quickly, why not.
Tons of stuff effect milling, direction of light, color of target, size of target, angle to target, reticle thickness, weather conditions, it can all effect the outcome of your numbers. The key is to get your readings within the danger space of the round you are using. If you're using a 338LM and you mil inside 800m, no problem, 10ths will work, using a 308, 100ths, its all dependent on your skill level.
I personally would recommend a laser, it is the 21st century after all. Then if you want to use milling as a back up, invest in mil dot master or ballistic program to run the numbers quickly. Doing the math long hand with a calculator is as bad as having to mil in the first place. So if you're forced to mil, at least give yourself every advantage possible.
And remember before you look through the scope, look at the target with your eyeballs and ask yourself, how far do you think that target is... don't crawl into the scope and get lost like so many do. </div></div>
Completely understand all of the above points. I would train to be able to mil to the hundreth as the difference between 1.71 and 1.78 is readable by the trained eye, however 1.710-1712 as an example is not discernible to my eyes and holding the position under stressful conditions would cause more movement of the scope than misreading to the thousandth.
I will continue to include milling in my training...especially since I am not under stressful conditions where a quick, accurate range needs to be aquired through a rangefinder, as well as familiarize myself with equipment dimensions...they are much more consistent in measurements then people. Makes a really good case for having a 5-25 power range...to accurately identifiy all kinds of targets.
Similar threads
