• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Measuring Groups in MIL

b2lee

b2lee

Stealthy
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Dec 30, 2018
    1,867
    2,463
    55
    N. KY
    I know it is tradition...but why do we measure our groups in MOA when we shoot in MIL? Am I a trend setter or a dumb %$* because when people ask me about a group lately I say, "Rifle shot good, best group was .1 mil and the rest were .2 or sub .2 Mil"

    I know...probably the later...I do it just to get that look on their face.

    I'll go hide now.
     
    • Like
    • Haha
    Reactions: SD Carpenter, Rocketvapor and 123Nick
    I usually indicate group size in inches at xxx distance. Once the apps start changing their displays then I might think about something else until then inches at distance works for me. ?
     
    It is a valid question.

    In my opinion, it has to do with how finely we typically measure groups on the paper. Groups are routinely measured linearly to the .001" place. So an MOA's proximity to 1 inch at 100 yards is somewhat relevant in this context.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: AIAW, Sheldon N, DellaDog and 1 other person
    If you shoot MILS you should record MILS. It's the "sub MOA" bug-a-boo. .1 or .2 MIL is "sub MOA" but not .3 MIL, lol..
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Fucking amateurs. Nautical Miles is where it’s at. #1NMAllDayIfIDoMyPart
    lol

    I shoot Mil/Mil and use Ballistic-X to measure my groupings in MOA and my ATZ in Mils. Never gave any thought to changing it up.
     
    Last edited:
    • Haha
    Reactions: GotCox
    Who cares? It’s a benefit to know both. So, doesn’t matter if you know your group is 1moa or .3 mil.

    Doesn’t matter at all.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: M8541Reaper
    Mine are measured in mils...

    1578187442096_0_target_image.jpg
     
    Interesting question. I have always hated measuring and the yell "sub moa" because 9 times out of ten it is a cherry picked 3 shot group anyway.? I always just measure groups in inches because all my rulers are in inches, well that is a lie but i use the inchs side of my rulers.? I suppose if i had a ruler that was in mills i might use it instead, but for my purposes i might as well use any measurement as long as i use the same one each time. I aint competing with anyone.
     
    • Like
    • Haha
    Reactions: G-Dog, M8541Reaper, Fig and 2 others
    because at the most commonly measured distance (100 yards) for group size, 1 mil is an odd number (3.6")?
     
    My guess is you are already measuring in linear measurement (inches) and then have to convert to MIL. So why bother with the extra step? If you have software doing it, then it is just a click setting and pick what you like best.

    People know what you mean when you say you shoot sub-MOA, but I doubt most will get it if you say your best was a .1 MIL group.

    Oh ..... and 5-shot groups, or it don't count ...... :cautious:
     
    • Like
    Reactions: GotCox
    Tried measuring snowfall in mils but got confused, went to the ball method.

    Ball deep on a dachshund is not so bad but if we progress to labradors it gets real.

    It's an easy measurement because everyone knows when thier balls hit the snow.

    Distance does not have to be calculated.
     
    Snuby642 said:
    Tried measuring snowfall in mils but got confused, went to the ball method.

    Ball deep on a dachshund is not so bad but if we progress to labradors it gets real.

    It's an easy measurement because everyone knows when thier balls hit the snow.

    Distance does not have to be calculated.
    Click to expand...


    Women disagree.

    Just because your "Balls Deep" doesn't mean you made the grade.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Steel head and Sig Marine
    Culpeper said:
    We never measure how far from the bullseye.
    Click to expand...

    What is the measure, cPk , or something like that. I remember it in relation to ballistic missiles and warheads. What is the confidence level ooming with in a Certain distance of a point target... Everyone talks about their 1MOA guns, but even multiple MOA targets get missed..
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Deleted member 10043
    @FromMyColdDeadHand

    Cpk is how accurate you are to your average over time. Most people don't know their average because they don't shoot enough groups over time and record it. the k is the factor that you are not centered at a certain rate. Very good. If you need a measuring tape then you are way off. A regular ruler should be fine. A minimum of six five shot groups should give you an average that has acceptable statistical confidence. But keep measuring groups and eventually isolated and occasional flyers will have immaterial impact on your average. Keep it up and you will have enough groups that you can pull a statistical, rather than random, sample to verify that your sample is representative of your population. Your true verified average including k. Best performed with a .308 or .223 ensuring the barrel isn't fucking up your average. Barrel burner cartridges are SOL. Each day may be a new dawn. Cpk is about consistent process capability. Something to think about when choosing a cartridge that is being shilled out as the latest and greatest thing since pressured cooked fried chicken. It is comparing apples to oranges when there is nothing wrong with that mathematically.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Skookum said:
    It is a valid question.

    In my opinion, it has to do with how finely we typically measure groups on the paper. Groups are routinely measured linearly to the .001" place. So an MOA's proximity to 1 inch at 100 yards is somewhat relevant in this context.
    Click to expand...

    I would share an identical opinion as well!
     
    Snuby642 said:
    Tried measuring snowfall in mils but got confused, went to the ball method.

    Ball deep on a dachshund is not so bad but if we progress to labradors it gets real.

    It's an easy measurement because everyone knows when thier balls hit the snow.

    Distance does not have to be calculated.
    Click to expand...
    Balls deep on a dachshund? Now we know why Snuby's not allowed to own dogs...:oops:
     
    I don't know?

    Saying I have shot a 0.1 mil group kind of sounds end all argument ish.

    Unless you want to start splitting tenths.

    I know someone will.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: b2lee and Rocketvapor
    Snuby642 said:
    I don't know?

    Saying I have shot a 0.1 mil group kind of sounds end all argument ish.

    Unless you want to start splitting tenths.

    I know someone will.
    Click to expand...

    I know...they are like " I just shot 1/2 MOA..." and I'm like...."So friggin what! I just shot 2 tenths of a Mil!"...and they get that far away look in their eyes.
     
    • Haha
    • Like
    Reactions: Rocketvapor and Snuby642
    I'm good as long as people don't mix the two in the same sentance.

    Kind of like spangledesh ?

    Did you want mushroom gravey with your tacos?
     
    Snuby642 said:
    I'm good as long as people don't mix the two in the same sentance.

    Kind of like spangledesh ?

    Did you want mushroom gravey with your tacos?
    Click to expand...


    Eww....I don't see how you eat that stuff...it's pork gravy with tacos....unless it is chicken tacos then it is white country gravy.
     
    • Wow
    Reactions: Snuby642
    First, because math is hard, and conversions beyond “‘Bout an inch at dar hundred yards” (basic MOA) provides excess cognitive load for the average shooter. Second, humans in general are terrible at intuitively comprehending scale. Third, bias “anchoring” occurred with any number/price/system we lean/hear first. Basically, MOA isn’t better, I’m just lazy! ?
     
    The reasons for describing group sizes in MOA vs MIL can best be described as “idiomatic” for a couple of reasons.

    1. Who cares?
    2. It fits the fucking definition of idiomatic. Those who’re multilingual will understand this fact.
     
    Went down to my shed and dug out a bunch of targets to measure them in mils and add something really special to this thread
    What a waste of fukn time that was, impressive data sounds much less impressive
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: seansmd
    Reviving this thread because this same thought came to me the other day. Did a search to see who else thought of it and voila.
    .3 mil is close to 1 moa so sub .3 mil is good, Sub .2 mil is great, and sub .1 mil, well that's just YouTube.
    Going with mil size groups now.
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: Makinchips208, Modoc and Snuby642
    Bmghunter said:
    Reviving this thread because this same thought came to me the other day. Did a search to see who else thought of it and voila.
    .3 mil is close to 1 moa so sub .3 mil is good, Sub .2 mil is great, and sub .1 mil, well that's just YouTube.
    Going with mil size groups now.
    Click to expand...
    Thanks for sharing.
     
    You really want to fry brains at the range, I’ll loan you one of my work tape measures. Civil Engineer working in 0.1 and 0.01 foot increments. 🤣🤣. A 0.125 foot group sounds much better than 1-1/2” group!

    Just decide on the Increment you want to use and watch everyone melt down.🤯🤘
     
    Sub .1 mil sounds good
    IMG_1760.png
     

    Attachments

    • IMG_1759.png
      IMG_1759.png
      2.9 MB · Views: 16
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    JAS-SH
    You make the call: Is my 6mm ARC bolt action a ½-inch gun with factory ammo?
    Replies
    11
    Views
    649
    JAS-SH
    JAS-SH
    K
    Ogive length or base to tip?
    Replies
    6
    Views
    207
    kyotekiller25
    K
    B
    Garmin Chronograph - calibration?
    Replies
    19
    Views
    605
    Baron23
    Baron23
    T
    Optics Nightforce BEAST i4F Mil-Radian 5-25x56 - C448 $3250
    Replies
    1
    Views
    346
    Toast
    T
    I
    Rifle Scopes How difficult would it be for two noviceish long-range shooters to have an MOA and a MIL scope?
    Replies
    30
    Views
    802
    45-90
    4
    Top Bottom
    Back