Rifle Scopes Metric mil. application question

sscoyote

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 1, 2005
425
3
I have seen guys posting about the ease of applying the mil using metric measurements. But i don't see how it's easier if the tgt. still occupies a fraction of a mil. How is it possible to calculate a range in your head when the tgt. occupies a fraction of a mil even when using the metric system?
 
Re: Metric mil. application question

IMHO when it comes to using the mil-dot system, it comes down to PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!

I dont know of any other secret formula out there.

-Nate
 
Re: Metric mil. application question

First of all (before anyone else jumps in and tears you a new one), mils are not metric. The only thing they share in common is that they are both decimal-based systems. Now that that's out of the way...

It's the last part of the calculation that's a pain. It's easy to take the size of the target, e.g. 18" = .5 yards, and multiple that times 1000 ( = 500 ). But if you ranged that object at 1.7 mils you have to divide 500 by 1.7. You can shuffle those things around (divide 1000/1.7, etc.) but there's no getting around having to do that. Maybe some guys are so good at math that it comes naturally.

Me, I try little tricks like figuring out how many times 17 goes into 100. My feeble mind can remember that 17 * 5 = 85 so that means that it's almost 6 times. Work those decimals back in there and you've got .6 * 500 = 300. Or how many times does 17 go into 50? Almost 3 because 17 * 3 = 51. So again I can get to 300. The actual distance is 294.12 yards...good enough.

You really only need to be precise once the drops start getting meaningful. For that, get a mil-dot master or (if you're brave enough) rely on some sort of electronic device.
 
Re: Metric mil. application question

That's kinda' what i was thinking. Awhile back some guy was extolling the virtues of the metric system relative to mil-ranging on one of the forums someplace. He said that calculating range when using the metric system with the mil-dot was intuitive, and he referenced an example. But he screwed up when he got the range accurate to the meter. It was obvious that the only way he could've done that was to have used a calculator. I didn't call him on it but thought to. That has been my contention with mil-ranging using any mathematical unit of measure. It still is not intuitive, epecially when under any sort of pressure. The multiplication part's easy--it's the division part that gives me grief.