I saw Lowlights generous offer to loan someone a Mil/mil scope to try. I think they are the way to go and that is mostly what I use for LR field type shooting and other as well. I was wondering though, I find the important thing is that the reticule "speaks the same language" as the adj. So, if we were to get some compatable MOA reticule and MOA adj, would that not be just as good? I am not proposing a change, but think that the real advantage is in no conversion is this correct or am I missing something.
Rifle Scopes Mil/Mil scopes
- Thread starter RTH1800
- Start date
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
Thank you. I cannot put every aspect of it into words, which bothers me a bit, but I can say that I am sure I want Mil/Mil and FFP, which is what I have been using for a few years now. I would just like to be able to explain it to people who ask me about a scope with more detail. I know it is easier and better, but cannot get the entire thing into simple words.
Thank you. I cannot put every aspect of it into words, which bothers me a bit, but I can say that I am sure I want Mil/Mil and FFP, which is what I have been using for a few years now. I would just like to be able to explain it to people who ask me about a scope with more detail. I know it is easier and better, but cannot get the entire thing into simple words.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rth1800</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I saw Lowlights generous offer to loan someone a Mil/mil scope to try. I think they are the way to go and that is mostly what I use for LR field type shooting and other as well. I was wondering though, I find the important thing is that the reticule "speaks the same language" as the adj. So, if we were to get some compatable MOA reticule and MOA adj, would that not be just as good? I am not proposing a change, but think that the real advantage is in no conversion is this correct or am I missing something.
</div></div>
I think part of the attraction of Mil/Mil and working distances in meters is that the mathes is so easy.
With MOA/MOA and distance in yards (I know thats not obligitory) the calculations are not quite so slick, although to many folks they are still more familar and instinctive..
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rth1800</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I saw Lowlights generous offer to loan someone a Mil/mil scope to try. I think they are the way to go and that is mostly what I use for LR field type shooting and other as well. I was wondering though, I find the important thing is that the reticule "speaks the same language" as the adj. So, if we were to get some compatable MOA reticule and MOA adj, would that not be just as good? I am not proposing a change, but think that the real advantage is in no conversion is this correct or am I missing something.
</div></div>
I think part of the attraction of Mil/Mil and working distances in meters is that the mathes is so easy.
With MOA/MOA and distance in yards (I know thats not obligitory) the calculations are not quite so slick, although to many folks they are still more familar and instinctive..
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you go with a Mil / Mil combination there is absolutely NO guessing, what you see is what you get. You have a calibrated ruler in front of your face, the smart money would be to use it. Why guess at anything...
if you read .3, dial .3, hold, .3 it doesn't matter if you are shooting something at 100 yards, 333.3333 yards, or 666.6666 yards, the answer is always the same thing. If you see .3 you use .3.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't let people fool you, Metrics have nothing to do with anything... </div></div>
Just ask people if they prefer to count off increments of inches in 10ths, or 16ths. Not to involve inches in the debate, just the simplified counting and visualization of, for example, 8.0mil instead of 27.25moa.
Its like the lowest common denominator in shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you go with a Mil / Mil combination there is absolutely NO guessing, what you see is what you get. You have a calibrated ruler in front of your face, the smart money would be to use it. Why guess at anything...
if you read .3, dial .3, hold, .3 it doesn't matter if you are shooting something at 100 yards, 333.3333 yards, or 666.6666 yards, the answer is always the same thing. If you see .3 you use .3.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't let people fool you, Metrics have nothing to do with anything... </div></div>
Just ask people if they prefer to count off increments of inches in 10ths, or 16ths. Not to involve inches in the debate, just the simplified counting and visualization of, for example, 8.0mil instead of 27.25moa.
Its like the lowest common denominator in shooting.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
So are most people staying away from the MOA/MOA set up and going to the MIL? Im in the market for a scope, and dont want to make a $1800 mistake
So are most people staying away from the MOA/MOA set up and going to the MIL? Im in the market for a scope, and dont want to make a $1800 mistake
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
Mil is not the future, it is the present.
Moa scopes exist to satisfy those who have Moa in their blood, and they aren't making any more of those types of people.
Moa makes sense for F class/benchrest, maybe. Where there is no ranging necessary and a finer adjustment is needed. But thats the extent of the market as far as I can imagine.
Mil is not the future, it is the present.
Moa scopes exist to satisfy those who have Moa in their blood, and they aren't making any more of those types of people.
Moa makes sense for F class/benchrest, maybe. Where there is no ranging necessary and a finer adjustment is needed. But thats the extent of the market as far as I can imagine.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
Mils are easier to teach to inexperienced noobs (a carryover of the Metric system, if you have ten fingers it's easier to do Gazzintas and carrying).
Minutes will be more comfortable to those snipers who graduated from highpower rifle competition (the people who actually shot before they went to optics). These are the folks who know one end of a rifle from the other before you hand them an optic.
Mils are easier to teach to inexperienced noobs (a carryover of the Metric system, if you have ten fingers it's easier to do Gazzintas and carrying).
Minutes will be more comfortable to those snipers who graduated from highpower rifle competition (the people who actually shot before they went to optics). These are the folks who know one end of a rifle from the other before you hand them an optic.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
I don't hunt humans nor do I hunt paper. I hunt animals. And here in south Texas the game is usually deer and hogs. Hogs seem to be always milling about and never standing still. A herd will consist of every size imaginable. I know of no way to range them with a scope. The deer are just about as bad about moving around. Therefore the ranging attributes of a mil dot scope are all but useless to me. Most of the GOOD laser rangefinders I have come across are in yards. So for my purposes, the moa-moa combo makes more sense.
Also the mil-dots are too far apart for most holdover applications.
I wish this weren't so because most of the scopes I like come with mil-dots. Reticles like the NF R1 work great for me because of the closer spacing of the dots.
So please understand that moa-moa reticles are good for some of us whereas mil-mil is good for others.
I do insist that the reticle and adjustments are the same, whatever the case may be.
I don't hunt humans nor do I hunt paper. I hunt animals. And here in south Texas the game is usually deer and hogs. Hogs seem to be always milling about and never standing still. A herd will consist of every size imaginable. I know of no way to range them with a scope. The deer are just about as bad about moving around. Therefore the ranging attributes of a mil dot scope are all but useless to me. Most of the GOOD laser rangefinders I have come across are in yards. So for my purposes, the moa-moa combo makes more sense.
Also the mil-dots are too far apart for most holdover applications.
I wish this weren't so because most of the scopes I like come with mil-dots. Reticles like the NF R1 work great for me because of the closer spacing of the dots.
So please understand that moa-moa reticles are good for some of us whereas mil-mil is good for others.
I do insist that the reticle and adjustments are the same, whatever the case may be.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't hunt humans nor do I hunt paper. I hunt animals. And here in south Texas the game is usually deer and hogs. Hogs seem to be always milling about and never standing still. A herd will consist of every size imaginable. I know of no way to range them with a scope. The deer are just about as bad about moving around. Therefore the ranging attributes of a mil dot scope are all but useless to me. Most of the GOOD laser rangefinders I have come across are in yards. So for my purposes, the moa-moa combo makes more sense.
Also the mil-dots are too far apart for most holdover applications.
I wish this weren't so because most of the scopes I like come with mil-dots. Reticles like the NF R1 work great for me because of the closer spacing of the dots.
So please understand that moa-moa reticles are good for some of us whereas mil-mil is good for others.
I do insist that the reticle and adjustments are the same, whatever the case may be. </div></div>
Trace,
I read your post, twice in fact. I have no quarrel that MOA/MOA works "best" for you.
But I loose your logic at this point:
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"Most of the GOOD laser rangefinders I have come across are in yards. So for my purposes, the moa-moa combo makes more sense.
Also the mil-dots are too far apart for most holdover applications."</span> </span>
So let's look at a hypothetical, and see the effects:
First, we take a round. In this case I took a 7mm-08 w/162 Gr A-MAX @ 2700 FPS.
Next we conceptualize a deer that we range with our laser rangefinder @ 450 YDS.
So now we have two knowns: A 7mm 162 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2700 FPS, and a deer milling about @ 450 yds. In this instant case we will assume winds of 0 MPH.
To assist in placing our bullet into the deer's vitals, we have a drop chart based on a 100 yds zero. Unless you have all values memorized, whether you use Mils or MOA, you will need to consult a drop chart of some sort. Taking that as a given: it says the following:
450 YDS Drop -2.5 Mils -8.4 MOA Drift 0.7 MILS 2.6 MOA
At this point you can do one of two things:
You can dial your range, or use your reticle.
If you have a MIL adjusting scope; you dial 2.5 and send it.
If you have a MOA scope you have to decide on 8.50, because you cannot dial exactly 8.4 MOA. Now 8.5 is close enough to 8.4 so as not to matter much. But I'm still fail to see how using MOA as opposed to MIls, enhanced your ability to hit the target. But maybe I'm missing something.
How about using just reticle Holds and not dialing?
With the NF NP-R1 you have to find 8.4 MOA and sent it. With a Mil scope you would have to find 2.5 and send it.
Is it easier and quicker to find 8.4 MOA out of a 30 MOA column of hashes as found on the NP-R1, or 2.5 Mils out of a 5 MIL column of hashes as found on the MLR?
Again unless I'm missing something, MILS in this case is both faster, and more accurate, and less prone to error than MOA.
Yes, both will work, but which is easier and faster, and more accurate? I don't find a compelling case for MOA, and how reading a LRF in yards, somehow magically makes MOA a superior system.
But since you use the MOA system, perhaps you can explain what I'm missing.
Thanks,
Bob
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't hunt humans nor do I hunt paper. I hunt animals. And here in south Texas the game is usually deer and hogs. Hogs seem to be always milling about and never standing still. A herd will consist of every size imaginable. I know of no way to range them with a scope. The deer are just about as bad about moving around. Therefore the ranging attributes of a mil dot scope are all but useless to me. Most of the GOOD laser rangefinders I have come across are in yards. So for my purposes, the moa-moa combo makes more sense.
Also the mil-dots are too far apart for most holdover applications.
I wish this weren't so because most of the scopes I like come with mil-dots. Reticles like the NF R1 work great for me because of the closer spacing of the dots.
So please understand that moa-moa reticles are good for some of us whereas mil-mil is good for others.
I do insist that the reticle and adjustments are the same, whatever the case may be. </div></div>
Trace,
I read your post, twice in fact. I have no quarrel that MOA/MOA works "best" for you.
But I loose your logic at this point:
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"Most of the GOOD laser rangefinders I have come across are in yards. So for my purposes, the moa-moa combo makes more sense.
Also the mil-dots are too far apart for most holdover applications."</span> </span>
So let's look at a hypothetical, and see the effects:
First, we take a round. In this case I took a 7mm-08 w/162 Gr A-MAX @ 2700 FPS.
Next we conceptualize a deer that we range with our laser rangefinder @ 450 YDS.
So now we have two knowns: A 7mm 162 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2700 FPS, and a deer milling about @ 450 yds. In this instant case we will assume winds of 0 MPH.
To assist in placing our bullet into the deer's vitals, we have a drop chart based on a 100 yds zero. Unless you have all values memorized, whether you use Mils or MOA, you will need to consult a drop chart of some sort. Taking that as a given: it says the following:
450 YDS Drop -2.5 Mils -8.4 MOA Drift 0.7 MILS 2.6 MOA
At this point you can do one of two things:
You can dial your range, or use your reticle.
If you have a MIL adjusting scope; you dial 2.5 and send it.
If you have a MOA scope you have to decide on 8.50, because you cannot dial exactly 8.4 MOA. Now 8.5 is close enough to 8.4 so as not to matter much. But I'm still fail to see how using MOA as opposed to MIls, enhanced your ability to hit the target. But maybe I'm missing something.
How about using just reticle Holds and not dialing?
With the NF NP-R1 you have to find 8.4 MOA and sent it. With a Mil scope you would have to find 2.5 and send it.
Is it easier and quicker to find 8.4 MOA out of a 30 MOA column of hashes as found on the NP-R1, or 2.5 Mils out of a 5 MIL column of hashes as found on the MLR?
Again unless I'm missing something, MILS in this case is both faster, and more accurate, and less prone to error than MOA.
Yes, both will work, but which is easier and faster, and more accurate? I don't find a compelling case for MOA, and how reading a LRF in yards, somehow magically makes MOA a superior system.
But since you use the MOA system, perhaps you can explain what I'm missing.
Thanks,
Bob
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
It honestly makes no pra@tical difference to most shooters.
The big exeption is the few that are forced to range with the reticle...don't have a calculator, or a mildot master, or a cheat sheet.
If you see an impact off target, hold on that point of your reticle and send another. It does not matter what your reticle or knobs are.
I am at a point where I can use any system or combination. I just adjust my dope cards to the right system.
The biggest reason I prefer mils is this: if you are on a line and other competitors are calling corrections, 90% of them are calling in mils.
I personally think that in thoery, an MOA reticle is batter as the graduations are finer, but in reality, the newer mil reticles are just as functional.
Best advice I can give is this: if you are buying a new scope anyway, go with mil/mil. If you are happy with the performance of your current one, or get a smokin deal on something else, run with it. Just adjust your dope cards accordingly and you will not be at a disadvantage (strickly from an equipment vantage).
It honestly makes no pra@tical difference to most shooters.
The big exeption is the few that are forced to range with the reticle...don't have a calculator, or a mildot master, or a cheat sheet.
If you see an impact off target, hold on that point of your reticle and send another. It does not matter what your reticle or knobs are.
I am at a point where I can use any system or combination. I just adjust my dope cards to the right system.
The biggest reason I prefer mils is this: if you are on a line and other competitors are calling corrections, 90% of them are calling in mils.
I personally think that in thoery, an MOA reticle is batter as the graduations are finer, but in reality, the newer mil reticles are just as functional.
Best advice I can give is this: if you are buying a new scope anyway, go with mil/mil. If you are happy with the performance of your current one, or get a smokin deal on something else, run with it. Just adjust your dope cards accordingly and you will not be at a disadvantage (strickly from an equipment vantage).
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
I guess I was referring to the straight mil dot reticles. But you are correct. If I make a drop chart, and use a reticle like the MLR, the mil system would be easier to master. I do use holdovers and very seldom dial.
Takes us old farts a while to learn
I guess I was referring to the straight mil dot reticles. But you are correct. If I make a drop chart, and use a reticle like the MLR, the mil system would be easier to master. I do use holdovers and very seldom dial.
Takes us old farts a while to learn
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rth1800</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a Leica 1200 and was told it could be switched to meters from the batt compartment, but I looked and saw no "switch" in that area. Any suggestions? </div></div>
I have a LRF 1200 Scan and it is definately switchable between yards or meters. As you were told, the "switch" is in the battery compartment ..
Its actually more like a small"dial" with a slot in it (use a small coin) which you can turn, selecting either "Y" to "M"...
Not sure if all Leica 1200's are that way though...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rth1800</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a Leica 1200 and was told it could be switched to meters from the batt compartment, but I looked and saw no "switch" in that area. Any suggestions? </div></div>
I have a LRF 1200 Scan and it is definately switchable between yards or meters. As you were told, the "switch" is in the battery compartment ..
Its actually more like a small"dial" with a slot in it (use a small coin) which you can turn, selecting either "Y" to "M"...
Not sure if all Leica 1200's are that way though...
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
<span style="font-size: 23pt">MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM</span>
I can range in yards, meters, cubits, fathoms, etc. mil is mil is mil and it has nothing to do with distances.
The same as a 'light year' is not a measurement of time, its a measurement of distance.
<span style="font-size: 23pt">MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM
MIL IS NOT THE METRIC SYSTEM</span>
I can range in yards, meters, cubits, fathoms, etc. mil is mil is mil and it has nothing to do with distances.
The same as a 'light year' is not a measurement of time, its a measurement of distance.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
Actually, in my mind, the MIL system DOES fit the Metric system. Until you are talking about relatively large angles, the sine of the angle = the angle in radians....
One MIL is equal to 1M at 1kM; 1 MIL = 10 cm @ 100M, 1 MIL = 1mm @ 1M, etc.
It seems so simple to me, just divide whatever units you are using by 1000, just like the base 10 Metric system! But then in Engineering school, many of our problems were much easier to solve using Metric units, so I'm quite familiar with the Metric system....
MIL is short for Milliradian, but there are 2Pi radians in a circle = 6.283, and Military MIL system rounds to 6.4 to make math easier, so Military MIL system is not true Milliradian system.
Cheers,
Bill
Actually, in my mind, the MIL system DOES fit the Metric system. Until you are talking about relatively large angles, the sine of the angle = the angle in radians....
One MIL is equal to 1M at 1kM; 1 MIL = 10 cm @ 100M, 1 MIL = 1mm @ 1M, etc.
It seems so simple to me, just divide whatever units you are using by 1000, just like the base 10 Metric system! But then in Engineering school, many of our problems were much easier to solve using Metric units, so I'm quite familiar with the Metric system....
MIL is short for Milliradian, but there are 2Pi radians in a circle = 6.283, and Military MIL system rounds to 6.4 to make math easier, so Military MIL system is not true Milliradian system.
Cheers,
Bill
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
mil mil scopes are great , moa moa scopes are great .KEY is same same . you can range with a moa nightforce and moa us optics spotter. there definitely is more selection in mil equipment. to me "opinion" as long as you can range and make adjustments using the same measurements in your spotting scope reticle,rifle scope reticle, and knobs, your gtg. everything has to be the same and dont overthink it
mil mil scopes are great , moa moa scopes are great .KEY is same same . you can range with a moa nightforce and moa us optics spotter. there definitely is more selection in mil equipment. to me "opinion" as long as you can range and make adjustments using the same measurements in your spotting scope reticle,rifle scope reticle, and knobs, your gtg. everything has to be the same and dont overthink it
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In reality, 1 mil = the ANGLE subtending 1/6400 of a circle</div></div>
In reality, no.
All U.S. and western European scopes use the true milliradian, i.e., 6283.19 in a circle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In reality, 1 mil = the ANGLE subtending 1/6400 of a circle</div></div>
In reality, no.
All U.S. and western European scopes use the true milliradian, i.e., 6283.19 in a circle.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
Yes, that is true miliradian
BUT
Western armies rounded this UP and uses 1MRAD is 1/6400 of circle
AND
Eastern armies (Do not know how now, but for example Soviet Union in WW2) rounded this down and used 1MRAD = 1/6200 of circle
Yes, that is true miliradian
BUT
Western armies rounded this UP and uses 1MRAD is 1/6400 of circle
AND
Eastern armies (Do not know how now, but for example Soviet Union in WW2) rounded this down and used 1MRAD = 1/6200 of circle
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Western armies rounded this UP and uses 1MRAD is 1/6400 of circle</div></div>
Some of them do that for artillery - not for rifle scopes.
See:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/d2ke2aetnlp77.pdf
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Western armies rounded this UP and uses 1MRAD is 1/6400 of circle</div></div>
Some of them do that for artillery - not for rifle scopes.
See:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/d2ke2aetnlp77.pdf
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
It simply does not matter much.
6,283/6,200/6,400 are all close enough for Government work.
Substitute any of these values into the WORM formula and the resultant range will vary little.
Range = (target size in inches * 27.777)/target size in mrads
This magic number: 27.777 (based upon a true mrad of 1/6283)
We derive; 27.777 = (1/Tan 1mrad)/36
@6,283 mrad/circle then 27.777
@6,200 mrad/circle then 27.410
@6,400 mrad/circle then 28.294
Determining range to a 36” target at 1,000 yards using each of these mrad values shows the extreme difference in range is <19 yards or <2%.
Just use the 6,283 value and get on with the important things.
It simply does not matter much.
6,283/6,200/6,400 are all close enough for Government work.
Substitute any of these values into the WORM formula and the resultant range will vary little.
Range = (target size in inches * 27.777)/target size in mrads
This magic number: 27.777 (based upon a true mrad of 1/6283)
We derive; 27.777 = (1/Tan 1mrad)/36
@6,283 mrad/circle then 27.777
@6,200 mrad/circle then 27.410
@6,400 mrad/circle then 28.294
Determining range to a 36” target at 1,000 yards using each of these mrad values shows the extreme difference in range is <19 yards or <2%.
Just use the 6,283 value and get on with the important things.
Re: Mil/Mil scopes
It doesn't make any difference for ranging, as you note. And one is not often going to hit a target optically ranged at 1000 yards unless it's a <span style="font-weight: bold">big</span> target...
For dialing elevation, though, the difference is about 2 percent, and that can be significant at longer distances.
But if one is going to post something, it's just as easy to post the correct information rather than information which is not correct.
It doesn't make any difference for ranging, as you note. And one is not often going to hit a target optically ranged at 1000 yards unless it's a <span style="font-weight: bold">big</span> target...
For dialing elevation, though, the difference is about 2 percent, and that can be significant at longer distances.
But if one is going to post something, it's just as easy to post the correct information rather than information which is not correct.
