Rifle Scopes Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Buckoman

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 3, 2008
184
0
Hatfield, Pa
So there are guys that like mil/mil scopes, and guys that like the MOA/MOA scopes. The math for MOA range estimations is easier than Mils, so....How feasible is it to just mentally convert your 1 Mil dots to MOA? Any Thoughts? Has anyone tried this?
 

Sterling Shooter

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 10, 2004
2,842
13
Louisville, Kentucky
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

MOA and inches are like peanut butter and jelly, they go together. It's not about what unit of measurment, mils or MOA, is better for range-finding as much as it is about what's the easiest mentally to convert to inches for taking favors.

Your brain has considered relationships in terms of inches, feet, and yards since you were a child. For example, a 10 mph cross wind at 300 yards might require something like 6 MOA of wind favor at 600 yards. Now, without a lot of re-programing, or some sort of chart, you'd be hard pressed to favor in terms of 6 MOA because that does not give you a visual of length. Instead, you will convert what 6 MOA represents in inches at 600 yards, simply because that's what your brain wants to know to come to an understanding of what to do. In other words, you can understand a 36 inch favor better than a 6 MOA favor. If you could understand MOA as a length no field conversion would be necessary. Now, the reason MOA is more popular than the mil unit of measurment is the math for a field expedient conversion is absent of fractions, making it doable for most without much thought. What a brilliant idea.

Since most sights and scopes move in MOA, and wind is estimated in MOA, I think life would be easier if mils would just go away from the small arms lexicon.
 

Ratbert

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 18, 2007
2,343
1
44
Concord, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA and inches are like peanut butter and jelly, they go together. It's not about what unit of measurment, mils or MOA, is better for range-finding as much as it is about what's the easiest mentally to convert to inches for taking favors.

Your brain has considered relationships in terms of inches, feet, and yards since you were a child. For example, a 10 mph cross wind at 300 yards might require something like 6 MOA of wind favor at 600 yards. Now, without a lot of re-programing, or some sort of chart, you'd be hard pressed to favor in terms of 6 MOA because that does not give you a visual of length. Instead, you will convert what 6 MOA represents in inches at 600 yards, simply because that's what your brain wants to know to come to an understanding of what to do. In other words, you can understand a 36 inch favor better than a 6 MOA favor. If you could understand MOA as a length no field conversion would be necessary. Now, the reason MOA is more popular than the mil unit of measurment is the math for a field expedient conversion is absent of fractions, making it doable for most without much thought. What a brilliant idea.

Since most sights and scopes move in MOA, and wind is estimated in MOA, I think life would be easier if mils would just go away from the small arms lexicon.
</div></div>

um... yeah...

Keep in mind that Sterling uses only the most pure of mathematical calculators, the abacus. For those of us in the modern age who don't eschew things with glass, we DO have a handy chart to tell us how far 6 MOA (or 1.8 Mil) is so there is NO reason to convert your wind calls into inches; it's called the reticle.

Seriously, though, every mil is 3.4 MOA, so your half mil marks are an extremely handy 1.7 MOA and if you just have a classic MilDot reticle just remember that the dots are 0.68MOA and the space between each dot is a handy 2.72MOA. Boy howdy that is so much easier!

People spend so much time sitting on the internet thinking they've come up with the next great method of performing range math. IMHO, the whole "MOA math is easier than Mil math" is a myth far more detrimental to the sport than the "Mil is metric" thing people get so wrapped around the axel about. Sure, cherry pick a couple of specific examples found almost exclusively on square ranges and you can make ANY numbering system look easy. But as a practical matter at ranges where precision counts the idea simply doesn't hold up.
 

robertritz

Private
Minuteman
Mar 15, 2010
59
0
33
Texas
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

I hate to say it but in the end if you are using one system over another you will simply get used to one. You will be able to do calls without math, using a simple dope sheet or just dead reckoning (not the navigational technique) through practice.

To me the key is to get matching reticle and knobs so that you don't overthink the situation.

Maybe that is why there is no clear winner in this fight. I mean, it seems personal preference mostly. I like MOA because, as stated previously, we have thought along those lines since we were young.

My mind is wrapped around point of impact as 1 variable, wind speed at intervals along the bullet path as another, wind direction at intervals as another, and of course the ballistic trajectory of whatever you are using.

I hate to make it sound so simple, but if you try and make it more complicated than that you may forget one important thing, you have to be able to shoot the rifle as well as you can think about the measurements. Trigger time.
 

Ratbert

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 18, 2007
2,343
1
44
Concord, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

You've thought in terms of fractions of a 60th of a degree since you were a child?
 

BobinNC

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 31, 2009
4,693
40
71
Goldsboro, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Master_Blaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The math for MOA range estimations is easier than Mils...... </div></div>

Yes, The math for MILS is just crushing, except:

mildotmaster.jpg


Look MA, no math required; also no batteries; and no friggen fractions.

Just $25. for a plastic slide rule, and add a dope book and a pencil. Gee, it works for MOA, and Metrics as well.

Who does math, on a range, on the fly????? And if you do, Why???

Bob
 

Sterling Shooter

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 10, 2004
2,842
13
Louisville, Kentucky
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

I want to thank all here who have made my point, charts, calculators... yeah, you're gonna need 'em if you're using mils.
 

ewoaf

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 25, 2009
1,458
89
Albemarle VA
beaurobbins.com
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I want to thank all here who have made my point, charts, calculators... yeah, you're gonna need 'em if you're using mils. </div></div>

So how is a MOA any easier? I must be confused, please explain..
 

deadly0311

Tacticool Ninja
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 2, 2009
4,605
157
Birmingham, AL
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I want to thank all here who have made my point, charts, calculators... yeah, you're gonna need 'em if you're using mils. </div></div>

how is it any easier?
 

ewoaf

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 25, 2009
1,458
89
Albemarle VA
beaurobbins.com
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read my first post. </div></div>
I did and it made no sense.. please explain.
 

BobinNC

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 31, 2009
4,693
40
71
Goldsboro, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Sterling,

Maybe you should change your name to the Mentalist or Mr. MOA perhaps, since your doing MOA to inch conversions in your head.


Also, please enlighten us how knowing how many inches 6 MOA of drift is at 600yds helps you hit your target?

If you have a MOA scope, don't you simply hold or dial 6 MOA.

Knowing how many inches (37.62") helps how, since your adjustment is presumably also in MOA?

Since is so easy to convert MOA to inches, I think it is proper to ask why would you want to do so?

If I determine my drift to be by 1.7 Mils @600 yds, I don't convert it to inches, to enhance my correction. I simply hold or dial 1.7 MILS. How many inches 1.7 mils is @ 600 yds is simply not relevant, nor is it used in a solution.

Can you provide another example of how converting MOA to inches or MILS to inches for that matter, enhances your ability to hit any target, at any range?

Thanks,

Bob


 

Sterling Shooter

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 10, 2004
2,842
13
Louisville, Kentucky
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Well, Bob if you could comprehend my first post you'd get it. It explained why. It's also what's necessary when shooting irons, that's to say, you're likely to take a wind favor rather than click to counter; and, you will be thinking, as you favor the post front sight, in inches not MOA, because length at target is easier to visualize in inches than an alternative unit of measurement. Of course, the reason you will not think anything about mils is the M4 and M16 A2/A4 are graduated in MOA, not mils.
 

Ratbert

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 18, 2007
2,343
1
44
Concord, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Maybe you should change your name to the Mentalist or Mr. MOA perhaps, since your doing MOA to inch conversions in your head.


Also, please enlighten us how knowing how many inches 6 MOA of drift is at 600yds helps you hit your target?

</div></div>

Sterling is very proud of the fact that he doesn't use a scope and considers anyone who does a heretic who has strayed from the pure path. It is true that if you don't have a reticle with which to measure angle then knowing the angle to hold your correction is pretty damn useless. Fortunately that whole fad of soldiers taping yardsticks horizontally to their chests came about, so it doesn't make much of a difference as a practical matter.

What I want to know is, if you convert everything to inches, why do you even bother recording your dope in MOA? Why not just write down (or memorize, if that's your thing) the number of inches of drift instead of the number of MOA?
 

Sterling Shooter

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 10, 2004
2,842
13
Louisville, Kentucky
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

I record my zeros in MOA since thats the unit of measurement my sights are graduated. You ask the question why convert, a MOA is, at any distance, a length which can be expressed anyway you want, however, expressed in inches, it is useful, 1 MOA is about 1 inch at 100 yards, 2 inches at 200 yards, 3 inches at 300 yards, etc. Easy to understand and apply as required for zeroing, or for favors.
 

BobinNC

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 31, 2009
4,693
40
71
Goldsboro, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, Bob if you could comprehend my first post you'd get it. It explained why. It's also what's necessary when shooting irons, that's to say, you're likely to take a wind favor rather than click to counter; and, you will be thinking, as you favor the post front sight, in inches not MOA, because length at target is easier to visualize in inches than an alternative unit of measurement. Of course, the reason you will not think anything about mils is the M4 and M16 A2/A4 are graduated in MOA, not mils. </div></div>

Sterling,

Irons?? You mean like this:

irons.jpg


Sorry but I don't visualize in inches, preferring cubits myself, since we are talking about anachronistic sighting/measuring devices. Nor do I particularly favor a post sight.

And I suppose if I shot an M4 or M16 A2/A4 I would care, a bunch. But I don't. So what's necessary when shooting irons is of no consequence for me.

At one time I did, having the honor to shoot with USCG Shooting Team for a time, but that was a mere 40 years ago, and such skills are fungible in any event.

Since I in fact did comprehend your first post, and you deemed fit not to answer mine. So I can continue to talk about apples, while you blissfully babble about coconuts, since they both hang from a tree.

Or you can join the 21st century and answer why with using scope sights, and not iron sights, is converting MOA to inches in your head a necessary skill, and what it has to do with hitting your target.

Thanks,

Bob
 

ewoaf

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 25, 2009
1,458
89
Albemarle VA
beaurobbins.com
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

a MOA is 1.047" at 100y.... congrats sterling on giving yourself an automatic 4.7% error in all you calcs right off the bat.

but anyway you were saying?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Every time I see post like this, I ask myself WTF does it all mean in the long run?
Mils, MOA , or IPHY, it matters little what you use, or how you use it as long as your as good with it as you would have everyone believe.

I've seen many net posters in the field and like others, wonder if in fact it's the same guy, because down range that day, their net voodoo, was not working.
 

BobinNC

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 31, 2009
4,693
40
71
Goldsboro, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Gunfighter,

Your right of course, it doesn't mean much in the long run. It's sort of like an adult version of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey". But it does break up the ennui
smile.gif


Bob

 

Ratbert

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 18, 2007
2,343
1
44
Concord, NC
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And I suppose if I shot an M4 or M16 A2/A4 I would care, a bunch. But I don't. So what's necessary when shooting irons is of no consequence for me.
</div></div>

No one shoots a M4 like that in the real world; the shooting jackets are just too damn hot over in the sand box and lots of guys kept showing up with guns that didn't meet the rules requirements. Half of them didn't even have their NRA cards handy. A disgrace, really.
 

doc76251

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 5, 2003
1,747
39
Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every time I see post like this, I ask myself
I've seen many net posters in the field and like others, wonder if in fact it's the same guy, because down range that day, their net voodoo, was not working. </div></div>

THIS!!!!!

MOA, MIL or IPHY don't mean crap if you can't drive your stick. Run what you brung and get rounds on steel. Once you figure out the rig you have THEN search for a better mouse trap. FWIW I speak all three languages equally well, none is easier than the other except IPHY.

Cheers,

Doc
 
G

Guest

Guest
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

IPHY is as simple as it gets, and gives up nothing, to the others. I prefer USO's MDMOA for everything as you can hold at least 40 IPHY or better depending on how you set it up.

I've had many guys range and shoot my 17X an 22X SN-3's and all said it was the simplest set up they had ever ranged an shot with.
 

Sterling Shooter

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 10, 2004
2,842
13
Louisville, Kentucky
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a MOA is 1.047" at 100y.... congrats sterling on giving yourself an automatic 4.7% error in all you calcs right off the bat.

but anyway you were saying?</div></div>

Simple MOA works for wind formulas, as well as for zero refinement at any given distance. It's only when using simple MOA for come up's when recognition of true MOA could be important. For example, if the sight was graduated in true MOA, and you still treated it as having an inch value rather than 1.047 at 100 yards, you could be off zero about 18 inches at 1000 yards, assuming a need for a bullet path about 40 inches high above line of sight at 100 yards for a 1000 yard pinwheel X-ring hit. But, of course you understand this I'm sure.
 

ewoaf

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 25, 2009
1,458
89
Albemarle VA
beaurobbins.com
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a MOA is 1.047" at 100y.... congrats sterling on giving yourself an automatic 4.7% error in all you calcs right off the bat.

but anyway you were saying?</div></div>

Simple MOA works for wind formulas as well as for zero refinement at any given distance. It's only when using simple MOA for come up's when recognition of true MOA could be important,if the sight was graduated in true MOA, then if you were to still treat it as an inch rather than 1.047 at 100 yards you could be off zero displacement about 18 inches at 1000 yards, assuming a need for a bullet path about 40 inches high above line of sight at 100 yards for a 1000 yard pinwheel X-ring hit. But, of course you understand this I'm sure.
</div></div>

so how do you range your target with them things?
 

Sterling Shooter

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 10, 2004
2,842
13
Louisville, Kentucky
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

You're not serious are you? But if you are, there's the football field method, the appearance of objects method, the front sight post method, visable detail method, bracketing method, halving method, sound method, and of course the rangefinding reticle method, that's if you had something like an ACOG on the rifle.
 

ewoaf

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jan 25, 2009
1,458
89
Albemarle VA
beaurobbins.com
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

well....kinda yes and no.
of course you can't, but since you can't why even bring irons into an optics argument in the first place?
 

Sterling Shooter

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 10, 2004
2,842
13
Louisville, Kentucky
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Most iron sights and scopes move in MOA, and wind is estimated in Minute of Angle. And to the question of range estimation, yes, I can, bracket method, halving method, football field method, visable detail method, sound method, front sight post method, map method, appearance of objects method, and if I've got an ACOG, the range-finding reticle method.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well....kinda yes and no.
of course you can't, but since you can't why even bring irons into an optics argument in the first place? </div></div>

Because many moons ago irons, were the only thing we had to range by. Even the M14's front sight post is/was used by glass guys when the ART's went south. A BSZ only gets you so far, knowning the irons subtentions will get you much farther out if needed in a pinch.
 

lowlight

HMFIC of this Shit
Staff member
Moderator
Supporter
Minuteman
  • Apr 12, 2001
    33,506
    28,790
    Base of the Rockies
    www.snipershide.com
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most iron sights and scopes move in MOA, and wind is estimated in Minute of Angle. And to the question of range estimation, yes, I can, bracket method, halving method, football field method, visable detail method, sound method, front sight post method, map method, appearance of objects method, and if I've got an ACOG, the range-finding reticle method.</div></div>

    Maybe back in 1998, but this is 2010, wind is, and can be done in Mils.. scopes adjust in mils as well Trijicon's newest stuff is also going to Mils. So pretty soon you'll have to embrace a different way.

    Sterling, go out, spend a few bucks and get a new databook, like an Impact or Storm and that way you will have the mils in there that you can use as reference, so you aren't constantly referencing information that is 10 years old. they even have new formulas for you too reference. Wind charts in mils, etc.

    the USMC uses Mils, the Army is going to Mils, 3/4 of the war fighting world uses Mils... time to wake up and smell the progress that has already passed you by.

    Many moons, like more than 2 decades ago. you have guys in the service now that weren't even born when that stuff retired.
     

    lowlight

    HMFIC of this Shit
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Supporter
    Minuteman
  • Apr 12, 2001
    33,506
    28,790
    Base of the Rockies
    www.snipershide.com
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    Current PSR solicitation is for Mils... you are talking an M4 which 99% of the time will be used inside 300m... so who cares. Scoped rifles, sniper rifles, etc are all moving to or have moved to mils.

    M4, they bzo it and favor for the most part.

    Trust me when I say the ACOG is changing.

    More than 75% of AR training is inside 100 yards.
     

    lowlight

    HMFIC of this Shit
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Supporter
    Minuteman
  • Apr 12, 2001
    33,506
    28,790
    Base of the Rockies
    www.snipershide.com
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    And not to beat the horse any further, but the Acog they use is a BDC reticle with yard lines, not MOA, they hold the distance, not the dope in MOA.
     

    Buckoman

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jul 3, 2008
    184
    0
    Hatfield, Pa
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    For me the range estimation calcualtions on the MOA system are so much easier. Who can do a friggin calculation of 27.778 * X / Mils reading in their head? Its so much esier to do 100 * X / MOA reading.

    My Schmidt and Leupold are set up to range estimate in Mils then dial drop in MOA. So I'm doing 27.778 * X / Mils then calculating come ups by converting to MOA and doing holdovers in Mils. Too many conversions. I was just wondering if there were a redneck way to "convert" mil lines into MOA on the reticle.
     

    ewoaf

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 25, 2009
    1,458
    89
    Albemarle VA
    beaurobbins.com
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Master_Blaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Who can do a friggin calculation of 27.778 * X / Mils reading in their head? Its so much esier to do 100 * X / MOA reading.

    </div></div>you dont do do that in your head, you use a mildot master. and your moa math is wrong.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Master_Blaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I was just wondering if there were a redneck way to "convert" mil lines into MOA on the reticle.</div></div> 4 moa to a mil will get you there.
     

    doc76251

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 5, 2003
    1,747
    39
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Master_Blaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My Schmidt and Leupold are set up to range estimate in Mils then dial drop in MOA. So I'm doing 27.778 * X / Mils then calculating come ups by converting to MOA and doing holdovers in Mils. Too many conversions. I was just wondering if there were a redneck way to "convert" mil lines into MOA on the reticle. </div></div>

    Sure, multiply each mil x 3.438 and you'll have the MOA answer
    laugh.gif


    Cheers,

    Doc
     

    lowlight

    HMFIC of this Shit
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Supporter
    Minuteman
  • Apr 12, 2001
    33,506
    28,790
    Base of the Rockies
    www.snipershide.com
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    Anyone who thinks they are doing any math in their head is beyond narrow minded...

    It's called prior, proper, planning...

    mil-chart.jpg


    You can make your own like the example above or you can get one

    I-RRC-2.jpg


    You guys need to get out of your head and into the field.
     

    RobertB

    Manners Stocks Support Team
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Aug 20, 2009
    2,256
    274
    37
    Oak Grove, Louisiana
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    I think it's what the person likes. I like MOA BECAUSE, I started with mills and couldn't figure it out real good, and the my buddy Tom Sarver showed me the MOA way and BAM piece of cake. Not saying it's the best but it seems to be the best for me. I've had my pants spanked off of me at matches with guys running mills but I have beat many myself with MOA. Some great shooters couldn't do as good with MOA as they can with mills and vice versa. Like I said to each his own. I think I am going to stick with MOA but I am a very open minded person and do not mind being proved wrong and will go with what suites me best. MOA is that at this time and I agree with sterling because of that. Thats why I feel it is "easier" just because I tried them both and MOA took no time. Good luck either way.
     

    lowlight

    HMFIC of this Shit
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Supporter
    Minuteman
  • Apr 12, 2001
    33,506
    28,790
    Base of the Rockies
    www.snipershide.com
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    A new shooter without a frame of reference for either will pick up and use Mils much faster and more effectively provided they are properly instructed... that I can promise you and have seen time and time again.

    There is no adding, there is no linear discussion, it simply becomes a matter of a Mil is a Mil... period. You don't convert, you simply read the reticle and adjust what you see. You don't figure, you don't calculate, you just do.

    it's the difference between .5 to 11.5 versus 2MOA to 39MOA -- which simply means easier numbers to remember, which do EXACTLY the same thing, with the additions of 1 MOA at 100 is 3 MOA at 300, etc... its simply 1 Mil.

    You guys all forget, I designed the very first MOA reticle with USO that they produced which was one of the first. I tried it, and rejected it. John Sr and I did during a Shot Show in Orlando. It was a good experiment, but one that was unnecessary.

    No instruction or over complicated instruction not withstanding, there is a bonafided reason the military is switching to mils.
     

    HillbillyfromAL

    Private
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Aug 16, 2009
    0
    2
    37
    Niceville, FL
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    Not to mention that most of the Infantry Units have iron sights as back ups only. Other than in Basic, and qual ranges I never even used the iron sights. Mil/Mil is the way to go. I'd like to see what the Army picks for it's next scope.
     

    Sterling Shooter

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 10, 2004
    2,842
    13
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    The wind formula I use yields an answer expressed in MOA using a constant of 10 which is not the exact constant for my applications, but close enough. The calculation can indeed be done in my head because the formula is fractionless. Doing stuff without the aid of devices is handy. Plus, no conversion to inches is needed if I click to target; however, if I favor I will convert to inches as I visulize in inches, feet and yards rather than mils or MOA.
     
    G

    Guest

    Guest
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Master_Blaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was just wondering if there were a redneck way to "convert" mil lines into MOA on the reticle. </div></div>

    Yes there is, one mil = 3.4 moa and one mil = 3.6 IPHY.

    Find someone in your area that has a IPHY scope, then decide which of the 3 systems "You" like better.
     

    cvuxton

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2008
    108
    1
    70
    Warrenton, VA
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    You know guys, there are a number of rules used in Government Program Management and this is a prime example...we declare that first "this horse is not dead," and two we declare that "no horse is too dead to beat." But tribal wisdom states that when you find yourself riding a dead horse you should get off the horse. Its a matter of training. If your training started with MILS you're good, if it started with MOAs you're good. I couldn't get Arabic but I tried. I'm having a hard time with MILS but I'm trying. I see that value in not having to count all those MOA clicks. So I practice out my office window. Went out one day and measured some stuff out there and now try not to freak the DC population. Both systems have merit, pick one. Right now I have way too much invested in MIL/MIL scopes to go back.
     

    Ratbert

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jul 18, 2007
    2,343
    1
    44
    Concord, NC
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    Everyone loves to point out how you can do IPHY math in your head. For instance a 6" target / 2 IPHY x 100 = 300 yds. Whee. Now do it for a 17" target that mils out @ 2.35 Mil.

    In the real world you aren't gonna be doing it in your head, not if you want to make sure it's right and you want the answer anytime soon. So you're going to be using a calculator or a chart or a MDM. So it's no different than Mils.

    If you're only going to be in situations where things work out like example #1, then another method is to just glance up at the sign and see which firing line you're laying on.

    For Holds, movers, and windage no math should be involved at all for any system if you've setup your data book correctly.
     

    Sterling Shooter

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 10, 2004
    2,842
    13
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone loves to point out how you can do IPHY math in your head. For instance a 6" target / 2 IPHY x 100 = 300 yds. Whee. Now do it for a 17" target that mils out @ 2.35 Mil.

    In the real world you aren't gonna be doing it in your head, not if you want to make sure it's right and you want the answer anytime soon. So you're going to be using a calculator or a chart or a MDM. So it's no different than Mils.

    If you're only going to be in situations where things work out like example #1, then another method is to just glance up at the sign and see which firing line you're laying on.

    For Holds, movers, and windage no math should be involved at all for any system if you've setup your data book correctly.
    </div></div>


    I'm sure you're an expert at it all, but doing wind calculations in your head is a really good thing to be able to do.
     

    Ratbert

    Gunny Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Jul 18, 2007
    2,343
    1
    44
    Concord, NC
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone loves to point out how you can do IPHY math in your head. For instance a 6" target / 2 IPHY x 100 = 300 yds. Whee. Now do it for a 17" target that mils out @ 2.35 Mil.

    In the real world you aren't gonna be doing it in your head, not if you want to make sure it's right and you want the answer anytime soon. So you're going to be using a calculator or a chart or a MDM. So it's no different than Mils.

    If you're only going to be in situations where things work out like example #1, then another method is to just glance up at the sign and see which firing line you're laying on.

    For Holds, movers, and windage no math should be involved at all for any system if you've setup your data book correctly.
    </div></div>


    I'm sure you're an expert at it all, but doing wind calculations in your head is a really good thing to be able to do.
    </div></div>

    What wind calculations? Are you talking about being able to convert a 10MPH wind value into a 3 MPH wind value? That is the same math if you've recorded in Mils, MOA, IPHY. If you're still talking about converting your wind drift into inches then you're still ignoring the fact that you're the only person discussing iron sights in a thread revolving around a question posed about how to use an optic. And even then it's not such a big deal to multiply your mil reading by 3.5 and then follow the IPHY method to get something as accurate as you can visualize holding off a man-sized target with random background clutter @800+ yds.

    I've got a lot of respect for you as a shooter but it pains me that you can't seem to let go of the idea that everyone isn't going to wake up one day and decide to shoot only NRA HP as god and Stoner intended.
     

    benjaminzero

    Sergeant
    Full Member
    Minuteman
    Aug 29, 2009
    343
    0
    38
    Baltimore, MD
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    I'm no expert, but looking at my data card and seeing my wind correction printed out ahead of time is much easier than any calculation. At most I have to muliply a number by 2 or 3. My data is in mils, so I can hold using the mil reticle, or dial the mils on my turret. No conversions needed.

    Also the MOA argument on iron sights, acogs, ect is moot. Once zeroed, nobody is going to unscrew the caps, whip out a gerber, and adjust their acog in a firefight. Even on square ranges, nobody adjust irons during a course of fire. Qual is out to 300m, every soldier is trained where to hold on the silouhette to make a hit, wind is almost a non-issue. We trained to 500 with the acogs. Is anyone dialing? Nope. Just using the BDC reticle. Subtension for wind also a non-issue. We made holds based on edge of target, or torso widths outside target.

    Calculating exact wind calls combat is not realistic in my experience for the average soldier. Our rack grade M4s printed 1 foot groups at 500 yards. Combine that accuracy cloud with a wind call, and the stress of combat, it's a safe bet that a few rounds are going to be fired to suppress/bracket the target.

    As for snipers and SDMs with scoped m14s, the dialing and wind calls ect are left for their skill set, and extended engagement range. The marines already calculate, dial, and hold in Mils, and as lowlight stated, the army is already transitioning.

    Again I'm no expert, but I did carry a weapon for a living. And I have been known to stay in a holiday inn express on occasion, but not last night.
     

    wolskyr

    Private
    Minuteman
    Sep 16, 2008
    41
    0
    Milford, PA
    Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zeroed1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Even on square ranges, nobody adjust irons during a course of fire. </div></div>

    Oh man, you're going to get the highpower shooters all riled up. Competitors routinely correct windage during a string.