Rifle Scopes Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

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

In my head; distance divided by 100, times velocity in MPH, divided by constant, equals MOA of drift. It's good for any sight/scope type, favor or clicks. No cards, calculators, or charts, etc. Everything done while aiming after inital wind estimation.

 

[benjaminzero]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

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

I was speaking about the use of irons in army training/qualification/combat. I am aware of the highpower shooters adjusting, but that is outside my Intended frame of reference.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

I do all the wind in my head in mils... why because I have a reticle right in front of my eyes so it's easy to do, as well I can adjust immediately for any correction as necessary because the bullet and the reticle combined give me 100% of the information necessary to make a second round shot in less time than it takes a spotter to speak. <span style="font-style: italic">(not to mention 2 sets of eyes are better than one, and I am the guys that knows what I did)</span>

Gathering data, I have the mils there that match the turrets, so I can simply "read" the reticle and correct based off a single shot if need be.

I can think in inches all day long and it's irrelevant because I am not required to think, I simply read the correction.

As someone above again posted, they are trying to convert the Mils and/or MOA to a linear measurement because that is how people are taught MOA. It is broken down into a linear distance, either at the target or at the shooter... however proper training would show you that there is no need for a linear conversion at all. I don't think in linear terms... I see the impact in the reticle .75 Mils off the target and that is my adjustment. It doesn't matter if it is 300m or 833m the answer is always the same, .75 mils. Who cares how many inches off the target that is, it's useless information in terms of shooting and hitting the target.

When people are taught, 1MOA is 1.047" or 1" at 100 and then they go on to explain 2" at 200, 3 @ 300, etc, people continue down that path which is where the confusion lies. With mils it doesn't matter it is 3.43MOA or 3.6", you really don't need to know that at all if you don't want. 1 Mil in the reticle or on the turret is 1 Mil anywhere. If you see 1 Mil you dial 1 Mil or Hold 1 Mil. The dope becomes universal across the turrets and the reticle.

2.4 Mils is the dope for 400 yards, which also works if you hold 2.4 mils in the reticle... so if you don't have the time or luxury to be able to dial, you already know your dope for holding off in the reticle. 1 number...

Yards, meters, miles, it's all the same.

 

[RobertB]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

But doesn't that hold true for MOA as well? I don't use my MOA to convert to inches, If I see my hit 1 MOA down I adjust up 1MOA. regardless if I'm 100 yds or a 1000yds. I just like it because its seems to be a finer graduation and I can range easier with it. (For me)

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RobertB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But doesn't that hold true for MOA as well? I don't use my MOA to convert to inches, If I see my hit 1 MOA down I adjust up 1MOA. regardless if I'm 100 yds or a 1000yds. I just like it because its seems to be a finer graduation and I can range easier with it. (For me)</div></div>

It should, however it is not universal because the MOA reticles available are all different to some degree.

As well you have options for 1/8th turrets, 1/4, 1/2 or 1... and because the manufacturers alternate between MOA and IPHY it's adds to the confusion and builds in errors. Some advertise MOA adjustments but are really IPHY.

You have reticles with 1 MOA, 2MOA, 5 MOA, all different reticle subtensions. There is no 1 : 1 it is fractions of that.

99% of mil scopes are all the same, and only differ in how they break up the reticle between 0 and 1 Mil. Turrets aside from the stray scope adjust in 1/10th, almost universally.

 

[RobertB]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

I stick with my NF's. Do you know how they are calibrated?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RobertB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I stick with my NF's. Do you know how they are calibrated?</div></div>

I do, but it is more important that you know... it's not my scope. I use NF a lot but I use Mils from there, so I know exactly what I have.

you need to know, otherwise you maybe doing it wrong and adding unnecessary errors into your shooting. Like when guys use X 100 instead of X 95.5 there is a difference...

you're response is actually quite typical. Most using these scopes don't know.

 

[RobertB]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

My way has always seemed to work fine for me. I shoot as often as I can and test things as often as I can. I shoot my rifle dialing as well as using my reticle at full power half power and 1/4 power and it seems to work fine being that I usually hit what I am tring to hit. I have only tested that out to 600 yds but I'm allways dialing that uaually and always past that. I also have put scribe marks on my power ring where I have found it to be perfectly calibrated to my turrets. I am just trying to find out if someone knows something that I don't know. I am always VERY eager to learn.

 

[jrob300]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do all the wind in my head in mils... why because I have a reticle right in front of my eyes so it's easy to do, as well I can adjust immediately for any correction as necessary because the bullet and the reticle combined give me 100% of the information necessary to make a second round shot in less time than it takes a spotter to speak. <span style="font-style: italic">(not to mention 2 sets of eyes are better than one, and I am the guys that knows what I did)</span>

Gathering data, I have the mils there that match the turrets, so I can simply "read" the reticle and correct based off a single shot if need be.

1 Mil in the reticle or on the turret is 1 Mil anywhere. If you see 1 Mil you dial 1 Mil or Hold 1 Mil. The dope becomes universal across the turrets and the reticle.

2.4 Mils is the dope for 400 yards, which also works if you hold 2.4 mils in the reticle... so if you don't have the time or luxury to be able to dial, you already know your dope for holding off in the reticle. 1 number...

Yards, meters, miles, it's all the same.

</div></div>

So, if this is true, the unit of measure on the reticle/knobs really does not matter as long as they match and you've verified data from the field for elevation. The wind hold just becomes a reference and you hold to that or dial it. Unit of measure doesn't really matter other than some may give a little more precision over another, but even that can be handled with 1/2 or 1/4 hashes on the reticle. Correct?

The above assumes that you're spotting for yourself. I can see if you have a spotter that now unit of measure and accuracy of reticle/knob must be the same for both scopes. Still correct?

John

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RobertB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My way has always seemed to work fine for me. I shoot as often as I can and test things as often as I can. I shoot my rifle dialing as well as using my reticle at full power half power and 1/4 power and it seems to work fine being that I usually hit what I am tring to hit. I have only tested that out to 600 yds but I'm allways dialing that uaually and always past that. I also have put scribe marks on my power ring where I have found it to be perfectly calibrated to my turrets. I am just trying to find out if someone knows something that I don't know. I am always VERY eager to learn. </div></div>

Chances are, you shoot by yourself.. which is what a lot of people do, so it works for you, because you are not being put out of your comfort zone.

Some people do very well with it, however others find as they move into areas less controlled by them, it's not as easy as they thought, nor does it work as well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, if this is true, the unit of measure on the reticle/knobs really does not matter as long as they match and you've verified data from the field for elevation. The wind hold just becomes a reference and you hold to that or dial it. Unit of measure doesn't really matter other than some may give a little more precision over another, but even that can be handled with 1/2 or 1/4 hashes on the reticle. Correct?

The above assumes that you're spotting for yourself. I can see if you have a spotter that now unit of measure and accuracy of reticle/knob must be the same for both scopes. Still correct</div></div>

I spot for myself every shot, even when I have a spotter... that is how I train, to spot my own impacts from 0 to X regardless of the position.

As well 90% of the spotters on the market have "mil reticles" installed of the spotter with any reticle inside. I believe only USO makes a spotter with an MOA type reticle. Leupold, Zeiss, Bushnell, etc, all have Mil based reticles, including those used by the military.

Spotting one's own shots is an essential skill.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Calling one's own shots is an essential skill.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

When calling one's own shot, people will say, <span style="font-style: italic">"where <span style="text-decoration: underline">were</span> the sights before the shot broke".</span>

Spotting your own impact is slightly different, in that the shooter strives to not lose time, especially during recoil, so that he can say, <span style="font-style: italic">"where <span style="text-decoration: underline">are</span> the sights during the shot"</span> and thus see the bullet hole appear in the target, even at 100 yards.

Many people have 3 distinct periods of time, before the shot, during the shot, and then again after... <span style="font-style: italic">not losing time</span> is about making those points seamless, so there is no black out period during recoil. Which is why people will ask, <span style="font-style: italic">"where were the sights"</span>, as opposed to <span style="font-style: italic">"where are the sights when the shots breaks"</span>.

it may seem the same, but it's not, especially when you talk to the shooter on the line. They will often tell you they either black out or white out during the shot and not be driving through recoil, which is where the difference lies.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

I ask the shooter,"how did that shot look". It reinforces follow through, and, when the shooter is using irons, focus on the front sight.

 

[Buckoman]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

So um, anyone wanna buy a like new in box Schmidt n bender xr2 reticle in MOA? Or trade for a xr2 mil/mil?

 

[groper]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Tactical scopes with mil reticles and MOA turrets (or anything but mil turrets) should be outlawed...

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Why? If after all the "glass" is used for both come-up's, as well as favors, as has been alluded to by others here, not me, why would it matter? And, if, indeed, charts, graphs, and whatever are at hand for come-ups, as has also been alluded to here, it seems moot what the adjustment value is. What I'm getting at here is if you use the reticle for the purpose of range finding, or even as a crude BDC, those functions are sufficiently independent of sight adjustmnet needs that it really does not matter how the sight is graduated. In any event, the shooter is adjusting to a discovered distance/wind counter where it's then just a matter of how many clicks in mils or MOA to get to get distance/wind counter. Only if the shooter's IQ is too low to do some quick math if necessary on occasion would there be a problem. I doubt then that the outcome of such a shooter's failure to hit where aimed would have a consequence. I also doubt such a shooter would hit where aimed even if the sight was correctly adjusted, unless the target was so close as to be hit intuitively.

Here's an idea, learn MOA, as well as mils, then you can operate any equipment you're blessed with.

 

[Guest]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: groper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tactical scopes with mil reticles and MOA turrets (or anything but mil turrets) should be outlawed... </div></div>

But,...But,... you don't understand, The company's that did that as their only offering's could care less about you as a shooter. Mil-Dot glass is/was tacti-cool and it was a way for them to drive the bottom line, on the customer wanting the coolness factor. It cost less to make a reticle than erectors, get it on the street before X and let the customer worry about it.

Military type items sell, that is fact. It's not about whats the best or whats right, it's about the money, always has been, always well be.

Don't believe me, just visit a open or closed to the public range and bait question or two. When in doubt follow the money.

Just like any other product, if the customer is not smart enough to know what he wants/needs, they will keep selling you what they can make the most money on. The optics Ind. (except USO) is no different than any one else, buyer beware. With US Optics you get it your way, it might be more money but, they will help you along with all the info you need to fill the task. Everyone else is, this is what we have, pick one,...

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

AMEN, seems there's folks wanting to get into LR, buying stuff they perceive they need from what they've read. Then, they're forced to adapt the stuff to get the job done, when if only their basis of understanding were founded in fact they could concentrate on what's really important-basic prone marksmanship, instead of equipment. At any rate, learning to use what ya brought, or bought is a good idea.

One problem for sure though, LR students coming to a class with their own notion of what will get the job done may mean a need for individual instruction, that's to say, if a student has equipment not calibrated/graduated as per the class example, it forces the coach to readdress the individual, as well as come to an understanding of the students equipment-that's a tall order.

Sometimes the order is too tall. I remember once coaching a soldier who, unknown to all, had a BDC on his SDMR that appearantly came from Ranger Joe's. It was not mil-spec. And, although the soldier had gotten a good BSZ, when using the BDC feature at 500 meters he was totally off. For awhile everyone thought the guy just couldn't shoot. This kind of problem is hard to identify when it's assumed all the equipment on the firing line is all mil-spec.

 

[Guest]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sometimes the order is too tall. I remember once coaching a soldier who, unknown to all, had a BDC on his SDMR that appearantly came from Ranger Joe's. It was not mil-spec. And, although the soldier had gotten a good BSZ, when using the BDC feature at 500 meters he was totally off. For awhile everyone thought the guy just couldn't shoot. This kind of problem is hard to identify when it's assumed all the equipment on the firing line is all mil-spec. </div></div>

Back in the late 70's early 80's I had the same thing but with beltfeds. When everybody was shooting Ball, they were quick on the up take. When we got to no sights an 4 to 1 tracer belts we started to have trouble with 5 students, but when we went to combo belts only 3 guys (out of 20) that had never shot beltfeds before were on target.
At the noon break I started asking where everyone got their ammo from. All but three said they had loaded their own, you can guess which three had correct ammo.


A combo belt is loaded, Ball, API, Ball, Tracer, Ball then HE, an shot in bursts of 6, guess those guys did not know or care about loading to the same POI was a good thing.

The next class they took they eat up the targets up, it was about a $2K mistake the first go round.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

You guys have been stuck in a bubble for too long.

Variety happens even in military classes, and you have to be able to address it all effectively and quickly.

Students rarely do their own prep work and expect you to not only explain the use for all their equipment but to provide dope for their chosen caliber as well. The guy that shows up with a 260 needs every number you give the guy with the 308, and wants to know how his scope works regardless of make and model. Turrets to reticle sand sock to sling, you never get to choose their flavors.

Heck even in the class this week, from Elcans to Short Dots, to leupold scopes not even available on the market yet. They are using, M118LR and HK416s with 70gr military loads as well as the mk262 stuff. There is no being a one trick pony with these guys, the want an answer on the fly and you better know how to operate everything they are using. Even the simplest of M4 classes isn't, Eotech, Elcans, Aimpoints, Acogs, a group from the same unit rarely all use the same scopes, especially in the special operations community. You have to be able to zero each one plus their LA-5s.

Advocating the ease of use with one system over another doesn't mean you forgo any of it, it simple means a heck of a lot more studying before the next's day evolution. It means you have a frame of reference from which to draw an educated opinion on.

Speaking multiple languages fluently should never be looked at as being a negative even if you tell someone German is easier than English in this case. That isn't an insult to someone who speaks English, it's just the opinion of someone who speaks both on a daily basis. With anything your results may vary.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

My thought on the matter is that if it's a course on marksmanship my duty is to help the shooter overall as required to get good hits with what ever equipment brought. However, when you're on a military range, using SDMR's checked out from the USAMU armory you do not expect to discover at some point one with a BDC made in China which is calibrated in who knows what unit of measurment. It makes shooter/target analysis difficult since the analysis does not consider at first anything other than perhaps a loose sight. At any rate, having experience with these sorts of things makes for more productive days on the range.

 

[Guest]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Students rarely do their own prep work and expect you to not only explain the use for all their equipment but to provide dope for their chosen caliber as well. </div></div>


I'll second that statement. Some of the class's I've taken over the years have been interesting, to say the least.
I've been shocked an almost killed once at some of the things I've seen folks do.

Once at band camp,...

On a 4 duce range a crew had a rd stuck 1/2 way down.(hot tube) They kicked it per SOP, then called EOD. Old EOD an young FNG showed up. TL sprayed acid to melt plastic ring waited 15 min, kicked tube, no go. Sprayed more acid waited 15 min an sent FNG to mirror the tube for any drop. FNG mirrors tube, has moved about 6". He kicks tube then puts his face in front of the tube just as TL pushs him to the ground. FNG says WTF just then the round drops an leaves the tube.

On a M60 range we were laying in the shade on a hot afternoon waiting to grab the 40mm range to train some guys in the art of M79's and M203's. Two range NCO's did not return for lunch, so RO comes over and ask you guys up on 60's? He grabs us to fill in until his came back. E-7 was giving 60 training on the what if's, down the berm. I took the R/S, Chancy took the left. Just before the start of the third relay the NOC's returned an they took back over, we went back to the shade. On the forth relay a firing pin broke on a gun on the R/S, with a full belt. What happened next was a kodak moment, everyone booked up, damn good thing the bitch was on a tripod with a T&E locked, even then the tripod was not bagged(hard ground an yes we ask)and she was walking rounds to the right that were now going off the range. Chancy and I hauled ass towards the gun and got there just as she ran out of ammo. The RO came down from the house, about the time we grabbed the NCO's and the E-7 and ask WTF were you teaching those guys. Long story short we never got to the 40mm range that day, due to amount of paper work that had to be filed.

Never, ever think it's a safe world, when people an iron are left to their own vices w/o<span style="font-weight: bold"> Much over sight</span>, as Murphy will bit your ass every time.
Teaching is one of the hardest, most stress full jobs I've ever done. No matter who they were, or what level they were supposed to be or thought they were, before the class.

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

You can always order one of the new index pages we just finished up that does all the work for you!!

In Stock now

Coming in the next print shipment!!

 

[ewoaf]

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 think life would be easier if mils would just go away from the small arms lexicon.
</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here's an idea, learn MOA, as well as mils, then you can operate any equipment you're blessed with. </div></div>

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Mil-MOA conversion Technical question

Yes, I do wish they'd go away, wishful thinking; but, since they're not, I've embraced the concept as some of my students do indeed need or want to understand mils.