I have tried to google it and searched a little on here but i am a military sniper that uses the moa platform...what is a mil to mil scope and are they better? Also how do you calculate for drop? Any teachings would be great!!
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
mil to mil
- Thread starter adm09_003
- Start date
Re: mil to mil
An excellent resource is: Mil-Dot Resource Page
A mil is very similar to an MOA as it is unit of angular measurement. Or as described here quite frequently:
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
Now to calculate drop, you can take your MOA dope and simply divide by 3.43 and this will give you the same dope in Mils. Or you can use any number of ballistic calculators available including JBM which is free online to give outputs in mils. If you don't know you can always read the reticle, but it helps to have something to start you off with, which JBM is an excellent solution.
As far as which is better, that is a long fought debate. Having any scope that operates in the same unit, as in a Mil Based Reticle with Mil adjustments will be easier than using one with mix units such as a mil based reticle with MOA adjusted turrets. In my opinion, there are more benefits to using Mils across the board than using MOA, but others will certainly disagree. Regarding ease, you'd have it to try it with proper instruction and see for yourself. It has been shown, and I do find new shooters adapt to Mils easier than MOA, but again, people will argue that they "think" in inches, which if you know enough you realize is irrelevant as you don't have to think, you simply read. You can use Mils with Inches just as easy as MOA.
Pretty much every country but the US uses mils and much of the US Military is converting to mils, so I think that tells you something right there. There are ways to be effective with both, and to be effective mixing units, it's done everyday, but as you progress you find something just work smarter.
An excellent resource is: Mil-Dot Resource Page
A mil is very similar to an MOA as it is unit of angular measurement. Or as described here quite frequently:
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
Now to calculate drop, you can take your MOA dope and simply divide by 3.43 and this will give you the same dope in Mils. Or you can use any number of ballistic calculators available including JBM which is free online to give outputs in mils. If you don't know you can always read the reticle, but it helps to have something to start you off with, which JBM is an excellent solution.
As far as which is better, that is a long fought debate. Having any scope that operates in the same unit, as in a Mil Based Reticle with Mil adjustments will be easier than using one with mix units such as a mil based reticle with MOA adjusted turrets. In my opinion, there are more benefits to using Mils across the board than using MOA, but others will certainly disagree. Regarding ease, you'd have it to try it with proper instruction and see for yourself. It has been shown, and I do find new shooters adapt to Mils easier than MOA, but again, people will argue that they "think" in inches, which if you know enough you realize is irrelevant as you don't have to think, you simply read. You can use Mils with Inches just as easy as MOA.
Pretty much every country but the US uses mils and much of the US Military is converting to mils, so I think that tells you something right there. There are ways to be effective with both, and to be effective mixing units, it's done everyday, but as you progress you find something just work smarter.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adm09_003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am a military sniper that uses the moa platform</div></div>Do you mean that you have an MOA reticle or do you have a Mil reticle with MOA knobs? If you have a Mil reticle with MOA knobs what does your spotter have? Having turrets that adjust in the same units will be much more convenient for both of you on course and in competitions. And if those units are Mils it will save you the extra math if you dial.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: valise</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nicely considered post there LowLight. I guess an Atta-boy is smaller than a Oh-boy ?! </div></div>Let's not bring size into the discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adm09_003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am a military sniper that uses the moa platform</div></div>Do you mean that you have an MOA reticle or do you have a Mil reticle with MOA knobs? If you have a Mil reticle with MOA knobs what does your spotter have? Having turrets that adjust in the same units will be much more convenient for both of you on course and in competitions. And if those units are Mils it will save you the extra math if you dial.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: valise</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nicely considered post there LowLight. I guess an Atta-boy is smaller than a Oh-boy ?! </div></div>Let's not bring size into the discussion.
Re: mil to mil
Our scopes have mil reticals and moa dials...my spotter has a spotting scope with mil retical inside spotting scope. I guess i dont understand how you have less math?
Our scopes have mil reticals and moa dials...my spotter has a spotting scope with mil retical inside spotting scope. I guess i dont understand how you have less math?
Re: mil to mil
See thats where im confused...i dont think ive ever had to convert anything...you find out how far your target is then dile your dope?
See thats where im confused...i dont think ive ever had to convert anything...you find out how far your target is then dile your dope?
Re: mil to mil
For the members that want the write up here it is...
Over the last 2 years we have seen a big increase in the number of scopes that offer their adjustments in Milliradian. I am personally a strong proponent of the use of Mil adjusted scopes with Mil based reticles. I find the graduations to be the right distance for both precision and tactical use, feeling we are all familiar enough with Mil Dot reticles to have a basis for understanding how to move forward with Milliradian based adjustments. The problem for most is the need to assign a value in the same way we assign a value to everything else in our lives. The biggest question most struggle with is, “how much is that at X yards in Inches”? Well the easy answer is, you don’t need to assign a linear distance to it because the angular measurement works so well. In fact, what you see is what you need; it’s really that simple. A Mil is a Mil whether it is 100 yards, or 686.792 yards, the number is the same.
A Brief Background
Before we get started down this road, I need to go over a few numbers related to using a Mil adjusted scope. Now, over the years there has been some confusion in how to term a Mil adjusted scope. For the record, it is not a “Metric” scope or calibrated in meters, nor does it require conversion to yards. By definition a Radian is, “the angle subtended at the center of a circle by an arc that is equal in length to the radius of the circle.” So, a Milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian. When applied to a circle the number we use is 6283.2, and while it has been taught and discussed at length that the number is 6400, that is not correct for a riflescope. Our scopes are calibrated using 6283 and only one scope on the market was ever built using the wrong number, that is the Leupold M3A, who’s reticle is based off the 6400 number… don’t let that fool you, the number we use is the true number of 6283, just because someone did it another way, or has taught 6400, doesn’t mean they are right either.
Now, because a milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian, it doesn’t matter what linear distance you use is, the reticle or adjustments subtends 1/1000 of that number. So you have a milliradian equaling:
1 mile at 1000 miles
1 meter at 1000 meters
1 yard at 1000 yards
10 centimeter at 100 meters
3.6 inches at 100 yards (3600 inches)
Most scopes adjust in .1 MRAD or 1/10th a Milliradian per click, so this allows the shooter to break up the space between each Mil Dot 10 times for an easy corresponding adjustment. The only exception to this I am familiar with is again, Leupold who uses a .05 adjustment. However for us, we will stick to .1MRAD-adjusted scopes as it makes for an easy transition. There are scopes that have their turrets marked as 1 click = 1cm at 100 meters, which is correct, but it also equals .36 per click at 100 yards. The manufacturers are trying to fulfill that need for a linear number. Lately many of the companies have reverted back to the correct marking of .1 mrad per click. This is the point we want to strive to reach, so that we can break a Mil based reticle down into 10th so we can accurately use the reticle and match the adjustments on our scope.
That should tell the shooter all they need to know. There are all sorts of math associated to this, and for those who want to dig deeper, at the end I will provide links for you to further explore the numbers behind this, but for the most part, this is all we need to know to get started. There is really no point in confusing yourself if you don’t have to. Stick to thinking a Mil is a Mil regardless if we hold or adjust, no matter how close or how far.
Know your Scope
Moving forward, we now have a Milliradian adjusted scope with .1MRAD clicks, and we have a Mil Based reticle, so what else do we need? What we need is to understand how our scope works, whether or not the reticle is located in the First Focal Plane or the Second Focal Plane. Now, both have their advantages and disadvantages based on their use and the user, but for the most part I recommend the First Focal Plane Scope (FFP) over the Second Focal Plane (SFP) scope. The reason being is I want my reticle sub tensions to be correct on every power within my zoom range. With a SFP scope the reticle only correctly subtends at 1 power, and I highly recommend checking to confirm that power on your own. Using the numbers the above you can find out which is the correct power by lining up the Mil Dots to intersect either 3.6” at 100 yards or 10 centimeters at 100 meters.
So, the first thing we are going to do is zero our new scope. We get in a nice position behind the rifle, obeying all the fundamentals of marksmanship and we shoot the best 3 shot group we can at the center of the target. Looking through our scope after shooting this group we ask ourselves, “How much adjustment do I need”? I know a lot of people like the sight in targets with the squares that are either a ½” or 1” so you know how much to adjust your scope, and right now you are saying we need to convert to figure out what .1MRAD means at 100 yards in inches, right? Wrong, we don’t care how many inches anything is, we simply look through our scope and read the reticle. This is key because learning to read a Mil Dot reticle to the 1/10th of a Mil will pay huge dividends down the road. This you will see again.
Reading the reticle I would estimate the shot group is 1.3 Mils Low and 1.9 Mils to the right of center. This would mean we need an adjustment of 13 clicks if we spoke in that terminology, but since we don’t we need 1.3 Mils up and 1.9 Mils Left to get this group in the center. That should be the end of the process, in fact you can even zero a scope faster if you like, but this method works very well. Remember, we are breaking up the space between the centers of the reticle to the center of the Mil Dot, not the edge, as that has a value too. Most Mil Dots are .2 Mils wide, but check your manual or online schematic at the manufacturer’s website as they could be .25 mils wide and in the case of Hash Mark type reticles even less as you need to account for the thickness of the reticle when reading a mil based scope.
Next we want to shoot at distance and you are saying, “all my dope is in MOA so how do I figure out what to use for 200 to 1000 yards”, which is a good question. If you have numbers for your rifle and your previous scope was adjusted in MOA we have a conversion you can use to keep your same dope only converted to Mils.
To convert your current MOA values to Mils divide the MOA by 3.438 and that will give you the Mils to use. For example if you use 8 MOA at 400 yards you would use 2.3 Mils at the same distance. Do this before you hit the range then simply read your range card in the same fashion as before, only now instead of needing to remember your dope from 0 to roughly 38MOA you can now do it only needed to count to 12 Mils. This same principal goes for windage. There are plenty of charts available to have you windage in Mils like found in the logbooks from Storm Tactical, not to mention the use of ballistic calculators.
Matching your reticle and scope to your adjustments
Now that we have the scope zeroed and we have our dope converted to Mils we are ready to start shooting. The key to using this system in a more efficient way is to be able to read the reticle and understand it matches exactly to your turrets. There are two schools of thought in long range shooting, well I am sure there are many schools of thought, but what I am referring to involves the Wind. There are those who dial their windage, and those who hold off for their windage. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, however for the sake of this conversation we are going to address them the same way.
Whether you hold or dial the number is the same. What you see in the reticle is the exact number you can dial or hold your windage regardless of range. 100% of the information necessary to hit your target is presented in the reticle for a follow up shot. If you have an unknown distance target that you hastily estimate to be 750 yards away and you estimate the wind hold to be 1 Mil, once you fire that shot observe the impact and make the correction. Sounds easy right? Well providing you are straight behind the rifle and you drove the rifle through recoil you should be able to spot your own impacts. If you observe the shot on the UKD target to be 2 Mil low and 2 Mils from the center that is your correction, which could be both dialed or held to correct for. This greatly reduces the time it takes to follow up the shot and greatly increases the accuracy of the correction because you “read” the correction in the reticle.
If you are accustom to dialing your changes, and adjustments its just as simple. If shooting a KD course and the target rises from the berm with a spotter in it, simply read the correction from the spotter to the center of the target and dial the correction exactly like you did at 100 yards. This is where the ability to read the reticle to the 1/10th of Mil plays an important role so that your reading will match your turret adjustments with greater accuracy.
To take this application a step further when used in conjunction with a Mil Reticle equipped spotting scope the shooter will become even more effective by working in one system receiving his corrections in Mils rather than a conversion of Mils to MOA or worse in the distance away from the target based on an estimate of size. You have a calibrated ruler in your scope it’s best to use it to your advantage. In advanced cases a shooter can work with another shooter to use two rifles where the second rifle can engage the target with the correction before the first shooter even reloads providing the first shot is coordinated. Speed is increased two fold along with accuracy thanks to unifying your adjustments.
The Future is Now
If anyone hasn’t notice we are progressing at leaps and bounds in the opening years of the 21st Century. Now we have hand held weather meters, ballistic calculators along with Laser rangefinders to assist in making the shot. Gone are the days of having to determine the long hand of the bullets’ drop and figure how that relates to our scopes adjustments. Today the easiest way to begin is to input your bullet’s caliber, weight and muzzle velocity along with some basic environmental conditions into a ballistic calculator and out comes a spread sheet providing the drop in Mils, wind holds in Mils, and Leads for Moving targets in Mils. It can be mixed and matched to suit your needs, but the flexibility is amazing. There are free online calculators that are extremely effective or you can invest in a hand held PDA with a ballistic program to store and retrieve information for all of your rifles.
The ballistic programs I recommend are from Nightforce with the ExBal engine, Patagonia’s LoadBase 2.0, and Lex Talus’ Field Firing Solutions. All run off a Windows Mobile device and all will allow you to customize the software to match your needs. The best part is they have options to exactly match the scope and reticle you are using. So the output can be tuned to give your scope even more information making you that much more effective.
The golden rule with any PDA based program is, garbage in, garbage out. Using the tools available to get yourself the best information possible is necessary. It is highly recommended you shoot every yard line recording the data to match your rifles characteristics to the output of the ballistic calculator. There is no substitute for rounds expended in practice and training. These programs can not guess what you are using, they must be tuned to your rifle and load and each have a method of “tweaking’ the results to match your rifle downrange.
As I mentioned above, you also have the ability to use Spotting Scopes and Binoculars with Mil Reticles inside to make calling corrections easier by matching your scopes’ reticle. I personally use a Carl Zeiss 65* spotter with a 30X Mil Dot Reticle, however several companies offer reticles at much more reasonable prices. US Optics also offers a spotter with their scope reticles installed to make the decision even easier. For those who don’t want to haul a spotting scope and tripod around, Steiner now makes several models of their Tactical Binoculars with reticles. Steiner calls them the SUMR, or Steiner Universal Mil’ing Reticle. Be sure it is the SUMR reticle and not the artillery based Military Mil Reticle.
Below are a list of links to help understand the Mil, but I recommend avoiding them whenever possible so not to add another layer of confusion if you can help it. Over the last 30 years there have been some serious misconceptions put forward that remain in print today. Myth and legends in shooting grow daily, especially with the advent of the internet, so Keep it Simple and you’ll find you’ll be a lot more effective that way.
For the members that want the write up here it is...
Over the last 2 years we have seen a big increase in the number of scopes that offer their adjustments in Milliradian. I am personally a strong proponent of the use of Mil adjusted scopes with Mil based reticles. I find the graduations to be the right distance for both precision and tactical use, feeling we are all familiar enough with Mil Dot reticles to have a basis for understanding how to move forward with Milliradian based adjustments. The problem for most is the need to assign a value in the same way we assign a value to everything else in our lives. The biggest question most struggle with is, “how much is that at X yards in Inches”? Well the easy answer is, you don’t need to assign a linear distance to it because the angular measurement works so well. In fact, what you see is what you need; it’s really that simple. A Mil is a Mil whether it is 100 yards, or 686.792 yards, the number is the same.
A Brief Background
Before we get started down this road, I need to go over a few numbers related to using a Mil adjusted scope. Now, over the years there has been some confusion in how to term a Mil adjusted scope. For the record, it is not a “Metric” scope or calibrated in meters, nor does it require conversion to yards. By definition a Radian is, “the angle subtended at the center of a circle by an arc that is equal in length to the radius of the circle.” So, a Milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian. When applied to a circle the number we use is 6283.2, and while it has been taught and discussed at length that the number is 6400, that is not correct for a riflescope. Our scopes are calibrated using 6283 and only one scope on the market was ever built using the wrong number, that is the Leupold M3A, who’s reticle is based off the 6400 number… don’t let that fool you, the number we use is the true number of 6283, just because someone did it another way, or has taught 6400, doesn’t mean they are right either.
Now, because a milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian, it doesn’t matter what linear distance you use is, the reticle or adjustments subtends 1/1000 of that number. So you have a milliradian equaling:
1 mile at 1000 miles
1 meter at 1000 meters
1 yard at 1000 yards
10 centimeter at 100 meters
3.6 inches at 100 yards (3600 inches)
Most scopes adjust in .1 MRAD or 1/10th a Milliradian per click, so this allows the shooter to break up the space between each Mil Dot 10 times for an easy corresponding adjustment. The only exception to this I am familiar with is again, Leupold who uses a .05 adjustment. However for us, we will stick to .1MRAD-adjusted scopes as it makes for an easy transition. There are scopes that have their turrets marked as 1 click = 1cm at 100 meters, which is correct, but it also equals .36 per click at 100 yards. The manufacturers are trying to fulfill that need for a linear number. Lately many of the companies have reverted back to the correct marking of .1 mrad per click. This is the point we want to strive to reach, so that we can break a Mil based reticle down into 10th so we can accurately use the reticle and match the adjustments on our scope.
That should tell the shooter all they need to know. There are all sorts of math associated to this, and for those who want to dig deeper, at the end I will provide links for you to further explore the numbers behind this, but for the most part, this is all we need to know to get started. There is really no point in confusing yourself if you don’t have to. Stick to thinking a Mil is a Mil regardless if we hold or adjust, no matter how close or how far.
Know your Scope
Moving forward, we now have a Milliradian adjusted scope with .1MRAD clicks, and we have a Mil Based reticle, so what else do we need? What we need is to understand how our scope works, whether or not the reticle is located in the First Focal Plane or the Second Focal Plane. Now, both have their advantages and disadvantages based on their use and the user, but for the most part I recommend the First Focal Plane Scope (FFP) over the Second Focal Plane (SFP) scope. The reason being is I want my reticle sub tensions to be correct on every power within my zoom range. With a SFP scope the reticle only correctly subtends at 1 power, and I highly recommend checking to confirm that power on your own. Using the numbers the above you can find out which is the correct power by lining up the Mil Dots to intersect either 3.6” at 100 yards or 10 centimeters at 100 meters.
So, the first thing we are going to do is zero our new scope. We get in a nice position behind the rifle, obeying all the fundamentals of marksmanship and we shoot the best 3 shot group we can at the center of the target. Looking through our scope after shooting this group we ask ourselves, “How much adjustment do I need”? I know a lot of people like the sight in targets with the squares that are either a ½” or 1” so you know how much to adjust your scope, and right now you are saying we need to convert to figure out what .1MRAD means at 100 yards in inches, right? Wrong, we don’t care how many inches anything is, we simply look through our scope and read the reticle. This is key because learning to read a Mil Dot reticle to the 1/10th of a Mil will pay huge dividends down the road. This you will see again.
Reading the reticle I would estimate the shot group is 1.3 Mils Low and 1.9 Mils to the right of center. This would mean we need an adjustment of 13 clicks if we spoke in that terminology, but since we don’t we need 1.3 Mils up and 1.9 Mils Left to get this group in the center. That should be the end of the process, in fact you can even zero a scope faster if you like, but this method works very well. Remember, we are breaking up the space between the centers of the reticle to the center of the Mil Dot, not the edge, as that has a value too. Most Mil Dots are .2 Mils wide, but check your manual or online schematic at the manufacturer’s website as they could be .25 mils wide and in the case of Hash Mark type reticles even less as you need to account for the thickness of the reticle when reading a mil based scope.
Next we want to shoot at distance and you are saying, “all my dope is in MOA so how do I figure out what to use for 200 to 1000 yards”, which is a good question. If you have numbers for your rifle and your previous scope was adjusted in MOA we have a conversion you can use to keep your same dope only converted to Mils.
To convert your current MOA values to Mils divide the MOA by 3.438 and that will give you the Mils to use. For example if you use 8 MOA at 400 yards you would use 2.3 Mils at the same distance. Do this before you hit the range then simply read your range card in the same fashion as before, only now instead of needing to remember your dope from 0 to roughly 38MOA you can now do it only needed to count to 12 Mils. This same principal goes for windage. There are plenty of charts available to have you windage in Mils like found in the logbooks from Storm Tactical, not to mention the use of ballistic calculators.
Matching your reticle and scope to your adjustments
Now that we have the scope zeroed and we have our dope converted to Mils we are ready to start shooting. The key to using this system in a more efficient way is to be able to read the reticle and understand it matches exactly to your turrets. There are two schools of thought in long range shooting, well I am sure there are many schools of thought, but what I am referring to involves the Wind. There are those who dial their windage, and those who hold off for their windage. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, however for the sake of this conversation we are going to address them the same way.
Whether you hold or dial the number is the same. What you see in the reticle is the exact number you can dial or hold your windage regardless of range. 100% of the information necessary to hit your target is presented in the reticle for a follow up shot. If you have an unknown distance target that you hastily estimate to be 750 yards away and you estimate the wind hold to be 1 Mil, once you fire that shot observe the impact and make the correction. Sounds easy right? Well providing you are straight behind the rifle and you drove the rifle through recoil you should be able to spot your own impacts. If you observe the shot on the UKD target to be 2 Mil low and 2 Mils from the center that is your correction, which could be both dialed or held to correct for. This greatly reduces the time it takes to follow up the shot and greatly increases the accuracy of the correction because you “read” the correction in the reticle.
If you are accustom to dialing your changes, and adjustments its just as simple. If shooting a KD course and the target rises from the berm with a spotter in it, simply read the correction from the spotter to the center of the target and dial the correction exactly like you did at 100 yards. This is where the ability to read the reticle to the 1/10th of Mil plays an important role so that your reading will match your turret adjustments with greater accuracy.
To take this application a step further when used in conjunction with a Mil Reticle equipped spotting scope the shooter will become even more effective by working in one system receiving his corrections in Mils rather than a conversion of Mils to MOA or worse in the distance away from the target based on an estimate of size. You have a calibrated ruler in your scope it’s best to use it to your advantage. In advanced cases a shooter can work with another shooter to use two rifles where the second rifle can engage the target with the correction before the first shooter even reloads providing the first shot is coordinated. Speed is increased two fold along with accuracy thanks to unifying your adjustments.
The Future is Now
If anyone hasn’t notice we are progressing at leaps and bounds in the opening years of the 21st Century. Now we have hand held weather meters, ballistic calculators along with Laser rangefinders to assist in making the shot. Gone are the days of having to determine the long hand of the bullets’ drop and figure how that relates to our scopes adjustments. Today the easiest way to begin is to input your bullet’s caliber, weight and muzzle velocity along with some basic environmental conditions into a ballistic calculator and out comes a spread sheet providing the drop in Mils, wind holds in Mils, and Leads for Moving targets in Mils. It can be mixed and matched to suit your needs, but the flexibility is amazing. There are free online calculators that are extremely effective or you can invest in a hand held PDA with a ballistic program to store and retrieve information for all of your rifles.
The ballistic programs I recommend are from Nightforce with the ExBal engine, Patagonia’s LoadBase 2.0, and Lex Talus’ Field Firing Solutions. All run off a Windows Mobile device and all will allow you to customize the software to match your needs. The best part is they have options to exactly match the scope and reticle you are using. So the output can be tuned to give your scope even more information making you that much more effective.
The golden rule with any PDA based program is, garbage in, garbage out. Using the tools available to get yourself the best information possible is necessary. It is highly recommended you shoot every yard line recording the data to match your rifles characteristics to the output of the ballistic calculator. There is no substitute for rounds expended in practice and training. These programs can not guess what you are using, they must be tuned to your rifle and load and each have a method of “tweaking’ the results to match your rifle downrange.
As I mentioned above, you also have the ability to use Spotting Scopes and Binoculars with Mil Reticles inside to make calling corrections easier by matching your scopes’ reticle. I personally use a Carl Zeiss 65* spotter with a 30X Mil Dot Reticle, however several companies offer reticles at much more reasonable prices. US Optics also offers a spotter with their scope reticles installed to make the decision even easier. For those who don’t want to haul a spotting scope and tripod around, Steiner now makes several models of their Tactical Binoculars with reticles. Steiner calls them the SUMR, or Steiner Universal Mil’ing Reticle. Be sure it is the SUMR reticle and not the artillery based Military Mil Reticle.
Below are a list of links to help understand the Mil, but I recommend avoiding them whenever possible so not to add another layer of confusion if you can help it. Over the last 30 years there have been some serious misconceptions put forward that remain in print today. Myth and legends in shooting grow daily, especially with the advent of the internet, so Keep it Simple and you’ll find you’ll be a lot more effective that way.
Re: mil to mil
One thing I continue to find difficult is making good Mil adjustment calls without the benefit of spotting optics with a Mil reticle. I just multiply the target range to the nearest 50 yards by 3.5 to figure the "how big is a Mil @" value, but the nearly 1:1 relationship of MOA to inches seems better suited for this particular application. If anyone's got a good Mil spotting trick, I'd love to hear it.
One thing I continue to find difficult is making good Mil adjustment calls without the benefit of spotting optics with a Mil reticle. I just multiply the target range to the nearest 50 yards by 3.5 to figure the "how big is a Mil @" value, but the nearly 1:1 relationship of MOA to inches seems better suited for this particular application. If anyone's got a good Mil spotting trick, I'd love to hear it.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One thing I continue to find difficult is making good Mil adjustment calls without the benefit of spotting optics with a Mil reticle. I just multiply the target range to the nearest 50 yards by 3.5 to figure the "how big is a Mil @" value, but the nearly 1:1 relationship of MOA to inches seems better suited for this particular application. If anyone's got a good Mil spotting trick, I'd love to hear it.</div></div>
I have no idea what this means... ? Are you saying when converting from Mils to MOA... then I use 1 MOA per .25 Mil when you dial.
Otherwise you read it and move on. Don't think in anything but mils, and simply use that. If you find you need to dial, as in elevation, the 1 MOA per .25 Mil works, it works wind wise also.
You have a reticle / ruler right in front of your eye, there is no reason not to use it via the value it presents. Why would you use a normal ruler in inches and then try to relate it to something else. The Ruler in this case is Mils, so use Mils, it works any range providing the reticle is correct.
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One thing I continue to find difficult is making good Mil adjustment calls without the benefit of spotting optics with a Mil reticle. I just multiply the target range to the nearest 50 yards by 3.5 to figure the "how big is a Mil @" value, but the nearly 1:1 relationship of MOA to inches seems better suited for this particular application. If anyone's got a good Mil spotting trick, I'd love to hear it.</div></div>
I have no idea what this means... ? Are you saying when converting from Mils to MOA... then I use 1 MOA per .25 Mil when you dial.
Otherwise you read it and move on. Don't think in anything but mils, and simply use that. If you find you need to dial, as in elevation, the 1 MOA per .25 Mil works, it works wind wise also.
You have a reticle / ruler right in front of your eye, there is no reason not to use it via the value it presents. Why would you use a normal ruler in inches and then try to relate it to something else. The Ruler in this case is Mils, so use Mils, it works any range providing the reticle is correct.
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time.
Re: mil to mil
I completely understand and im going to invest in a mil-mil scope once i get the money!
I completely understand and im going to invest in a mil-mil scope once i get the money!
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time. </div></div>
Here's the scenario: I'm using a spotting scope without a reticle; you're shooting at a 12" square at 770 yards. I spot a miss a target width or so to the right (never happen in real life, I know), but I need to be able to quickly tell you how many clicks to dial in order to push your next shot to 18" the left. To do that I need to know the linear measure of a Mil at that distance, and math seems unavoidable. OTOH, I'd instantly know that two MOA and change is going to get you on target. I get the part about spotting with a reticle making the linear value irrelevant.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time. </div></div>
Here's the scenario: I'm using a spotting scope without a reticle; you're shooting at a 12" square at 770 yards. I spot a miss a target width or so to the right (never happen in real life, I know), but I need to be able to quickly tell you how many clicks to dial in order to push your next shot to 18" the left. To do that I need to know the linear measure of a Mil at that distance, and math seems unavoidable. OTOH, I'd instantly know that two MOA and change is going to get you on target. I get the part about spotting with a reticle making the linear value irrelevant.
Re: mil to mil
forget about how many inchs to the right it is or how far away it is . you fire your shot at 770yards or whatever distance you want, you see the splash/miss to the right, using the mil reticle you see it looks like .5mil right so all you do is hold or dial .5 mil left. simple. no need to worry about inchs yards or anything.read what you see off the reticle and hold or dial exactly that. My bad, i just seen he said his spot scope had no reticle
forget about how many inchs to the right it is or how far away it is . you fire your shot at 770yards or whatever distance you want, you see the splash/miss to the right, using the mil reticle you see it looks like .5mil right so all you do is hold or dial .5 mil left. simple. no need to worry about inchs yards or anything.read what you see off the reticle and hold or dial exactly that. My bad, i just seen he said his spot scope had no reticle
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time. </div></div>
Here's the scenario: I'm using a spotting scope without a reticle; you're shooting at a 12" square at 770 yards. I spot a miss a target width or so to the right (never happen in real life, I know), but I need to be able to quickly tell you how many clicks to dial in order to push your next shot to 18" the left. To do that I need to know the linear measure of a Mil at that distance, and math seems unavoidable. OTOH, I'd instantly know that two MOA and change is going to get you on target. I get the part about spotting with a reticle making the linear value irrelevant.</div></div>
The easy answer, spend the money get a spotter with a mil reticle. Bushnell has one.
You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference.
If you want to work easier you need the right tools, sure a mechanic can loosen a lug nut with a monkey wrench but the right tool, like an impact wrench and socket is easier. Get the right tool.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time. </div></div>
Here's the scenario: I'm using a spotting scope without a reticle; you're shooting at a 12" square at 770 yards. I spot a miss a target width or so to the right (never happen in real life, I know), but I need to be able to quickly tell you how many clicks to dial in order to push your next shot to 18" the left. To do that I need to know the linear measure of a Mil at that distance, and math seems unavoidable. OTOH, I'd instantly know that two MOA and change is going to get you on target. I get the part about spotting with a reticle making the linear value irrelevant.</div></div>
The easy answer, spend the money get a spotter with a mil reticle. Bushnell has one.
You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference.
If you want to work easier you need the right tools, sure a mechanic can loosen a lug nut with a monkey wrench but the right tool, like an impact wrench and socket is easier. Get the right tool.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time. </div></div>
Here's the scenario: I'm using a spotting scope without a reticle; you're shooting at a 12" square at 770 yards. I spot a miss a target width or so to the right (never happen in real life, I know), but I need to be able to quickly tell you how many clicks to dial in order to push your next shot to 18" the left. To do that I need to know the linear measure of a Mil at that distance, and math seems unavoidable. OTOH, I'd instantly know that two MOA and change is going to get you on target. I get the part about spotting with a reticle making the linear value irrelevant.</div></div>
The easy answer, spend the money get a spotter with a mil reticle. Bushnell has one.
You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference.
If you want to work easier you need the right tools, sure a mechanic can loosen a lug nut with a monkey wrench but the right tool, like an impact wrench and socket is easier. Get the right tool. </div></div>
Good answer
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You are clearly overcomplicating it... a mil is a mil regardless, the linear value is a complete waste of time. </div></div>
Here's the scenario: I'm using a spotting scope without a reticle; you're shooting at a 12" square at 770 yards. I spot a miss a target width or so to the right (never happen in real life, I know), but I need to be able to quickly tell you how many clicks to dial in order to push your next shot to 18" the left. To do that I need to know the linear measure of a Mil at that distance, and math seems unavoidable. OTOH, I'd instantly know that two MOA and change is going to get you on target. I get the part about spotting with a reticle making the linear value irrelevant.</div></div>
The easy answer, spend the money get a spotter with a mil reticle. Bushnell has one.
You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference.
If you want to work easier you need the right tools, sure a mechanic can loosen a lug nut with a monkey wrench but the right tool, like an impact wrench and socket is easier. Get the right tool. </div></div>
Good answer
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adm09_003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See thats where im confused...i dont think ive ever had to convert anything...you find out how far your target is then dile your dope? </div></div>
What are you using to range the target? If you are using your reticle, a MOA based reticle is easier mathematically to do the initial ranging. The problem is the mix-matched reticles to knobs. If you shoot and miss, your spotter tells you how far off you were (i.e. .5 mils low), you have to do math to determine how to dial for correction. If your knobs matched whatever reticle you and your spotter are using you could just dial up exactly what they called without doing the math.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adm09_003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">See thats where im confused...i dont think ive ever had to convert anything...you find out how far your target is then dile your dope? </div></div>
What are you using to range the target? If you are using your reticle, a MOA based reticle is easier mathematically to do the initial ranging. The problem is the mix-matched reticles to knobs. If you shoot and miss, your spotter tells you how far off you were (i.e. .5 mils low), you have to do math to determine how to dial for correction. If your knobs matched whatever reticle you and your spotter are using you could just dial up exactly what they called without doing the math.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference...
</div></div>
Thanks for the detailed answer. I'm looking forward to the day that I "see" in mils; the MOA/.25 thing will be useful until then.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference...
</div></div>
Thanks for the detailed answer. I'm looking forward to the day that I "see" in mils; the MOA/.25 thing will be useful until then.
Re: mil to mil
This is A truly excellent explanation. It also solved A problem I was having with my Leopold mk4 scope. I guess I should spend more time reading the instructions. I thought the turrets where in 5mm increments not .05 mils and have been searching for A mil - mil scope when I already had one. you said it when you said "know your scope". thank you, and yes feeling pretty stupid right now.
This is A truly excellent explanation. It also solved A problem I was having with my Leopold mk4 scope. I guess I should spend more time reading the instructions. I thought the turrets where in 5mm increments not .05 mils and have been searching for A mil - mil scope when I already had one. you said it when you said "know your scope". thank you, and yes feeling pretty stupid right now.
Re: mil to mil
Mil/mil is the way to go. You can keep it straight once you get to the range a few times with that technique.
I have mil/mil scopes on my personal rifles, and have my data books to reflect.
My issue rifle is Mil/MOA, and we are taught, tested and expected to follow that school of thought in our books. The most confusing and seemingly unnecessary technique is dialing mins and holding off in mils, shots called in mins. Fine and dandy, works. but MIL/MIL is easier for me to grasp for some reason.
It is very easy to overcomplicate the difference in the two.
good times.
Mil/mil is the way to go. You can keep it straight once you get to the range a few times with that technique.
I have mil/mil scopes on my personal rifles, and have my data books to reflect.
My issue rifle is Mil/MOA, and we are taught, tested and expected to follow that school of thought in our books. The most confusing and seemingly unnecessary technique is dialing mins and holding off in mils, shots called in mins. Fine and dandy, works. but MIL/MIL is easier for me to grasp for some reason.
It is very easy to overcomplicate the difference in the two.
good times.
Re: mil to mil
Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking
Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking </div></div>The OP said that he uses MOA, not that he didn't know what a Mil was. All militaries teach to a common denominator, which in the case of marksmanship is just enough to accomplish the task of hitting things.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking </div></div>The OP said that he uses MOA, not that he didn't know what a Mil was. All militaries teach to a common denominator, which in the case of marksmanship is just enough to accomplish the task of hitting things.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking</div></div> I'm taking it from my own former military perspective. We used the Unertl which had a mildot reticle and aside from the BDC elevation, moa adjustments. That's all we used. We didn't focus on any other types of scopes on the market because they weren't available, but I can assure you that we were masters of using both on the same platform. I'm sure the OP is the same.
As Graham said, the OP was asking "what is a mil/mil scope" and what the advantages to it were, not "what is a milliradian". Lowlight's first post addressed exactly what he was asking.
When you have military shooters start branching into the civilian portion of the shooting world, with vast amounts of equipment out there that were never presented to us in the past, it is pretty overwhelming at first. I speak from my own experience on that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking</div></div> I'm taking it from my own former military perspective. We used the Unertl which had a mildot reticle and aside from the BDC elevation, moa adjustments. That's all we used. We didn't focus on any other types of scopes on the market because they weren't available, but I can assure you that we were masters of using both on the same platform. I'm sure the OP is the same.
As Graham said, the OP was asking "what is a mil/mil scope" and what the advantages to it were, not "what is a milliradian". Lowlight's first post addressed exactly what he was asking.
When you have military shooters start branching into the civilian portion of the shooting world, with vast amounts of equipment out there that were never presented to us in the past, it is pretty overwhelming at first. I speak from my own experience on that.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference...
</div></div>
Thanks for the detailed answer. I'm looking forward to the day that I "see" in mils; the MOA/.25 thing will be useful until then. </div></div>
If you don't use it, you will forget it. Make the clean break and don't look back. Frank and I had this very same discussion about 2 years ago. Just o it, life is easier.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fusiachi</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...You're asking for someone to deliver experience and it doesn't work that way. I can spot with a spotter with no reticle and call the shot in mils, why, I practice and understand what a mil looks like. You have no choice but to do the long hand math. I use 1 MOA per .25 mils, so if you know the target is 12" @ 770 yards you know you need about .3 - .4 mils to adjust, off the cuff. But for me it's about the look not the linear.
Its a learned thing, sitting behind a spotter all day and seeing it.you begin to understand how things look and you calibrate your eye building a point of reference...
</div></div>
Thanks for the detailed answer. I'm looking forward to the day that I "see" in mils; the MOA/.25 thing will be useful until then. </div></div>
If you don't use it, you will forget it. Make the clean break and don't look back. Frank and I had this very same discussion about 2 years ago. Just o it, life is easier.
Re: mil to mil
I was in the same boat as the OP when the mil/mil setups started getting popular. I was over-complicating the issue and wanted to bang my head against the wall. I kept thinking.."It really cant be that simple". But it is. Once it clicked, it all made perfect sense. Now I just need to get a mil/mil scope, spotter, and convert my dope from moa to mils.
I was in the same boat as the OP when the mil/mil setups started getting popular. I was over-complicating the issue and wanted to bang my head against the wall. I kept thinking.."It really cant be that simple". But it is. Once it clicked, it all made perfect sense. Now I just need to get a mil/mil scope, spotter, and convert my dope from moa to mils.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking </div></div>
Follow his link to his company, under "About us" he states "Advanced Designated Marksman". Sniper is a title I would be very careful about tossing around on this website if I were him, like putting blood in the water.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking </div></div>
Follow his link to his company, under "About us" he states "Advanced Designated Marksman". Sniper is a title I would be very careful about tossing around on this website if I were him, like putting blood in the water.
Re: mil to mil
I could be wrong but just the way he throws out Iraq sniper makes me wonder if he is in any unit at all. It raised the BS meter. Even the SDM program gives the end user much of this back ground. I know some units that just picked a Joe to be a SDM downrange and handed them an M14 EBR with little then look through the glass and shoot but that was poor training and rare. He should at the very least know a mk4 scope which is almost univerally used in the SDM role. Further if he was an SDM he would know that that is definitely nota sniper. They are tasked differently and have very different roles on the battlefield
I could be wrong but just the way he throws out Iraq sniper makes me wonder if he is in any unit at all. It raised the BS meter. Even the SDM program gives the end user much of this back ground. I know some units that just picked a Joe to be a SDM downrange and handed them an M14 EBR with little then look through the glass and shoot but that was poor training and rare. He should at the very least know a mk4 scope which is almost univerally used in the SDM role. Further if he was an SDM he would know that that is definitely nota sniper. They are tasked differently and have very different roles on the battlefield
Re: mil to mil
Why muddy up this post with the Sniper/SDM bullshit. The guy had a ligit question that is useful to all of us. I've been in the game a long time, sniper wise, target shooting and hunting, including teaching machine gun schools using both mils and moa.
In reading these post, I've learned a lot. But this sniper, SDM, is bullshit. It always drifts to "you're not a sniper because you didnt do X, or didn't go to Y School.
I wished the term "sniper" never had cropped up, really, how many of us shoot little birds with rifles.
Want to debate what a sniper is and what it isn't, start another topic. But as an old MOA/MOA shooter, I want to read more about Mils, and use them on something besides Machine Guns.
Now if I tripped someone's BS meter, then you need to understand one thing, I don't give a rats ass.
I realize I'm an old has been, but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn about Mils and miling.
Why muddy up this post with the Sniper/SDM bullshit. The guy had a ligit question that is useful to all of us. I've been in the game a long time, sniper wise, target shooting and hunting, including teaching machine gun schools using both mils and moa.
In reading these post, I've learned a lot. But this sniper, SDM, is bullshit. It always drifts to "you're not a sniper because you didnt do X, or didn't go to Y School.
I wished the term "sniper" never had cropped up, really, how many of us shoot little birds with rifles.
Want to debate what a sniper is and what it isn't, start another topic. But as an old MOA/MOA shooter, I want to read more about Mils, and use them on something besides Machine Guns.
Now if I tripped someone's BS meter, then you need to understand one thing, I don't give a rats ass.
I realize I'm an old has been, but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn about Mils and miling.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why muddy up this post with the Sniper/SDM bullshit. The guy had a ligit question that is useful to all of us. I've been in the game a long time, sniper wise, target shooting and hunting, including teaching machine gun schools using both mils and moa.
In reading these post, I've learned a lot. But this sniper, SDM, is bullshit. It always drifts to "you're not a sniper because you didnt do X, or didn't go to Y School.
<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">I wished the term "sniper" never had cropped up, really, how many of us shoot little birds with rifles.</span></span>
Want to debate what a sniper is and what it isn't, start another topic. But as an old MOA/MOA shooter, I want to read more about Mils, and use them on something besides Machine Guns.
Now if I tripped someone's BS meter, then you need to understand one thing, I don't give a rats ass.
I realize I'm an old has been, but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn about Mils and miling. </div></div>
...do grouse and crow count?
What if they were all headshot?
If 'yes' then I just got my "sniper" tag...and with a stock .22LR at that!
<span style="font-size: 8pt"><span style="color: #FFFFFF">I keed, I keed!</span></span>
Totally agree with the rest of your post, though.
Sure gets distracting and unnecessary.
Cheers for the vent!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why muddy up this post with the Sniper/SDM bullshit. The guy had a ligit question that is useful to all of us. I've been in the game a long time, sniper wise, target shooting and hunting, including teaching machine gun schools using both mils and moa.
In reading these post, I've learned a lot. But this sniper, SDM, is bullshit. It always drifts to "you're not a sniper because you didnt do X, or didn't go to Y School.
<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">I wished the term "sniper" never had cropped up, really, how many of us shoot little birds with rifles.</span></span>
Want to debate what a sniper is and what it isn't, start another topic. But as an old MOA/MOA shooter, I want to read more about Mils, and use them on something besides Machine Guns.
Now if I tripped someone's BS meter, then you need to understand one thing, I don't give a rats ass.
I realize I'm an old has been, but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn about Mils and miling. </div></div>
What if they were all headshot?
If 'yes' then I just got my "sniper" tag...and with a stock .22LR at that!
Totally agree with the rest of your post, though.
Sure gets distracting and unnecessary.
Cheers for the vent!
Re: mil to mil
The military teaches you what you need to get the job done. I would only be shocked if someone in the military called it a "gun".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking </div></div>
The military teaches you what you need to get the job done. I would only be shocked if someone in the military called it a "gun".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jig Stick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesnt anybody find the original post a little wierd? The original poster said he is a military sniper. Does the military really not expose their snipers to both MOA and MIL learning materials during training? Just seems odd that they wouldnt. Im not in the military obviously, and i dont know what material is taught in military marksmanship programs. I just found it a little shocking </div></div>
Re: mil to mil
I see you have a Rem 700 SPS. Beautiful rifle. What caliber?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adm09_003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have tried to google it and searched a little on here but i am a military sniper that uses the moa platform...what is a mil to mil scope and are they better? Also how do you calculate for drop? Any teachings would be great!! </div></div>
I see you have a Rem 700 SPS. Beautiful rifle. What caliber?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adm09_003</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have tried to google it and searched a little on here but i am a military sniper that uses the moa platform...what is a mil to mil scope and are they better? Also how do you calculate for drop? Any teachings would be great!! </div></div>
Re: mil to mil
I teach both MOA and mils; and, I like aspects of each. I'd rather find range in mils; but, I'd rather favor wind in MOA. For me, calculating wind favor using a constant of 10 is faster than a number between 33 and 36. I can do it in my head, while on the scope. Also, while I accept that Lowlight knows what's better for himself and his students, I believe "thinking" favors in inches is faster than reading mils, or MOA from the reticle; and, therefore, I usually convert MOA to inches at distance. I convert to inches from MOA as this too is faster for me than converting from mils. Yes, I know conversion to inches from either MOA or mils is not necessary, if you've got the time to read, and that's a big if. As far as BDC goes, mils or MOA, it just does not matter, however, I'd prefer to click to distance in either case rather than holdover, for a multitude of reasons, accuracy being at the top of the list. BTW, the USAMU SDM course teaches MOA, since the graduations found on the A4's BDC are in MOA. At any rate, we all learn differently, the only thing for sure, you need to know how to use what you've got, and that means quickly too. After all, you may never have a second chance to make a first impression. My suggestion, learn mils and MOA.
I teach both MOA and mils; and, I like aspects of each. I'd rather find range in mils; but, I'd rather favor wind in MOA. For me, calculating wind favor using a constant of 10 is faster than a number between 33 and 36. I can do it in my head, while on the scope. Also, while I accept that Lowlight knows what's better for himself and his students, I believe "thinking" favors in inches is faster than reading mils, or MOA from the reticle; and, therefore, I usually convert MOA to inches at distance. I convert to inches from MOA as this too is faster for me than converting from mils. Yes, I know conversion to inches from either MOA or mils is not necessary, if you've got the time to read, and that's a big if. As far as BDC goes, mils or MOA, it just does not matter, however, I'd prefer to click to distance in either case rather than holdover, for a multitude of reasons, accuracy being at the top of the list. BTW, the USAMU SDM course teaches MOA, since the graduations found on the A4's BDC are in MOA. At any rate, we all learn differently, the only thing for sure, you need to know how to use what you've got, and that means quickly too. After all, you may never have a second chance to make a first impression. My suggestion, learn mils and MOA.
Re: mil to mil
Reading this, and other sources on the topic got me interested again. I've taught mils in machine gun schools, and MOA in Sniper Schools.
I went and re-read Gen (then Major) Hatchers "Machine Guns" 1917 and still feel mils are better for machine guns and arty, but I think I'll stick to MOA for rifles since I'm not (and wont be again) involved in the military.
I really doubt I'll be telling some one how to lay in a gun, tgt 1 is 5 mils left of X or Y is X degrees magnetic to your front.
I've never been real good at favors, I have to grab for knobs and in rifle shooting I think in Minutes or inches. Guess its how you been taught.
But this topic did get me to thinking back to basic where we were taught range estimation, using fingers 'n such to estimate range. That was the average finger at 15 inches from the eye is 50 mils. And the average soldier was 19 inches shoulder to shoulder.
Fine and dandy, Average Huh? Then the suckers sent me to war fighting midgets. Skinny little suckers that were no where near average.
Reading this, and other sources on the topic got me interested again. I've taught mils in machine gun schools, and MOA in Sniper Schools.
I went and re-read Gen (then Major) Hatchers "Machine Guns" 1917 and still feel mils are better for machine guns and arty, but I think I'll stick to MOA for rifles since I'm not (and wont be again) involved in the military.
I really doubt I'll be telling some one how to lay in a gun, tgt 1 is 5 mils left of X or Y is X degrees magnetic to your front.
I've never been real good at favors, I have to grab for knobs and in rifle shooting I think in Minutes or inches. Guess its how you been taught.
But this topic did get me to thinking back to basic where we were taught range estimation, using fingers 'n such to estimate range. That was the average finger at 15 inches from the eye is 50 mils. And the average soldier was 19 inches shoulder to shoulder.
Fine and dandy, Average Huh? Then the suckers sent me to war fighting midgets. Skinny little suckers that were no where near average.
Re: mil to mil
Sterling, this is why people get confused....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather find range in mils; but, I'd rather favor wind in MOA. For me, calculating wind favor using a constant of 10 is faster than a number between 33 and 36.</div></div>
What I gather is you have a Mil reticle and MOA turrets and you dial wind. I can respect the fact that this may work for you but this is unbelievably confusing. The mil reticle is in front of your face, essentially it is a ruler and all you have to do is measure and adjust. Toss in the MOA aspect and it becomes a math problem. This is what confuses shooters.
As for hold overs and hold under, it is mission specific. Sometimes you don't have time to dial. Head down to rifles only and try the moving chaos drill. It is extremely difficult if you dial, though even novice shooters can shoot it using hold over/under.
The US military is slowly doing away with MOA. Ever year I see more and more Mil/Mil optics. Last week we had a class of DM types with M110 and mil/mil optics on top.
From a personal perspective, I have been doing this for a mere 15 years and as soon as I learned Mil/Mil my ability to engage targets in a dynamic situation became a hell of a lot easier.
Sterling, this is why people get confused....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather find range in mils; but, I'd rather favor wind in MOA. For me, calculating wind favor using a constant of 10 is faster than a number between 33 and 36.</div></div>
What I gather is you have a Mil reticle and MOA turrets and you dial wind. I can respect the fact that this may work for you but this is unbelievably confusing. The mil reticle is in front of your face, essentially it is a ruler and all you have to do is measure and adjust. Toss in the MOA aspect and it becomes a math problem. This is what confuses shooters.
As for hold overs and hold under, it is mission specific. Sometimes you don't have time to dial. Head down to rifles only and try the moving chaos drill. It is extremely difficult if you dial, though even novice shooters can shoot it using hold over/under.
The US military is slowly doing away with MOA. Ever year I see more and more Mil/Mil optics. Last week we had a class of DM types with M110 and mil/mil optics on top.
From a personal perspective, I have been doing this for a mere 15 years and as soon as I learned Mil/Mil my ability to engage targets in a dynamic situation became a hell of a lot easier.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sterling, this is why people get confused....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather find range in mils; but, I'd rather favor wind in MOA. For me, calculating wind favor using a constant of 10 is faster than a number between 33 and 36.</div></div>
What I gather is you have a Mil reticle and MOA turrets and you dial wind. I can respect the fact that this may work for you but this is unbelievably confusing. The mil reticle is in front of your face, essentially it is a ruler and all you have to do is measure and adjust. Toss in the MOA aspect and it becomes a math problem. This is what confuses shooters.
As for hold overs and hold under, it is mission specific. Sometimes you don't have time to dial. Head down to rifles only and try the moving chaos drill. It is extremely difficult if you dial, though even novice shooters can shoot it using hold over/under.
The US military is slowly doing away with MOA. Ever year I see more and more Mil/Mil optics. Last week we had a class of DM types with M110 and mil/mil optics on top.
From a personal perspective, I have been doing this for a mere 15 years and as soon as I learned Mil/Mil my ability to engage targets in a dynamic situation became a hell of a lot easier.
</div></div>
No, I do not dial for wind when using a scope; I favor, since it's fast. For HP, using irons, I dial because it's more accurate.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sterling, this is why people get confused....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather find range in mils; but, I'd rather favor wind in MOA. For me, calculating wind favor using a constant of 10 is faster than a number between 33 and 36.</div></div>
What I gather is you have a Mil reticle and MOA turrets and you dial wind. I can respect the fact that this may work for you but this is unbelievably confusing. The mil reticle is in front of your face, essentially it is a ruler and all you have to do is measure and adjust. Toss in the MOA aspect and it becomes a math problem. This is what confuses shooters.
As for hold overs and hold under, it is mission specific. Sometimes you don't have time to dial. Head down to rifles only and try the moving chaos drill. It is extremely difficult if you dial, though even novice shooters can shoot it using hold over/under.
The US military is slowly doing away with MOA. Ever year I see more and more Mil/Mil optics. Last week we had a class of DM types with M110 and mil/mil optics on top.
From a personal perspective, I have been doing this for a mere 15 years and as soon as I learned Mil/Mil my ability to engage targets in a dynamic situation became a hell of a lot easier.
</div></div>
No, I do not dial for wind when using a scope; I favor, since it's fast. For HP, using irons, I dial because it's more accurate.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather favor wind in MOA.</div></div>
Please explain how you "favor" in MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather favor wind in MOA.</div></div>
Please explain how you "favor" in MOA?
S
Seth8541
Guest
Re: mil to mil
He doesn't dial his windage, he holds off "x" inches or MOA to compensate for the wind. I do the same. Much faster, in the time it takes you to dial, the wind can change. So, as opposed to spending your day at the range turning knobs, you just hold or "favor" the windage.
He doesn't dial his windage, he holds off "x" inches or MOA to compensate for the wind. I do the same. Much faster, in the time it takes you to dial, the wind can change. So, as opposed to spending your day at the range turning knobs, you just hold or "favor" the windage.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather favor wind in MOA.</div></div>
Please explain how you "favor" in MOA?</div></div>
Here's an example for a 600 yard shot and a full value wind. The wind is raising dust and blowing paper. It's something between 8 and 12 mph. Averaging this to 10 mph, I'll divide 600 by 100, multiply by 10, and divide by constant of 10. The answer is 6 MOA, or 36 inches. If I was using a scope, with some sort of MOA graduated reticle and MOA turrets, I could dial, counting clicks. I could read ticks on the reticle, or I could just favor what I perceive is 36 inches, which is exactly what I do, and for the reason Seth 8451 alluded to. BTW, the reason I convert to inches is that I cannot perceive what 6 MOA looks like at 600 yards. My brain is not programed for that.
Now, the reason I don't try to favor from a mil calculation is pretty simple, the constant for my wind formula would be a number between 33 and 37. To divide 60 by this would take some time. If I did do this, I'd most certainly round the answer from let's say, 1.8 mils to 2 mils; and, I would favor counting reticle ticks. I would not favor mind's eye in inches since that would take even more time to multiply 2 times 3.6 and then again times 6, if I were to chunk it.
Chunking MOA to inches is easier for me. In the example given, I'd just think what's the value of one MOA at 600 yards and then multiply by 6. I can do all of these calculations in my head with enough accuracy to get a good hit quickly, in fact in a heart beat. With mils, I need more time, or for speed, a calculator. Of course, that takes my eye off the reticle as well as the target, which, for a multitude of reasons, is never a good idea.
For real speed, I'd replace the conventional scope with an ACOG. It's range finding/bullet drop compensating reticle is as fast as I've yet seen. The bottom-line here is that at any distance beyond intuitive, that's to say, any distance where actually understanding where the barrel is pointed is important to get a good hit, a shooter needs to know how to properly adjust sights to counter for drag, gravity, weather effects, slope, and target movement.
One more thing, since sight misalignment or inconsistent control of the rifle creates angular error which increases with distance, a shooter would be wise to perfect his execution of the two firing tasks, while working on sight adjustment knowledge. Remember, shooting is an integrated act.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd rather favor wind in MOA.</div></div>
Please explain how you "favor" in MOA?</div></div>
Here's an example for a 600 yard shot and a full value wind. The wind is raising dust and blowing paper. It's something between 8 and 12 mph. Averaging this to 10 mph, I'll divide 600 by 100, multiply by 10, and divide by constant of 10. The answer is 6 MOA, or 36 inches. If I was using a scope, with some sort of MOA graduated reticle and MOA turrets, I could dial, counting clicks. I could read ticks on the reticle, or I could just favor what I perceive is 36 inches, which is exactly what I do, and for the reason Seth 8451 alluded to. BTW, the reason I convert to inches is that I cannot perceive what 6 MOA looks like at 600 yards. My brain is not programed for that.
Now, the reason I don't try to favor from a mil calculation is pretty simple, the constant for my wind formula would be a number between 33 and 37. To divide 60 by this would take some time. If I did do this, I'd most certainly round the answer from let's say, 1.8 mils to 2 mils; and, I would favor counting reticle ticks. I would not favor mind's eye in inches since that would take even more time to multiply 2 times 3.6 and then again times 6, if I were to chunk it.
Chunking MOA to inches is easier for me. In the example given, I'd just think what's the value of one MOA at 600 yards and then multiply by 6. I can do all of these calculations in my head with enough accuracy to get a good hit quickly, in fact in a heart beat. With mils, I need more time, or for speed, a calculator. Of course, that takes my eye off the reticle as well as the target, which, for a multitude of reasons, is never a good idea.
For real speed, I'd replace the conventional scope with an ACOG. It's range finding/bullet drop compensating reticle is as fast as I've yet seen. The bottom-line here is that at any distance beyond intuitive, that's to say, any distance where actually understanding where the barrel is pointed is important to get a good hit, a shooter needs to know how to properly adjust sights to counter for drag, gravity, weather effects, slope, and target movement.
One more thing, since sight misalignment or inconsistent control of the rifle creates angular error which increases with distance, a shooter would be wise to perfect his execution of the two firing tasks, while working on sight adjustment knowledge. Remember, shooting is an integrated act.
Re: mil to mil
I guess my confusion started when you said, "favor". I am more incline to "hold" and instruct people to "hold" for a specific value. To me, favoring leaves entirely too much gray area. When dealing with holding for a specific value in inches, using your example of 36 inches, how do you perceive 36 inches on a UKD, limited exposure moving target? The answer is it can not be done with any sort of consistency. That is what the reticle is for. I know if I miss my desired point of impact by .5 mil I adjust accordingly using the mil reticle and send it. I would love to know how you can possible teach someone how to perceive a miss in inches and adjust in inches to make the hit.
Sterling, you said,
I guess my confusion started when you said, "favor". I am more incline to "hold" and instruct people to "hold" for a specific value. To me, favoring leaves entirely too much gray area. When dealing with holding for a specific value in inches, using your example of 36 inches, how do you perceive 36 inches on a UKD, limited exposure moving target? The answer is it can not be done with any sort of consistency. That is what the reticle is for. I know if I miss my desired point of impact by .5 mil I adjust accordingly using the mil reticle and send it. I would love to know how you can possible teach someone how to perceive a miss in inches and adjust in inches to make the hit.
Sterling, you said,
S
Seth8541
Guest
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess my confusion started when you said, "favor". I am more incline to "hold" and instruct people to "hold" for a specific value. To me, favoring leaves entirely too much gray area. When dealing with holding for a specific value in inches, using your example of 36 inches, how do you perceive 36 inches on a UKD, limited exposure moving target? The answer is it can not be done with any sort of consistency. That is what the reticle is for. I know if I miss my desired point of impact by .5 mil I adjust accordingly using the mil reticle and send it. I would love to know how you can possible teach someone how to perceive a miss in inches and adjust in inches to make the hit.
Sterling, you said,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess my confusion started when you said, "favor". I am more incline to "hold" and instruct people to "hold" for a specific value. To me, favoring leaves entirely too much gray area. When dealing with holding for a specific value in inches, using your example of 36 inches, how do you perceive 36 inches on a UKD, limited exposure moving target? The answer is it can not be done with any sort of consistency. That is what the reticle is for. I know if I miss my desired point of impact by .5 mil I adjust accordingly using the mil reticle and send it. I would love to know how you can possible teach someone how to perceive a miss in inches and adjust in inches to make the hit.
Sterling, you said,
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know if I miss my desired point of impact by .5 mil I adjust accordingly using the mil reticle and send it. I would love to know how you can possible teach someone how to perceive a miss in inches and adjust in inches to make the hit.</div></div>
A mil is 3.375, therefore .5 mil is 1.6875. To answer your question simply hold 1 1/5 inches off.
We know that 1.5 moa is 15 inches at 1000 yards, so simplytell the shooter to hold off 15 inces. Now we ask, "what is 15 inches at 1000 yards. Its the edge of the 9 ring. In coaching I would (for a 15 min correction) tell my shooter to "give me a "9" at 9 or 3 o'clock (assuming we are talking about wind corrections. High Power shooters know the size of scoring rings.
Or in SS case of 36 inches, tell the shooter to aim at the edge of the target frame (the target frame is 6X6).
In rapid fire strings, favors normally mean holdning on a given side of the black. Half way from the outer edge to the center. Thats for vert. corrections, for elevation its "take black" or "line of white".
I coached the AK NG rifle team for a long time, its not really that difficult to get on the same sheet of music when it comes to favors.
That covers target shooting, ok, so what about unk distances while hunting (or sniping). If you're assisting another shooter, he's trying to get on a deer, and you tell him, "hold
3.6 mils high" chance are he's gonna look at you like your nuts.
What's a mil on a deer. Most everyone knows the size of a deer (18-20 inches kill zone). So if you tell him to hold a foot high, knowing the size of a deer, he'll know how to hold.
As to military, all soldiers know the average with of a man's shoulders. The army gave of the e-shil target for that. Ask any solder the width and chances are he'll tell you its 19 inches. So if private Y is helping private X hit the 300 yard target, and tells him he's 2 1/3 mil off, we are talking mass confusion. But it he tells him he's 8 inches off, X will understand and knowing the size of the target will be able to extimate 8 inches.
I've taught sniper schools both to the military and LE. Everyone understands inches and MOA, not everyone understands Mils. Its easier to see a target, estimate the size in inches and know how many inches one has to hold off or favor.
I know that many think that "thinking" in mils is easier, and in some cases I agree. But like the metric system, how easy is it going to be to convince the average shooter? Few shooters have grasp the concept of the metric system, fewer yet have grasp the concept of Mils.
I understand the mil system in ranging, I understand the mil/mil vs mil/moa scope ideal. I also understand shooters and know, for the most part they understand inches, even at distance more then they understand favoring in mills.
Personally, as I mentioned, I don't like favors, I'm better at sight corrections. It only takes me a pair of seconds to look in a scope see the change, crank a few clicks as I roll back in position. But that's just me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know if I miss my desired point of impact by .5 mil I adjust accordingly using the mil reticle and send it. I would love to know how you can possible teach someone how to perceive a miss in inches and adjust in inches to make the hit.</div></div>
A mil is 3.375, therefore .5 mil is 1.6875. To answer your question simply hold 1 1/5 inches off.
We know that 1.5 moa is 15 inches at 1000 yards, so simplytell the shooter to hold off 15 inces. Now we ask, "what is 15 inches at 1000 yards. Its the edge of the 9 ring. In coaching I would (for a 15 min correction) tell my shooter to "give me a "9" at 9 or 3 o'clock (assuming we are talking about wind corrections. High Power shooters know the size of scoring rings.
Or in SS case of 36 inches, tell the shooter to aim at the edge of the target frame (the target frame is 6X6).
In rapid fire strings, favors normally mean holdning on a given side of the black. Half way from the outer edge to the center. Thats for vert. corrections, for elevation its "take black" or "line of white".
I coached the AK NG rifle team for a long time, its not really that difficult to get on the same sheet of music when it comes to favors.
That covers target shooting, ok, so what about unk distances while hunting (or sniping). If you're assisting another shooter, he's trying to get on a deer, and you tell him, "hold
3.6 mils high" chance are he's gonna look at you like your nuts.
What's a mil on a deer. Most everyone knows the size of a deer (18-20 inches kill zone). So if you tell him to hold a foot high, knowing the size of a deer, he'll know how to hold.
As to military, all soldiers know the average with of a man's shoulders. The army gave of the e-shil target for that. Ask any solder the width and chances are he'll tell you its 19 inches. So if private Y is helping private X hit the 300 yard target, and tells him he's 2 1/3 mil off, we are talking mass confusion. But it he tells him he's 8 inches off, X will understand and knowing the size of the target will be able to extimate 8 inches.
I've taught sniper schools both to the military and LE. Everyone understands inches and MOA, not everyone understands Mils. Its easier to see a target, estimate the size in inches and know how many inches one has to hold off or favor.
I know that many think that "thinking" in mils is easier, and in some cases I agree. But like the metric system, how easy is it going to be to convince the average shooter? Few shooters have grasp the concept of the metric system, fewer yet have grasp the concept of Mils.
I understand the mil system in ranging, I understand the mil/mil vs mil/moa scope ideal. I also understand shooters and know, for the most part they understand inches, even at distance more then they understand favoring in mills.
Personally, as I mentioned, I don't like favors, I'm better at sight corrections. It only takes me a pair of seconds to look in a scope see the change, crank a few clicks as I roll back in position. But that's just me.
Re: mil to mil
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A mil is 3.375, therefore .5 mil is 1.6875. To answer your question simply hold 1 1/5 inches off. </div></div>
Really? So if I miss a target located at 800 yards by .5 mil I need to correct with 1 1/5 inches? Are you kidding me?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A mil is 3.375, therefore .5 mil is 1.6875. To answer your question simply hold 1 1/5 inches off. </div></div>
Really? So if I miss a target located at 800 yards by .5 mil I need to correct with 1 1/5 inches? Are you kidding me?
Similar threads
