This is the core of his MOA=Inches nonsense. If you call 3" instantly = 3MOA or other such stupidity. Because math.I think somewhere along the way in this 11 pages, he finally "got it" and understood what people were trying to get through to him, but his ego wouldn't let him admit that he didn't understand it in the beginning. So, his argument slowly morphed to make it sound like he was arguing something else.
His statement early on about calling a miss for a shooter as "3 in. low", and the shooter (using a mil scope) looks at him like, "WTF? because the math is more difficult" was the most telling of his incomprehension. No, the shooter is looking at you like "WTF?" because he wants a new spotter who knows how to call. He kept circling back to calling misses in inches. I never saw him explain how he measured those inches from 500 (or whatever) yards away. We all know you have to use a reticle, and the only way to get inches from a reticle is to do a completely useless math conversion and convert the units he measured with the reticle (whether mil or MOA) into a DIFFERENT unit (inches) that is also completely useless to the shooter because it requires ANOTHER completely un-necessary conversation BACK to "whichever" units are on the scope. He just couldn't grasp the stupidity of calling a miss in inches, or why you would never do that.
lmao!! This made for a great read while sitting at work avoiding actual work. not everyone from Niceville is an asshole though. some of us are just ignorant
I learned that the OP is window licking cunt who knows jack about the art of shooting a rifleNo, there were real things to learn from this thread:
- Implicit assumptions are a bane to explicit communication.
- People are just primates, and we stick to what we know.
- He understood reticle use, but insisted certain units worked “better” with certain reticles. That is subjective.
- People on SH are knowledgable, patient, and friendly, until you piss them off.
- Humor is the reciprocal of anger.
- We will only discuss, debate, entertain MOA vs MIL related questions during February of each year (during the Annual SH MOA vs MIL Festival).
This thread has been interesting to read. Of course this point is left out of the discussion most of the time. "If you can see your miss" and "is the range known" , which has lead to much of the talking past each other . If the situation is such that you have one shot, and must dial it, AND you know the range.... OR you know the size of the target... then it's a different situation than if you are shooting and using your retical to measure your miss. (Pardon the run on and poor grammar )The math practictally don't mean squat if the distance is unknown either.
If you can somewhat guess the yardage is away within a reasonable error (say 50-100 yards). Apply the dope setting. And as long as you can spot your miss.....you can measure using the reticle and apply whatever you initially put on. No math or backtracking required.
Granted, you still have to spot your splash or trace.
Not someone in a hunting application is recommended to do. But a competition setting its perfectly fine.
You can have your opinion, but it's still wrong.Back in action.. Thanks again for being such a great group of guys here and taking in consideration different view points on topics. Thank god this forum isn't like FB where you get Banned for topics people don't agree with. Yes, I live in Niceville and if any of you would like to meet up in Holt or Baker ranges to BS, let me know. .
Is that related to the monkey tail? Are you required to have a monkey tail cut into body hair somewhere to use it?
Back in action.. Thanks again for being such a great group of guys here and taking in consideration different view points on topics. Thank god this forum isn't like FB where you get Banned for topics people don't agree with. Yes, I live in Niceville and if any of you would like to meet up in Holt or Baker ranges to BS, let me know. .
Way to get new shooters off on the wrong foot.I keep thinking this thread is going to die, but it keeps on delivering.
Here is the only time I mix linear and angular is when I have a standard sighting target that has inch gradients and when I’m calling shots for a new shooter who is pulling a trigger for the first time ever.
And my family thinks I’m a communist, but wish we’d switch to metric
For the record, I have asked repeatedly for the titties to be put in a separate thread. I'm lurking in a few threads, but I'm in that one because it has the best memes on this forum.I think @chickon1 and @joelinux may be separated at birth?
Two legendary thread OP who continue to engage, although Joe the self proclaimed engineer was off lurking in the titty thread(not a bad investment in time) until one of his legendary threads was necro'ed, and he snapped back to role, or should I say troll!
We are gifted with two of these at the same time, enjoy!
In the thread that @seansmd referenced, I was specifically asking which was more popular, not which was better.Just so you do think I'm a complete retard and ban me for life. I will reframe from mathes.
Mil or MOA you can use inches, feet, yards, meters, whatever as an input and get the same output.
Mil (millirad) is a 1000 of rad
MOA is a 1/60 of a Degree
Apparently there are actually two mils. Milliradians, and military milliradians which are slightly rounded.In the thread that @seansmd referenced, I was specifically asking which was more popular, not which was better.
There was someone on there that said that there were competing standards for MOA, but Mil is Mil is Mil, and that Mil was becoming more the standard.
For me, that made up my mind. YMMV.
The more I think about it, the more I agree that this is the correct unit for OP, since wanting to know the distance of a miss as a linear deviation when your scope is already calibrated in an angular measurement, makes as much sense as wanting to know the mass of the target you missed. You’ve got the liner, axe handles, and mass in kilograms.My previous post in here was referenced in AHPK(axe handles per kilogram) it is a rough measurement, but with a little simple math, and the use of the "metric 6 constant multiplied with pie" it is a relatively simple formula, thus making AHPK a viable tool.