Need help can't wrap my head around how to break mills down for each range. Like click value at 100,200,ect. Thx
Mrad help
- Thread starter Chclose
- Start date
A mill is an angle. One mill is
If you know how big something is you can calculate how far away it is by seeing how many mills it covers. Once you know how far your target is then refer to your dope chart. How many mills will your bullet drop while getting to the distance of your target? Find that info on your dope chart. Dial your dope with your turret or hold with your reticle. Most of the time you will want to dial elevation and hold for wind.
www.outdoorhub.com
Google is your friend. There are thousands of articles online.
You might be able to use a mill dot master.
- 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)
If you know how big something is you can calculate how far away it is by seeing how many mills it covers. Once you know how far your target is then refer to your dope chart. How many mills will your bullet drop while getting to the distance of your target? Find that info on your dope chart. Dial your dope with your turret or hold with your reticle. Most of the time you will want to dial elevation and hold for wind.
How To Use Milliradian-Adjustable Scopes | OutdoorHub
Frank Galli from SnipersHide.com offers tips on how to sight in a Milliradian adjustable scope
www.outdoorhub.com
Google is your friend. There are thousands of articles online.
You might be able to use a mill dot master.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
The click value at each range is usually irrelevant. You shouldn't normally be adjusting fire by linear measurements such as feet, or inches or meters. You should be adjusting in angles such as, "I missed by 0.5 mils, so I dial or hold a 0.5mils correction". The range is irrelevant because the angle is the same, no matter the range.
A couple of exceptions:
If you are truing BC or adjusting dope from groups on paper targets at a distance where you can't see bullet holes. Or you are using the mathmatical center of the group and not the optical center that can be measured with the scope, then you would need to know that a mil = 3.6 inches at 100 yds, or that 1/10 of a mil (1 click) = .36 inches at 100 yds.
So, the formula would be: (offset of the group in inches / 3.6) x 100 / range in yards = adjustment in mils.
5 inches low at 500 yards: (5 inches / 3.6) x 100 / 500 = 0.277 mils
Or in clicks...1/10 of a mil click = .36 inches... so .36 inches x 5 (hundreds of yards) = 1.8 inches... and 5 inches (group offset) / 1.8 inches = 2.77 1/10 mil clicks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thx this is what I was really looking for brain is now running just couldn't remember. Getting old I guess
A mil is a mil at 100 yards and at 1000 yards. Don't try and convert angular to linear. Just causes confusion. Use reticle as a ruler.
Nothing to do with vogue or not but simplicity of use. If you want to go down and look at the target and see how far you are off then you still don't need an actual ruler. Just log where on the target it is and then when behind the rifle use the reticle to make the correction. No need to convert anything.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I get why using the reticle as a ruler has become the mantra. I quoted it myself up above. But it isn't the answer to everything. A good solid statistical zero requires precise measuring not just of the apparent group center, but of every single shot.
The idea that someone would walk or drive all the way to a paper target to look at it and NOT measure it....then either make a mental note or some mark.... and then go all the way back to the firing point to measure with a reticle, seems a ridiculous length to go to avoid doing some simple math.
This is all I'm going to say, I realize you have a different view and I respect that. I made my counterpoint, and I'm not trying to be a dick. Good shooting.
The idea of walking to the target to me is rediculous. I know there are super anal people who need to measure each shot to the exact aiming point but that aiming point was made with the reticle as well. And if someone is that over anal then they will probably love all the conversions anyways so those people I am sure know how to do it. I would rather bring up the way that is easier and as accurate as needs to be to adjust a shot placement without having to do conversions. Don't even remember the last time I ever converted anything and have no problems getting shots where they should be.
It's easy if you never think of it as a measurement. If you just have to know, your ballistics calc should give you click values at current distance
So do you just use the reticle to measure where the impact is and use that info to make an adjustment? I'm new to this and am trying to learn..
Yup. It's that easy. Best thing for me was to never think about it as a measurement of length or height.
That simple? Correction U.6 L.8
Bang new shooter misses right 1.6 LOL..
Seems newer shooters get often get messed up with what L and R means, when indexing.. The weird thing is they always seem to naturally get that that U or UP, means use the bottom below the horizontal strata..
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
That just comes down to practice but he was just asking about getting the correction.
I know, I was just being silly.. and pointing out that whatever system people use it still take a bit of practice
I take this as you are giving me directions, not reading me the outcome, hey dumbass dial up .6 and dial left .8
Not every scope I have can see a small bore shot some days some distance
especialy on used up paint on the steel. That forces the road trip down range.
Measure Repaint or tape up with orange dot to see with scope.
Every one should know both ways to get thier shot in case one is not prudent.
Some old shit heads have trouble seeing small cal holes or splash at distance
But still enjoy shooting, just takes more effort some days.
Not enough glass or eyesight will ensure some good excorsize , or torture as I call it.
especialy on used up paint on the steel. That forces the road trip down range.
Measure Repaint or tape up with orange dot to see with scope.
Every one should know both ways to get thier shot in case one is not prudent.
Some old shit heads have trouble seeing small cal holes or splash at distance
But still enjoy shooting, just takes more effort some days.
Not enough glass or eyesight will ensure some good excorsize , or torture as I call it.
why not? Theres no conversion. once you learn it...
Measure your target in cm and move it that many clicks.
1 click or 1/10 mil = 1cm @ 100m
2.37cm @ 237m (1mil=23.7cm)
6.87cm @ 687m (1mil=68.7cm)
Attachments
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
It isn't the math, the math is easy.
It's that nobody knows what the hell a cm or a mm looks like. A meter kind of looks like a yard, until you start stacking them by the hundreds. It's a lifetime of ocular calibration that is so hard to overcome.
Yes, its intimidating and challenging. And sort of like learning a foreign language. A mil scope is basically in that language and we translate it into imperial.
It’s the same reason the sentence, “No—your OTHER left”, is so common.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
The math is the same. 1/10 of a yard isn't any harder than 1/10 of a meter. The decimal point moves to exactly the same place.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
1/10 of a yard is 3.6 inches, which is 1 MIL at 100 yards. As in 1/10 of 36 inches (1 yard), which is 1 MIL at 1000 yards.
So, the math is kind of close....exact in fact.
@2aBaCa, I think the point @Skookum and @Rob01 are making (and HMFIC has made often In his podcast) is that if you think in terms of angles rather than linear, it doesn’t matter. If you miss, your scope tells you what to do.
Last weekend, I was shooting down into a box canyon. The wind was absolutely at my back, but the vegetation at the targets was clearly indicating a right-to-left wind, and the mirage was intermittent. We used a 12-16 mph wind bracket, and when the mirage reappeared, we’d do the math in our head to reduce it by some guess (rule of thumb we used was mirage disappears at 12mph).
I had ranges to the targets written down, but in my head, they were more like labels for them, because the values that mattered were the elevation as an angle, the wind brackets as angles, and the environmental factors that dictated when to reduce. When I missed due to windage, I simply looked at the calibrated ruler three inches from my eye and adjusted the amount it told me. If I got a hit, I had a new factor to apply to the wind call on the next target. That was fast.
If I’d been thinking in terms of linear windage offset, I would have had to do a bunch of trig in my head, then convert back to an angle, because my scope uses angles.
So, while the linear offset is useful for figuring out the capabilities of the shooting system (of which the shooter is a part), when deploying those capabilities under any kind of stress (like the clock in a match), the most efficient way for me to work is to simply think in angles.
Does that make sense?
Last weekend, I was shooting down into a box canyon. The wind was absolutely at my back, but the vegetation at the targets was clearly indicating a right-to-left wind, and the mirage was intermittent. We used a 12-16 mph wind bracket, and when the mirage reappeared, we’d do the math in our head to reduce it by some guess (rule of thumb we used was mirage disappears at 12mph).
I had ranges to the targets written down, but in my head, they were more like labels for them, because the values that mattered were the elevation as an angle, the wind brackets as angles, and the environmental factors that dictated when to reduce. When I missed due to windage, I simply looked at the calibrated ruler three inches from my eye and adjusted the amount it told me. If I got a hit, I had a new factor to apply to the wind call on the next target. That was fast.
If I’d been thinking in terms of linear windage offset, I would have had to do a bunch of trig in my head, then convert back to an angle, because my scope uses angles.
So, while the linear offset is useful for figuring out the capabilities of the shooting system (of which the shooter is a part), when deploying those capabilities under any kind of stress (like the clock in a match), the most efficient way for me to work is to simply think in angles.
Does that make sense?
@christopher.dow I totally get it. Im not debating that. Simply saying that if one was to be taking linear measurements. Using metric translates easier. 1cm on a metric ruler would be 1 click on a mil scope. If you were 13cm off how many clicks? 13, No math involved its 1 for 1 you simply move the decimal.
If somone was spotting and said your off by 1.3 meters, that is 13 mil. Can you easily dial 13 mil?
Vs if they said your off target by 1.4 yards. Dial that.
3.6.... That proves my point. It doesnt break down and align on whole numbers 1/10/100/1000s like metric does.
Now if there were 100 inches to a yard.
If somone was spotting and said your off by 1.3 meters, that is 13 mil. Can you easily dial 13 mil?
Vs if they said your off target by 1.4 yards. Dial that.
3.6.... That proves my point. It doesnt break down and align on whole numbers 1/10/100/1000s like metric does.
Now if there were 100 inches to a yard.
Last edited:
My point is that giving a linear offset from the target isn’t practical, and is only necessary in the suboptimal situation where the shooter and spotter (or the turrets and reticle—ugh!) are using different units of angle.
You’re right about the arithmetic being simpler in the cases where you’re shooting at calibrated targets that are at range that's an integer power of 10 meters or a multiple of 100 meters, but what about 457m? 869? 352? 1.3 meters left at 352 meters distance isn’t any easier to compute in your head. Also, if there’s not a ruler on the target, you still have to get the offset in mils, then do the trig to get the linear offset to then convert it back to mils for the scope. The only time I can think of that makes sense is if the spotter and shooter aren’t using the same angular unit (mils vs moa). Remember, the only ruler we can put on any target we want is the reticle.
It makes sense on a KD range, but I want to always work with a method the works in practical shooting situations. That’s why I don’t worry about it and use the angle. In the end, the overwhelming majority of people who are doing this well are thinking in terms of angles, rather than inches, centimeters,yards, or meters.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
How often do you shoot at exactly 100 meters, and how often is your group center exactly 1cm off?
It always amazes me that in the metric system, bullets fly and deflect in such an orderly fashion. Maybe we should switch.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would get a new spotter...if your giving corrections in linear units your doing it wrong period end of story hello amateur hour. You spotter should be measuring your miss in mils or moa and giving you your correction in that unit. I don't care who you are you can't tell the difference between 6" or 10" or 18 cm at 1k cubits. If you want an accurate correction, measure it with the damn reticle in front of your eye.
I think it is natural to go through the linear conversion process, natural to think that if I do this, then that works; when you're newer to PR.
I think what compounds the issue are spotters and binos without subtensions. Instead of expressing corrections back to the center of the target/plate, we say, you where 3' left or whatever. This alone is a bad guess at best, as we aren't even sure of the target sizes to begin with. So was it a 16" plate and we though it was 2' wide and it was about a 1-1/2 pates over? There is just no way to give an accurate guess--
In many places a new shooter can greatly increase their understanding, speed and accuracy in comunication, by using the rifle scope to spot their buddy, giving corrections (not "you miss you missed by XX") back to the center of the plate. Once the shooters start talking in angular units, wind is less of an issue for two reasons..... but we can leave that up for another topic.
Edited to add: benchrest, belly-benchrest/papertarget sports, are always going to be linear discussions because as Dow pointed out, their subtensions are on the paper and their game is different.
Last edited:
? Just a friendly campfire discussion. Im not a metric salesman or any sort of math wiz, I dont even use metric much. But the more I play with it, easier it becomes and the more potential i see. I think as Americans our aversion to the metric system in general prevents us from seeing any possible benifits for its use.
That being said, Metric and Mils go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Measurement off target(cm) divided by the distance to the target(m) x 100 = clicks on your mil scope. it doesnt get much simpler.
869m target
1 mil = 86.9cm
1 click= 8.69cm
1.5m miss off a target
150cm
(150/869)100= 17.26 clickys on scopey
That being said, Metric and Mils go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Measurement off target(cm) divided by the distance to the target(m) x 100 = clicks on your mil scope. it doesnt get much simpler.
869m target
1 mil = 86.9cm
1 click= 8.69cm
1.5m miss off a target
150cm
(150/869)100= 17.26 clickys on scopey
Clicks? That's the first thing I beat out of student's heads in class. The numbers are on the scope knob for a reason. No need to be counting clicks. Same as no need to convert to any linear and then back to angular. Just a waste of time. Is that how you make a correction in a match?
How do you measure the 1.5m miss @ 869m? Wouldn't it be easier to just measure the POI vs POA with your reticle and make your adjustment? No need to do any math. I mean I love math, but why make things more complicated than they have to be?
Geesh, just exploring the rabbit hole here. Im saying theoretically if one was going to attach a linear measurement to mils, metric is a like for like.
Is there not a practical use for using mil to measure an object in turn messure distance? A door or a 55 gallon drum?
Is there not a practical use for using mil to measure an object in turn messure distance? A door or a 55 gallon drum?
Absolutely... But measuring poi to POA is not one of them.
Calling for an artillery strike and my batteries are dead in the lrf sure....
Have you ever tested yourself on ranging with your reticle within 10 meters/yards to see how good you are? It's way harder than most guys think. It toooookkk a ton of practice to be able to do it decently in a pinch out to 1k. Light conditions, angles make getting an accurate and precise measurement tricky. I don't have to do it for work anymore and it's amazing how quickly I lose this skill on man sized targets.
Trust my LRF more. Milling is a good skill to have for sure but I don't want anyone estimating my misses with their best guess when you have a perfectly good reticle to tell me exactly what I missed by.
A metric tape mesure? A spotter making a estimation? Comparing to a known object?
Without a doubt. if you can see your own impact or your spotter has a mil reticle optic then using your scope is best.
And if you cant and he doesnt?
Similar threads
