• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • Site updates coming next Wednesday at 8am CT!

    The site will be down for routine maintenance on Wednesday 6/5 starting at 8am CT. If you have any questions, please PM alexj-12!

Rifle Scopes Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

A

aquinas

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Sep 11, 2010
212
1
62
Il
If a sniper were to go totally metric-that is, he used meters for laser ranging, centimeters for calculating elevation/windage adjustments, and a centimeter-increment scope-he would theoretically operate a higher efficiency than a counterpart using a combination of mils, meters and minutes of angle.

Go easy on me, I'm a newbie.

Is this similar or identical to mil/mil. If not, what are the pros and cons of this idea?
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

You're making this up. There's no such thing as a centimeter-increment scope. And the measurements are the same regardless of the units one uses to measure things.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

who's got this one?



Its been discussed in detail here many times. The bottom line is, whatever system you use, learn it, know it, live it, it will work for you just as well as what the next guy is using.


Kirk R
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're making this up. There's no such thing as a centimeter-increment scope. And the measurements are the same regardless of the units one uses to measure things. </div></div>

Try this link: http://www.bearbasin.com/schmidt-bender-policemarksman-scopes.htm

You'll notice S&B's scopes are available in both 1/2 and centimeter clicks listed under "click adj. value." It would be quite possible therefore to go totally metric.

I read the stickies on this forum and still have been unable to find an answer to my question. Since it is possible to go totally metric, I'll ask it again:

What are the pros and cons of going totally metric? Is there anyone out there that uses this setup?

In my mind it would be a lot faster and less prone to error to have one system of measurement than several. I'm basically and idiot and have had first hand experience in very high pressure situations. It becomes very hard to think. The easier and less prone to error a system is...the better.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Scopes adjust in angular units, not linear. The '1cm' is just telling you how much linear movement occurs at a specific distance, in this case 100 meters. The actual adjustment is .1 Mil, as a Mil is an angular value.

Since your dope card will have an elevation setting for a given range, it matters not what units are used for anything. You can range in feet, adjust in MOA and have a Mil reticle to range. You are going to use the same process, range it, dial the setting for that range, shoot, hold off a correction if required. No one cares what the numbers are. For that matter, the convention of making range cards in 100's of whatever is mainly because KD ranges are in even 100's. You could make up a range card in any old odd numbers you want, you will still need to interpolate between values, since it's unlikely that the target is standing right on an even range value.

The advantage of a reticle in the same unit as the knobs is when you can spot an impact point and want to adjust the knob to get POI=POA. The clicks match what you see, so no math is involved. It's also simple to calculate a hold over/under, since it's just the differance between two elevation settings, no additional conversion is required.

Since you nominally hold for missed shots in the field rather than dial a correction, and hold over/under should be calculated and tested prior to being in the field, the advantage is not substantial.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

The simple answer is yes. It is not that mils are inherently metric - they are not. But, the advantages of metric are best realized if one goes fully metric.

Mils simply are a ratio of 1:1000, that is, the angle subtended by one unit at a range of 1000 of those units : it does not matter if one uses yards at 1000 yards, meters at 1000 meters or cubits at 1000 cubits. Consistency is the key.

The real issue comes in ranging. Ranging requires an object of known size at a given number of mils. There's the problem: you have to be able to think quickly in a system of measurement to say that object is x units high ( can be wide but the point is the same) and do the arithmetic to come up with range. Most people like numbers to "come out even". The advantage of metric is that one divides by 10 do manipulate numbers and therefore ranges. The trouble is, not everything works out so simply but it will work more often in metric. One can select examples in any system which work well but don't always. For example, 2 mils at 1000 yards is a 6 foot man. Simple. I am 188 cm tall, what happens if I am at 400 meters? But, you do have an advantage if you can think metric. Someone said that centimeters are not a mil calibration. Perhaps not officially but you will discover that 10 cm is 1 mil at 100 meters. And, that's exactly.

All that said, I don't like metric for a variety of reasons. But, one cannot deny the divide by 10 part and, that's also the way everything is going. If you can visualize in metric and say that object is <measurement in metric> yes, you will be more efficient.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

In the real world, with current technology, it does not matter one bit.

It is easier to zero with everything matching...that's about it.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

himaster you do understand that a Mil Dot scope with .1MRAD knobs(same as incorrectly marked 1cm) are not metric
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: himaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're making this up. There's no such thing as a centimeter-increment scope. And the measurements are the same regardless of the units one uses to measure things. </div></div>Try this link: http://www.bearbasin.com/schmidt-bender-policemarksman-scopes.htm
You'll notice S&B's scopes are available in both 1/2 and centimeter clicks listed under "click adj. value." It would be quite possible therefore to go totally metric... Since it is possible to go totally metric, I'll ask it again.
</div></div>There's nothing metric about Mils. As Cory said, a Mil is an angular unit of measure.

If there's a lesson here, it's not to believe everything that's written on the outside of a scope cap.

To be accurate the cap should read "1 cm at 100m". SB has since corrected the inscription to read
" 1 Click = .1 MRad."
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

The mil based reticle is the world standard for tactical scopes, US military included. So, for a tactical shooter, the mil based reticle will be the standard, and it would be logical to use turrets with matching clicks (mil/mil scope).

The metric system is the world standard, US military included.

Of course the miliradian system can be used with ANY unit of length. But it goes MUCH BETTER with the metric system, because the metric system is DECIMAL, and uses just one unit (meter) for distances, target size, etc.

Since 1 miliradian subtends by definition one arc of 1/1000 of the radius it is EXACTLY 0.1 m (10 cm) at 100 m. And of course a 0.1 mil click is EXACTLY 1 cm at 100 m. Estremely easy, logical and fast to learn and use for any metric user.

Not some funky "1.0 MOA is 1.047" at 100 yds..."

People who use the US customay system think in inches, feet and yards: 1 yard = 3 feet = 12 inches

It is a fractional system, and since people think "I'm 6'2" tall", use yards for distance, and inches for smaller objects (20" shoulder width) it cannot compare to decimal calculations where only ONE unit (meter) is used. Nobody normally thinks: "I'm 2.06 yds tall" or "the target is 0.56 yd wide".
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

The decimal 'advantage' is largly theoretical, since items and distances are rarely at exacts tenths anyway.

If you use yards for range, use inches for target size
1 mil at 100y = 3.6"
1 mil at 1000y = 36" = 1 yard

If I give you a .635m target at 1.35mils, is the math really simpler than a 25" target at 1.35 mils? I'm using a MilDot master anyway, or a calculator, and that only if the LRF is TU.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

CoryT, my point is that in the US system you have to "translate" yds, feet and inches since nobody normally "thinks" in just one of these units, and it is not decimal.

With the metric system EVERYTHING is in meters, and decimal. Fast, easy, all compatible.

Distance to Target(m) = Height of Target(m)/Image Size(mils)*1000

vs

Distance to Target(yds) = Height of Target(inches)/Image Size(mils)*27.77

or

Distance to Target(yds) = Height of Target(yds)/Image Size(mils)*1000

Using 27.77 is slower than using a factor of 1000, but most of the time you need a calculator/ruler anyway.

For me the real difference is that nobody thinks only in yds, feet or inches, but in a combination of these units. And translating everything to inches (or yards) takes an extra step. You can have a table, but it is an extra gadget to have and it will not cover everything...
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

It's easier to guestimate, without using a calculator, the range when dealing with metric.

Simplified .6m at 1.3 mils. (.6x1000)/1.3 = 600/1.3
400m x 1.3 = 520
500m x 1.3 = 650

So target is a little over 450m. Actual: 470 m

To do it in inches and yards, you would need to convert 25" into yards. 25 is somewhat easy since it is just over 24. 24" is 2/3 of a yard.

.66 * 1000 / 1.3 =
500 * 1.3 = 650
So just over 500 yards. Actual 514 yards

Working with inches and feet to convert into yards is a lot harder to do in your head when you don't have a number that is a multiple of 3.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

You need a scope that matches - whether mil/mil or moa/moa, you get the same effect.

The advantages of base-10 numeral systems are recognised world-wide, that's the way everything's headed. So in that respect, MIl comes out ahead.

 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Your target sizes in the US are going to be given to you in inches. You can convert that to cm if you want, but don't forget to include that in your "efficiency calculations"
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

I'd say it depends on what system <span style="text-decoration: underline">you</span> are comfortable with.

E.g. for me it's a no-brainer: I'm much more comfortable with metric, and for the life of it cannot recall how many inches there are in a pint or whatsitsname.
smile.gif
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

I use mil/mil but nothing metric. Mils aren't metric. Need to do it fast then get a mildot master.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

I took the ops question to be is there an advantage to doing everythin in metric scale with no inch componants at all so that you are only plugging in metric values into the equations....
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use mil/mil but nothing metric. Mils aren't metric.</div></div>
Well, yes and no. MIL is "one per thousand". Combined with the metric scale of things "1km = 1000m = 1000*100cm" it makes a really nice mix - at least for those of us that are more comfortable with it than with "1 ft = 16 inches (or 12 - I could never remember
smile.gif
), 1 yard = ? ft = ?? inches, 1 mile = ? yards, etc".

Math is math, and multiplication/division doesn't change - but having a power of 10 as a multiplier (rather than 3, 12, 16, etc correspondingly) helps me; not to mention that it's nice to be able to move between sizes and distances without the need to open a handbook.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Doesn't help very much when almost everywhere you shoot in the US gives you ranges in yards and target sizes in inches. So you going all metric go to Rifles Only and get your target size of 11.5"x17". Now you have to turn that into cm to use your easy method of ranging. Then you're at the KD range and have to figure out how many meters 400 yards is. Yes there is quick ways to figure that but you're still having to take time to convert. or maybe 360 yards or 480 yards etc. Not all are even amounts when given to you.

Also you are combining the angular and linear measurements in an attempt to confuse. I don't need to know anything but range and target size, and then only if I am ranging which being honest isn't done very much anymore at matches. If not ranging I just need to know the yardage and I dial on my data. No need for all the other info.

Personally I don't care what people use but saying mils is metric is just wrong.

Why do I let myself get drawn into these idiotic posts again and again? I guess it's boredom on a day off.
crazy.gif




 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesn't help very much when almost everywhere you shoot in the US gives you ranges in yards and target sizes in inches. So you going all metric go to Rifles Only and get your target size of 11.5"x17". Now you have to turn that into cm to use your easy method of ranging. Then you're at the KD range and have to figure out how many meters 400 yards is. Yes there is quick ways to figure that but you're still having to take time to convert. or maybe 360 yards or 480 yards etc. Not all are even amounts when given to you.

Also you are combining the angular and linear measurements in an attempt to confuse. I don't need to know anything but range and target size, and then only if I am ranging which being honest isn't done very much anymore at matches. If not ranging I just need to know the yardage and I dial on my data. No need for all the other info.
</div></div>


Right so now you've got 43.17 cm subtending out at (for instance) 0.75Mrad. Still think the math is so much easier? Good thing you've collected dope for 90, 180, 270, 360, 450, 540, and 630 meters...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Personally I don't care what people use but saying mils is metric is just wrong.

Why do I let myself get drawn into these idiotic posts again and again? I guess it's boredom on a day off.
crazy.gif


</div></div>

Even more right.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

If milliradian has nothing to do w/ metric; can it also be argued that milligram has nothing to do w/ metric; it's just a measurement of.......?
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If milliradian has nothing to do w/ metric; can it also be argued that milligram has nothing to do w/ metric; it's just a measurement of.......?</div></div>

The milligram is a fraction of a kilogram, the metric system's unit of measure for mass. The others being:

length - meter
time - second
electric current - ampere
thermodynamic temperature - kelvin
amount of a substance - mole
luminous intensity - candela

These are the units of the metric system. Only measurements expressed in these units are part of the metric system. The 'metric system' itself is the arbitrary definition of how much each of these units actually is.

Units such as radian, farad, volt, newton, watt, pascal or ohm are SI DERIVED units. These are units for which the value is not arbitrarily determined but rather there is a mathematical formula for determining what qty (1) of each of these equates to using some combination of the true metric units and mathematical relationships.

The fact that SI designations of milli or kilo or deci might be used with these (or any other) unit in no way links it to the metric system. You could use the term milligallon and it would just mean 1/1000th of a gallon. This would not make it part of the metric system.

Note that with radian and steradian there is a tiny little bit of justifiable confusion because for some time they were officially considered "supplementary" units of the metric system but this changed sometime in the 90's, I imagine because everyone recognized that it was stupid as they were just as derived as any of the other derived units. However this does mean that if you were an engineering student prior to the 90s but then didn't keep up with such matters it is possible that on first gruff you would not know that they had been reclassified. No one else has an excuse and the engineers in question should be well enough acquainted with the situation to accept the reclassification with good grace.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Last time I checked a SI designation of kilo,nano,deci,milli, and so on had something to do w/ metric. 1/10th doesn't make it metric but the designation milli ties it to the metric system. Simple, don't want to make it have anything to do w/ the metric system don't use their prefixes!
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

The euro scope manufacturers are obviously labouring under the same misapprehensions, since they're the ones using the '0.1cm click' advertising.

That said, I'm an aussie and I find mrad/metric highly intuitive. 1 mil at 630m = 63cm = 6.3cm per 0.1mrad click, etc. Divisions of 10/100, etc. are easy to work with.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Priest, no more so that the US mfg's that label .25" clicks.

They are catering to the masses.

Adjustments are angular, it matters not what the label may say.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

I know mate, it's all in the advertising...

Fully understand that it's an angular measure.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Last time I checked a SI designation of kilo,nano,deci,milli, and so on had something to do w/ metric. 1/10th doesn't make it metric but the designation milli ties it to the metric system. Simple, don't want to make it have anything to do w/ the metric system don't use their prefixes!</div></div>

Sorry but that's a false association. Use of SI prefixes doesn't make something metric. Use of metric units (as listed above) does. You can just as easily say 7/8 liters, that is still metric.

As Cory pointed out, a kilobyte isn't metric.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Check your measurements or calculations.

There's 2.54 cm in an inch.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

A kilobyte is a metric designation of how many bites ! Does the denominations of 10 mean anything to you? Don't want it metric; very simple don't associate w/ anything metric!
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

I've been off Sniper's Hide for two months while I was dealing with some family problems, and I come back to see this thread at the top of the Active Topic list.

It seems that I didn't miss much. I think I'll go back to reading my book...
laugh.gif


Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tt350z</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Check your measurements or calculations.

There's 2.54 cm in an inch. </div></div>


was cold that day?
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A kilobyte is a metric designation of how many bites ! Does the denominations of 10 mean anything to you? Don't want it metric; very simple don't associate w/ anything metric! </div></div>
Denominations of 10 has nothing to do with being metric.

I deal with Kilopounds (or "Kips" as we call them) on a daily basis at Boeing. A unit of force equal to 1000 pounds.

Material, paint, coating, and film thicknesses in many industries are listed in "mils" which denote 1/1000 of an inch in those contexts. If you go into Home Depot and buy some 20 Mil pipe tape, it'll have 20 MIL stamped right on it. Measure and you'll find it's .020" thick.

Just two examples; pounds and inches are about the most "non-metric" things in the world. And yet they've been using those 10-based prefixes since before any of us were born.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Denominations of ten have nothing to do w/ being metric; and just exactly what is the metric system based on? Let me guess, a metric ton has nothing to do w/ being metric either?
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

There are two key characteristics of the metric system. First, there is the set of prefixes which characterize magnitude in multiples of 10. Second, there is one unit of mesure used which is scaled through the use of those prefixes.

This should not be confused with the standard SI units for a given type of measurement or dimension.

You can use the metric system with any set of units, but usually it is only consistently applied to SI units, and when it is used with with other units it is not universally applied.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Denominations of ten have nothing to do w/ being metric; and just exactly what is the metric system based on? Let me guess, a metric ton has nothing to do w/ being metric either? </div></div>



The metric system is based on a set of arbitrarily defined values for various types of measurements. Specifically:

mass - kilogram
length - meter
time - second
electric current - ampere
thermodynamic temperature - kelvin
amount of a substance - mole
luminous intensity - candela

Those 7 values are the metric system. They are values derived from nothing other than an arbitrary agreement that "this is how much 1 of these will be." It is this agreement that is the metric system. The metric system commonly uses SI prefixes with those seven values in order to easily denote orders of magnitude of each value. For many people this is usually their first, and possibly only, exposure to SI prefixes. However this cognitive association by the public does not make SI prefixes part of the metric system, nor does it make any measurement that uses SI prefixes, apart from the 7 listed above, part of the metric system.

ETA: A metric ton is 1000 kilograms.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

Lot more to the metric system then just what is mentioned above. Please read the part about "decimal multiples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system , and after that if you feel that attaching a metric prefix has absolutely nothing to w/ it being part metric; so be it. Btw thanks for your clarification on the metric ton!
smirk.gif
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

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

Material, paint, coating, and film thicknesses in many industries are listed in "mils" which denote 1/1000 of an inch in those contexts. If you go into Home Depot and buy some 20 Mil pipe tape, it'll have 20 MIL stamped right on it. Measure and you'll find it's .020" thick.</div></div>

Holy crap! Now there is metric inches too? What will they think of next?

My next scope is going to be in units of Grades or Curves.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Turk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you feel that attaching a metric prefix has absolutely nothing to w/ it being part metric; so be it. Btw thanks for your clarification on the metric ton!
smirk.gif
</div></div>
No, inches and pounds do not become metric if used in conjuction with ancient Latin and Greek derived prefixes just because the metric system also uses those prefixes.

And yes, a metric ton is completely metric being based upon the gram instead of the pound or slug.
 
Re: Pros & Cons of Going totally metric

@Ratbert, you're right that being "metric" while in US "imperial" system is more of an inconvenience - given target sizes in inches and distances in yards, my math doesn't become any easier or quicker if my scope is MIL/MIL.

I was thinking more of being on your own - i.e. you know (or determine) target size in cm (or m), you determine (or lase) the distance in m, and then your math may or may not be simpler because everything is MIL <span style="text-decoration: underline">and</span> metric. <span style="font-style: italic">I'd conjecture that precise math would be equally easy or difficult - but guesstimating would be easier in MIL & everything-metric.</span>

If in the end one would have to use a calculator anyway, then keying in an inch/yard formula is just as easy as keying in a cm/m formula.

Goes back to "use what's convenient to you". With some bias imposed by your environment (i.e.are you given target distances and sizes, and if so - in what units?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RangerWalker71
Optics Nightforce P-VPS MILSPEC 7-35X56 F1 Clone JQ57-M1002-1. $5790
Replies
33
Views
2K
RangerWalker71
RangerWalker71
Milirad
Rifle Scopes Burris Eliminator 6 Accuracy Range Test Review
Replies
19
Views
1K
Eric B.
E
gr8fuldoug
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi Riflescopes
Replies
0
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
R
Maximum Point Blank Range (Night Hunting Application)
Replies
5
Views
236
rlsmith1
R
gr8fuldoug
Athlon Winners Chosen - Enter to Win a Pulsar Thermal
Replies
0
Views
99
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back