Rifle Scopes Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

[Rifles Only]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Making a correction off of a single shot is done all the time.
If the shooter isn't driving the rifle correctly, then your statement is correct. However, if driven correctly, it is essential to correct off of the first shot. There is no other way if time is critical.
BTW. Trace is so evident that sometimes it becomes a pain in the ass. I have seen trace in my scope before. The key is low power.
Have fun

 

[CoryT]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

True, it IS done all the time. I teach it as part of a UKD target engagement. We simply PRESUME it's a requirement. If it works, we congratulate ourselves for a job well done. All I'm saying is not to read too much into the success or failure of the correction, especially at long ranges. All the math above presumes a shooter holding a consistent 1 MOA, which is pretty good under field conditions. This is not to say people don't hold better. If you do, your correction will be closer to accurate since there is less error to start with. Since we don't actually KNOW what the error was that caused the miss, even if we work on the basis of no shooter induced error, the correction is still only a best guess based on limited info.

Under the right conditions can you see trace in the scope? I suppose. Those conditions rarely occur here, with high altutude, low humidity and high temps. When you can see it in the scope at a low power, how accurately can you estimate the miss distance? Do students do it on a regular basis? Most of the people I see here have NEVER seen it. Many don't even believe me when I tell them you can not only see the trace, you can see the BULLET, sometimes even with the naked eye, once you learn what to look for. The vibration from firing almost always blots out the trace for the shooter, although impact can be seen with good technique and the right backdrop.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Well Cory,

I clearly stated in my post that I could have easily held under the target for the follow up shot, making the follow up shot in seconds, but chose to dial for recording purposes. I also wanted to demonstrate a missed target under difficult conditions, if you look the photographs you would understand the conditions and if you like, you can see the shots that not all the shots are out in the open. Your estimations of how many people "hit" first round hits is completely off, again you guessing. Over the whole weekend with something like 120 rounds fired I only missed 24 times or so, not 24 stages, 24 times, you do the math if you only get 2 shots per target.

Also, you are so caught up in, what if the target moves' well I ask you, have you ever ranged a moving man. Not too easy, I shoot movers more often then most and have no problem engaging a moving target, in fact I do so very often using a Battlefield Zero and simply holding over or under. The reason the turret adjustment makes a difference is, if I have a 400 yard BFZ on the scope and a target appears at 555 yards, I don't have to figure out what 8MOA versus 13 MOA is as translated to a Mil Dot reticle... Cause if the reticle is the same, I can essentially, for lack of a better word, "dial" my reticle with the same number, 2.2Mils, to 3.8Mils - 1.5 Mil holdover. Instead of trying to translate odd numbers to mils. There is no guess work, it is makes precise work out of using the reticle.

Can I tell where the impact came from, absolutely, I understand basic ballistics and I know the difference between a shot high and a shot left or right. If the wind is coming from the left and I hit left, gee, too much hold... but I also understand the size of my target to maximize the flight of the bullet in the wind, I use 100% of the target real estate against my wind call. If you are at 555 yards your 10 MPH wind will need a 1 Mil Hold, and your target ranges .6 Mils across the width, (12") then you have 1.5 Mils of adjustment to play with...so even if you hold .6 of wind you should still catch the edge because that gives you 1.2 Mil of space to work with. So understanding these things makes a difference.

First you are talking about "fighting with a scoped rifle" then you say, Not read too much into the correction of a single shot", well as you said, that single shot maybe all you have after that 2 second honeymoon...so if you can't correct off of it, what are you doing.

I read above where you said go to the target with a ruler to measure. You have a ruler in your scope, it's called a reticle, 100% of the information you need is there in that scope, so why not use it to your advantage.

I think too much emphasis is placed on the fact the military dictates the "shooter" is the Junior man, and the Senior shooter, is on the spotter, well what happens when you instill this information into the shooter from the beginning? You get a smarter, faster shooter.

I suppose we can sit here all day, and give an online class, but you appear to stuck in your old school ways... if FM-FM1-3b doesn't teach it, it's not effective.

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Cory from the sounds of things you seem to assume that the majority of the people here are avg or below avg shooters.

What lowlight is talking about is sold info. I would venture to say he see's and trains more shooters in a year then most people due.

He works with new shooters to some of the most seasoned.

From all i have read you seem to refer that the majority of your shooters are new shooters or unskilled.

With some of your points i can agree with when training new shooters. But skilled season shooters that have been doing this for quite along time understand ballistics, adjustments, wind calls and there equiptment.

As it was said if i hit a 12 x 12 plate at 1000 yards and its left of center but a hit i can still quickly mil that shot and dial or hold that correction for the follow up and immediatly follow up with as many shots as needed and be center punching it. I then can log that change and even figure out how much my wind call was off so i could learn from it.

As for that shot ion the picture above here is thye info:
Shot name - Narrow back
780 yards corrected
target: fatman 24x33
cant find the angle in my notes.

The group i was in i would say 60% first round hits were had on this target if not higher it wasnt a terribly hard shot.

I have only comment on a few a few things you have brought up but i am rushing to make this point and will have to reread thru all this huge posts to dig out a few other things i would like to point out.

I guess it just seems to alot of people you are coming off strong and basically saying that this cat cant get skinned any other way or you method is the only way.

I guess if we all keep opened minded and focus on one point people can learn from it.

Glad to hear you will make badlands it should make for some good conversations.

 

[Rifles Only]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Vibration is over relatively quick compared to bullet flight time.
Five things to note that can help, sometimes all are available, sometimes only a combination of one or two
1. Spotter's call- sometimes not reliable
2. Glimpse of the bullet- rare but does happen
3. Trace- Usualy available,sometimes reliable
4. Calling shot- utmost importance- where did you shoot
5. Splash on concrete, dirt, grass,or other medium- too many to list. If you catch it, it is one hundred percent reliable just by what you see in the reticle

Even if the splash is well beyond the target, any basic understanding of the ballistic curve will generate 90% + second round impact on target

But that is just me. And Frank...and a few hundred others

But you gotta drive it right

 

[Alan Griffith]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Lowlight,

If I understand your explanation, it goes like this.

If when I made the shot and I can watch my impact, read that as a miss, at "any" range, and I look back through my scope which has a Mil reticle and I deem that my miss was 1.3 mils off, I simply adjust my Mil turrents 1.3 mils to make a hit. I don't need to know I missed by 10" or 25.4 cm.

Am I in the ball park? If so, I think a Mil/Mil would be quite easy!

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

GSSP yes yes yes!!

You can either then dial that miss or hold that correction.

But that is only if you called it a good shot the wind hasnt changed on you or you didnt make a bad shot.

Thats why the follow up shot the faster you can say i missed it was a good shot and apply the correction and send the next round asap will give you the second round hit!!

But why settle for second or 3rd round hits we should all be striving to make a good wind call, apply the fundimentials and insure we hit waht we intend on the first shot!!

One shot one kill.

not One shot, one adjust and kill!!

 

[Alan Griffith]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Nomad,

Good, good, good! Ok, Ok!

Now, can it be done MOA/MOA?

I realize thier are MIL/MIL reticles/turrets.

Are thier MOA/MOA reticle/turrets out there?

Can Nightforce be purchased MIL/MIL? Or are they just MIL/MOA

 

[CoryT]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

GSSP - Correct, but under most circumstances with a real target you will hold, not dial. You can get most any mix of reticle or turret you like, just not from every mfg in every scope.

Lowlight - I've never seemed to agree with someone in such a disagrable fashion. If I've said anything that you took as a personal affront I sure did not mean it and you have my public apology. I stated that the hit ratio was a guess. I was not estimating fot the whole match, just that one shot. You had a group of shooters who got to observe your shot. That's not a 'cold' shot for them now, even less if they had any more info like what you ranged or dialed on. In any event, you have a group of very good shooters, and that's great, cause shooting against someone better is one way to improve your own shooting. I was not talking about moving targets, just the time factor after a miss. I know you could have held, you said so and I'm sure it would have probably worked just as well as dialing on. That was the actual point, if the target had been a person, you WOULD have held, making the knob calibration moot. Your info on holds for the BFZ is spot on, complete agreement. But you don't really do the math in your head at the time of the shot, do you? I'm sure you already KNOW the required hold for distance off your standard BFZ. I can't picture someone as experianced as you obviously are saying to himself, "OK, I've got 8 MOA on the gun for 400, the target is at 600 and I need 16, so I'll hold up 8, the fourth long line." I'm also sure you would agree that given a target at 800 yards, going downrange with a ruler to measure the group and distance from POA is going to be more accurate than measuring with a reticle in a 10x rifle scope. .05 mil at that range is 1.4", just under a 1/4 MOA. It's a rare individual indeed who could measure consistantly less than .05 mil error at 800 yards.

Jacob - Pretty much in complete agreement as well. The spotters reliability is dependant on the spotters experiance, absolutly. But, who is in the best position with the best equipment to spot the fall of shot, as a general rule? I'd have to say the spotter. As for the splash being absolutly reliable, well, I'd say pretty reliable. How many times have you seen a splash on the downwind side, held a bit more wind and it goes *just* over the top, because the ground falls away a little behind the target and it looks like the right elevation, but it's not? Often enough for me to not put 100% faith in just the impact point, and even presumes we can see it at all. The 1100 meter test target for MARCORSYSCOM gave the guys fits, as it was just in front a tree from the working range position. Even shooting .338's and using a marvelous Zeiss 80mm spotter, you would loose even the trace in the top of the tree, then see nothing though the tree to spot as an impact point. Left, right, high, FBOM, shoot again at the base.

Nomad - I'm sure most of the shooters on this board are actually quite good. Of course, most of my students are not experianced or highly skilled, that's why they are taking a class. As to the angle shot, the question is how many people made the first shot with no foreknowledge at all. That is, that never saw that shooting position or target location before, and never saw or were told about anyone elses shot? With the target being 2.66 MOA by 3.6 MOA I'll agree it should not be terribly difficult as a problem in finding the elevation, I can't speak to the wind problem at that time and place, obviously it was not insolvable. Unless someone went up to paint fairly often, could you even spot your hit for certain? You'd hear it, know where you held, but could everyone precisely locate their hit? I think I'm the one saying there are plenty of ways to get this done. I'm not tied to matching knob and reticle anymore than a FFP reticle ( oops, that's probably another sore point with someone ). I'm hoping like hell that the weather permits me flying out the the Badlands match. I don't have a confirmed partner, but I'll take luck of the draw or shoot alone if need be, I just want to get out and shoot somewhere else, on who knows what, and watch everone else, maybe learn somthing.

CT

PS: So far, notbody seems to disagree with the math or the examples I've posted, they just seem to think I somehow don't like the way they solve the problem. Since Lowlight seems to be getting about 80%+ first round hits, how often he sees a miss is not so much of a problem. If you have not reached such a level, a good spotter is a great asset to learning how to get TO that level.

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Cory I am just quoting some of your stuff so i can ask a question and or answer them one at a time. We have kinda totally hijacked this thread. It was a basic what do you prefer topic and we have taken it to advanced marksmanship and shooting solutions for most.


>>>Honestly, I really don't understand why anyone is so adamant about one system over another. >>>>

Dead issue its another preference thing. Doesnt matter what setup you run the biggest thing whcih one works better for youa nd which one do you prefer.

>>>>In any event, except for the zero process, WHO REALLY CARES? Shoot the rifle at the targets, adjust until you hit, note the adjustment required. Once the comeups are determined, just dial up the number on the knob that corresponds to the range. For those of you who dial wind, it's just a swag anyway. Even if I gave you a scope with the knobs painted over, could anyone really notice the difference between a .1 mil and 1/4 MOA scope?>>>>>

The method described above seems like pot luck. Why wouldnt your chrono the load and be in the ballpark and or learn your gun and bullet combo. When you say it like you did a new shooter might throw a 100 yards on and shoot and shoot and shoot and never even be in the ballpark. I know the chance is slim or that was not what you meant. I hope!

As for wind calls you are right a wind call is a swag. But the more you practice and train and study the effects of the wind and understand what those conditions do to your bullet the swag becomes a fact and you now have control of it.

As for dialing and holding for wind or elevation once again we can fight all day about this and both are correct. Both have there place and both work. I am a dialer!! I prefer to make my elevation and wind call and work for that true first round hit. In a multiple target situation then i will use MPB and then use my holds as needed.

<<<<I'm still amazed at the number of people in a class that will want to start making adjustments based on 2 shots at 600 yards. Even if the two shots went through the same hole, which way do you need to go and by how much? If you can shoot 1 MOA groups at 600 consistently from a field position, how do we know this is not the two highest shots of a 6" group? If these two shots are 3" high of center you are perfect, you don't need to dial down. If they are 3" low of center you actually need 1 MOA up, not 1/2.>>>>>

As in this the question is are we shooting bullseye or are we shootig to kill? A well trained shooter who has applied teh fundimentials and calls the shot center and it hits left or low he knows that it was either his elevation or his wind depending on where the shot went he can do adjust his hold or he can dial if he chooses to. Why if i know my shot was a good call should i shoot 3-4 shots in same spot missing center to make a adjustment. I think this is once again shooter dependent.


Ok going to next post to see what i would like to ask!!

Cory also just for everyones sake, what is your background in long range shooting and how long ahve you been a instructor?

Thanx

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

>>>>I'd sure like to know what kind of setup you use to spot your own hits at 500 to 1000 yards. No riflescope I've ever seen can see holes in anything at that distance.>>>>

Dont think anyone is saying they can see shot holes in paper. On a no mirage day depending what the target backer is you would be hard pressed to see you shot holes past 400 on a good day.

>>>>>>You can't see your own shot trace, so exactly what are you going to measure? >>>>

You might not see it all the time or even 50% of the time but you can see it from time to time and if you do you can adjust from it.

<<<<As I stated previously, you still can't correct with just one shot to a precise number anyway. Even with a reticle, that's just as much "trial and error". In the prior post example of the miss at 11, how could the shooter make a precise correction? It missed, you don't have a location from which to measure. Even if there is a splash from the shot, is it on the same plane as the target? Unless there is a spotter, with a reticle, spotting the trace as it appears past the target, whatever reticle and knobs you have don't matter, you are guessing anyway.>>>

Very situational. If you can catch a trace or splash i am confident that i can make the proper adjustment more times then not to get the second round hit. No need to look on the magic 8 ball and guess. Practice will get you there.


<<<While a sniper without a spotter can still fight, I would say he is less than 50% of the teams capability. I've got plenty of UKD targets here. Of the 35 or 40 UKD targets you engage, a fair number are placed in such a way that if you miss, you see nothing. You will only know you are at least a little high, unless it strikes at the feet of the target. Anything you do as an individual is a guess. Only a good spotter can help in this situation.>>>>

I agree you have a higher opportunity for success with a spotter. Noone can arguee that. However thats great for when you have only one or 2 threats that need to be taken out. But you can damn well bet if there is a squad coming at you or multiple threats my spotters ass better being in his weapon engaging threats or we are both going home in a body bag. So then in essence i once again as a sniper i am down to myself to effectivily engage my threats so i better be trained in making my adjustments and making a correction to end the situation.

<<<<<Having and using a spotter is WAY more important than any reticle or click value. If I gave a good team a duplex reticle and a knob that adjusted in .3 inches per click at 100 along with the correct comeups, I bet they'd beat most any individual using what ever system they wanted.>>>>>

I disagree totally and i think any here would take that bet any day!!

>>>Everybody is all happy about the metric system because it divides everything by 10. So the target is at 548 meters, what's a .1 mil click move the group, 5.48 cm? What's divisable by 10? Oh, the reticle. You can't see bullet holes in paper at 548 meters. The splash in a painted steel target is probably a couple inches in diameter, fire enough shots to get a group that you can move and I'm sure you can't find center to center within .1 mil. I have to go downrange with a ruler if I want perfect. Of course, perfect is relative. This is a fighting school, we need minute of bad guy. Here's a little test to explain where I'm at.>>>

I dont think the system has anything again to do with it. The main question is does the shooter know how to use his system to effectively reduce his threat or make the right correction to get the follow up shot. Also if i put 2-3 shoots in a plate i can get a rough enough refinement to be able to adjust it and be centered back up for that same condition to use at a later date.


<<<You'll need a partner and some kind of cover to prevent you from seeing the elevation knob. Take 10 UKD targets from say 400 to 1000 ( yards or meters, who cares). Make them a fair size, say a 12" square. Reticle range them and fire one shot. LET YOUR PARTNER DIAL ON THE ELEVATION SETTING YOU GIVE HIM. He can dial it +/- 2 clicks (+/- 1 on 1 MOA scopes). You then look at each shot and tell him what was set on the scope. Do this a few times to get a true feel for the reality of the situation.>>>

Whats the moral of the story on the drill? The shot can be effected by the wind more then his adjustment or added with his adjustment i am just playing a guessing game here. WHat is teh training point or objective?

>>>>>Let's presume you can shoot a nice 1 MOA group each and every time you get behind the rifle. You look at one of the targets ans see your shot is 1/2 MOA high of center. The possibilities are;

1: The shot was perfect, the sights were set 1/2 MOA high
2: The sights were perfect, the shot is just the highest shot of a 1 MOA group.
3: The sights were set 1/4 low, you just pushed the shot a 1/4 high and it'sw the high shot of a group.
4: The sights were set 1/2 high, that's just the lowest shot of a 1 MOA group

I could go on, but you should have the idea. This is a 1 MOA swing in the sight setting AND YOU CAN"T REALLY TELL! Why, because it's just one shot, the one shot the sniper normally gets. So, exactly what good was the matching reticle and knob? Add in the wind and possible range error and it's enough work to actually hit all 10 targets.>>>>

What does a grouping exercise at any range have to do with my reticle and knob matching? As you said there can be a shit load of variables. I am thinking if i hit my bad guy with a 4 inch group at 400 yards a 1/4 inch in either direcion i bet you he is just as dead.

<<<<I train my students for the real world. This is not F-Class competition. The real world has no range lines, no wind flags, the targets are camo'd and of varying sizes. I want you to hit a 1 MOA target in varying conditions, under time pressure with the first shot. If you should miss, you get 2 seconds to get the followup shot out, otherwise it does not count, the target is probably gone. No lasers, no wind meters, no PDA's, if it uses batteries, consider it busted.>>>>

Then why are you so focused on MOA or less groups if we are training for combat a hits a hit right. Perfect hit bad guy is gone. Off the mark some then he know needs 2 of his buddies to medevac him so now you got 3 off the battle field.

<<<<<I can (and have) take almost any reasonably coordinated person right out to the 800 yard KD range and get them to hit a 18x24 inch steel plate with the first shot, given a reasonable wind. All you need to do is hold where I tell you and press the trigger without moving anything. Now, can that person do it if I leave? Of course not. I need my students to be able to do it without my help. By day 6, I'm just watching>>>>>

Well i would hope if you are trying to gain the credibility of the shooter you would be able to dope him on target as long as he provides the fundimentials and executes what you gave him. Plus by day 6 i sure as hell someone could be hitting what they have been collecting data on all week or applying what they have learned all week. If not then what did they show up at yoru course for?

Ok i need a break.

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

>>>>On the new USMC scope, you should here some of the bitching about that from the old timers who already think in MOA/MIL/yards. You'd think it was somehow a step backwards.<<<<

Well as a old timer there were many short comings. The new scope is a welcome advance to the program and a step in the right direction to fix alot of broken issues. SUre its human nature to not like change or to retrain your brain from what you are use to doing. Accepting the change most of the time is harder then learning the change. I guess the old tiemrs have a few choices. Learn the change and drive on, die from not seeking self improvement, or get out of teh sniepr platoon and go back to a basic line company.

The change isnt that hard just sounds like typical whining.

Cory can you give us a better break down for the below mentioned classes? I have read the basic course discriptions. I just would look like to see more on what i would be getting for the prices listed below.

It's alot of $$$ for what the discription says. I am sure a shooter can take alot from the course but how would these 2 courses benifit experience shooter or are these courses geared to a beginner?

What fieldcraft is being taught? To me fieldcraft is patrolling, stalking, range cards ect.

Precision Rifle 7
“PR7” is intended for the duty sniper or the rifleman who wants to learn about this aspect of weapon-craft. In seven days, you will be exposed to the fundamentals of field craft, and will learn to make first round hits with your weapons system at unknown distances out to 800 yards. You will learn the exterior and terminal ballistics of your weapons system. If so equipped, you will learn to use the mildot reticle and other instruments specific to the mission profile of the military precision marksman. You’ll put these elements to work in several scenarios, including field exercises. This is a physically and mentally demanding class, but at the end of your seven days with us, you’ll be amply prepared to take the field as a precision marksman.

Cost: $1848

Duration: 7 days

Prerequisite: none

Ammunition: 600 rounds match ammo (call for other requirements)


Precision Rifle – Urban is geared towards the mission requirements of the police sniper. Ranges are shorter than in PR7, mirroring the conditions that are presented to the urban precision rifleman. Emphasis is placed on attaining surgical, first round hits without endangering innocents in the vicinity. Observation, communication and split-second decision making are some of the goals you will be working towards. If you want to explore this demanding discipline, or wish to round out your existing skill set in these conditions, then “Precision Rifle” – Urban is the class for you.

Cost: $1320

Duration: 5 days

Prerequisite: none

Ammunition: 500 rounds (call for other requirements)

 

[CoryT]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Yeah, some serious thread drift going on here. Anyway, It's not pot luck. We bore sight then zero for 100, that should be simple. We then box test and run the scope up 20 or 30 MOA to find out what the knobs REALLY give you as opposed to what the mfg says. Then go to 200 and shoot a group with the 100 yard dope on the gun. Go down and actually measure the group, find center, delete any true called flyers, then go back and dial on the ammount required by your knobs to get center. Fire a group to confirm. Go to 300 and repeat. When we get to 400 it's too tedious to go down range and it starts to require a pretty big target, and by now everyone should be getting the idea of what the bullet is doing. So, for 400, put 300 on the gun, then dial up the same amount more as you came from 200 to 300. If it took 3 MOA to come from 200 to 300, put 300 plus 3 MOA on and shoot the 400 yard plate. Tweek as required after you shoot a good group, NOT just one round. Now go to 500 and 600 repeating the same process. After 600 start adding about 1/3 to 1/2 again as much elevation. This should put you quite close to a target during the zero process. It should also give you a pretty good idea of the ballistic curve. If it seemed I was suggesting you start with 100 on the gun and then just go to 600 or something and just whang away, I'm sorry, not at all what I meant. Now, as I said, you've got you basic comeups. I provide targets every 50 yards past 600 to allow for the back side of the curve. So, you range a target, dial on the value that is for that range. Not an even number you say? You have the curve to extrapolate. You have 500 and 600, the target is at 562. Dial up half way between 5 and 6 and shoot. Add the odd click if there is one. Plenty good enough for people shooting.

Why do I want you to shoot a group instead of just one or two shots? Like it says, how do you know it's not the high shot of what would be a 6" group on the 12" plate at 600 yards? If this is the first time you ever shot this gun and ammo at 600 yards, you have no clue. You need to create a group, in reality several to confirm you are actually using the mean center of your POI.

I think when you zero, unless you are superbly confident of your shot, the gun and the ammo, you really should fire a group before you start twiddling knobs. I see way too many people chasing knobs all week because they won't settle down, shoot a group and adjust to center it. They fail to grasp the concept that they are shooting a pie plate out there at 800 yards, not just a bullet that lands right on the crosshair. Assuming a 1 MOA shooter, at 800 yards you should place a shot no further that 4" from the POA. So if you shoot one shot, no matter how absolutely perfect you know it was, it's 1/2 high, do you dial 1/2 down? See my previous examples for an analysis of the problem with that line of thought.

Now this does NOT apply once zeros have been confirmed! IF you have a good, known 800 yard zero, and you fire one shot under similar conditions at a target you ranged at 800 yards and it strikes .5 mil high of center, run the bolt, hold .5 mil low and shoot! If the first shot was indeed a good shot, the second should be in there. It would seem there was either a range error or an angle problem since you were 1.7 MOA off. Now if you can, you lase the target to confirm the range, recheck the angle, try to find out what the error on the first shot was so you don't repeat the error.

As for wind, I'm not sure all the experiance in the world ever makes it either a fact or controllable. It gets better, but hardly a sure thing. I prefer to hold just because it's always switching around and I don't like the mental gymnastics of going between what have I got dialed on and where do I hold? Sure as I put 3 MOA left on the gun it will switch up to right to left and I'll either have to wait when there is no time or I need to hold and account for what's on the gun. I dial on for movers, given the time, and for extreme range work where otherwise I might have to hold 6 or 8 mils off, which I ain't got.

My background is unremarkable, I started shooting back in grade school rifle club where we shot in the gym with Win 52's back when you could still take your shotgun to school and go deer hunting after class. I was on the college rifle team, joined the Army and wore a green beanie, jumped out of planes, ate snakes and howled at the moon. I've attended over a dozen schools over the years, including the first Gunsite Long Range course with Allen Heckert, Jack Furr and Jim (K-Bar) Kauber. I was selected by Jeff Cooper for the first Provost class, along with guys like Chuck Miller (SEAL 6), Ed Head (US Border Patrol) and Bill Murphy (Huntington Beach PD). I've taught at Gunsite since the mid 90's and moved out here full time in 2000. My resume is not on the Web site because plenty of people have lots better stories than I do. I never worked for the Company, never did black ops, I failed to get any Purple Hearts while saving my entire team from certain death, etc, etc...

In any event, I've been doing this for a pretty long time. I'd guess there's at least a few people on this board who had a class with me here, who'd no doubt chime in if they actually read the thread. God knows I don't post all that much, this week was real quiet and I guess I just found myself setting at the computer with nothing to do a bit too often.

CT

 

[CoryT]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Speaking of thread drift, perhaps one of the moderators can cut this all out and start a new, more appropriate thread and let this get back on track?

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Thanx for the Bio info and letting us know your experience i think that will help out some.

I guess the biggest point of all this is the fact there are many ways, methods, drills and techniques that can be used to get the final solution. Hits on target.

I think as shooters we tend to think the way we have been taught is the only way or we are not open minded to what else is out there or what else can be used.

I think no matter who you are and what level shooter you are you can take info or points from anyone and learn or file that info away to use at a later date it just might save your ass.

As shooters we need to continue to train and advance our prior training and look at what new pieces of gear or whats happening overseas can be added or updated in our training regiments to make us better shooters!!!

Semper Gumby!! Always flexible!!

 

[OKTrap]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I answered MIL/MOA ... because of the way I was trained in the service before all this other stuff came to pass. I can dial the MOA when I have the time ... but I use the MIL Ret as a quick on" for drop compensators when I don't have the time to dial. I don't use, and was not taught to use the MIL Ret for ranging, but it's something I would like to learn if possible.

 

[chevyrulz]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

wouldn't this be easier if every scope was MIL/MIL and MOA/MOA?

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

You have replied to a very old thread.

Look for the thread on the new Premier Heritage scope, and you'll find out that it's mil/mil. The new FFP Nightforce can also be had mil/mil, as can scopes from U.S. Optics.

Mil/mil or moa/moa is a much easier way to go - and now most people realize that. Which to choose is largely a function of what reticle you prefer.

 

[chevyrulz]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

yea, i was reading lowlight's write-up about using mil based scopes and came across this thread. i was looking at a Falcon Menace scope using a mildot reticle and it has the option of MOA or MIL turrets. his post helped me realize i wanted mil turrets with a mildot reticle. now i just need to decide whether to get the FFP model (only available in 44mm objective) or the 56mm objective where mil dots are the same size at all powers of magnification and only accurate for range estimation @ 10x. at least that's the case if i understood lowlights write-up...

i think i will go for the 56mm for 2 main reasons. first, i don't do combat or competition so i am not timed. so the extra time to go to 10x and estimate is no big deal. second, i don't like the idea that the dots on the ffp model change size as you zoom in/out. again, i could be completely wrong in these assumptions b/c i really don't know shit about this stuff. i just have been reading up on it in the optics threads b/c i wanna get a rifle/scope combo capable of shooting 100-1000yds.

 

[Goot]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Good poll. I am still trying to decide which I want to learn on.

 

[Carlos0311B4]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Am I crazy? Does everyone on this board really spot for themselves at 500 to 1000 yard unknown distance targets, correct via the reticle and dial on a correction for a followup shot? Are all my target placements that wickedly difficult? Around here, even if it's dry, you might not even get a puff of dirt you can see before the wind blows it away. If someone could come out here and show me how that works, I'll comp you the class of your chioce. It would be well worth it</div></div>

You can even see your own trace. Past 600 or so I can see my own trace almost every time on my 300WM. I found out shooting in Pendleton

I thought it was the coolest thing at the time.

MIL/MIL

 

[Spoon]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Not including ranging, it seems to me that there is no benefit of one style over the other as long as your reticle graduation system matches the turret graduation system, mil/mil or moa/moa. For follow up shots where you dial in a correction, as has mostly been discussed, the unit system used irrelevant to the correction. Its just the simple matter dialing in the error you see from the reticle to the knobs as described in Lowlight's writeup. Is ranging not the bigger issue since actually predicting the size of the object is what really determines your first shot accuracy?

I would think that if you can predict some objects size better in meters then mil/mil is definitely the way to go. If inches, then moa/moa. Even though there is a 5% error with using a shooters moa formula I would guess that for most it would be hidden in the errors of other variables. Some errors could be an inability to accurately predict an objects true size and its precise length measured on the reticle (MOA), inaccuracies in you and your guns ability to group, actual atmospheric conditions, fluctuations in load performance, etc. Even if you predict everything accurately and shoot perfectly, through simple math you can throw in a fudge factor of 5% prior to the shot.

I know for me that I can guess an objects size in inches better than meters, how much im not sure but probably more than 5% in error.

I cant help but feel like im completely overlooking something since vast majority of what I read everywhere seems to favor the mil system. I didn’t vote since I don’t have a mil/mil scope yet, it will be my next. I have scopes of the other 2 types and like them both. Id give preference to the moa/moa over mil/moa since I started learning with both. If it wasn’t for the coincidence that 1 moa is almost 1 in at 100 yards, I would absolutely go with mil/mil.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think that if you can predict some objects size better in meters then mil/mil is definitely the way to go. If inches, then moa/moa.</div></div>

Since it's easy to convert dimensions between inches and meters, the logic of that is flawed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even though there is a 5% error with using a shooters moa formula I would guess that for most it would be hidden in the errors of other variables.</div></div>

I'm afraid your guess is incorrect at longer distances. Accuracy in ranging increases in importance as distance increases, because the bullet is coming in at a steeper angle, which decreases the tolerance for range error.

To be accurate enough for hits beyond about 600 yards, you need to measure object sizes to a resolution of 0.05 milliradians or better for objects which are man-sized or less.

But there is no need to use an incorrect formula - just use the correct one. The Mildot Master will do calculations for scope reticles graduated in milliradians, MOA, or IPHY (what some incorrectly refer to as "shooters MOA"), as will any digital calculator.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know for me that I can guess an objects size in inches better than meters, how much im not sure but probably more than 5% in error.</div></div>

You may be calculating range to objects which vary in size, but there is no point in compounding an error in size estimation by adding another type of error.

 

[Spoon]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I forgot to add that I was basing my arguments on not having something such as a Mildot Master and simply relying on mental calculation. If using a MM or calculator, then I agree. Without use of those however, I dont find accounting for 5% to be to troublesome assuming you have a little time.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

At distances where relying on mental calculation is sufficiently accurate, you shouldn't need any calculation at all - you should be able to eyeball the distance without any reference to the image size in a scope reticle.

Beyond that distance, mental arithmetic will not do.

I'm not guessing about this - I'm basing this on experience in teaching reticle ranging techniques out to 900 yards to literally hundreds of students over a period of several years.

If you want that to work beyond eyeball distance, get a Mildot Master, a calculator, or get really fast at long division with a pencil and paper.

 

[Chiller]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I am a full on Noob. I keep bouncing between MOA and MIL. I like the simple formula for MOA (I am a engineer with a minor in Mathematics so I am not afraid of math). For "practical" tactical what do you recomend and why. I have read through the entire FAQ under optics, I have read stuff from Zac S. I guess I am asking for some help and or guidance as to which to go to and why. Even more which reticle would you recomend and why.

 

[Spoon]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Go with both!

More scopes = more guns. Ive got all 3 types. I think it will come down to which brand you like. Unless something has changed recently, then USO and I think NF are the only offering moa/moa. If you chose zeiss, S&B, Hendsolt, and other top brands, then you are stuck with mil/mil anyways. Thats assuming you dont want to deal with mil/moa style scopes in which case many brands offer.

 

[ranger1183]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?


I'm "That Guy" who never went to sniper school and picked up this precision shooting thing on my own. In the Army, I used Kilometers to measure distances and mils to call in artillery.

However, having been raised in the good ole USA, I have ingrained into my memory what inches, feet, yards and miles look like and how to "guess-timate" using such units of measure.

now I understand that MOA's are not EXACTLY inches, but they are damn close (in my opinion). In fact, my personal margin of error in shooting is GREATER than the difference between one inch at 100 yards vs. one MOA at 100 yards.

So, are you in my situation of being better able to relate to MOA reticles with MOA knobs?

Or are you more interested in learning the military system for measuring target size, target distance and shot correction techniques? Only you can answer that.

There are great scopes commercially available to utilize any system, or combination of systems, that you want. Decide what methodology you want to use and go from there.

Good luck and good shooting!

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

As far as ranging goes, I find that it's easiest to range with a Premier Gen II reticle. Since the dots are 0.2 milliradians in diameter, with the hash mark between dots, you can easily and quickly break down measurements.

However, that reticle is available only from Premier, and in a limited variety, from U.S. Optics.

That reticle is also the best for low-light shooting, because the dots are easier to see under low-light conditions.

Most other milliradian-based reticles using hashmarks are about equal, though some have 0.2 milliradian gradations at the ends of the reticle which make ranging easier.

MOA or IPHY reticles using hashmarks are relatively easy to range with, but not easy to shoot with - their are too many gradations, and many of those reticles are not numbered, so you have to count, which is hard to do while trying to shoot quickly, particularly at moving targets.

Mils work best for me.

And the formula for milliradians is no more complicated than the one for true MOA. The formular for IPHY is simpler, but as already noted, the reticles are IMO less suited for shooting.

 

[Chiller]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I am willing to learn. I keep reading and i keep bouncing back and forth. I see advantages with both systems.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Any advantage the MOA system has is lost in the scope itself, as there is no standard, and no scope currently available has the same subtension on both the horizontal and vertical lines of the reticle. So in my opinion it makes the MOA system inferior, as well many cross between true and IPHY, they are not always what they seem, half the stuff the companies do they don't even know, it has been converted and intertwined so many times over the years, they are pretty lost on which they use... an MOA is an Inch, an inch is an MOA and really they don't even bother to separate one from the other. Personally I don't recognize them as matching turrets and reticles because they are not the same, there is no 1/4" or easily broken down 1/4 MOA reticle, it's 2, 5, 1, and that changes from company, to line, to hash mark.

Bottom line, you can't just pick up an MOA adjusted scope and assume it's True MOA, or know what the reticle subtends in, no two companies do the same thing on their scopes. Fine inside 600 yards after that things change dramatically.

 

[LibertyOptics]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any advantage the MOA system has is lost in the scope itself, as there is no standard, and no scope currently available has the same subtension on both the horizontal and vertical lines of the reticle. So in my opinion it makes the MOA system inferior, as well many cross between true and IPHY, they are not always what they seem, half the stuff the companies do they don't even know, it has been converted and intertwined so many times over the years, they are pretty lost on which they use... an MOA is an Inch, an inch is an MOA and really they don't even bother to separate one from the other. Personally I don't recognize them as matching turrets and reticles because they are not the same, there is no 1/4" or easily broken down 1/4 MOA reticle, it's 2, 5, 1, and that changes from company, to line, to hash mark.

Bottom line, you can't just pick up an MOA adjusted scope and assume it's True MOA, or know what the reticle subtends in, no two companies do the same thing on their scopes. Fine inside 600 yards after that things change dramatically. </div></div>


Frank,

What I'm hearing is the weak link is standardization and consistency. This could be corrected if the scope manufacturers adhered to and published their standard. Could not the same argument be applied to Mil-based scopes? One true milliradian equals 3.438 (rounded off) true MOA. This means one true milliradian equals a very tiny bit less than 3.6 inches at one hundred yards, which is the most expressed value (10 mils = 36" at 100 yards)


While I do agree with you that true MOA and shooter's MOA are used interchangeably "when they're not", if a manufacturer sticks to a standard for both the turrets and reticle, the argument of the superiority of the mil-based system becomes negated, no? It's just another unit of measure.

By the way,
I know the topic has been beat to death, but another nice little synopsis paper:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4617008/Mils-and-Moa-Simplified


Scott

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LibertyOptics</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Could not the same argument be applied to Mil-based scopes? One true milliradian equals 3.438 (rounded off) true MOA. This means one true milliradian equals a very tiny bit less than 3.6 inches at one hundred yards, which is the most expressed value (10 mils = 36" at 100 yards)</div></div>

Scott, you are confused

One MOA = 1.047" at 100 yds

All scope manufacturers use true miliradian value, and <span style="font-weight: bold">one mil is exactly 3.6" at 100 yds</span>

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...one mil is exactly 3.6" at 100 yds</div></div>

Yep.

One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex - whatever that distance might be.

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).

 

[MtGoat]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

THAT'S IT one click = .36" at 100...knew it wasn't .500" and knew it wasn't .250" so was figuring .375 (half way between based upon trial and error). It doesn't hold up at distances (but again it could have been me

)

Cool ...Thanks

Pat

 

[NOMAD]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Wow a good topic brought back from the dead!!

To honest this should be a sticky!!!

Can i get a Amen? Or a sticky would suffice!

 

[Spoon]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Are US Optics not true MOA? I would be surprised if they were not given the quality of their products. I would think that someone would have said something about that by now. Ive searched this issue before in this forum and could not find anything. I always thought they used true MOA.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I think most of theirs are IPHY - I know the PCMOA reticle is. Ask U.S.O. about a particular reticle if you are not sure.

Actually, if I were going to get a reticle other than mildots, I'd probably prefer the IPHY.

 

[runner]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spoon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are US Optics not true MOA? I would be surprised if they were not given the quality of their products. I would think that someone would have said something about that by now. Ive searched this issue before in this forum and could not find anything. I always thought they used true MOA. </div></div>

Here is an answer to this question (above) that I gave last year in the following post titled: What really is a "mil" or "moa"? (1/15/08)

<span style="font-weight: bold">O.K. Here are the results of my phone calls </span>to Leupold, Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender, U.S. Optics, S.W.F.A and Bushnell Optics.

Before I get into my great conversation with U.S. Optics, here are the results:

They all use “real” mathematical millradians, (which is 3.6 inches at 100 yards based on 6283.2 mils per circle) for their reticles.

Except for one, they also all use “true” Moa (1.047 inches at 100 yards) for their reticle spacings.

<span style="font-weight: bold">U.S. Optics, who were very helpful, say’s they make their scopes in real “mils”, but make most of their “moa” scopes in “shooters” moa (1 inch at 100 yards). They do sell a “true” moa scope also for those who want it.</span>

Their refurbishing of the Unertl scopes also reveled that the original Unertl scopes were in “real” mils (3.6 inches at 100 yards). That is how U.S. Optics makes their scopes now.

Therefore, since my paper is for “Rifle” shooters, Snipers, Tactical shooters (and not artillery persons) I will change my paper to reflect only the “real” millradians and both “true” and “shooters” moa.

I want this paper to be a one source, definitive, accurate guide to “mils” and “moa” for shooters and to finally put the controversy to rest.

Thanks,
runner (Bob)

 

[Spoon]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, if I were going to get a reticle other than mildots, I'd probably prefer the IPHY.
</div></div>

I think I agree with that. I assume the knobs are as well. Ill have to give them a call. Good read runner. I think that is the most detailed explanation ive ever seen.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Their reticles which have IPHY gradations also have IPHY knobs, which is surely what is most desirable.

 

[Chiller]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

OK, now that I am back to Mil (hope I can stay there) which reticle (US optics) do you recomend, Mil MPR or Mil GAP? In that I would like to learn how to range also the Mil MPR "seems" to provide additional information or atleast finer graduations. Your thoughts and clarifications.

 

[Spoon]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Hahaha, so now we have IPHY/IPHY or SMOA/SMOA scopes to add. Looking forward to my first mil/mil scope. Ive always used the true moa formula. Makes sense as to why I consistently shoot low. Always thought it was exaggerated BC values.

 

[Guest]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any advantage the MOA system has is lost in the scope itself, as there is no standard, and no scope currently available has the same subtension on both the horizontal and vertical lines of the reticle. </div></div>

My MDMOA (USO SN-3) is 1 IPHY both ways, 80 total windage an 60 total up.
I know thats not 80 an 80 but it's still 1 both ways, or were you refering to something else?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I think Leupold is actually Shooter MOA and really, only NF is in True MOA aside from the special order from USO.

Leupold does .25, NF does .26... I don't think the companies have any idea themselves what the actual difference is.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I'm not sure Leupold even makes a MOA reticle.

The Leupold M1 knobs are quarter IPHY adjustments. The knobs on the 3.5-10X40M3 are in true MOA. I haven't tested any of the M2 knobs, so I don't know what they actually are.

 

[Guest]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

The M1's on the MK4 I had was true MOA.
I could dial 20 mins in and she would impact right at 21 inchs at 100yds.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Well, I've mostly tested 4.5-14X50M1 and 6.5-20X50M1s. All I have tested have been 0.25 IPHY. I have one of the first and two of the second myself, and the booklet which came with the ones I have even says that four clicks will move the POI one inch at 100 yards.

 

[Guest]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I've an older Veri X-III (3.5x10x40) that is in .25 IPHY, but both of the MK 4's were MOA, even thought they were marked IPHY. Like Frank, I don't think most MFG's know 100% of the time. The targets tell the truth, most of the time.

Both SN-3's I have are IPHY in retical(MDMOA) an knobs. I prefer this over all others I have tried as the math comes fast an easy up a point where drop, is not yet a rainbow.

 

[D_TROS]

Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

The reason for the mil reticle/moa adjustments, as i understand it, is the ease for ranging in mils and the familiarity for adjusting in moa? hmmm

example:
a 6 foot target that is 6 mils in scope is yards/mil x 1000 = 2/6 x 1000 = 333 yds away.

same calc using moa reticle:
60 inches & 18 moa in scope is inches/moa x 100= 60/18x100=333 yards.

the math for the mils, to me, is not only easier (less digits to deal with as 2/6 is a easier to calc in head than 60/18), but Mainly since a mil is nearly 3x larger than a moa, you dont have to focus to count to 18moa when it is way easier to count to just 6mils.

Obviously, time permiting and using available gear like a calculator or moa ruler do-hicky, any scope reticle combo is only as good as the person using it. For me and doing rangin calcs in my head, less digits directly decreases the liklihood for a mistake.

Thoughts?

Oh and sorry for reopening old topic...rookie mistake