Mil (MRAD) scope

[taylorce1]

Don't over think Mils, just remember it works equally with yards or meters. 1 Mil equals 1 yd at 1000 yds or 1 meter at 1000 meters. MOA isn't as easy to use with meters and requires more math.

.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by taylorce1

Don't over think Mils, just remember it works equally with yards or meters. 1 Mil equals 1 yd at 1000 yds or 1 meter at 1000 meters. MOA isn't as easy to use with meters and requires more math.



.

Theoretically yes. But live targets don't tend to sit at nice round number of yards. Say a deer at 346yd. 1 click is 0.0346 yd. It is rather hard to visualize in inches.

I would do this. 346 yd is about 320 m (10% off), or 32000 cm. 1 click is 3.2cm, somewhere between 1" and 2". It is easier for me. The only thinking is taking 10% to convert yards to meters.

Ideally a spotter calls out corrections in shooter's clicks. That requires same reticle on the spotter scope. Or the corrections are in target sizes. The shooter has to convert that into number of clicks or ticks.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[taylorce1]

@tangolima,

You're way over complicating things, FORGET THE MATH. Once you've done the initial work at the range (established zero, velocity,and confirmed drops the math is done) in the field Mils are Mils, and MOA is MOA. You should never go to a match or hunt in the field if you and your spotter are not using the same form of measurement.

Theoretically yes. But live targets don't tend to sit at nice round number of yards. Say a deer at 346yd. 1 click is 0.0346 yd. It is rather hard to visualize in inches

In this situation regardless of Mils or MOA you dial in for the closest range on your dope card. It all depends on how you've broken down your chart. Most would dial for 350 yards and send a round, or hold the appropriate Mil or MOA mark on the reticle.

I would do this. 346 yd is about 320 m (10% off), or 32000 cm. 1 click is 3.2cm, somewhere between 1" and 2". It is easier for me. The only thinking is taking 10% to convert yards to meters.

No need to convert if you're working in meters look at your charts and dial or hold the appropriate Mils. There is no need for math if your zeroed in your scope using meters as your setup. Remember meters or yards Mils is an angular measurement that works equally well with both. you just won't have the same click values.

Ideally a spotter calls out corrections in shooter's clicks. That requires same reticle on the spotter scope. Or the corrections are in target sizes. The shooter has to convert that into number of clicks or ticks.

Ideally a spotter calls out something like 1/2 Mil/MOA low/high or right/left, then the shooter uses the reticle for correction to send the second shot. That's much faster way to get things relayed. That's why I say you should never go afield competition or hunting with a spotter who isn't using the same unit of measure as you.

[tangolima]

We are talking about the same thing. Well mostly.

If I get to work in meters and nothing else, we wouldn't have had this discussion at all. I also found the spotter ideality was mostly beyond my affordability. Spotting scopes with mrad reticle are rather expensive. They are available in formal matches. Other than that I got feedback like "6 inches to the right". Better ones are like "one and half targets to the left". I will have to do my own things, I'm afraid. It may sound complicated to some, but it is really simple to me.

-TL

PS. For practice, my range buddies are my spotters. I was hoping my they could do the conversion and give me the clicks directly. Only a few could it correctly. Too complicated.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[taylorce1]

You can get a spotter for under $1000 with a reticle from Athlon. I don't know how good the glass is on it, but my one Athlon $130 budget scope on my .22 lr is pretty good.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by taylorce1

You can get a spotter for under $1000 with a reticle from Athlon. I don't know how good the glass is on it, but my one Athlon $130 budget scope on my .22 lr is pretty good.

Thanks for the info. I wish I knew about this earlier. Money has gone to a cheapy champion choice spotting scope (no reticle of course). Will wait for the next round of funding.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[taylorce1]

Athlon Ares UHD G2 15-45X65

[tangolima]

Thanks.

The reticle is with the eyepiece. Maybe champion choice also has something similar. $800 is still a big sum for me. Will have to wait a while.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[kmw1954]

A for what it's worth.
Last winter while shooting in our league I had a target at 200 yards that had a .5MOA Bull. I was shooting a MRAD scope. First shot was just left of the bull so adjusted 1 click right, .1m. Next shot placed exactly the same distance away from the bull directly across from the first shot. Result 2 misses. One left one right, no score. 1/4MOA might have scored.

[tangolima]

0.5 moa at 200yd is 1" or 2.5cm.

200yd is 180 meters. One click is 1.8cm, or 0.7". It should have hit, although 1/4moa would have better chance. Maybe better to hold half a click equivalent with reticle.

0.5 moa bull at 200yd is as hard to hit as a 6-foot bull at 1000yd plus ballistic uncertainty and wind. It is not too shabby to miss.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by tangolima

0.5 moa at 200yd is 1" or 2.5cm.

200yd is 180 meters. One click is 1.8cm, or 0.7".

Or how about 1 mil at 200 yards is 7.2" (36"X.2 or 3.6"X2), so 1/10 MIl adjustments move .72" per click. There is no need to convert yards and inches to meters or centimeters with Mils. Mils is not a metric measurement, and why I say you're making things too complicated.

[tangolima]

It is the same.

The way I follow is easier for me. Not saying it is the only way. Taking 10% off is easy. Divide by 100 is even easier. Much easier than multiplying 36 by whatever. It is just me with a simple mind.

The point is, I believe you agree, it isn't that hard, either way.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[std7mag]

MOA is easier for me.
I still think in inches, feet, yards & miles.
I can convert to metric without too much difficulty.

I also prefer MOA for long range shooting for the finer adjustments. IE roughly 2.5" at 1,000 yards.
And 1,000 yards being 914.4 meters, your MILadjustment is going to take some figuring.

Plus my long range scope is adjusted in 0.125" per click.

In an interview with Dan Smichko of Cutting Edge Bullets on their gear used for King Of 2 Miles, he listed a Leupold VX5 in MILs that they didn't care for as the adjustments were too coarse.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by std7mag

MOA is easier for me.
I still think in inches, feet, yards & miles.
I can convert to metric without too much difficulty.

I also prefer MOA for long range shooting for the finer adjustments. IE roughly 2.5" at 1,000 yards. And 1,000 yards being 914.4 meters, your MILadjustment is going to take some figuring.

I get MOA is easier for a lot of people and there is nothing wrong with using MOA. While a ¼ MOA scope move 2.6" (10.47÷4) at 1000 yds a .10 click Mil scope is 3.6" (36÷10) at 1000 yards. What is there to figure?


Once realized Mils are Mils, and stop thinking of it as a metric unit of measure it becomes way easier to use. The only reason you need to convert is if you built your dope card different from the unit of measure you're using to estimate range. So if you shot your dope in yards and your laser range finder is stuck on meters this is the only time you'll do math in the field for elevation adjustments.

[tangolima]

I am with taylorce1 that mil or moa doesn't matter if everything is in clicks. No conversion is needed.

1/4 MOA does have better resolution. That's the start of this thread. A few good points on that from the discussion.

Mil has less number of clicks to count. Makes sense, but a bit weak. The issue can be easier overcome.

Targets are bigger. Long range matches have target sized in meters, and multiple shots are to walk to a hit. That makes finer resolution not necessary.

Rifle's group size. Rifle that shoots 0.5moa at 100yd easily becomes over 1moa at 1000yd. Ballistic uncertainties and wind amplify the group with distance. Finer clicks don't help much as it is within "margin of error". I could be wrong, scopes with finer clicks are for silhouette shooting at mid ranges (200-300yd) where rifle's group is still small.

Conclusion after some trial and error in real use: mil is ok. Occasional conversion is not hard if necessary.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by tangolima

I am with taylorce1 that mil or moa doesn't matter if everything is in clicks.

I DO NOT want clicks if you're spotting for me, period end of discussion. I want MOA or Mil corrections depending on what scope I'm using. If I decide to twist a turret, then I should automatically know how to adjust my scope.

If I'm 1 MOA or 1 Mil off target, I adjust 1 MOA or Mil. Regardless if I choose to dial or use my reticle I have the correct information relayed by the spotter. I have numbers on my scope turrets for a reason.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by taylorce1

I DO NOT want clicks if you're spotting for me, period end of discussion. I want MOA or Mil corrections depending on what scope I'm using. If I decide to twist a turret, then I should automatically know how to adjust my scope.



If I'm 1 MOA or 1 Mil off target, I adjust 1 MOA or Mil. Regardless if I choose to dial or use my reticle I have the correct information relayed by the spotter. I have numbers on my scope turrets for a reason.

Okay okay.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Nathan]

Whoa! Spotter calls out hit or miss. Then correction in MILS or MOA to get POI to hit POA. Horizontal and vertical. That’s it.

The worst spot when shooting long range is a 4 o’clock about 3”. This is pretty std on a paper target with no reticle in spotter. That said, the shooter can measure from POI to POA and correct.

Everything has to be angular in the scope. The distances are where you need translation.

The difference is most MOA reticles are 1 MOA spacing. So reasonable resolution is 0.5 MOA. Most MIL reticles are 0.2 MIL spacing, so 0.1 MIL resolution is reasonable.

0.5 MOA is lower resolution than 0.1 MIL. Splitting the smallest measurement into 10, 4 or 2 increments is std scientific practice. I’m splitting here by 2 assuming there is some speed element in this reading.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Spotter calls out hit or miss. Then correction in MILS or MOA to get POI to hit POA. Horizontal and vertical.

Yes, think of a MOA or Mil reticle as moving the grid squares from your paper zero targets to your optic lense. It's just a tape measure now, it tells how much correction you need. As long as your using a FFP or fixed optic your measurement will always be correct, with a SFP just make sure your power setting is correct for your new tape measure.

This is why I say forget math and do exactly what your reticle tells you to do. It doesn't matter how many inches/centimeters a click moves you at an arbitrary distance. What matters is are you measuring accurately and is your scope moving correctly to your (MOA/Mil) measurement to get POI to match POA.

Laser rangefinders, chronographs, wind meters, and ballistic phone apps have changed the game from what these reticles were originally designed for. With all this as long as your putting good data in you get good data out, so be honest. If you want to learn the range estimation and all the math involved for plotting trajectories, calculating velocites, and true BC of bullets you can do so at your leisure. However, not knowing the math doesn't stop you from using a MOA or Mil reticle effectively.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Whoa! Spotter calls out hit or miss. Then correction in MILS or MOA to get POI to hit POA. Horizontal and vertical. That’s it.

The worst spot when shooting long range is a 4 o’clock about 3”. This is pretty std on a paper target with no reticle in spotter. That said, the shooter can measure from POI to POA and correct.

Everything has to be angular in the scope. The distances are where you need translation.

The difference is most MOA reticles are 1 MOA spacing. So reasonable resolution is 0.5 MOA. Most MIL reticles are 0.2 MIL spacing, so 0.1 MIL resolution is reasonable.

0.5 MOA is lower resolution than 0.1 MIL. Splitting the smallest measurement into 10, 4 or 2 increments is std scientific practice. I’m splitting here by 2 assuming there is some speed element in this reading.

Am really confused over the use of word "resolution". And while scopes come with differing options for extreme long ranges, 1/4 moa and .1 mil adjustments are standard on most scopes i have seen. And these are not resolutions, they are adjustment increments. 1/4 is bout 1/4 inch at 100 yds and .1 mil is .36 in. Neither are greater "resolution" than the other.

The graduations on a reticle may have differing spacing, but best they match the "click" adjustment values. Generally mil scopes need fewer clicks to adjust elevation/windage.

Course everyone has their personal preferences, and use of the english language.

[Nathan]

@zeke….
Maybe this can help….LINK

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Nathan

@zeke….
Maybe this can help….LINK

Sorry, but that is not applicable to elevation adjustments on a scope.

[Nathan]

Well, simply stated 1 MOA line spacing is 1 MOA.


0.2mil line spacing is 0.2mils.

0.2mils is a smaller line spacing that 1 MOA…..this means mils has greater resolution in the reticle reading or adjustment by reticle.

In the turret, the turrets are 1/4 MOA and 0.1 MILS. In the turret, the MOA has slightly greater resolution. This is very slight I I find no meaningful difference….. other the the difficulty of counting/memorizing base 4 number systems vs base 10 number systems.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Well, simply stated 1 MOA line spacing is 1 MOA.


0.2mil line spacing is 0.2mils.

0.2mils is a smaller line spacing that 1 MOA…..this means mils has greater resolution in the reticle reading or adjustment by reticle.

In the turret, the turrets are 1/4 MOA and 0.1 MILS. In the turret, the MOA has slightly greater resolution. This is very slight I I find no meaningful difference….. other the the difficulty of counting/memorizing base 4 number systems vs base 10 number systems.

still believe you're confusing gradation with resolution. At the same power setting a mil spec and a moa scope have the same resolution. the reticle spacing is not resolution

http://www.revicoptics.com/blog/revi...%20100%20yards.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by zeke

still believe you're confusing gradation with resolution.

I’m not talking about optical resolution. I’m talking about how well the reticle can be read or at what resolution it can be read.

Graduation - A division or interval, as on a graduated scale.

Yes, a finer graduation 0.2 mil vs 1 moa will have a higher resolution of reading.