tylerw02
Well-Known Member
My mouth is fine, thanks. How about adding something meaningful to the conversation?
Converting inch’s to mils
- Thread starter Mike300wby
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Like has been said before, The OP has the tools, It's really not that hard but even I have a headache now
Once again, Watch your mouth please and read the forum rules if you haven't already
Last edited:
tylerw02
Well-Known Member
Once again mouth is fine. Mind your own business.
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,627
I'm not sure what scope the OP has but it's possible he has an old scope using a mil ret and moa dials. My old Leupold is such a scope. Or he just wanted to figure out the math. Which is also useful if an electronic device fails in the field.
Yeah, it's a conversion, thanks.. I was more confused by switching to meters then centimeters, then back to yards. That made my head hurt. I definitely understand using the reticle for measurement.
I use the formula quite a bit when confirming dope at distance .... I'll shoot a group, then drive to the target and measure in inches how far from POA I am. Then I know how many clicks at said distance I need... in this situation, the reticle would work, IF i could see the holes in paper, but I lose that ability past about 6-700 yards depending on the paper I'm shooting.
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,627
Yeah all the math gets confusing unless you use it frequently. Since I'm a boomer my mind works easiest in MOA. But I tell you after getting a mil/mil scope it's so nice to make dial adjustments in 1/10th's. In any case the OP has several different methods now. hopefully one will work for him.
Thomas Edward
Member
Agreed. If the scope adjustment is one tenth mRad per click, then each click will move the point of impact 0.2268 inches. Divide 2.75 inches by 0.2268 inches and the result will be to raise the point of impact by twelve clicks.
First off I want to say that I understand everyones methods on here. I also agree full blown metrics is easiest to work with.
The OP's question still involves this dirty little 2.75" that still has to come into play somewhere. You could take the 2.75" times 2.54
to convert that to CM which is approximately 7 CM. (still need calculator) Now you still have 63meters(cheating yards into meters) so
1 mil at 63 M = .063M. = 6.3CM (more conversion)
So then 1 click is a tenth of that .63CM. So now you can divide 7 CM by .63 to get 11.11 clicks.
OR
1) Pretend you are at 100 yards. 2.75" divided by .36" per click = 7.64 clicks @ 100 yards(Had to use calculator)
2) Next multiply by 100 so you get 764 (no calculator needed).
3) divide by yardage 764 divided by 63 = 12.12 clicks
One method says 11 clicks the other says 12 which way is most accurate?(difference is probably in the .36" click @ 100 or the 2.54cm per inch conversion, or the cheating 63 yards into 63M)
Me being a math teacher and trying to come up with ways students can remember how and also figure in least amount of math(less mistakes)
I like the second way.
Less to remember..... 100/63 or 100/ 200 or 100/789 will get you a conversion factor. 100/63 = 1.587(takes 1.587 times more clicks at 63 than 100)
Doing it this way woulod require writing down the 1.587. Then taking the 2.75"/.36" to get 7.64 clicks at 100. now take the 1.587 times 7.64=12.12 clicks
The three steps listed above after the big OR are probably the fastest and never need to clear calculator.
Simplest way to write this is
2.75/.36*100/63= 12 clicks (do in order from left to right)
The OP's question still involves this dirty little 2.75" that still has to come into play somewhere. You could take the 2.75" times 2.54
to convert that to CM which is approximately 7 CM. (still need calculator) Now you still have 63meters(cheating yards into meters) so
1 mil at 63 M = .063M. = 6.3CM (more conversion)
So then 1 click is a tenth of that .63CM. So now you can divide 7 CM by .63 to get 11.11 clicks.
OR
1) Pretend you are at 100 yards. 2.75" divided by .36" per click = 7.64 clicks @ 100 yards(Had to use calculator)
2) Next multiply by 100 so you get 764 (no calculator needed).
3) divide by yardage 764 divided by 63 = 12.12 clicks
One method says 11 clicks the other says 12 which way is most accurate?(difference is probably in the .36" click @ 100 or the 2.54cm per inch conversion, or the cheating 63 yards into 63M)
Me being a math teacher and trying to come up with ways students can remember how and also figure in least amount of math(less mistakes)
I like the second way.
Less to remember..... 100/63 or 100/ 200 or 100/789 will get you a conversion factor. 100/63 = 1.587(takes 1.587 times more clicks at 63 than 100)
Doing it this way woulod require writing down the 1.587. Then taking the 2.75"/.36" to get 7.64 clicks at 100. now take the 1.587 times 7.64=12.12 clicks
The three steps listed above after the big OR are probably the fastest and never need to clear calculator.
Simplest way to write this is
2.75/.36*100/63= 12 clicks (do in order from left to right)
Thought you weren't no good at splainin?
NZScotty
Member
Firstly assuming you know that at 50 you need double the amount of clicks for a given measurement than at 100,and consequently less clicks for the same measurement as distance increases passed 100, there are a couple of options here.
Get a metric ruler,set your range finder to metres and then make your adjustments the same as if you were working in moa. The numbers are different,but the process is the same. ie 2.75" @ 63yd will be approx 4.5 moa. 6.6cm @ 57m will be approx 1.3 mil.
Or download one of the many free ballistic solvers/shooting apps that have conversions and let it do the work for you.
Get a metric ruler,set your range finder to metres and then make your adjustments the same as if you were working in moa. The numbers are different,but the process is the same. ie 2.75" @ 63yd will be approx 4.5 moa. 6.6cm @ 57m will be approx 1.3 mil.
Or download one of the many free ballistic solvers/shooting apps that have conversions and let it do the work for you.
DMP25-06
Well-Known Member
To Mike300wby ,
The mathematical conversions that are being given , all seem to be correct to bring the impact of the bullet to the point of aim at 63 yards .
However , are you wanting your scope to be zeroed at 63 yards , or a more common 100 yard zero ?
A 63 yard zero impact will be high at 100 yards .
We would need bullet's BC and velocity , plus centerline of scope's height above centerline of bore , to be able to mathematically calculate a true adjustment for bullet impact at 63 yards , to be dead-center impact at point-of-aim at 100 yards .
Or , use a ballistics program for correct adjustments , which would have made this discussion un-necessary , and might have saved some tempers from rising .
Just my opinion ,
DMP25-06
Most of the time when I've tried to explain it to someone (my dad, and a couple friends) they look at me like a dog that didn't quite make it to the door in time. Lol
So I'm guessing you understood it ?
You oughta be a math teacher. I get this "hollow stare" quite often. Like I am speaking in Swahili.
