What is your preferred scope reticle calibration?

[Dirty Dave]

jtkratzer

I believe you off by a factor of 10. One mil at 1000 yards is one yard. If it were 1 mil at 100 yards you would have a hard time adjusting arty with any accuracy.

dirty dave

 

[Tin Tin]

MOA

 

[jtkratzer]

jtkratzer

I believe you off by a factor of 10. One mil at 1000 yards is one yard. If it were 1 mil at 100 yards you would have a hard time adjusting arty with any accuracy.

dirty dave

Right, but you can adapt the mil to any unit of measure for width as long as you use the same unit of measure for range.

1 mil at 1000 yards is 1 yard or 1 meter at 1000 meters. You can't mix.

I had a typo and brain fart at the same time with the phone on that post.

The point was you can make it anything you want... 1 mil can be 1 size 10 shoe at a range 1000 size 10 shoes.

The base 10 system work for whatever unit of measure you want to roll with.

 

[Dirty Dave]

You are right and that is why I prefer mils on my scope. Even though I took a lot of math in school I haven't been able to do it in my head since hand held calculators were invented. Mils keeps me from having to do all that.

 

[Dragonscout]

Since leaving the Army in '83, just been using MOA. Couldn't afford (still can't) nice scopes and after trying to make civilian scopes work, I just decided to go back to MOA since it was how I originally learned in the 60's. Couple that with hunting in the swamps for years, where a long shot was 50 yards, just lost the art. And most of the civilian shooters really struggle with the mil system. Trying to regain some lost skills and knowledge by stopping by as I can...

 

[Mikecr]

MOA is more intuitive for Americans -for hold-offs.
Our distance reference is in INCHES, and MOA is closer & higher definition w/resp to INCHES.
Even better for us is IPHY, which most scopes must ultimately be measured & taken to for accuracy(even though marketed as MOA -few are).

MILs work for rough optical ranging, but LRFs way better cover this function.
Given LRFs, there is no longer a real basis for FFP scopes, or MILs.
Never liked either anyway..

 

[stevenm2]

I am new here and do not want to ruffle any feathers however being an old Fire Direction Control Marine I chuckled out loud when a previous poster said that a Mil. is adjustable. Or did I read it wrong.
As I recall a Mil. is an angle derived from a Division of a circle into 6400 mils.
This does away with the minutes and seconds it takes to achieve accuracy from using degrees. Cuts down on the math for Artillery equations and shooting solutions.
You can't make it a foot at 1000 yards or a yard or whatever you want
It is a constantly growing dimension with range. A mil is the same at any given range. That would be the circumference divided by 6400. What ever range you are at when you hit a meter will be different than when you hit a yard. a size 10 shoe will be somewhat closer range than a meter.
If a MIL was able to adapt to whatever we wanted it to be some very basic principles of Physics would be very wrong and Obama would be President

Again, A Mil is based on a circle cut into 6400 equal pies shapes to create Mils.

 

[NATE40]

I am new here and do not want to ruffle any feathers however being an old Fire Direction Control Marine I chuckled out loud when a previous poster said that a Mil. is adjustable. Or did I read it wrong.
As I recall a Mil. is an angle derived from a Division of a circle into 6400 mils.
This does away with the minutes and seconds it takes to achieve accuracy from using degrees. Cuts down on the math for Artillery equations and shooting solutions.
You can't make it a foot at 1000 yards or a yard or whatever you want
It is a constantly growing dimension with range. A mil is the same at any given range. That would be the circumference divided by 6400. What ever range you are at when you hit a meter will be different than when you hit a yard. a size 10 shoe will be somewhat closer range than a meter.
If a MIL was able to adapt to whatever we wanted it to be some very basic principles of Physics would be very wrong and Obama would be President

Again, A Mil is based on a circle cut into 6400 equal pies shapes to create Mils.

I think the poster were refering to a mildot scope, these scopes have dots at at equal degrees in the scope,knowing the height of an object ,say a house door 86" common and the number of mills the door takes up in the scope at 100 Y/M say 10 mildots we have two of three factors to measure distance. So if a common door is dotting in your scope at 1 milldot should = 1000 Y/M
so similar as knowing the mills on a 6400 compass or a common 360 degree compass one is just more accurate but if you know the headings of 2 known points on a map you can find your location on a map by resection . a milldot scope works in a verticle way but the same concept.

 

[jtkratzer]

MOA is more intuitive for Americans -for hold-offs.
Our distance reference is in INCHES, and MOA is closer & higher definition w/resp to INCHES.
Even better for us is IPHY, which most scopes must ultimately be measured & taken to for accuracy(even though marketed as MOA -few are).

MILs work for rough optical ranging, but LRFs way better cover this function.
Given LRFs, there is no longer a real basis for FFP scopes, or MILs.
Never liked either anyway..

There is a use when you know your rifle's dope or bullet drop in mils (or MOA) and you can just dial your elevation. Sure, a LRF is the preferred method, but if/when your electronics fail or batteries die, you can use a slide tool (Mildot Master) and come up with ranges as well as bullet drops without batteries by knowing your dope and usually do it faster than an electronic calculator.

I am new here and do not want to ruffle any feathers however being an old Fire Direction Control Marine I chuckled out loud when a previous poster said that a Mil. is adjustable. Or did I read it wrong.
As I recall a Mil. is an angle derived from a Division of a circle into 6400 mils.
This does away with the minutes and seconds it takes to achieve accuracy from using degrees. Cuts down on the math for Artillery equations and shooting solutions.
You can't make it a foot at 1000 yards or a yard or whatever you want
It is a constantly growing dimension with range. A mil is the same at any given range. That would be the circumference divided by 6400. What ever range you are at when you hit a meter will be different than when you hit a yard. a size 10 shoe will be somewhat closer range than a meter.
If a MIL was able to adapt to whatever we wanted it to be some very basic principles of Physics would be very wrong and Obama would be President

Again, A Mil is based on a circle cut into 6400 equal pies shapes to create Mils.

First off, Semper Fi.

Second, that circle has 6400 mils regardless of whether the circle is 10 feet in diamter or 10 miles. Both circles have 6400 mils, but the circumference is very different. I think we're both on the same page and how I posted wasn't clear. A mil is a mil, but it's an angular measurement, not a unit of measurement used for length, because the mil is not constant in length (divergence of the mil for the 0844). A mil is an angle - just like a degree is an angle - the distance between two lines that are 30* apart increases as you move away from the point where those two lines intersect, same thing with the mil and because there aren't exactly 6400 mils in a circle, we artilleryman use that magic 1.0186 number (there's actually 6283 mils in a circle, 6400/6283 = 1.0186) to try and cut the error down further.

What I meant was a mil is not metric, SAE, etc. It can be whatever you want it to be since it's not a linear measurement, just an angular measurement that follows the rules of trig and geometry. It's not fixed to meters or yards. You can use any unit of measure you want. Artillery (US anyway) always uses meters because the math is simple as metric and mils are both base 10 number systems. You range or measure distance between two objects in mils, and in the 0861 world, they use the OT factor to convert mils into a linear distance on the ground as you already know a mil represents a greater length as the range of the object being measured increases.

You can convert the angular measurement to any linear measurement you want, as long as you follow the base 10 rules that come with mils - which is why meters work so well. 1 mil is roughly 1 meter at 1000, .5 meter at 500, .1 meters at 100, 1 mil is 2 meters at 2000, etc. A scope with .1 mil turret adjustments moves the POI .01 meters at 100 meters.

 

[Mikecr]

Well I don't know how many artillerymen are hitting groundhogs(peeking over grass) at 500+ with THIS system.
IMO, all the twiddling with a Mildot Master & use of FFP scopes isn't gonna help, cuz it isn't precise enough ranging, 'doping', dialing, or holding-off.

Let's get to what a MIL is -in the field,, compared to MOA, and IPHY, for the American HUNTER:
6283.185 Mils/circle ([2*Pi]*1000)
While an MOA is 21,600 Mins/circle (360deg*60min/deg)
21600/6283.185= 3.437747 MOAs/MIL
An MOA=1.047198 IPHY, so 3.437747*1.047198= 3.6 INCHES/MIL/100yds (3.6 IPHY)
1MIL= ~3.438 MOA
1MIL= 3.6 IPHY
.1MIL=.36 IPHY, 1/4MOA =.26 IPHY, .25 IPHY =Just that

1/8MOA =.13 IPHY

Maybe it's a different thread, but IMO the FFP scopes & the standard target sizes their ranging is based on, pales in precision to laser ranging, SFP scopes w/med-fine CHs(or finer), and 1/4moa dialing(or finer) in the field.
This side of armageddon, it makes sense to change batteries once in a while, for the accuracy, just as it makes sense that our military would embrace smart weapon precision of late.

Eventually(I don't know what's takin so long), we'll have micrometer side focus w/a focus prism on the reticle plane, and LRFs will fade away.
We won't need batteries to range, and of course we still will not need MILs.
But for some reason, it will be just as hard to convince..............

 

[jtkratzer]

Well I don't know how many artillerymen are hitting groundhogs(peeking over grass) at 500+ with THIS system.
IMO, all the twiddling with a Mildot Master & use of FFP scopes isn't gonna help, cuz it isn't precise enough ranging, 'doping', dialing, or holding-off.

Let's get to what a MIL is -in the field,, compared to MOA, and IPHY, for the American HUNTER:
6283.185 Mils/circle ([2*Pi]*1000)
While an MOA is 21,600 Mins/circle (360deg*60min/deg)
21600/6283.185= 3.437747 MOAs/MIL
An MOA=1.047198 IPHY, so 3.437747*1.047198= 3.6 INCHES/MIL/100yds (3.6 IPHY)
1MIL= ~3.438 MOA
1MIL= 3.6 IPHY
.1MIL=.36 IPHY, 1/4MOA =.26 IPHY, .25 IPHY =Just that

1/8MOA =.13 IPHY

Maybe it's a different thread, but IMO the FFP scopes & the standard target sizes their ranging is based on, pales in precision to laser ranging, SFP scopes w/med-fine CHs(or finer), and 1/4moa dialing(or finer) in the field.
This side of armageddon, it makes sense to change batteries once in a while, for the accuracy, just as it makes sense that our military would embrace smart weapon precision of late.

Eventually(I don't know what's takin so long), we'll have micrometer side focus w/a focus prism on the reticle plane, and LRFs will fade away.
We won't need batteries to range, and of course we still will not need MILs.
But for some reason, it will be just as hard to convince..............

Ranging with a mil system is accurate enough for those who are competent with the tools in their hands through practice.

There is very little need for hunters to have corrections as small as 1/8" per hundred yards when most big game have a vital areas measure 10+ inches in diameter. That's 4,000 yards before a single click on a 1/8 MOA scope moves the point of impact 5". Just not really necessary for hunting and that's what this forum is...long range hunting, right?

No gripes about accuracy, just don't see a need for that kind of turret dial for people who are hunting.

And as far as artillery, the mil system works well enough for 0861s and 13Fs to adjust artillery to within 50m of their target when the range to the target can exceed 4 miles. It works to range targets when the target size is known - again, proficiency, not some guy who shoots a few rounds to sight in and then heads out to hunt.

 

[Mikecr]

I guess what I'm suggesting is that MILs provide no advantage over MOA or IPHY.
Every actual benefit applied to one, applies to any other, but MILs represent the very lowest in resolution.
Too low for groundhogs (as an example).

You can rationalize that there are great big killzones out there where MILs are good enough.
That's NOT an advantage

 

[jtkratzer]

I guess what I'm suggesting is that MILs provide no advantage over MOA or IPHY.
Every actual benefit applied to one, applies to any other, but MILs represent the very lowest in resolution.
Too low for groundhogs (as an example).

You can rationalize that there are great big killzones out there where MILs are good enough.
That's NOT an advantage

I guess it depends on your target or game. I've never hunted ground hogs in my life, but I don't think I'd have a problem dialing dope for the range and using a hold off/over if necessary.

 

[270 MKV]

I like mils...it works!!!

(1000 / number of mills covered in scope) x (Target size in inches/36) = range in yards

or

(1000 / number of mills covered in scope) x (Target size in feet/3) = range in yards

or

(1000 / number of mills covered in scope) x (Target size in meters) = range in meters

or

(1000 / number of mills covered in scope) x (Target size in yards) = range in yards


then reference yer DOPE...click yer scope...kablooie