Need help can't wrap my head around how to break mills down for each range. Like click value at 100,200,ect. Thx
The click value at each range is usually irrelevant. You shouldn't normally be adjusting fire by linear measurements such as feet, or inches or meters. You should be adjusting in angles such as, "I missed by 0.5 mils, so I dial or hold a 0.5mils correction". The range is irrelevant because the angle is the same, no matter the range.Need help can't wrap my head around how to break mills down for each range. Like click value at 100,200,ect. Thx
Thx this is what I was really looking for brain is now running just couldn't remember. Getting old I guessThe click value at each range is usually irrelevant. You shouldn't normally be adjusting fire by linear measurements such as feet, or inches or meters. You should be adjusting in angles such as, "I missed by 0.5 mils, so I dial or hold a 0.5mils correction". The range is irrelevant because the angle is the same, no matter the range.
A couple of exceptions:
If you are truing BC or adjusting dope from groups on paper targets at a distance where you can't see bullet holes. Or you are using the mathmatical center of the group and not the optical center that can be measured with the scope, then you would need to know that a mil = 3.6 inches, or that 1/10 of a mil (1 click) = .36 inches.
So, the formula would be: offset of the group in inches / 3.6 x 100 / range in yards = adjustment in mils.
5 inches low at 500 yards: 5 inches / 3.6 x 100 / 500 = 0.277 mils
Or in clicks...1/10 of a mil click = .36 inches... so .36 inches x 5 (hundreds of yards) = 1.8 inches... and 5 inches (group offset) / 1.8 inches = 2.77 1/10 mil clicks.
Well put thanksA mil is a mil at 100 yards and at 1000 yards. Don't try and convert angular to linear. Just causes confusion. Use reticle as a ruler.
I get why using the reticle as a ruler has become the mantra. I quoted it myself up above. But it isn't the answer to everything. A good solid statistical zero requires precise measuring not just of the apparent group center, but of every single shot.Nothing to do with vogue or not but simplicity of use. If you want to go down and look at the target and see how far you are off then you still don't need an actual ruler. Just log where on the target it is and then when behind the rifle use the reticle to make the correction. No need to convert anything.
So do you just use the reticle to measure where the impact is and use that info to make an adjustment? I'm new to this and am trying to learn..The idea of walking to the target to me is rediculous. I know there are super anal people who need to measure each shot to the exact aiming point but that aiming point was made with the reticle as well. And if someone is that over anal then they will probably love all the conversions anyways so those people I am sure know how to do it. I would rather bring up the way that is easier and as accurate as needs to be to adjust a shot placement without having to do conversions. Don't even remember the last time I ever converted anything and have no problems getting shots where they should be.
Yup. It's that easy. Best thing for me was to never think about it as a measurement of length or height.So do you just use the reticle to measure where the impact is and use that info to make an adjustment? I'm new to this and am trying to learn..
That simple? Correction U.6 L.8Yup that simple. Reticle as a ruler and hold or dial the correction.
If you want to go down and look at the target and see how far you are off then you still don't need an actual ruler. Just log where on the target it is and then when behind the rifle use the reticle to make the correction. No need to convert anything.
The idea that someone would walk or drive all the way to a paper target to look at it and NOT measure it....then either make a mental note or some mark.... and then go all the way back to the firing point to measure with a reticle, seems a ridiculous length to go to avoid doing some simple math.
The idea of walking to the target to me is rediculous.
That just comes down to practice but he was just asking about getting the correction.That simple? Correction U.6 L.8
Bang new shooter misses right 1.6 LOL..
Seems newer shooters get often get messed up with what L and R means, when indexing.. The weird thing is they always seem to naturally get that that U or UP, means use the bottom below the horizontal strata..
I know, I was just being silly.. and pointing out that whatever system people use it still take a bit of practiceThat just comes down to practice but he was just asking about getting the correction.
I take this as you are giving me directions, not reading me the outcome, hey dumbass dial up .6 and dial left .8That simple? Correction U.6 L.8
Bang new shooter misses right 1.6 LOL..
Seems newer shooters get often get messed up with what L and R means, when indexing.. The weird thing is they always seem to naturally get that that U or UP, means use the bottom below the horizontal strata..
oh dear god no. why?Try using metric for distance and measurements.
why not? Theres no conversion. once you learn it...oh dear god no. why?
It isn't the math, the math is easy.why not? The conversion is way easier once you learn it.
1 click or 1/10 mil = 1cm @ 100m
2.37cm @ 237m (1mil=23.7cm)
6.87cm @ 687m (1mil=68.7cm)
View attachment 7063391
Yes, its intimidating and challenging. And sort of like learning a foreign language. A mil scope is basically in that language and we translate it into imperial.It isn't the math, the math is easy.
It's that nobody knows what the hell a cm or a mm looks like. A meter kind of looks like a yard, until you start stacking them by the hundreds. It's a lifetime of ocular calibration that is so hard to overcome.
It’s the same reason the sentence, “No—your OTHER left”, is so common.That simple? Correction U.6 L.8
Bang new shooter misses right 1.6 LOL..
Seems newer shooters get often get messed up with what L and R means, when indexing.. The weird thing is they always seem to naturally get that that U or UP, means use the bottom below the horizontal strata..
The math is the same. 1/10 of a yard isn't any harder than 1/10 of a meter. The decimal point moves to exactly the same place.Yes, its intimidating and challenging. And sort of like learning a foreign language. A mil scope is basically in that language and we translate it into imperial.
1/10 of a yard is 3.6 inches, which is 1 MIL at 100 yards. As in 1/10 of 36 inches (1 yard), which is 1 MIL at 1000 yards.Lol, 1/10 of a yard. Who says that?
The math isnt even close.
3.6.... That proves my point. It doesnt break down and align on whole numbers 1/10/100/1000s like metric does.1/10 of a yard is 3.6 inches, which is 1 MIL at 100 yards. As in 1/10 of 36 inches (1 yard), which is 1 MIL at 1000 yards.
So, the math is kind of close....exact in fact.
My point is that giving a linear offset from the target isn’t practical, and is only necessary in the suboptimal situation where the shooter and spotter (or the turrets and reticle—ugh!) are using different units of angle.@christopher.dow I totally get it. Im not debating that. Simply saying that if one was to be taking linear measurements. Using metric translates easier. 1cm on a metric ruler would be 1 click on a mil scope. If you were 13cm off how many clicks? 13, No math involved its 1 for 1 you simply move the decimal.
If somone was spotting and said your off by 1.3 meters, that is 13 mil. Can you easily dial 13 mil?
Vs if they said your off target by 1.4 yards. Dial that.
3.6.... That proves my point. It doesnt break down and align on whole numbers 1/10/100/1000s like metric does.
Now if there were 100 inches to a yard.
How often do you shoot at exactly 100 meters, and how often is your group center exactly 1cm off?@christopher.dow I totally get it. Im not debating that. Simply saying that if one was to be taking linear measurements. Using metric translates easier. 1cm on a metric ruler would be 1 click on a mil scope. If you were 13cm off how many clicks? 13, No math involved its 1 for 1 you simply move the decimal.
If somone was spotting and said your off by 1.3 meters, that is 13 mil. Can you easily dial 13 mil?
Vs if they said your off target by 1.4 yards. Dial that.
3.6.... That proves my point. It doesnt break down and align on whole numbers 1/10/100/1000s like metric does.
Now if there were 100 inches to a yard.
I would get a new spotter...if your giving corrections in linear units your doing it wrong period end of story hello amateur hour. You spotter should be measuring your miss in mils or moa and giving you your correction in that unit. I don't care who you are you can't tell the difference between 6" or 10" or 18 cm at 1k cubits. If you want an accurate correction, measure it with the damn reticle in front of your eye.@christopher.dow I totally get it. Im not debating that. Simply saying that if one was to be taking linear measurements. Using metric translates easier. 1cm on a metric ruler would be 1 click on a mil scope. If you were 13cm off how many clicks? 13, No math involved its 1 for 1 you simply move the decimal.
If somone was spotting and said your off by 1.3 meters, that is 13 mil. Can you easily dial 13 mil?
Vs if they said your off target by 1.4 yards. Dial that.
3.6.... That proves my point. It doesnt break down and align on whole numbers 1/10/100/1000s like metric does.
Now if there were 100 inches to a yard.
I think it is natural to go through the linear conversion process, natural to think that if I do this, then that works; when you're newer to PR.How often do you shoot at exactly 100 meters, and how often is your group center exactly 1cm off?
It always amazes me that in the metric system, that bullets fly and deflect in such an orderly fashion. Maybe we should switch.
Same here, and we were in the same squad. He’s a good dudeBtw @2aBaCa is a cool guy.
I’ve shot a match with him.. not in the same squad —
Either way, no disrespect intended here.
I hate it when people are so cliqueyClicks? That's the first thing I beat out of student's heads in class. The numbers are on the scope knob for a reason. No need to be counting clicks. Same as no need to convert to any linear and then back to angular. Just a waste of time. Is that how you make a correction in a match?
Absolutely... But measuring poi to POA is not one of them.Geesh, just exploring the rabbit hole here. Im saying theoretically if one was going to attach a linear measurement to mils, metric is a like for like.
Is there not a practical use for using mil to measure an object in turn messure distance? A door or a 55 gallon drum?
A metric tape mesure? A spotter making a estimation? Comparing to a known object?How do you measure the 1.5m miss @ 869m? Wouldn't it be easier to just measure the POI vs POA with your reticle and make your adjustment? No need to do any math. I mean I love math, but why make things more complicated than they have to be?