I have always thought that the mil-relation formula was based on a linear system, but i don't believe it is now, since when using the formula if a certain size target occupies .5 of a mil-mil gap, it is 50% of the range of a 1.0 mil-mil gap, but if it occupies .75 of a mil-mil gap it is not 75% of the distance. Does anyone here understand the math behind this?? If it's linear @ 50% the distance why is it not linear @ 75% of the distance?? Here's a link to Premiere's Ranging Chart to see the actual yardages for different size targets-- http://www.carttonic.com/files/file_download.php?fi_id=13467

I am not exactly sure what it is your asking. I think I understand it but it is a bit confusing how you worded it. You went from .5 to 1 mil and it is 50%, so in effect whatever the yardage was at .5 it is double at 1 mil, conversly if it is .75 of a mil then it will be double at 1.5 mils. The constant here is the 50% not 75%. I hate Millradians, thats why I switched over to MOA real easy formula. Here's a link explaining it in detail and take notice of how long it is and how indepth it goes Mil-Dot, now heres a MOA formula; target size in inches (not a percentage of a yard represented in a decimal form) devided by number of moa lines taken up or dots times 100 = distance. 20/6=3.3X100=330 yards.

sscoyote If an object ranges at 1.0 Mil and is later mil'ed at .5 it it TWICE the original distance not HALF the original distance. The relationship you setup is based on 1 mil (now your standard). (36" object at 1 mil = 1000 yards) If the object is then mil'ed at .5 it is 1 (your predetermined standard) / .5 or 2 times the original distance. (36" object mil'ed at .5 = 2000 yards.) It the object is then mil'ed at .75 it is 1/.75 or 1.33 times the original distance. (36" object mil'ed at .75 = 1333 yards.) Think of it in the other direction: An object mils .5 so its x (200) distance. Same object mils .75 so its .66 (133) the original (.5 mil)distance. Same object mils 1.0 so its now .5 (100) the original (.5 mil) distance. Its a geometric progression as I see it, not linear. Not very clear but maybe it'll help.

Sorry about the bad wording/ranging mistake-- graveyard shift had me by the short hairs. It must be geometric since .75 mil range is not exactly between .5 and 1.0 mil as Dave explained, SO THAT MEANS THAT ALL RETICLE RANGING MUST BE GEOMETRIC-- CORRECT? since it's all based on the same system-- has to be.

SScoyote Here is you a fun little game that will either frustrate the coyote out of you or allow you to practice making the mil dot computations. http://www.shooterready.com/lrsdemohi.html

Hey Bob-- i hope it doesn't frustrate the coyote out of me--then my screen name would only be SS, and that's no fun. Looks like a good 1, actually i've used the site before, but couldn't access the Demo, since my old computer was very old, but i'll be checking it out again soon--thks.

Actually, i've been working with the formula for quite awhile, and started to realize that it could be used for any reticle out there with at least 2 stadia, i.e. simple plex, ballistic reticle, and/or custom reticles. All u have to do is measure the stadia subtension at any range in ", MOA, mm, whatever, and substitute the mil reticle subtension part of the equation (inches-yards 1000/36)with the reticle you're using. In fact, i've actually started calling it the stadia-relation/ranging formula since the formula really isn't milliradian-specific at all. It's great for the plex/ballistic reticles in that each stadia provides it's own relative refernce mark. Simple plex would make the center x-hair 50% or .5 if using the entire post to post gap. Rifle Ballistic Plex would be .7 to 3rd mark, .4 to 2nd mark if using the entire 11.06" 100 yard gap (x-hair to lower post).