Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
which is easier to calculate: MOA or MILS?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sscoyote" data-source="post: 719701" data-attributes="member: 1133"><p>I'm the type that's into the math behind reticle-rangefinding and downrange zeroing. Nice part about investigating the math is it can allow you to improvise systems for longer-range shooting, and i want to know all that can be accomplished with the systems i have at my disposal.</p><p></p><p>Here's an example of understanding the systems of application--</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t49/sscoyote1/IMG_1518.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>This was a 100-yd. connection on this little piece of shale using this Ruger Mk. III/2x Barska on the second shot. I was headed back to my vehicle after prairie dog shooting with the little rig, and saw the light reflect off the rock on the side of a hill. It lasered at exactly 100 yds. so i thought to see if i could hit it. I checked the dope on this little rig and using a 50-yd. zero i needed 6 MOA of compensation to get to 100 yds. I wanted to see if i could accurately break up the plex-style reticle that's in this little Barska. I had previously measured the subtension between x-hair axis and plex post tip (PPT) and it was 15 MOA. Although i couldn't exactly figure the amount of compensation for the shot intuitively, i knew that 4 x 15/10 was 6. So i figured then that if i held 40% of the way down to the plex post tip it should be a hit or at least close. I knew that was correct since 50% (half way down) would be 7.5 MOA. I shot and missed but couldn't see the impact. I knew the math was correct though so i decided to trust it again, and held the same interpolative spot along the reticle and hit it on the 2nd shot. It split in 2 and rolled down the hill. When i went up to it it was laying there in 2 pieces. That was a very rewarding calcd. shot using the math that Scot detailed above but instead of being a MOA or mil reticle it was instead a plex-style reticle which can be applied the same way--obviously. </p><p></p><p>There are 2 mathematical concepts i believe it's important (or at least handy) to know and that is the following--</p><p></p><p>1) Downrange zeroing or rangefinding using either reticle or turret is defined by the mil-ranging formula, by simply replacing each variable in the equation with the values of your system.</p><p></p><p>2) Reticle subtension is ~inversely proportional to magnification.</p><p></p><p>By understanding these 2 concepts it should be easy to see that reticle-rangefinding itself can be applied with any 2 points at any distance relative to any other 2 points at a different distance. I often appy this concept using a mil-reticle at a magnification that's higher than mil-calibrated.</p><p></p><p>If you're into math at all, the practical application of these concepts can often be quite rewarding.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sscoyote, post: 719701, member: 1133"] I'm the type that's into the math behind reticle-rangefinding and downrange zeroing. Nice part about investigating the math is it can allow you to improvise systems for longer-range shooting, and i want to know all that can be accomplished with the systems i have at my disposal. Here's an example of understanding the systems of application-- [IMG]http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t49/sscoyote1/IMG_1518.jpg[/IMG] This was a 100-yd. connection on this little piece of shale using this Ruger Mk. III/2x Barska on the second shot. I was headed back to my vehicle after prairie dog shooting with the little rig, and saw the light reflect off the rock on the side of a hill. It lasered at exactly 100 yds. so i thought to see if i could hit it. I checked the dope on this little rig and using a 50-yd. zero i needed 6 MOA of compensation to get to 100 yds. I wanted to see if i could accurately break up the plex-style reticle that's in this little Barska. I had previously measured the subtension between x-hair axis and plex post tip (PPT) and it was 15 MOA. Although i couldn't exactly figure the amount of compensation for the shot intuitively, i knew that 4 x 15/10 was 6. So i figured then that if i held 40% of the way down to the plex post tip it should be a hit or at least close. I knew that was correct since 50% (half way down) would be 7.5 MOA. I shot and missed but couldn't see the impact. I knew the math was correct though so i decided to trust it again, and held the same interpolative spot along the reticle and hit it on the 2nd shot. It split in 2 and rolled down the hill. When i went up to it it was laying there in 2 pieces. That was a very rewarding calcd. shot using the math that Scot detailed above but instead of being a MOA or mil reticle it was instead a plex-style reticle which can be applied the same way--obviously. There are 2 mathematical concepts i believe it's important (or at least handy) to know and that is the following-- 1) Downrange zeroing or rangefinding using either reticle or turret is defined by the mil-ranging formula, by simply replacing each variable in the equation with the values of your system. 2) Reticle subtension is ~inversely proportional to magnification. By understanding these 2 concepts it should be easy to see that reticle-rangefinding itself can be applied with any 2 points at any distance relative to any other 2 points at a different distance. I often appy this concept using a mil-reticle at a magnification that's higher than mil-calibrated. If you're into math at all, the practical application of these concepts can often be quite rewarding. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
which is easier to calculate: MOA or MILS?
Top