1 MOA: 1" = 95.5 Yards

sea2summit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
361
Location
Alaska...most of the time
Yes, but most ranges in the USA are set up in yards, so you have more complex math making the necessary corrections. Using you mil scope is like setting your car's speedometer to Km/Hr and trying to do the math on the commute home each day.:cool:
When using the reticle to range for hunting, do you first convert the animal's measurement to cm or do you make the conversion later when trying to dial in the shot?:rolleyes:
Well I got trained in MILs by the green machine and I’m good at it so I use it. Do you conver inches to MOA? It’s the same math, very simple math. MIL or MOA it’s just an angle to start your math with, doesn’t matter a whole lot which one.

However if your ranging with your optic it’s a lot easier to get MIL reticles. I also find it much easier to communicate holds/corrections in MIL, again because you can do it right of the reticle.
 

P7M13

Formerly 'P7id10t'
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
188
Location
Orygun
He proved to me: the 1" we all use as a standard is really @ 95.5 yards, not 100 yards.
And if we shoot at 100 yards, it's slightly over an inch.
..... and going out to 1000 yards is where it starts to show..
Must have been a Homer Simpson moment for you?
As the distance increases, the number of shooters who are capable to demonstrate the approximation error exponentially decreases. I'd hazard to guess, something like 1/X^2 to 1/X^4
What I want to know -- if your son is a math professor (proud dad!), that means he is at least 28-30 years old. As a math prof, he probably demonstrated agility with numbers all his life. Why wasn't he telling you this when he was 12 or 14? Didn't you put a rifle in his crib to help him sleep?? :D:D
 

A/C Guy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
192
Location
Apache Junction, Az
I read the article, the error he makes is in the setup for the question.

He gives the target measurement in inches rather than mils. The spotter likewise gives a correction in inches...another mistake.

(You gonna tell me that the spotter has eyeballs calibrated well enough to count inches at 600 yards?).
If you are shooting a target at a range, then Yes the spotter can say x inches left and x inches low.
If hunting, the experienced hunter uses the standard values for a deer's body. Same with an elk.

I agree with you 100% on your other points. But how many guides and hunting spotters give corrections in Mils?

Or range adjustments in Mils? In the US, is the guide more likely to say the animal is 540 yards or 500 meters?
 

mbaysinger89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
52
Location
Kansas
You can use mils with yards.... The only reason to use meters is reticle ranging, an outfitter isnt going to range with a reticle.
 

sea2summit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
361
Location
Alaska...most of the time
If you are shooting a target at a range, then Yes the spotter can say x inches left and x inches low.
If hunting, the experienced hunter uses the standard values for a deer's body. Same with an elk.

I agree with you 100% on your other points. But how many guides and hunting spotters give corrections in Mils?

Or range adjustments in Mils? In the US, is the guide more likely to say the animal is 540 yards or 500 meters?
How are you going to adjust 7” right at 669 yards or 10” at 955 yards?

If your spotter is on MILs he’s gonna say something like “hold .25 right”....for both distances.

At the end of the day it’s all about communication. I don’t care what you use until we try to talk about a shot we’re helping each other with.
 

sea2summit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
361
Location
Alaska...most of the time
You can use mils with yards.... The only reason to use meters is reticle ranging, an outfitter isnt going to range with a reticle.
Yep, MIL are MOA by another name and unit of measure. Has more to do with reticles available than anything. Any ballistic calculator can spit out numbers however you want using MPH Wind, yards distance, MIL elevation and MOA windage corrections if you want. All about what you are comfortable with and how you’ll communicate the data if needed.
 

Dog Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
472
Location
Washington State
If you are shooting a target at a range, then Yes the spotter can say x inches left and x inches low.
If hunting, the experienced hunter uses the standard values for a deer's body. Same with an elk.

I agree with you 100% on your other points. But how many guides and hunting spotters give corrections in Mils?

Or range adjustments in Mils? In the US, is the guide more likely to say the animal is 540 yards or 500 meters?
You made my point.

When the spotter is giving an inch correction based on the known target size (in inches) he is, in effect giving you a call based on a fractional target reference. (e.g. "I know the target is 8" and that miss was just off the right edge, so hold 4" (1/2 target) left").

There is no math going on in that scenario, regardless of the system being used.

The exact same technique is easily applied in both systems, so the scenario outlined in the article (https://alphamunitions.com/just-a-minute-of-angle/) mentioned above, is a fantasy construct. It creates a contrived and unlikely scenario to make the author's point of view seem logical.

In the article, he says he is shooting at a 12inch moving target at 600 yards, his spotter gives the correction in inches (6inch above the target)... so the author then does the quick math...decides he needs to dial 2moa down, on a moving target...and bingo!...gets the hit.

If the author knew the target was 12 inches, and the miss was 6 inches high...again,on a moving target...why didn't he just hold bottom edge and let fly?
 

imyourhuckleberry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
204
Location
texas
I really don't see the confusion but in my defense I did spend several years in artillery and when we had to "lay the guns or battery" meaning to aim all artillery pieces towards the target we did use mils. The confusion comes in trying to convert everything back to what your brain can handle. Don't convert just take it at face values for what it is. If you need to adjust 2moa adjust 2 moa, if you need to adjust two mils adjust two mils. The scope has already made the conversions for you.
 

cohunt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
2,351
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
with today's technology and electronics you can just set your rangefinder and whatever ballistic calculator you use to what your scope uses

if you scope has 1/4" click adjustments, just set your ballistic calculator/app to that and it tells you how many clicks-- if your scope is 1/4 moa then use that, if it has .1 mills then use that-- then it all converts into scope clicks and its the same-- have your spotter (or your ballistic calculator/app) talk to you in "clicks" and there is no need for "converting"
 

Dog Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
472
Location
Washington State
... have your spotter (or your ballistic calculator/app) talk to you in "clicks" and there is no need for "converting"
So, not only does your spotter have to do moa or mil math...now he has to do an additional calculation to tell you how many "clicks" at a particular distance?
 

sea2summit

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
361
Location
Alaska...most of the time
So, not only does your spotter have to do moa or mil math...now he has to do an additional calculation to tell you how many "clicks" at a particular distance?
This is not a stab at you, but I think there is a lot of ignorance about capabilities for spotters using modern reticle pasterns. Aside from the ballistic calculation, if that's not done with an app/calculator, there isn't really math. Call the correction and the shooter can hold or make the adjustment. Shooter/spotter need to decide ahead of time if they want to communicate the correction or clicks, correction makes a lot more sense because that gives the shooter power of choice to hold (faster) or adjust (maybe more accurate, maybe not).
 

Trending threads

Top