I think some here haved missed what I was really asking. What I wanted to know was with my scope calibrated at 1 click equal to .5cm at 100m. How much would I have to turn it to meet normal 1cm at 100m clicks. Thank you to those who understood and stated I would need twice as many clicks. I know all were trying to help and my explanation may have been poor.
It's basic math to figure out your scope's increments at 100m given that it's a MIL based scope. The manual will explain which MIL increments the scope adjusts. Secondly most manufacturer's offer free scope specific software or at least a ballistic card that explains the scope's adjustments at range and the reticle increments.
I purchased my first MIL scope since my military days, and was happily back to thinking in meters. The PITA issues arise from ranging in MOA's/yards/feet/inches. I have been using meters for years because my carbines have meter irons, and boy they are accurate, and inspire confidence versus trying to think in yards. Yards to meters is insignificant out to carbine distances and the meter's additional length adds up the higher you go. Most scopes have 1/10th MIL or 1/4 MOA. If you compete at shorter distances you need 1/8 MOA or 1/10 MIL, and going further out it becomes more about understanding your data and doping the environment but having more increments helps. I can see a difference in shot placement with a single click of my 1/8 MOA at 50 yards when shooting a 40g .22 if the wind is not vicious. Imagine at 1000 meters!
The hardest thing for me to remember is that 1/10 MIL is 1cm or 1/100th meter at 100 meters. This is a theoretical assessment of the scope's optical tracking. You need to verify this on both X and Y axis (elevation/windage) on your scope at 100 meters preferably via indoor range where there is no winds. You can use a bore laser to determine when the bore's theoretical POI would align with the scope's theoretical POI. By doing the tracking test you can test the margin of error and gain an understanding of any potential inconsistencies. I like to use a pro grade laser, cm grid paper @ 100 meters, and a heavy rifle sled to keep the rifle anchored. I only touch the turrets.
I don't know your scope but you may benefit from getting a mount with MOA integrated into it to minimize where you keep your turrets by default. My older scopes have very little adjustment compared to my XTRII, but to get it out to the cartridge's max effective range I need the 20 MOA mount. You can do the basic math to convert to MILs but it's not as important as it's not longer a variable in the applied scheme of things. (only a theoretical variable that's part of the initial setup). If you were shooting at common hunting distances your scope may be better served with a 0 MOA mount. My mount allows me to engage most targets out to the max effective range of my rifle by using the reticle: so I can call distance and windage and fire relatively quickly.
You should probably get a dope card setup and do a tracking test at 100 meters to verify that it's calibrated as advertised, if not re-dope your data cards. I would not worry unless you get inconsistencies when tracking and that may mean your scope or mount is off if your using the laser method. You can't really track with ammo without doing advanced statistics and wasting lots of ammo: especially if the ammo, rifle or, your marksmanship is sub-par. Which in my case is often the case.. I was surprised that my Burris XTRII reticle tracked balls on at 100 meters with the laser for elevation, and windage. I did not test full range which would probably be more scientific. It would also be a good idea to track my laser out to 500 meters or more to see if there is a loss at distance which I would guess is a given.
And then once you memorize meters, and centimeters, you can start wasting ammo and working on your skills trying to find aggregates.. It's expensive and on hell of a drug.. I got lucky on my new deer rifle, it hits POA on cold bore at 100 meters. Sadly once it heats up it shoots one to two flyers out 4cm from POA with my factory hunting ammo which is still okay. Someday I'll build up a load that it likes or slap a new barrel on it, rinse and repeat.. I shaved my gas block down a second time, as I found it was too close to the for-end when the barrel was getting warm, so maybe that was the culprit. Need to take it out for a final pre-season sighting. I have never had an AR shoot flyers like this so it's definitely a mechanical issue or ammo issue. I'm guessing gas block with a distant second it's the chamber tolerance not liking the factory ammo. I hand loaded it and it still reproduced the same flyers: so I feel like that ruled out the magazine feed but I imagine the magazine must effect the bullets seating as it feeds but it does not seem to be the mystery X.
Good luck, I think you will like metric measurement better if you are shooting more than thinking about it. Just think meters and sub increments and you really don't need too much work invested. I initially was perplexed as I converted standard to metric in ranging but I did all the conversion in excell spread-sheets and printed my data out into my log. The more I use it, the easier it is. And the MIL does in fact have less margin of error at longer distances, so that's an argument in its favor when you factor diminishing unknowns as you increase range with minute of angle.
