Conversion from mil-dot to MOA on IOR MP-8

Black Diamond 408

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2003
I got a IOR 6x-24x-50 MP-8 mildot scope.
Question...The hash lines in the scope, can anyone tell me what the MOA is between the lines?
Thanks to all the smartones who reside here!!

Black Diamond,

I really like my IOR scopes. The hash marks are mil-dots without the dots. The distance between two larger hash marks is equal to one mil or 3.6 inches at 100 yards. The distance between a large hash mark and the smaller hash mark between the two larger ones is 1/2 mil or 1.8 inches at a 100 yards.

I like the MP8 reticle much better than mil-dots. Even though they are the same in theory, I find using the hash marks makes it much easier to range targets.

Let me know if you would like the mil-dot formula for ranging targets.

Hope it helps

[ 03-04-2004: Message edited by: Jeff In TX ]
This is just close ----dont know if its exact
1 mil equals approx. 3.39285714285 MOA
Got it off my traj chart running both MOA and Mil values
Someone tell me how close I am
If you have 1/2 mil spacing that would be--1.69642857142

[ 03-04-2004: Message edited by: P-Steve-E ]

I was going to use these for mostly hold over on known targets 300 to 1000yds. So one mil=3.6 MOA 100yds. is that correct? or can this be done with this scope. does it have to be set on a certain power to remain the same, like the nightforce on 22 power for the rangeing system to work.
BD 408
I may be wrong but I think what your asking and what your wanting is 2 differant things.
1 Mil = 3.6 " at 100 yards --Thats correct ,but 1 inch and 1 MOA is not exactly the same
My apoligy if I misunderstood
Steve E

[ 03-04-2004: Message edited by: P-Steve-E ]
Black Diamond,

Yes, 1 mil = 3.6 inches at 100 Yards
7.2" @ 200Y
10.8" @ 300Y
14.4" @ 400Y
18" @ 500Y
21.6 " @ 600Y
25.2" @ 700Y
28.8: @ 800Y
32.4" @ 900Y
36" @ 1000Y

With that known, you can use them hold overs

Hope it helps,

If you have more questions, keep them coming.
Black Diamond
I missed part 2 of your question -----

Does it have to be set on a certain power??

That depends on if its a first or second plane reticle
If it's a first it wont matter
If its a second plane it will only be accurate on one setting usually 10 X
If its a new scope its most likly a second plane
If the reticle gets larger as you turn the power up its a first

[ 03-05-2004: Message edited by: P-Steve-E ]
Right guys, forget what the US military are doing,(ranging in meters and then converting back to divisions of MOA and feet and inches to adjust for bullet drop) and move into the 21st century.
mildots are possibly out of date and come from a time when the dot was a pinched piece of wire reticle. hash marks are easier to use. but mildots are ok if you already have them..and they dive divisions of a miliradian, this could be done with hash marks that would IMHO be easier ti use than dots.. but get away from this 1/4, 1/8. and all this dificult to manage divisions.
range in meter and adjust in miliradians.
1 mil = 10cm @100m. 0r 1m @1000m. we use the formula target size in m x1000 divided by the target aparent size in mils.(works same for yards) a human torso is approx 1m from waist to top of head (if wearing a helmet/turban or straw hat). that means if your target covers 1 mil in your scope reticle, you target is 1000m away. if he covers 2 mils then he is 500m away. if he covers 10 mils he is at 100m, 8 mils he is 125m. 1.75 mils he is 571m away. it is so easy to do.. and have you seen the mildot master? that is tha gadget to have if you have mildots.. Pete

First, I agree.

It was in the Carter era that the metric system was put up for vote and we Yanks ruled it out in favor of imperial measurement..It's just that we can not bloody visualise in metric, if you tell me you want a barrel 600 mm long, I can not visualise how long that barrel would be without thinking long and hard about it..when it comes to visualising a target, although 1 mil equals x cm, I don't know what 1/10 of a cm is, as easy as 10's asking me how many stone I weigh, I say depends on which stone..I can learn, and adjust, which is what needs to happen..I know metric, and I know imperial, but when I get to a print in imperial, and on the lathe with metric dials, man... Which is why I think we've stuck to MOA in rifle shooting.


[ 03-21-2004: Message edited by: JR ]
I for the life of me could not understand who in their right mind would invent such a difficult reticle system as the mildot - having to convert back and forth to MOA and inches and yard, until one day I discovered the Mildot system is based on the metric system, that 1 mil = 10cm at 100 meters, or 20cm at 200m, or 30cm at 300m, etc. Surely everyone has had exposure to the metric system at some point.

So now the choice for those who desire to use the mildot is to pick the lesser of the two evils, memorize complex formula's that you need a calculator to figure out, or grab a yard stick (meter stick) and start learning what 10cm looks like, and what 1 meter looks like.

Old habits die hard, but if I could learn to shoot on the right side (dominant eye) when I grew up shooting on the left side (as I'm left handed), I figure I could learn the metric system. An added bonus, now I understand what my kids are talking about when they start measuring things.

Jay Kyle
Warning! This thread is more than 21 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.