mil/mil scope?

Bravo 4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
3,839
Location
The South
Do a search for BLOG 6 by sierra22, shows how to make your own BDC turret, no matter which adjustments you have.


Read this on another site:
If you have a Mil Reticle and MOA scope use this:

.25 MIL in the Reticle = 1 MOA

So,

.25 = 1 MOA
.5 Mil = 2 MOA
.75 Mil = 3 MOA
1 Mil = 4 MOA

This way you can spot your shot and dial that number and it will work. Its fast, its easy and will get things done downrange. Its a practical way of doing things.

If you want to dial, see it in the reticle and dial that on the scope regardless of the range.
 

McTank

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
14
Mikecr,

Of course the magnification does not affect the increments in which the turrets adjust, but if the shooter observes one mil difference in POI in his scope and then makes one mil of correction on the turret he just made a one mil correction. If his scope was on the wrong magification then the one mil he observed could have been more or less than one mil depending on what the magnification setting was.
 

yobuck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
1,521
Location
east central fl. /n.c. pa.
forester, first you need to clarify just what it is you intend to use the scope for. then what will it take to get that job done.
what we need to do a job is one thing. what we like and would feel good about owning is yet another.
if your goal is to kill animals at long distances, you can certainly do very well with a scope for less than the price you mentioned.
you can buy a used leupold 6.5x20 x50 long range target for about $750 or less on ebay. it will still carry a lifetime warrenty.
as for the reticle you can send it to t.k. lee, and they will install anything you want for about $150 to $200. www.scopedot.com.
i have multible dot reticles in most of my scopes which go to 1000 or more yards.
no need to do anything, just shoot. add clicks also if you wish.
they will install windage dots also.
you could have rangefinder crosshairs installed above the center dot also.
i would personaly prefer a rangefinder over any kind of reticle ranging.
if you buy a scope without knobs, leupold will install them. so will t.k. lee.
all my scopes are the older 40mm objective, and theres not a dammed thing wrong with them. ive had knobs installed on several.
i have no problem seeing my hits through my scopes at 1000 or more yards, and im 74.
 

Mikecr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
5,305
Location
NC, oceanfront
Bravo 4
1MOA = 3.438MILs, not 4MILs
And a BDC turret just adds even more error..

McTank
A hunter observing one mil difference in POI, has just taken his shot, and likely missed.
So this is not solution, but contingency.

Folks, don't get snowed by tactical flubbery.
In Long Range Hunting, you get one shot.
It isn't target shooting, or shooting 'at' things(like gongs or towelheads), or walking misses into stuff.
It's spotting from distance, then stalking to position -for one shot kills.

Stop clinging to shortcuts and generalizations..
You will not become a long range hunter without effort.
 

McTank

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
14
Mikecr,

Wasn't providing a solution, just a mere caveat. I didn't want to interject my opinion of using mil adjustments. Forester asked where to find a certain product, I provided an option with a caveat, his to take or leave.

Forester,
My apologies for hijacking your thread. I hope you've found your solution, good luck in your endeavor.

sincerely
McTank
 

Forester

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
436
Location
Chatham, VA
Thanks for the...interesting, conversation guys. I think I have pretty much decided that a scope I am going to be happy with that is mil/mil is going to cost me more.

Just to address one thing that YOBUCK in particular hit on.

This has nothing to do with "need" I have scopes with all kinds of reticals but I want to try something differnet. It just makes sense to me that if the retical is in mils the turret should be too. If the only thing I owned was what I needed then I would just have my old 30-30 and my bow. I could fill the freezer and take a nice trophy occasionally just fine with those two alone. Most of us here are hunter enough for that to be the case I believe.

Now if what I want, and what I can spend don't match, then I will either wait until I can spend more and play musical scopes with other rifles so that I can play with the new build or buy something else that will do the job just fine. for $1200 there are a lot of options in decent, serviceable, scopes.

Again, thanks for the input and suggestions, I don't yet know which route I am going to go but I know my options.
 
Last edited:

Bravo 4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
3,839
Location
The South
Bravo 4
1MOA = 3.438MILs, not 4MILs
And a BDC turret just adds even more error..

McTank
A hunter observing one mil difference in POI, has just taken his shot, and likely missed.
So this is not solution, but contingency.

Folks, don't get snowed by tactical flubbery.
In Long Range Hunting, you get one shot.
It isn't target shooting, or shooting 'at' things(like gongs or towelheads), or walking misses into stuff.
It's spotting from distance, then stalking to position -for one shot kills.

Stop clinging to shortcuts and generalizations..
You will not become a long range hunter without effort.
Mike,
You sir are correct in your equation and response to McTank in saying a quick follow up is contingency. I agree that the first shot should be the one that counts, but that isn't always the case and the biggest plus to having a mil/mil scope is for that contingency. In Long Range Hunting you might not just get one shot, there are plenty of posts on this forum where guys have made follow up hits.
In your post you made it sound like LRH takes more precision then shooting "at" Towelheads...maybe, but only if I was still in a line unit. I train my guys like somebody's life depends on it, because that is very likely. I like to think that being a Sniper and LR hunter go hand in hand. Doing one makes me better at the other. Remember the whole "One Shot- One Kill!" thing...???

And I think you meant to say "Tactical Flattery" not Tactical Flubbery", so I'll take that as a compliment.
 

jmden

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
2,773
Location
Washington State
For one, MILs are for ranging, and by far least desired for adjustment(hold off or dialing). MOAs are for adjustment with higher resolution, and IPHY is a tiny bit more defined still.



It's true that reticle bracketing with assumed target size provides nowhere near the accuracy of laser rangefinding.
And holding over instead of dialing just adds more error to it.

I really wish everyone would stop whinning to scope makers, before they get what they ask for,, -screwing the rest of us.

It makes alot of sense to many lr hunters, Mikecr, to have the reticle match the turret adjustments. It's one less 'computation' to have to make for a quick follow up shot, for instance. Not all of us may be as fortunate to be 'perfect' on that first shot, but I can assure you I put a great deal of effort into that first lrh shot going where it's supposed to as I hope all of us do.

"I really wish everyone would stop whinning to scope makers, before they get what they ask for,, -screwing the rest of us." Care to explain this some more? I'm not sure what 'whinning' means. And how does asking a company like leupold to offer moa/moa scopes screw the 'rest of us'? Several of the most respected tactical scope makers out there offer matching reticles to turret adjustments. Does that screw you somehow? I just ordered a NF with matching moa/moa. Does that screw you too?
 

Mikecr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
5,305
Location
NC, oceanfront
Well here we go
1. Leupold has diluted their own merchandising to a pot of ****, by offering about ~600 versions of the SAME scope over the past 20yrs. Today it is impossible for a consumer to know what they are looking at, on someone's shelf, in Leupold. How old is it that's sold as 'new'? It could be 10yrs old! What lens coating is employed on it? What does the reticle subtend to? What are the differences between this Vari-X III, that VX-III? How many revisions has leupold applied to this line, and what rev do I hold in my hands? Is it counterfeit?
Truly, Leupold needs about 5 scopes in their lineup. 5 that they've perfected, and that cover all needs in shooting. They need to stop pandering to every whim for this or that, and focus on a best product they can offer.
Like NF used to....
2. NightForce is now caving to offer scope types they know nothing about(like their BR line). By listening to the loudest customers, they impose on themselves pressure to stop developing further -their flagship products. You remember, those products that put them on the map? With each new offering, they dilute themselves toward a market already full of trash scopes. It's not good for us.
3.Tactical scopes.. This is the perfect market for those more into image than performance, to whine about gadgetry. NONE are hunting scopes, so I'm content with anything they do to themselves, or their customers.

DEON(March scopes) recently provided an example of these problems. They took the advice of a BR shooter to make a BR scope. Did a great job, but; There was an opportunity early to first match a great do-it-all scope(like the Mk4), THEN apply improved glass and POA. Instead, they listened to ONE customer..
Now they find their market too weak, and so they rush to slap together revisions of the original product that 'look' like what it is -WE need. This is no longer product development, but late market pandering. It took a BR shooter to teach them how to make a BR scope. Who's 'teaching' them to make all these others in their overnight lineup?

I reason that diluted scope markets are bad for us, because they amount to more counterfeit and copying, than product development. We are not headed toward a perfect scope. We are not evolving. This huge market is even less likely today to provide what I've needed for the past 30yrs.
So when I hear complaints that Leupold should again revise their linup for MIL/MIL, it is depressing to say the least.
 

Mikecr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
5,305
Location
NC, oceanfront
It makes alot of sense to many lr hunters, Mikecr, to have the reticle match the turret adjustments. It's one less 'computation' to have to make for a quick follow up shot, for instance. Not all of us may be as fortunate to be 'perfect' on that first shot, but I can assure you I put a great deal of effort into that first lrh shot going where it's supposed to as I hope all of us do.
It should not make any 'sense' that you would shoot again, given that you are missing. It should not make sense that you would see your miss at all, much less with any accuracy to compensate. Why should you be rewarded with follow-up shooting?
If your mark is fortunate to escape a shot, it should live another day.

If you put any effort whatsoever into your shooting system, you would fully understand my position here. You would lose sleep over missed shots. You would not take low probability shots, even if it means you 'don't get to shoot your gun'..
You'll understand, learn your potential, and hunt within it,,
When you grow up
 

yobuck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Messages
1,521
Location
east central fl. /n.c. pa.
forester, sorry, i obviously misunderstood your post. i dont think its a question of filling the freezer either. in fact in this camp its hunt long range or nothing, because thats all weve done for about 40 years. MIKECR, the spot and stalk system you mention certainly wouldnt work everywhere. here for example we glass from ridge to ridge and quite often theres a river or large stream in the valley below. we shoot from where we spot. as for only 1 shot, thats a myth, whitetail deer rarely run off after shots are fired.
 

jmden

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
2,773
Location
Washington State
It should not make any 'sense' that you would shoot again, given that you are missing. It should not make sense that you would see your miss at all, much less with any accuracy to compensate. Why should you be rewarded with follow-up shooting?
If your mark is fortunate to escape a shot, it should live another day.

If you put any effort whatsoever into your shooting system, you would fully understand my position here. You would lose sleep over missed shots. You would not take low probability shots, even if it means you 'don't get to shoot your gun'..
You'll understand, learn your potential, and hunt within it,,
When you grow up
Mikecr,

Did I not say above that I put a great deal of time into my lrh 'system'? You are making quick and incorrect judgements that you know nothing about--and you tell me to grow up?

In fact, I've only had opportunity (because I've passed up other shots that I felt were beyond my capability) to take two longer range shots at big game, both in the kill zone for a dead elk at 450yds shooting a 300RUM w/ 240smk at 3k mv from a prone bipod position and dialing my MOA turreted scope using verified data from Exbal. In fact, that instance is a one example of why your 'holier than thou' 'one shot' philosophy is phony. I was unable to spot my first shot, right at first light, but got back on target as quickly as possible, saw the elk stumble, but keep walking and held just in front of it to compensate for it's walking speed to place the second shot also in the kill zone and immediately put the animal down. Yes, it would've died quickly from the first shot, but it was still moving and my philosophy is to put them down. I suppose you will find something wrong with what I did and I don't think that will suprise anyone here and at this point, I really don't care what you think.

Are you telling me you've never missed placing a first shot right where you wanted it on an animal and have never had a need for a second shot?

The reality of any kind of hunting is that there will be misses and there will be bad hits even when you are taking what you believe to be a high percentage shot that you are very comfortable with.

You've successfully turned this into a ****ing match and I allowed myself to get sucked into another of your posts that do that. In fact, I wouldn't have even replied initially to your post but for the fact I've been gone awhile and while 'catching up' I noticed another recent post of yours that completely flamed someone on this board that many of us respect greatly. So, I was 'primed', so to speak, to reply to you initial post in this string.

I apologize to the OP for letting this get to where it is.

Jon
 

Jon A

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2001
Messages
1,092
Location
Mukilteo, WA
Jon, I agree with you. It isn't important that ranging and adjustment MATCH each other.
No, you don't agree with me because I don't agree with that. If the reticle has marks on it, I greatly prefer the turret to use those same units for its marks.
Which leads to my position that with a LRF, the med-fine crosshair works as good as anything out there. As does 1/4 IPHY or 1/4 MOA for adjustment.
Of course it is, quite obviously, for you. What you're missing is that because they're your personal preferences does not mean they're any better, or even as good for everybody else no matter how hard you try to force them upon us.

Just because you may not know how to or have any use for a reticle with hash marks of some type is not evidence that those of us who do are "imagining" that we do.

1/4 MOA adjustments are "better" in what way? Don't you think it depends upon the application? I'd say 1/8 MOA are "better" for...P dog hunting, golf ball shoots, benchrest competition, etc.

So for what exact application are 1/4 MOA "better?" Big game vital zone sized targets out to 1000 yds or so? Farther? Smaller animals? Coues deer or elk? Don't you think different applications might have a different "best" size? For a scope with multiple uses a compromise might be needed.

Personally, for deer/antelope sized vital zone at the smallest, out to 1000 yds or so, I have found 1/2 MOA clicks to be usable but slightly larger than I prefer. At times when actually using such a scope I found myself sometimes wanting to be "between clicks."

1/4 MOA I have found offer me more fine adjustments than I really need. Maybe if I hunted more varmints, or miniature deer way beyond 1000 yds I would feel 1/4 MOA is about right. But I don't. There's nothing wrong with them, they're perfectly usable for me, they're just a bit needlessly fine.

.1 Mil clicks are right in the middle and fit what I do well. And no, I haven't "imagined" this either. Such scopes have done everything I've wanted and I've never found myself wanting to be "between clicks."

The advantage over 1/4 MOA clicks is more travel per turn of the knob, requiring fewer clicks and fewer turns of the knob which makes them faster and reduces the odds of accidentally finding yourself off a full turn. And the simple two digit decimal numbers are shorter and easier to deal with from putting them on a drop chart to saying them to dialing them. I find those advantages more useful to me than slightly finer adjustments I don't feel I need.

So maybe you can explain for exactly what application you have found them to be too coarse? What problems have you had with them? What were you shooting at and at what distance did you find you needed to be "between clicks?" Or have you ever even used such a scope?

Your problem here is you are making no attempt to explain why your personal preferences are "THE BEST" for everybody else. You're simply saying they are and insulting anybody who prefers to use something else.

For example, please explain why a simple duplex is better than a good Mil or MOA reticle? If you notice, most of them still cross in the middle and can be used just like a duplex if you don't know how to used the hashes or dots. So what exactly makes a duplex BETTER?

And since we're all clearly doing it wrong, maybe you could explain exactly how we are supposed to be dealing with wind. How exactly do you do it? You obviously don't hold off with the reticle. Do you dial 100%? When the wind changes before the shot, do you break your hold and dial the correction and hope it doesn't change again? What do you do? Do you compensate by holding off "in inches?" Or guess?

I know many BR shooters like to hold off on the target. It helps having the exact same sized target, with nice rings on it for reference at exactly the same distance every time. Shooting different sized targets at different ranges with no nice rings painted on them makes this difficult. Just like dialing elevation, it's easier to correct in Mils or MOA than it is to hold off "in inches" or "this much wind hold on the nine ring, this much wind hold on the 8 ring...."

I really don't know what you do because you haven't told us. Please tell us. Since your way is "the best" please tell us what it is and explain to us why it is better. We might learn something. And that might go over better than simply telling us we're wrong and we're imagining things.

If you'd open your mind a bit you might consider different people might have good reasons for preferring different things (beyond their imagination of course). Their uses might be a bit different than yours.

For example the way I hunt the shooting typically ends up having a lot more in common with tactical shooting than it does benchrest shooting. So it should be no surprise a similar type of scope with similar features that does well for one would do well for the other. Insulting people for using something "tactical" only shows you to be ignorant of what works for what they do and doesn't do anything to "convince" them your prefered stuff will work better for them. If I hunted more at longer ranges with portable benches, etc, a more benchrest oriented scope might suit me better. But you aren't even bothering to ask people how they use the equipment before insulting them for choosing what they do.
 

jwp475

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
2,595
Location
USA
I started with a MOA reticle and MOA turrets (true MOA), but once I used a Mil/Mil scope I am hooked. Like JonA I much prefer the Mil/Mil scopes
 

Trending threads

Top