I still don't understand inches drop versus MIL drop

[buckhorn_cortez]

100% WRONG. A radian is neither metric nor standard measurement.

No it's 100% correct the radian is the SI accepted mesurement of angles.

No. Associating MILS or MOA with a unit length measurement system - metric or Imperial is NOT CORRECT. My fault for being unclear. The use of the word "standard" is a reference to the Imperial measurement system as that is often referred to as a "standard measurement."

The meaning of standard measurement, within this context, was a reference to the Imperial measurement system. Does that clarify it for you?

While both a MIL and MOA is an accepted measurement of an angle, neither angular measurement (MIL / MOA) is associated with the METRIC OR AN IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT systems.

They are simply angular measurements. 57.3 degrees isn't metric and it isn't an Imperial measurement.

100% WRONG AGAIN. Minute-of-angle (MOA) is simply a different description of an angle subtended at the center of the circle.

While MOA isn't "inches and yards" it is not the SI accepted unit.

"SI" is simply the Institute of Standards. While MOA is not an SI unit, there is a table of units accepted for use with the SI.

Guess what? Degrees, minutes, and seconds descriptions of an angle are listed on that table. Sorry - you don't get to claim special points because of listing on Institute of Standards.

MOA is simply a different type of angular measurement. It is accepted by surveyors, map makers, etc. as a legitimate measurement. Degrees, minutes, seconds area all used in surveying - hence the acceptance and use by SI.

Adjustments on a scope, whether MOA or MIL are UNITLESS.

Yes they are they are MOA and MIL are in fact units.

They are units of an angle. They are not units of linear measurement. You're parsing what I've written and taken things out of context. Stop it.

The nice thing? You can use EITHER UNIT SYSTEM with an MOA reticle or a MIL reticle.

It's just easy to use MIL with the metric system
1 MIL = 1 meter at 1 kilometer
And likewise MOA is much easier in inches since 1 MOA is very close to 1 inch per 100.

What's "easier" for you personally is not what's being discussed. It's just as "easy" to use MILS with feet, yards, etc.

One MIL is one yard at 1,000 yards.

Three MIL clicks on a scope is (0.1 MIL units) is one inch at 100 yards.

I think what works is what you're used to using - isn't that really what you're saying?

 

[Jimro]

Eh, doesn't really matter, none of the "mil" measurements we use on riflescopes or compasses are true mils.

2 times pie is 6.2831853 (and on and on forever) so a thousand of those is 6283.2 mils to a circle if you go to 5 digits of precision.

US standard mil measurements are 6,400 mils, Russian standard is 6,000 mils. There was an old Swedish military standard of 6,300 mils (the closest to an actual milliradian) that has been abandoned for the US/NATO 6,400 mils standard.

So there you have it, the 4 "mil" standards that I know of.

MOA is a much more consistent measurement, 360 degrees to a circle, 60 minutes per degree. I don't know of any additional definitions of a "minute" to describe MOA.

Jimro

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Eh, doesn't really matter, non of the "mil" measurements we use are true mils.

2 times pie is 6.2831853 (and on and on forever) so a thousand of those is 6283.2 mils to a circle if you go to 5 digits of precision.

US standard mil measurements are 6,400 mils, Russian standard is 6,000 mils. There was an old Swedish military standard of 6,300 mils (the closest to an actual milliradian) that has been abandoned for the US/NATO 6,400 mils standard.

So there you have it, the 4 "mil" standards that I know of.

MOA is a much more consistent measurement, 360 degrees to a circle, 60 minutes per degree. I don't know of any additional definitions of a "minute" to describe MOA.

Whatever. For NATO countries it's 6400. So all of the MIL scopes use 6400. What's done or has been done in other countries or how many MIL definitions there are is immaterial. You only have to know the standard you're working with.

Once you know the standard you're using you just ignore everything else as it is totally inapplicable to what you're using. Is that all that freaking difficult?

I'm just damn tired of really bad information being passed off on the Internet as fact. FACT - neither a MIL nor an MOA is associated with either the metric linear measurement system or the Imperial linear measurement system.

That's simply the point I wanted to clarify.

Whatever YOU find easier to use is YOUR choice. I use MIL reticle scopes because that's what I find easier to use.

 

[mavracer]

While both a MIL and MOA is an accepted measurement of an angle, neither angular measurement (MIL / MOA) is associated with the METRIC OR AN IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT systems.

That is incorrect radians and milliradians are SI units as is the meter, millimeter, gram, milligram, liter and millileter.

It's just as "easy" to use MILS with feet, yards, etc.

As long as you stay with one unit.
Case in point.

Three MIL clicks on a scope is (0.1 MIL units) is one inch at 100 yards.

No, it's actually 1.08". It is however 3 cm @ 100 m or 30 cm @ 1 km.

I think what works is what you're used to using - isn't that really what you're saying?

Nope I'm saying that MIL is a SI derived unit and SI is generally accepted as synomous with the metric system.

And you can use any of them if you're good at math.

 

[mehavey]

Simple:

Radian: the radius of a circle (or a range to target)

MilliRadian = Radius/1,000 = "MIL"

1 "MIL" at 1,000 Meters = 1 Meter
1 "MIL" at 100 yds = 100yds/1,000 = 1/10yd = 36in/10 = 3.6"

Scopes set to "MILS" usually have 1-click = 1/10MIL = 0.36"/click @ 100yds

 

[Jimro]

buckhorn_cortez,

Whatever. For NATO countries it's 6400. So all of the MIL scopes use 6400. What's done or has been done in other countries or how many MIL definitions there are is immaterial. You only have to know the standard you're working with.

Once you know the standard you're using you just ignore everything else as it is totally inapplicable to what you're using. Is that all that freaking difficult?

I'm just damn tired of really bad information being passed off on the Internet as fact. FACT - neither a MIL nor an MOA is associated with either the metric linear measurement system or the Imperial linear measurement system.

That's simply the point I wanted to clarify.

Whatever YOU find easier to use is YOUR choice. I use MIL reticle scopes because that's what I find easier to use.

Chill bro. Seriously take a load off. Frankie says "relax"

You responded to my point with a tirade tantrum that didn't even include, "how interesting" or "good point, it's important to know the system you are using." I was pointing out that there have been different standards of "mil" over the years, and I found out the hard way that using trig with NATO mils doesn't make good calculation because of the difference. I also found out that Russian mils make US mentors to foreign countries need to be fluent in both systems AND know which aiming device the locals are using (otherwise bad things can happen).

You are correct that you need to know what you are using. Even the measurements points between US Army mildots and USMC mildots are different (round versus ovals or "footballs" meaning the estimation points on the reticle are different). I think that is one of the reasons behind the rise of mil-line reticles (my personal favorite comes from IOR).

One thing that many people have found is that it is important to calibrate your mil reticle against a "barber pole" or other known dimension target at a known distance, especially if your scope is variable with a second focal plane reticle. Sometimes the measurments are just a little off, or you have an eye that is just a little off, or some combination of the two. One company put out a 3-9x40 Mildot scope, with the reticle calibrated for 10x power. But once you know the angular measurements between reference points on your reticle, it doesn't matter what they are, you can range with it.

Jimro

 

[gman3]

Good morning again. I assumed the OP was asking the question as it applies to using one rifle scope or the other to range things and shoot at them, since this is a rifle forum.

To do that, he doesn't really need to learn trigonometry or geometry. He just needs to have a basic understanding or what he has, how to use it to determine range, how the reticle in his scope can be used to hold over without dialing up, or how much to dial up if he chooses to do so.

He also needs to know that they are different. You can have a MIL reticle with MOA turret adjustments. If you do, its important to know that in order to use it effectively. It really isn't hard to do. Although both are accomplishing the same thing, the math is slightly different.

I never said a Mil is a metric unit of angular measurement. The simple point I was trying to make is this:

Depending on an individuals way of viewing things, one may be easier to use than the other. When an individual has a good dimensional concept of meters, centimeters, etc. a scope with a mil reticle and turrets is easy to use for that person.

When an individual thinks inches, yards, and feet, I believe an MOA system is easier to use, and just a bit more precise.

The other point was that its good to have matched turrets and reticles. Is that not true? I really think that someone missed the whole concept of what I was trying to communicate.

For example, behind the scope looking at an object next to a door, in my simple minded way of examining that situation, I know that most doors are about 81". I can work with that.

Immediately I know that 81X95.5 / MOA observed on my reticle is the range to the target. That will correlate to a given bullet trajectory in MOA and I can then simply just hold there on the reticle. You see, I don't know how many centimeters a door is in height.

Or cubits, or hands, or cable tows, leagues, or any other such unit of measure that that isn't applicable to the reticle on my scope.

Stop sign, usually about 30 inches. Subject behind car next to a stop sign. Bad choice of place to hide, I'll get it every time. Confidence in what I'm using. Lots of practice, sticking with one thing that works (that is simple for me) so that you don't have to over think things. This is what I was trying to relate.

Throw some meters and centimeters in there and it removes some of the advantage I have from all of that practice.

I never attempted to explain what a MIL or MOA is at all, or give a lesson in geometry or trigonometry, but in fact one is loosely associated with the metric system in the practical application of shooting rifles, and the other is not.

That was my only point. No need to get upset about it and blast big bold 100% WRONG comments. If you're upset, you don't think fast, and your shooting will suffer. I'm not upset that someone misunderstood what I was trying to relate, it is what it is. If I didn't communicate it well, then I apologize.

Yeah, what he said...reminds me of Yogi bear and Boo Boo. Cubits? I got a chuckle out of that too. Thanks.

Again, no need to get upset and argue about it...Lets be friends.