Is there a simple way to convert either way.
Dean
Printable View
Is there a simple way to convert either way.
Dean
This helped me..........http://www.mil-dot.com/media/1027/th..._equations.pdf
I use the strelok+ app it converts for you will even spit out a table for your adjustments. Very functional with a good optic.
Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk 2
Thanks but my cell phone has a rotary dial.
Spanky
If I was 1 inch low @ 100 yards, how many MRADs would I have to go up.
The short answer is sort of.
Let me elaborate: There are actually several "approximations" of the angular distance of a milliradian that are used in scopes, and most manufacturers don't say what they actually use. Mathmatically, 1 radian is equal to 3437.74677078 arcminute, but sometimes manufacturers approximate that to 3000, or 3400, or even 3600 or something else. So to get a precise conversion is rather difficult.
However, for an "approximate" conversion, try this:
If you have a scope that has a Milrad reticle, and your adjustments are 1/4MOA per click, than it will take approximately 14 clicks to come up 1 milliradian.
So, as an easy approximation: 3.5 MOA ~1 milliradian (It's actually 1.018 milliradians) Personally, .018 milliradians is within my error range, so this works for me. YMMV.
Going the other way, 3 tenths of a milliradian ~ 1.03 minutes of arc, so if you have a milrad scope and want to move your poi a certain number of Minutes of arc away, think of each click (.1milliradians) as 1/3 minute of angle.
So to sum it up, here's the "close enough for government work" solution:
If your turrets are 1/4 MOA per click, than 14 clicks should move your POI approximately 1 milliradian.
If your turrets are 1/10 milliradian per click, than 3 clicks should move your POI approximately 1 minute of angle.
0.3
Quote:
Originally Posted by scope eye
Just went back and corrected some math errors in Post #4. Sorry.
ThisQuote:
If your turrets are 1/10 milliradian per click, than 3 clicks should move your POI approximately 1 minute of angle.
Does anyone have one of these, or know of someone who does.
Dean
One of what? I have 3 mil mil scopes
That answers my question, do you like them.
Dean
To be honest, I wish I had stayed with MOA/MOA. I just don't have the time to relearn. Hopefully I will one day.
A mildot scope does you no good if you dont have mil turets. If you have MOA turrets you need a MOA based reticle...if you are going to range. I would add that a single power or FFP would make even better sense in that scenario. For paper; target dot or crosshairs.
I think I will stick with MOA, for now anyways.
Dean
I like it because it makes more sense to me. That's why I went with the MOA Scope.
Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2
And this is exactly why I've always said the Mil-Dot/Milliradian system is utterly useless. Our brains don't automatically think "That person looks to be about 20 mil tall." If you need to have an app on your phone, a calculator, and/or a conversion table (aka Mil-Dot Master) to figure out how many clicks you need for the range of the target, the system is too complex and overly complicated to be practical.
The K.I.S.S. principle applies - stick with MOA!
im a firm believer in the kiss principle. i also believe scopes are an aiming device and rangfinders are a ranging device.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFurious
for hunting, ive grown to like mill dot type reticles as they allow for more precise hold over on follow up shots.
im very comfortable using minits or clicks for adding elevation as my mind can easily interchange that information.
how we arrive at getting the data to be entered, wether by a simple prepared chart or by an i phone or other device
is irrelevant to the scope issue in my opinion.
I think from now on, I am going to stick to mil/mil and ffp scopes. All it took me was a single time using one to learn these things rock. I suppose I could use a MOA/MOA FFP also. Requirements are they have to be FFP and reticle and adjustments match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanhagerty
i hear these type comments on sites all the time. mind you opinions are what keeps the debate alive and well and im fine with all that.
but bottom line is they are simply opinions. same goes for the first focal plane versus the second focal plane situation.
theres a need to get from point a the zero, to point b the target. in most cases that requires moving the scope dials.
what rocks is hitting the target. what system you used to accomplished that isnt important. if one system appeals more than another
thats fine. but it dosent make it better other than for that individual.
I agree with you. I shouldnt have said these were anything but m,y requirements.
I was firm on MOA turrets on all my scopes even though they had mil dot reticles. I was finally convinced to try mil mil and a FFP optics and WOW this is SO EASY. Forget all about inches and MOA at 100, 450 yards etc. Now I dont care anything about moa
If I am shooting on paper with a mil mil scope I simply measure (THROUGH the scope with the mil lines) the distance from the bullseye and then I turn the turrets. Boom I am in the black dot now.
Also using some easy forumlas I can also estimate range by measuring the target (estimated size of the target) through the scope and now that my reticle is in the FFP and a known size as measured with the reticle I can not calc range and therefore dope accordingly.
I "upgraded" all my MOA scopes to mil mil and ffp except one night force that is mil mil and sfp. I would personally never consider MOA again. I no longer have to worry about 1" =1 moa at 100 yards etc. I do everything through the scope and I dont care if its 1" or 5.5" at 278 yards the adjustments are right there in the reticle. Its SUPER easy
The more I read Yobucks opinions the more I like this guy. If it had not been for all the questions and debates on forums I would not learned many of the things I know today due to the large lurning curve of many interests. From building a computer to gardening. It's all good...I'm even learning to like Mil turrets.
Hey I'm learning to eat my vegetables, doesn't mean I have to like it LOL
Rasputin
Rasputin, Ithink If my scopes were FFP I would like Mil better. I am learning though like from 300 to 600 was up 10 MOA but now it is 2.9 or 3 mil. I was always very accurate with my adjustments before but now I always overshoot my zero and end up going back one or two depending on the range. Good luck Comrad, Вы право крылатых агрессоров.
What I really hate is I use mil but everybody I shoot with want their corrections in moa. I getting to where I can convert pretty fast. When I shoot with the big dogs its all mil/mil and I like it that way.
not all that many years back these debates didnt happen. im talking roughly 25 years ago. reason being scopes with names
like nightforce were unheard of and others like leupold had no knobs to dial with. premier was in the buisness of repairing
and installing custom multi dot reticles in leupold scopes. that left the long range shooter/hunter with few choices if they wanted
to dial a scope. they were target scopes like unertle and bausch&lomb refitted with an aftermarket micrometor. since thats all there were
you learned to use them. distance between scope bases dictated how far the reticle moved with one click on the dial.
dialing is the single most thing that has revolutionized long range shooting. notice i said shooting not hunting.
the long range band wagon was very slow leaving the station. but now that its rolling lots of vendors want a seat.
the choices are coming at us faster than we can keep up. but are they better for getting a bullet from point a to point b?
all dialing is done thru the scope after the first shot regardless of system. for hunters working as a group its important to
be all on the same page.