Mils, moa, inches

http://i1314.photobucket.com/albums/...&1424200408767

Just thought I'd post an image of a range board I made for testing my scopes. Because the one scope I tested had a mil as well as a moa reticle I included moa's and inches into the mix.

I thought it might give a little insight to the relationship of mils vs moa's vs inches. When I drew this up I had no plans to post this, I wish it was a little more presentable. Oh well

The board covers 0 to 36".

Well I guess it didn't turn out as large as I'd hoped. The numbers for the inches an moa are hard to see. Sorry

Interesting, id never had the interest or desire to see the correlation between them. Back in the old days you would have found everything was referred to in (clicks)
How many clicks does it take you with your gun to get to 1000 yds would be a common question among hunters. Of coarse meaning 1/4 min clicks.
Charts then were made by actual shooting and counting clicks till you hit the rock or whatever target. A unertle scope had 50 clicks for a full turn, so if you needed 110 you would go around twice then use your fingers to count to 10. You would be shocked by the amount of hunters i know who arent even to this day willing to use minits in lieu of clicks. Thanks for posting that.

Good for comparison, but confusing because the numbers are in reverse.

Sharpshooter, you are correct. I was in a hurry when I made it and after I got done with it I realized my mistake. To use it at the range I turned it upside down.
I was a little hesitant to post this but wasn't going to make a new one. I only posted to show the relationship between the angles and how they measured up with each other.
When I put them all side by side I thought it was interesting to see that mils would hit on some inch marks and moa's never did!
Anybody can make one of these up for themselves. Without getting real technical 1 mil = 3.60" also 1 mil = 3.44 moa. Also 1 moa = 1.047 inches. So when you lay them all out side by side you can see mils actually work better with inches than moa. Keep in mind that I used this at 100 yards. One could also add metric numbers to this and and even have a clearer picture of how they all correlate with each other.

Explain how the ranging part works on a mill reticle.
Lets say a whitetail deer is standing at a considerable but unknown distance.
How would judging distance with a mill reticle differ from using say a 1/2 minit dot?

Well, beings that there are countless articles on ranging with mil and moa reticles which use yards, meters, and inches in figuring the solution of an unknown range, I will say this I really don't know if any one method would work best under all circumstances in engagement with targets while under stress. The biggest factor is knowing the size of the target you are engaging.
If I was targeting deer, 18 inches from its back to the bottom of its chest would be the gauge I would use but for simplicity I would convert 18" to yards if I was using a mil reticle and ranging in yards. Target size, in this case .5 yards x 1000 divided by mils = range. Example: .5 yds. x 1000 = 500 divided by .87 mils as measured with reticle = 575 yards.
So in reality using a moa reticle would basically be the same but using different numbers. Example: 18 inches x 95.5 = divided by 3 moa = 573 yards.
I hope this was what you were questioning .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chukarmandoo

Well, beings that there are countless articles on ranging with mil and moa reticles which use yards, meters, and inches in figuring the solution of an unknown range, I will say this I really don't know if any one method would work best under all circumstances in engagement with targets while under stress. The biggest factor is knowing the size of the target you are engaging.
If I was targeting deer, 18 inches from its back to the bottom of its chest would be the gauge I would use but for simplicity I would convert 18" to yards if I was using a mil reticle and ranging in yards. Target size, in this case .5 yards x 1000 divided by mils = range. Example: .5 yds. x 1000 = 500 divided by .87 mils as measured with reticle = 575 yards.
So in reality using a moa reticle would basically be the same but using different numbers. Example: 18 inches x 95.5 = divided by 3 moa = 573 yards.
I hope this was what you were questioning .

---

It was, and the fact is people have been (attempting) to judge distance in this manor for many decades using dots.
It dosent work well regardles of the reticle at least on things like animals of unknown proportions.
So you are correct in that knowing the size of the target is extremly important.
A deer laying down for example would pose an entirly different picture as would a smaller deer.
A 6" bull on a target would be a little easier, and thats what most are referring to when they talk about ranging with a reticle.
There are lots of armchair experts in doing these type things. Quite possibly military snipers are trained to use these things but
thats part of the training. In actual practice i doubt many would be doing that. According to Chris Kyles book all his kills had to
be confirmed. Meaning there was someone acting as a (spotter)? So im assuming by that, information such as distance is fed to
the shooter, at least in some instances.

chuck pretty much covered it but ill go a little more into it....but like yobuck said knowing the size of your target is VERY important and also your bullet drop is just...if not more important.

MOA is much easier to figuring in your head...1" will work until your way out...so with your scope on the range power...we will use my NF 8-32x56 as an example....range powder is 22....so looking through my scope and a 70" tall target that takes up 10moa that target will be 700yds...70" X1.00" = 7000 divided by 10MOA=700yds
the same target taking up 7moa is 1000yds......70"X1.00"=7000 divided by 7MOA=1000yds
same target taking up 20moa=350yds...70"X1.00"=7000 divided by 20MOA=350yds

thats the simple way....BUT....it will over compensate by about 5%....the correct way if you have time is to use 95.5 instead of 100...this will get you about as close as you can get using your reticle...so using the same 70" target that takes up 7MOA....70"X95.5=6,685 divided by 7MOA=955yds...1000yds-5%=950yds.

The bullet drop info isnt necessary to get the range. Only after you know the range and want to hit whatever it was you tried to range.
You guys can keep the reticles and whatever else you might use for that.
I'll just keep using my rangfinder. lol

As long as the reticle matches the turret, and you are at the correct magnification (power) for a SFP scope, or any power for a FFP scope, I don't think it matters a lot whether you use MOA or MIL. Just gotta remember to use the scope's reticle to measure everything and don't worry about what the units are.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/251836084...tion-Equations

I just ran across this on the hide. Very well written I think and very easy to understand. At the end of the article you can download it.

Hunting and reticle ranging have no business in the same discussion.
.
An 18" "estimated target size" that was actually 16" or 20" at about any range (outside max point blank) will almost certainly result in a once in a lifetime opportunity that you ruined or a tragic tail of the beautiful trophy you brutally waisted after a bad shot and a slow death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.ID

Hunting and reticle ranging have no business in the same discussion.
.
An 18" "estimated target size" that was actually 16" or 20" at about any range (outside max point blank) will almost certainly result in a once in a lifetime opportunity that you ruined or a tragic tail of the beautiful trophy you brutally waisted after a bad shot and a slow death.

---

Exactly right. Especially when theres a hot doe running your target all over the place. Did we come here to hunt or play with our toys? lol

^^^ just for the record, I don't disagree with that sentiment. I don't even hunt at those ranges because I am not in that environment/terrain. I doubt I would ever attempt to range a deer with a reticle based on an assumption that a deer is a particular "known" size if I did hunt at those ranges, though.

However, that does not mean that a reticle cannot be used for estimating range, particularly when dealing with targets of known size such as a doorway of an office building... In my mind it is more of a "tactical" tool and not the best tool for determining range to a target of any type. That doesn't mean the entire exercise is worthless. Lots of tools, lots of applications, lots of skills are available to the shooter. Some are better than others depending upon the situation and circumstances, just like every other discipline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxx

^^^ just for the record, I don't disagree with that sentiment. I don't even hunt at those ranges because I am not in that environment/terrain. I doubt I would ever attempt to range a deer with a reticle based on an assumption that a deer is a particular "known" size if I did hunt at those ranges, though.

However, that does not mean that a reticle cannot be used for estimating range, particularly when dealing with targets of known size such as a doorway of an office building... In my mind it is more of a "tactical" tool and not the best tool for determining range to a target of any type. That doesn't mean the entire exercise is worthless. Lots of tools, lots of applications, lots of skills are available to the shooter. Some are better than others depending upon the situation and circumstances, just like every other discipline.

---

Well i dont dissagree with anything you said Foxx.
There are lots of good articles about various things pertaining to shooting.
Probably none more talked about than (reading the wind).
I'll personaly prefer a sighter shot, and frankly so will the experts who write the articles.
If doing all these things is challenging and brings enjoyment to someone thats fine.
But when live targets are involved, educated guesses have no place in my opinion.