MILs: Help a lifelong MOA guy understand

[shoot4fun]

Thanks in advance for looking.

I've been an MOA guy for the several decades I've been shooting. Until now, anyway. I just bought my first FFP scope, with Mil knobs and a Mildot reticle. FFP. MILs and the Mildot are all new to me, and I'm feeling a little overwhelmed.

This reticle is a lot more complex than I realized. I have a basic understanding of MILs, in that the math to convert them to MOA is not difficult. However, I want to take the conversion process out of my head, and learn to "think in MILs", if that makes any sense.

The FFP concept, of anways being in proportion, makes a lot of sense to me. I do have to admit that I find the reticle just turns into crosshairs at much less than max magnification, though.

I'm sure I'm not the first guy who's been through this. Can anyone recommend any videos, links to read, or post feedback here that you think might help an old fart MOA guy learn a new system the right way?

The Mildot reticle is, apparently, "out-dated" due to all the hash-style reticles popularity these days. It is, no less, a very useful reticle, especially for ranging on a target of unknown distance. I believe I still have one of the Mildot Master tools around here somewhere but I have gone to the hash v. dot in my scopes.
The math was pretty easy for me as well so the actual switch over was not a big deal. I thought I had everything down before I went to a match with milrad based scopes. Then someone started calling corrections out in MOA. Uh oh. Now I gotta figure that out in my head on the fly.
Another issue I encountered was, as my MRAD scope numbers grew, converting old MOA data to the new mrad numbers. Then I found this somewhere:
MOA x .2909 = Mils
Mils x 3.438 = MOA

So now I can pretty easily take MOA data and apply it to my Mil scope. 10 MOA x .2909 = 2.9 Mil and that is a lot less "spinning the wheel" to get on a distant target. It also doesn't hurt that I was able to convert all my closest shooting buddies to the Mil system too.

 

[NV_Dmax]

Give someone the wrong info on the internet and get your feelings hurt when people try to keep others from using it?
Priceless.
Actually, the Polish comment was a personal joke. I have a great friend (name ends with "ski") that I tried teaching the way to quickly zero a scope. For the next 6 months every time he went to zero a scope he called me from the range to say that my instructions were not working. Yup, every time he was doing it by your method instead.

By using the reticle as a measuring device I’m wrong? LOL
no hurt feelings, either you aren’t understanding the OP or my response or tou are being obtuse.

 

[shoot4fun]

By using the reticle as a measuring device I’m wrong? LOL
no hurt feelings, either you aren’t understanding the OP or my response or tou are being obtuse.

Sorry. I've read your post several times and it still makes little sense. Yes, I use my reticle to make adjustments for wind but I do not move the reticle to impact and dial back to center. I place the center back on POA AND DIAL TO THE HIT.
It is true that when reading and correcting your own hits that you need to think in mils alone and not inches. But MOST EVERY target in use is set up for MOA and sometime you just have to put yourself in that frame of mind.
I am not being obtuse. I am trying to honestly decipher your original post and I guess (even though I wasn't the only one) I just can't read between the lines and know exactly what meaning you had for it.

 

[NV_Dmax]

Sorry. I've read your post several times and it still makes little sense. Yes, I use my reticle to make adjustments for wind but I do not move the reticle to impact and dial back to center. I place the center back on POA AND DIAL TO THE HIT.
It is true that when reading and correcting your own hits that you need to think in mils alone and not inches. But MOST EVERY target in use is set up for MOA and sometime you just have to put yourself in that frame of mind.
I am not being obtuse. I am trying to honestly decipher your original post and I guess (even though I wasn't the only one) I just can't read between the lines and know exactly what meaning you had for it.

ahhh,
I wasn’t succinct enough in my explanation. The bulk of my shooting is not from a mechanical rest or rear bags. I cannot hold the rifle steadt enough to hold POA and dial back to POI. Hence my comment of belly/bench shooting.

 

[Depart123]

Dial elevation. Hold for wind. Hold for a correction.

 

[shoot4fun]

ahhh,
I wasn’t succinct enough in my explanation. The bulk of my shooting is not from a mechanical rest or rear bags. I cannot hold the rifle steadt enough to hold POA and dial back to POI. Hence my comment of belly/bench shooting.

Then I would think this would be your best method.

Dial elevation. Hold for wind. Hold for a correction.

 

[Geno C]

NV, I picked up what you are laying down.

Say you miss low right. Using the reticle, measure how low. Then dial that amount up. Then measure how far right, the dial that much left to bring it back to center. That works for zeroing.

For active shooting, Miss low right? Hold that much high left. Using the reticle and then invert the measurements

 

[Alex Wheeler]

If you are used to moa stay with it. I have built up my mirage and wind reading to translate to moa. A certain mirage is worth x moa in my head. Mils might as well be Japanese. Tried it and felt blind. I dont see how you could do both well.

 

[Depart123]

If you are used to moa stay with it. I have built up my mirage and wind reading to translate to moa. A certain mirage is worth x moa in my head. Mils might as well be Japanese. Tried it and felt blind. I dont see how you could do both well.

If you are calling wind intuitively in moa, then it would be Greek to do it in mils. If you are actually applying a formula, then one formula is as easy as another as long as you are accurately judging the actual wind speed.

 

[Dgd6mm]

If we try to use 10% of our brain, we can use either one easily.

 

[Milo 2.0]

If we try to use 10% of our brain, we can use either one easily.

Lol, I'm kind of converting to mils, w/o the reticle, I need way more than 10% usage.
I'm with Alex, if BR or even fclass, why mess with a mil scope. Not that it can't be done, but WHY. Some things just plain work.
The only reason I am making the switch, is all the guys I shoot with run mils, plus I sponsor and coach 2 young boys, life will be way simpler for them in the long run with mils.

 

[Knotwild]

I have one of these:

http://www.mildot.com/

 

[Depart123]

Lol, I'm kind of converting to mils, w/o the reticle, I need way more than 10% usage.
I'm with Alex, if BR or even fclass, why mess with a mil scope. Not that it can't be done, but WHY. Some things just plain work.
The only reason I am making the switch, is all the guys I shoot with run mils, plus I sponsor and coach 2 young boys, life will be way simpler for them in the long run with mils.

I agree. I'm definitely a mils advocate for all field shooting, but if the targets are in moa, I would definitely want the scope to match the targets.

 

[Depart123]

I have one of these:

http://www.mildot.com/

That guy has sold a bunch of those. They are really unnecessary though. If you can remember: Target size in yards x 1000 / mils in scope, you can do the ranging.

If you know what wind pushes your bullet 1 mil at 1000 yards (easily found with any ballistic program), then that will give you 0.1 mils per 100 yds drift. If a 6 mph wind pushes my bullet 1 mil at 1000 yds, then a 700 yds shot is 0.7 mils, 500 yds is 0.5 mils, 900 yds is 0.9 mils...etc.

Adjust the base wind call up or down for actual wind. If the wind is double, then double the call, if half the wind then half the call, easy peasy.

 

[Mr.Knowit all]

I always convert in my head or on paper if you need to. 1 MIL is 3.43 MOA so I ALWAYS do both in my head before I shot. I believe it is important to be fluent in both. JMO.
Like stated- 1 Mil at 100 yards in 3.6 in and 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1.0472 inches so a 1/10 of a Mil is actually LARGER than 1/4 MOA.

 

[Depart123]

I always convert in my head or on paper if you need to. 1 MIL is 3.43 MOA so I ALWAYS do both in my head before I shot. I believe it is important to be fluent in both. JMO.
Like stated- 1 Mil at 100 yards in 3.6 in and 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1.0472 inches so a 1/10 of a Mil is actually LARGER than 1/4 MOA.

Most don't use a reticle to range things anymore, but when they do it is usually in MILs. If you want to do it in MOA there is a formula for that also.

If you are calling wind in MOA, there is no need for a conversion either. Using a ballistic program, find the wind that gives you 5 MOA drift at 1000 yards and that same wind will give you 1/2 MOA per 100 yds.

Say a 5mph full value wind gives me 5 MOA drift at 1000 yds. If I figure 1/2 MOA per 100 yds, then a 700 yd shot in the same wind requires 3.5 MOA hold. It doesn't really have to be any harder than that.

Yes, 1/10 of a MIL is larger than 1/4 MOA....but there is a practical catch to that.

People regularly call wind and elevation adjustments in 1/10 MIL increments. How many people do you know that call wind in 1/4 MOA?

 

[Mr.Knowit all]

Catch to what? I was just stating that 1/10 mil is larger than a 1/4 moa in angular measurement, that's all. I know shooters that call wind in inches, feet, MOA, Mils, and anything else you can think of. For me, I think any system based off 10's is a better system. To me it just flows better. JMO

I was also NOT talking about milling a target to get the range of it. I WAS talking about being familiar with MOA to Mils and Mils to MOA to help give the shooter a better idea of the value of each one.

 

[Depart123]

I have had conversations before where someone was convinced that MOA was more precise for field shooting because of the smaller increment. I thought that was where you were going with that.

I typically ask them whether they call wind to the nearest 1/4 MOA. They typically don't. They typically use 1 MOA or 1/2 MOA increments. So in reality, their calls in MOA are courser than those in MILs.

Sorry if I assumed too much. I'm not really trying to push one or the other. Everyone has the right to do it however they wish.

 

[theMadAlaskan]

Think in metric. It's a lot easier.

This.

0.1 mil is 1 centimeter at 100 meters, can't be much simpler!

The problem is there are exactly three countries in the world that don't use the metric system, the other two are Liberia and Mayanmar.

 

[dcali]

People get mad when I say this, but it really is this simple: mils (aka milliradians) are just the metric version of the old degree/minute/second units. (And before someone says “they’re not metric”, trust me. They are. Look it up.)

They’re both angles, just different units. Like meters vs yards. Either one gets the job done.