Mrad and MOA, can you use both?

[Failure2Stop]

Mils/meters is very easy to use once you've done it for a little bit.

If you can work in yards you can work in meters.
Average dude=just under 6', or about 1.8 meters
Average dude from hip to head= just about 3', or 1 meter
Average shoulder width=about 19", or 1/2 meter (50 cm)
Average rifle length= just under 3', or about .9 meters (90cm)
Average 3rd world vehicle tire height= 14"-16", just under 1/2 meter (40cm)

As a team, most things can be solved by just talking in Mils for corrections, or in meters/fractions of meters, which are close enough to yards when talking about short distances like those used in corrections. Really though, communicating in mil-hold or adjustment is preferred over arbitrary numbers of estimated length when relaying hold/adjustment. If the spotter gives "1/2 mil low", it puts both the spotter and the shooter on the same page as opposed to "hold 18" high", as that then forces the shooter to guess at what 18" looks like at the estimated range, which can be difficult if there isn't any kind of known length indicator right beside the target, which can make follow-on corrections really weird.
By yourself, it's really easy/fast to track observed strike in mils and correct with a mil based adjustment. Juggling MOA adjustments with a Mil reticle is a pain. 3.44 based math just doesn't work as fast in my head as 10 does, and can get confusing when talking corrections or doing rapid math.

None of those concerns are really present in benchrest/F-class (or whatever) competitions, so there is no detriment by using a simple reticle with whatever adjustments are fine enough to get precise POA/POI at range.

FWIW, the most successful military sniper teams work in mils/meters.
It isn't because there is a conspiracy to convert us to the metric system, it's because it works.

[a0cake]

Those are very legitimate reasons for using the metric system, no argument there, but if not working with foreign units then I think we're back on the original argument.

R.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you could make the argument (and I do) that the Metric system simplifies things when it comes to formulas, which does have a tangible positive effect on real world performance .

BUT, to play the devil's advocate against myself, is it really simpler if you have to relearn and entire system? No.

I think it's fair to say that the MRAD system works "better" with the Metric system assuming an equal understanding of the metric / imperial systems.

But for some, relearning an entire system may mean that for them it's "better" to stick with what they know.

I'm starting to think and talk in circles here so I'll agree to leave it at that.

Happy shooting.

[rickp]

Not to beat a dead horse, but you could make the argument (and I do) that the Metric system simplifies things when it comes to formulas, which does have a tangible positive effect on real world performance .

BUT, to play the devil's advocate against myself, is it really simpler if you have to relearn and entire system? No.

I think it's fair to say that the MRAD system works "better" with the Metric system assuming an equal understanding of the metric / imperial systems.

But for some, relearning an entire system may mean that for them it's "better" to stick with what they know.

I'm starting to think and talk in circles here so I'll agree to leave it at that.

Happy shooting.

That's a very valid point. I also edited my original statement after thinking about it a bit more.

[austinN4]

I admit I'm mathematically stunted, and don't even understand this sentence.

Optics Facts:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubb...812#Post378812

[QuietShootr]

I understand all of this and indicated the angular nature of the measurement at the bottom of my reply.

I use Metric for a few reasons. When you're shooting targets behind cover, you don't often have the luxury of a large target to measure. When your LRF is inoperable due to smoke, fog, or dead batteries, you're left with the old way of doing things. Here are your options:

Height of Target (inches) x 27.78 / MILS = Distance to Target (yards)

VS

Height of Target (cm) x 10 /MILS = Distance to Target (meters)

Pick one.

I just like staying metric all around. Perhaps I should have said "I use Metric" not "You should be using Metric." Nearly all systems I use require the use of Metric measurements, so it works for me. If your way works for you, then great. Still doesn't change the fact that MOA works best with standard measurements...and while MILS do work with both standard and metric...things are simpler with metric.

Agreed. I am going to take my Leupolds out every once in a while just to stay sharp, but I've moved over to mil/mil and 100% metric.

[a0cake]

I admit I'm mathematically stunted, and don't even understand this sentence. It would take me a lot of study to get on to these procedures, and the way my brain works it would forget most of it after not using it for a while. If it was my job to use it regularly, I would catch on, but as a shooting for fun guy now, I would have to regularly practice the calculations.

My brain works in feet and inches, and I can figure out where to go in those terms. Any extra thinking just makes things worse for me, so I need the KISS principle big time.

Maybe I'm going full retard, or I'm already there!

It's hard to grasp at first man. Remember, when it comes to corrections and adjustments, you should be thinking in MILS or MOA's, not linear units of measure such as inches, centimeters, or whatever.

This discussion is really about range finding. While you may be better at thinking in inches and feet like you said, it doesn't mean it's simpler. Once you know and memorize what average measurements are, you'll find the metric system will allow you to keep your calculator in your pocket more often, though not all the time.

Practical example:

Disclaimer: The following example does favor the metric system because it uses an easy 50CM measurement for shoulder width, but you can't discount that. By sheer luck, commonly seen objects average out to sizes that are easily worked on in the metric system. Unfair? Yes. But it is a fortunate if lucky fact.

You have positively identified an individual digging a fighting position over-watching friendly forces. When he stood up, you measured him from shoulder to shoulder at 1.0 MILS through your optic. With the knowledge that the average male shoulder width is ~50 CM, you can use the following formula to determine range:

Height of Target (cm) x 10 /MILS = Distance to Target (meters)

OR

50 X 10 / 1 = 500M. Do you need a calculator for that? **** no.

OR

Height of Target (meters) x 1000 / MILS = Distance to Target (meters)

OR

.5 X 1000 / 1 = 500 Meters

Still don't need a calculator.

Let's try that using the imperial system.

Height of Target (inches) x 27.78 / MILS = Distance to Target (yards)

OR

20 X 27.78 /1 = 556 Yards

OR

Height of Target (yards) x 1000 / MILS = Distance to Target (yards)

20 / 36 = 0.55 x 1000 / 1 = 556 Yards.

Do you see why that became more difficult? 90 CM equals .9 Meters. But 20 inches does not equal .2 Yards. It equals 20 divided by 36 or .555555 yards and adds another step in the math.

I fail to see how this is more simple.

[orkan]

Yeah, that's definitely simpler a0cake, when it comes to actually doing the math. However, I almost never do that. What I've done is come up with a little short-hand to help me. I use a measurement of known size... and simply memorize its measurement at a known distance. There is almost no reason to do the math, because there is a finite number of measurements. I read a reticle down to 10ths. Some read it further... but most aren't that savvy. Typically you'll never need more than 2 mils to range a target from 200yds to infinity... so that means there are only 20 possible measurement outcomes, in tenth mil increments from .1-2.0 mils. This makes things very simple.

Typically when shooting matches the targets are most often IPSC steel or cutouts. The body, is almost always visible at some point, and measures 18" wide.

18" is exactly 1 mil at 500yds. So, by glancing at its relationship to that known measurement/distance... I can estimate a range. For instance, if the body only measures .5 mils instead of 1, I know its close to 1000yds. If it's 1.5 mils, I know its just past 300yds... and so on. It's not hard to build these relationships in your head to objects of known size. The above method is what I use if there is a time constraint. Typically my guess will be good enough to get me a hit... and takes me no more than a couple seconds to achieve.

If I have the time, I just glance in the databook at a "10th mil to yards" relation chart. This takes a little longer... 10 seconds maybe... but is every bit as accurate if I had done it with a calculator.

Never do I do the math. The point is, for every system... there are methods of "shorthand" that can be employed to make things easier on you. This is why its important to choose a system (one or the other)... and dedicate yourself to learning it's every aspect. Once you understand one... it's easy to understand others.

After all... shooting is about hitting your target... not how well you can run a calculator.

[USMC_Anglico]

Mil/Mil scope and cm/meters is the way to go. The math is stupid simple and the Mil/Mil scope make the corrections caveman easy. Very easy to get up to speed. After a quick few hours of instruction I was able to make first round hits out to approx. 600 meters.

Really shines when you are using the scope to range targets.

[orkan]

Anglico, I know guys that use yards/moa that could say the same thing.

Remember, BOTH systems work... and one is not better than the other.

The number of people that fully understand their chosen system is much smaller than the internet would have you believe.

[a0cake]

Orkan, this is a good system for your uses. I'm positive that you are able to use it very effectively.

I hate to seem like I'm arbitrarily disagreeing with you point by point. I hope you're enjoying the discussion and not taking my counterpoints as an assault on your knowledge / skill.

With that said, your system only works for one particular target as you are well aware. For finding range by looking at a window, door frame, tire, vehicle, mail box, stop sign, etc. it doesn't help at all.

You would have to create individual mental "charts" for all these objects. If all you shoot is steel silhouettes and average sized deer that's not a problem. You can keep track of a few of these.

Now, if you're in overwatch of a house where a group of shitheads is having a meeting but nobody is on the outside, you can determine your range to the house and thus to the targets when they exit by ranging the doors or windows. Or if they're not visible, you can do it with a pickup truck on the outside.

Point is there are a huge number of things you can use to determine range by using simple formulas.

When it comes to doing formulas, Metric is easier when it comes to MIL reticles. Period. In the real world, you will have to do formulas if your LRF isn't cooperating.

Yeah, that's definitely simpler a0cake, when it comes to actually doing the math. However, I almost never do that. What I've done is come up with a little short-hand to help me. I use a measurement of known size... and simply memorize its measurement at a known distance. There is almost no reason to do the math, because there is a finite number of measurements. I read a reticle down to 10ths. Some read it further... but most aren't that savvy. Typically you'll never need more than 2 mils to range a target from 200yds to infinity... so that means there are only 20 possible measurement outcomes, in tenth mil increments from .1-2.0 mils. This makes things very simple.

Typically when shooting matches the targets are most often IPSC steel or cutouts. The body, is almost always visible at some point, and measures 18" wide.

18" is exactly 1 mil at 500yds. So, by glancing at its relationship to that known measurement/distance... I can estimate a range. For instance, if the body only measures .5 mils instead of 1, I know its close to 1000yds. If it's 1.5 mils, I know its just past 300yds... and so on. It's not hard to build these relationships in your head to objects of known size. The above method is what I use if there is a time constraint. Typically my guess will be good enough to get me a hit... and takes me no more than a couple seconds to achieve.

If I have the time, I just glance in the databook at a "10th mil to yards" relation chart. This takes a little longer... 10 seconds maybe... but is every bit as accurate if I had done it with a calculator.

Never do I do the math. The point is, for every system... there are methods of "shorthand" that can be employed to make things easier on you. This is why its important to choose a system (one or the other)... and dedicate yourself to learning it's every aspect. Once you understand one... it's easy to understand others.

After all... shooting is about hitting your target... not how well you can run a calculator.