Mrad and MOA, can you use both?

[rickp]

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.

You're right this has gone from reticle choice to ranging.

The math is simpler in cm. what i find simpler is knowing the measurements of items in inches. I know a stop sign is 30" not a clue what it is in cm, or a head is 12" same for a doorway or fence etc.

[Belmont31R]

It can be difficult for people who have used the "standard" system their entire entire lives but if you make an effort to learn metric, and think in metric you'll see how stupid standard measurements are.



Standard= a bunch of jiberish with no rhyme or reason behind what makes what.

[orkan]

a0cake, no offense taken at all. Quite the contrary, I'm greatly enjoying the discussion! I don't feel like you are picking it apart at all. We are having a discussion based on facts of different methods of engaging targets, and you are taking exception to some of my points. It's a useful discussion, and quite important for anyone wanting to employ either of our methods.

You seemed to key in on only one aspect of my post though, where I use the mental "short hand" so to speak. I can still do it just as fast when presented with targets that do not fit the size specified 18" without much fuss.

Here's how.

Say you are providing overwatch as you specified. You can see the door. A standard exterior door is 3' wide or 36". What's 18" x 2? 36" or 3 feet. So, all I do is measure half the door's width with the reticle... and my method works again. ... and does so in a second or two. It's pretty easy to draw relationships like this for just about everything you'd want to range. It's not always this exact... but its usually close enough to put a hit on the target without having any time to do a proper range estimate. Obviously exterior doorways lend themselves VERY well to my method.

Obviously, I only employ this method if I don't have time. Overwatch is a pretty poor example because if in that situation you'd likely have time to get a proper range card laid out with much more precise calculations. If I do have time... I still don't do any math. I glance at the 10th mil to yards chart that is in my databook or taped to my rifle. Find target size in inches, slide over to the target measurement in mils... and where my finger lands is the range estimate. Still faster than running a formula, and just as accurate.

edit: It bears mentioning that my method is something I've developed on my own... with no input from anyone. I've not heard it talked about anywhere... but I have found it to work for me in practice. So just a disclaimer... this is my idea and I accept full responsibility for it. If anyone wants to poke holes in my theory... I'm all ears! Ideas can always use polishing. If it has been talked about somewhere by someone... I've not read about it or seen it. It's obvious to me that a0cake has been trained in the time tested and proven method... and sounds like his life and the lives of some of our other brave soldiers depend on it. So if you are in that situation... take his word over mine!

[darr3239]

Thanks austinN4 and a0cake. That's really good info. and a lot to digest. I'm off to study up.

[a0cake]

Orkan. You have basically created your own "MILDOT MASTER." It's a good system for sure...and actually something that I had forgotten about. But it does make a lot of sense.

http://www.mildot.com/testdrive.htm

The picture of it on the bottom right is interactive and you can slide it around.

Admittedly, I've been spoiled by the VIPER and PLRF-10. I always carry a small calculator and keep the formulas memorized just in case, but the need to use them is rare.

I'll keep your system in the tool box for future use. Thanks for bringing it up.

[orkan]

Orkan. You have basically created your own "MILDOT MASTER." It's a good system for sure...and actually something that I had forgotten about.

Yeah, basically the same thing. I've got a mildot master but find it much slower to use than the 10th mil to yards relation chart... so it rarely if ever sees use anymore.

I can't take credit for that chart or method either, as I found it when building my first databook years ago. Here's a pic from Shooting Voodoo's site that illustrates the chart.


It's very fast, but not fast enough when you are under heavy time constraint. That's why I developed the method of knowing what 18" looks like at various distances. It's not quite as accurate... but much better than a WAG. (wild ass guess)

[Pappabear]

Guys this thread is on the money. I will read and reread this mofo many times. I went with a NF mil/mil FFP US army blabla scope. I'm going to throw it on my 308 and roll.

I have much studying to do, and in 12 months, I'll be solid with this "Milling".

[Belmont31R]

Guys this thread is on the money. I will read and reread this mofo many times. I went with a NF mil/mil FFP US army blabla scope. I'm going to throw it on my 308 and roll.

I have much studying to do, and in 12 months, I'll be solid with this "Milling".

Yes I think it just takes practice and actually doing it. Math is one of those things most people cannot book learn. They have to do problems on paper and then after a while you can start doing things in your head.


Id also get an app like KAC BulletFlight or similar. Its helped me a lot and I don't use it so much anymore once you start memorizing stuff. I also stopped "testing" so many loads and only have a few I use. It cuts down on confusion and wasted $$$ + range time. Get a load, learn it, and then go to work with it. When I first got into LR shooting sometimes I was shooting 5-6 different loads per range trip. Insane..

[ALCOAR]

Guys this thread is on the money. I will read and reread this mofo many times. I went with a NF mil/mil FFP US army blabla scope. I'm going to throw it on my 308 and roll.

I have much studying to do, and in 12 months, I'll be solid with this "Milling".

Did you get a NF ARMY SPEC F1 Special Release...only 200 units were made???

[orkan]

Id also get an app like KAC BulletFlight or similar.

Bulletflight is ok... but Shooter and Ballistic FTE are much better.

Shooter is now available on iPhone as well as Android... and is my favorite. I used ballistic exclusively until recently when Shooter was ported over to the iphone. Shooter is $10, which is $20 cheaper than ballistic... and is much more intuitive in how it handles weapon and ammo profiles.

I'd highly recommend it.