Tikka T3x TAC A1 6.5 Creedmoor (Optic question for a newbie)

Badbadger said:
Not sure what you mean. You need to think both inches and yards. 1 moa is (roughly) one inch at 100 yards, 2 inches at 200 yards ECT. That's why if you think in yards and inches, using the MIL system you have to do the conversion from cm/m.
Click to expand...

Just like Kthomas says. If you miss by .2Mil you miss by .2Mil and make an adjustment. I guess if you missed by .5MOA you could just adjust .5MOA as well.

With a matching reticle/turret combo no conversions are required. Using a Mil-Dot Reticle with MOA turrets does require work. If you are off by 1 MIL on target you would need to adjust for 3 MOA (approximately) on the turrets. Some people may say that they missed by 3 inches and then convert that to MOA or MIL and then adjust but if you just use your reticle it is easier.
 
BadAsMo said:
Anyone born in Canada prior to 1970 grew up with inches and feet. While we can also measure using metric instead, in our minds we are always translating to a unit of measure what we have spent our lives relating to.

Unless there is no other means of measuring we will naturally use inches, feet, yards and miles.

My 16 year old daughter has trouble going the other way... she thinks in metric values and cannot relate to how big a foot is, without considerable pause. You don't have time for that pause during a competition.

It does not make one person wrong and the other person right any different than a person who speaks Italian and not German.

What is wrong is to attempt to use a tool that you cannot personally relate to because that will just slow down your decision making processes.

A point was made above relating to feedback from other competitors who use mils when you are in minutes.... just because some guys use one, does not justify an argument that everyone must follow suit. Again, you must use what you are personally most competent with.

To this conversion point... just carry a laminated mils to minutes conversion table so you can translate the values, then get back into your comfort zone and move forward.
Click to expand...

The point is, it doesn't matter what you relate to. Because your scope doesn't measure in inches or in meters, the reticle is a ruler in MOA or mils. So all you need to know is MOA or mils.

You can complicate it as much as you want, or you can make it really easy on yourself. I know what I'm going to do...
 
kthomas said:
You guys are completely missing the point.

Why think in inches? Does your reticle measure inches? Or does it have hash marks in MOA?

You miss targets by half an MOA, 0.3 MOA, 1 MOA, 1.5 MOA, etc. Who cares who many inches that is? It doesn't matter.

Same thing using a mil scope. If I miss the center of the target by 0.2 mils because I was off on my wind call, guess what? I'm not converting that to inches because I don't give a sh*t about how many inches it is. I adjust by 0.2 mils, what the reticle told me, pull the trigger and get a hit.

No need to overcomplicate this, there's already enough things you have to think about when you are behind a rifle and getting ready to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

I guess you never read everything I typed.
 
Nice video, I have not watched that one yet for some reason.
The only thing remains is if you were to range something. I would assume it's not possible to range accurately very far anyway. I need to go out with the rangefinder and compare for curiosity. Is it possible to to get hits from measuring out to 500???
 
Lead hammer said:
Nice video, I have not watched that one yet for some reason.
The only thing remains is if you were to range something. I would assume it's not possible to range accurately very far anyway. I need to go out with the rangefinder and compare for curiosity. Is it possible to to get hits from measuring out to 500???
Click to expand...

I assuming you are talking about milling a target? Not too hard for a 500 yard target - especially if you have a reticle that can measure in .1 or .2 mils.

It's fairly unpractical at 700 yards and beyond. You just can't get precise enough with it to get it to work at any sort of practical degree once you are milling those distances. Shannon Kay covers this topic very well if you ever find the opportunity to train at K&M.
 
kthomas said:
I assuming you are talking about milling a target? Not too hard for a 500 yard target - especially if you have a reticle that can measure in .1 or .2 mils.

It's fairly unpractical at 700 yards and beyond. You just can't get precise enough with it to get it to work at any sort of practical degree once you are milling those distances. Shannon Kay covers this topic very well if you ever find the opportunity to train at K&M.
Click to expand...

Yep, that was what I was referring too thanks. If it works out to 500 or a bit more, that would be handy as a backup for hunting. Thanks.
 
Lead hammer said:
Yep, that was what I was referring too thanks. If it works out to 500 or a bit more, that would be handy as a backup for hunting. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Biggest key to that method is to know the formula (I know, obvious) as well as to practice. Small discrepancies in milling errors can add up to big differences in yardages, especially the further out the target is.

I would learn to be very competent with that method before using it hunting. Certainly a handy skill to have if you have optics issues on a hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom