Does anyone here use metric scopes?
- Thread starter blsonne
- Start date
there are no such things
moa and mills are mesure units for angles
one milliradiant is one for 1000 so one yard at 1000yards or one inch at 1000 inch there are 3,1416--------- in a circle
moa( minute of angle) there are 60 in a deg.
moa and mills are mesure units for angles
one milliradiant is one for 1000 so one yard at 1000yards or one inch at 1000 inch there are 3,1416--------- in a circle
moa( minute of angle) there are 60 in a deg.
lol...
You mean a MIL/MIL set up? So one dot on your MIL dot reticule is 10cm at 100 meters? And .1 mil/click on your turrets will change the POI of 1cm at 100 meters?
Recommendations? Yes. Budget? Type of shooting? Magnification? Distance of average shooting? Hunting? Tactical?
Cheers.
Help us and we will help you.
You mean a MIL/MIL set up? So one dot on your MIL dot reticule is 10cm at 100 meters? And .1 mil/click on your turrets will change the POI of 1cm at 100 meters?
Recommendations? Yes. Budget? Type of shooting? Magnification? Distance of average shooting? Hunting? Tactical?
Cheers.
Help us and we will help you.
True. Mils are much easier in metric, 100mm at 100m and so on.
Going by the geometric definition, there are 6283 milliradians in a circle (rounded to the nearest whole number). There are pi radians to 180 degrees and hence 2*pi radians to 360 degrees.
The NATO standard mil that is in common use is 1/6400 of the arc of a circle to make for a convenient round number. The Russian/Warsaw Pact mil is 1/6000 of a circle.
To clarify, I should have said 1cm/click elevation and windage dials, with the reticle size and shaped for useful distance and drop calculations, etc. I'm not really sure what would be good for magnification, since I suspect I'm trying to come up with a jack of all trades here; something to do "paper punching" at hundreds of metres with as well as hunt with. This way I'd spend a lot of time with just one aiming setup and get really comfortable with it.
Again, the clicks represent an angle, not a distance.
ultimate_monkey
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- victoria BC
scopes are adjusted by units of angle not by distance, it just happens that moa works out to be 1" at 100 and mils are 3.6" at 100meters. if you dont like working in in MOA then go with a mil/mil set up. as far as magnification goes i like mine in the 5-25 range but i run high end optics, regardless make sure your scope is FFP if you plan to use the retical to hold over / range targets, SFP only works at certain magnifications (varies depending on scope)
1/10 mil adjustments work out pretty close to 1cm at 100m, since the rule of thumb approximation is that 1 mil subtends 1 unit at a distance of 1000 units.
Degrees, minutes, and seconds are considered acceptable for use with SI, even though radians are derived from SI base units.
Degrees, minutes, and seconds are considered acceptable for use with SI, even though radians are derived from SI base units.
Last edited:
oups
looks like my memory got some bugs
tanks for refreshing it
with FFP scope I have ( both are in mill) when I use the reticule to dope a shot from a range card I first printed with JBM, I use only mill for corection. I never bother to check for mesure in inches or cm. the only mesure I am interested in for the corection, is the angle. once I got used to it, things got a lot easyer
if I have a SFP scope, I dont use the reticule at all. I only use the turets and for ranging distance, I use a range finder
You are of course correct when you describe scopes functioning in terms of angles, not distance. I actually feel like a bit of a jackass, since the ideas seem clear upstairs but expressing them isn't always, heh
I would guess that with something like "1 click = 1 cm" it wold be referring to some default sighting in distance, like say 100m.
I get the distinct feeling that I should really just stick to what's most common so I can tap into the existing body of knowledge. I did look at some reticles that I might describe as 'metric' and they were mostly German #4 with a bunch of augmentations. In any case, what I've got now uses this Boone & Crockett reticle so I've got to learn the yards and standard way of doing things anyhow.
The maths are simple but the choices are bewildering.
I would guess that with something like "1 click = 1 cm" it wold be referring to some default sighting in distance, like say 100m.
I get the distinct feeling that I should really just stick to what's most common so I can tap into the existing body of knowledge. I did look at some reticles that I might describe as 'metric' and they were mostly German #4 with a bunch of augmentations. In any case, what I've got now uses this Boone & Crockett reticle so I've got to learn the yards and standard way of doing things anyhow.
The maths are simple but the choices are bewildering.
Like mentioned they are in metric....same as my weaver mil/mil.
Its used because the math is easy.
A mil could be called a baseball at a thousand baseballs....or anything you'd like to use for reference.
It is a better system IMO after you learn to use it.
With ffp....if you know your holdover is three mils.....it doesn't matter where you crank your magnification....you still hold above your target three hash marks...even though your mind says I should be holding over more or less....because the target looks closer or farther away....but because the reitcle grows and shrinks with your magnification....the hash mark values are always constant.
Its used because the math is easy.
A mil could be called a baseball at a thousand baseballs....or anything you'd like to use for reference.
It is a better system IMO after you learn to use it.
With ffp....if you know your holdover is three mils.....it doesn't matter where you crank your magnification....you still hold above your target three hash marks...even though your mind says I should be holding over more or less....because the target looks closer or farther away....but because the reitcle grows and shrinks with your magnification....the hash mark values are always constant.
