zs Xie thanks for watching! I remade this video because I noticed how long it was. The new one has a quick example and how to sight the rifle in aswell 👍🏼
WillyGhillie: I've just seen your answer at about 43:00-44:00 and can't believe my poor eyes and ears. By now, I know how much you love your calculator, but who do you think wants to know the range in metres to the 4th decimal place? At that distance you're talking about the thickness of an eyelash. Keep it real, Willy. Not only is this an incredibly small dimension, but there is no way on earth that anyone can determine the size of their target in mils to such a fine degree of accuracy, for the following reasons: it will be moving, or poorly lit, or partly obstructed, or in front of an indistinct background, or distorted by mirage. At 800 metres, or even a fraction of that, you'll have trouble determining your target to within a tenth of a milrad, let alone the precision you imagine here. If you're shooting at paper targets of known size, you might come close, but in that case you will generally be firing at a range of known distance anyway. Before you put your calculator away, try calculating the precision (in mrads) to which you would have to know the size of your target in order to arrive at such an astounding precision in your range to target. I can't be bothered doing it myself, but I suspect that your trusty TI will finally run out of decimal places. It goes without saying that you're an engineer. You clearly understand the principle involved, but you've forgotten that we're using this as a means of ESTIMATING the range, not measuring it with calipers. It reminds me of the practice on Indian railways of showing a station's height above mean sea level to the nearest mm, despite being half a continent from the nearest coast, and without designating the exact spot on the platform that they're purporting to measure. Their self belief is impressive, but reveals that they're applying a formula slavishly without regard to practical realities, just as you are here. I don't wish to be unkind, but this presentation is academic in the extreme, and totally beyond the realm of practical application. I doubt that even the most avid astronomer or surveyor would ever be interested in measuring degrees to seven decimal places.You clearly have learned this as a theoretical exercise, and have never applied it in the field. Come on, 'fess up!
This is supposed to be an educational video, I understand that this formula is an estimate, and I rarely use it as I just use a range finder 99% of the time. My bad for putting so many decimals, I just get into a habit of putting many decimal places when I do proofs because in small angle estimation the decimals do matter. Good comment on the mirage, it makes it very difficult to estimate the mil. The only time I use this is in some shooting competitions when they don’t allow range finders, so this comes in handy. But I know many old school shooters who still use this just to double check their range finder
Best RUclips video on the subject! Thanks. Ignore some of the negative comments made by some posters. Yes, there are more simple formulas that you can use. However, it's always good to know the "real math" behind how those simple formulas were derived.
Good video. I tend to think of it all in trig terms. If I can remember that 1 mil is .052796 degrees, the rest is basic. My distance is tan(the number of mils covered by target in scope x .057296) / height of target. The range formula we all memorize is a very close approximation of the actual math - (1000/number of mils covered) ~ 1/(tan(.057296 x number mils covered).
NO,NO,NO,NO,NO!!!! Forget you ever saw 57.2796 blah blah degrees. Banish that number from your mind, and REMEMBER THIS ONE THING: Estimate target size (in mm or metres or yards or cubits or your girlfriend's legs. Multiply that by 1000 and divide by the mils covered by your target. YOU NOW KNOW EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW. DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
A long time ago when I first got started playing with subtention math using the mil (Imperially) I often wondered where the 27.8 factor came from. When I figured out it was simply the "subtenion unit" I thought to myself well could any subtention unit be used in the algebraic form of the equation? As it turned out it worked, from MOA to ballistic reticle subtentions to iron sights and even archery sight pins. As it turns out the mil-ranging formula can also be used to calculate downrange zeroing corrections as well. And factor the inversely proportional quality of subtention vs. magnification of 2nd FP reticles and that's even more fun. Reverse milling too. It's been a fun education over the years...but it really requires the right mindset. My gunsmith put it perfectly awhile back--he said it takes a marksman with a bit more than a passing interest in math. And he was right. I have seen some thing's accomplished with this math that blew my mind--FUN STUFF!!
Thanks for telling what it is; however, a shooter only needs to know mils is an angular unit of measurement, which is used for range finding with a scope or optic's mil scaled reticle using the formula: target size in yards X 1000 / target size in mils (as it appears on reticle) = range to target in yards. Example, a 36 inch diameter target which appears to measure 1 mil, the formula would be: 1 X 1000 / 1 = 1000 yards. Another formula which gets the same result: target size in inches X 27.78 / target size in mils = yards to target. Since ranging in mils is a very course angular unit of measurement shooters may find an MOA scaled reticle to get better results. Here's the formula for MOA: target size in inches X 95.5 / target size in MOA = distance to target in yards. Example, a 36 inch target which appears to measure 3 MOA, the formula would be 36 X 95.5 / 3 = 1,146 yards. No math needs to be done in the field with either formula for a known size target, just make a range card with formula worked out for sub tension possibilities and then associate the distance to target with columns for bullet drop compensation in mils and MOA, and a 10 mph wind hold off in mils, MOA and inches. This method yields most information to get a good first round hit after flat ground distance to target has been determined using slope formula: cosign for angle X line of sight distance to target = flat ground distance to target (the distance feeling effects of gravity). Creds: US Distinguished Rifleman, NRA Long Range High Master Club, SDM Instructor and SAFS Coach.
MOA is a more granular measurement of angle, but there is a reason they went with Mils in the military. KISS - keep it simple stupid. People are much more likely to retain a formula that is units of 1000’s, versus a decimal. Mils are less refined but may be easier to work with in the field and under pressure. Probably not relevant to your average shooter, pick whichever one you like best and learn to work with it.
actuary 1776: Correct! Except that you should FORGET about that 27.78 formula. If there's anything that's going to make you miss your range, it's that bloody 27.78 formula. Just remember that 1000:1 ratio (reduced for mils covered) and you're done! It's that simple, and you're right. That's all you need as a shooter.
In the first 13 minutes, he shows that you can effectively use standard trig right angle functions to estimate subtensions, e.g. 1 mil = 1 meter at 1000 meters. Couldn't continue.
Lets see... 5 yrs later and hopefully you realize that anything you put into this formula is still the circumference of a circle of whatever unit of measurement you decide to use. As long as it represents the actual size of your target in that chosen measure. Whether its inches, feet, yards, meters, fingers, or toes; The tan remains the same (.001). Only the diameter of the circle changes. A 1m MIL circle is larger than a 1 inch MIL circle, and so on,,,, but the ratio remains constant. tan ( 0.0572957795 ) = .001 So.. If your target is 72 fingers tall or wide, and you see 1.7 mils then you know its 42,353 Fingers away from you. Now, since 2 fingers (My Fingers) represents about an inch then divide that by 72 and you'll get approx range to target of 588 yards. Any discrepancy should still be well within your danger zone at that range. Edit: Good explanation btw. I enjoyed watching.
Follow this. I paused you. It as overwhelming my mind You clearly know and understand this on a different level,possibly dimension And,eye enjoyed what I saw,will finish vid later I have about 8700 questions. This did not anger or piss me off, Sometimes my ignorance is astounding to me,arithmetic math ,I basically never learned too much. So, thanks so far, I had a friend that was border line maniac nutz but he was amazing at math, Hahahah a. He fell asleep on the toilet one night,he found some math equation and just kept on using his wrist watch calculator.if I said go figure , he would literally. He quit school in Knoxville because he was bored and lacked focus,,some high engineering never situ... For me , learn a way to estimate the range then know the reticle come ups, What is missing in these vids,most are trying to picture ,imagine the bullet drop trajectory on this, Guess it would be established ahead of time for all ranges ,then you would know the come up? That had to be the one factor..its just not talked about.. It's like a big empty space, a worry,an anxiety, .. Have a swfa SS 10x42 I couldn't a bit more tell you how to use it than a man n the moon.. But from memory I know what a person looks like thru it at different distances and deer,and a few other things.. I saved this to favs and will study on it. .thanks for the vid. 6.24.2021 exhausting
I have e watched a lot of videos on this subject and what is this. it's a 15 degree December morning my nose is running my hands are numerous I left my calculator and white board home and when I see that 10 piont buck standing sideways in a clear lane and in my scope his chest is the size of 1 dot in that scope how do I calculate how many yards away (with my heart pounding) is said buck.failed high school math at lease the math he using. HELP ?
this formula is best used in situations with ample time. That being said, I have had to use this formula at a sniper competition. but the target size was given. If you want an easier method, pre calculate how many mills an average sized buck will cover in increments of 100yards for example, if a buck is 3.5ft tall, its 1.16yards so: # of mills = (1.166yds*1000)/100yds @100yds, the buck will cover 11.66mills @200yds, the buck will cover 5.83 mills @300yds, the buck will cover 3.88mills @400yds, the buck will cover 2.92mills keep this taped to you rifle, and you can get a quick estimate. Hope this helps!
@@WillyGhillie Thanks. So does the 10clicks that = 1 Mil also mean that those 10 click are the equivalent of 1mm adjustment and and that 1 click is the equivalent to one 10th of a mm?
Stephen Luke close, 1mill at 1000m is 1meter or 100cm. So 1mill at 100m is 10cm. So one click at 100m is 1cm Thus, 1mill at 100m = 3.937inches or 1mill at 100yds = 3.6inches
Thanks for the video and the information. You have good information but the presentation was a bit hard to follow. (For me anyway) I do appreciate your efforts. I worry that the common use of the spoken word 'mil' in this context may cause some confusion for people who don't ordinarily use the metric system. A 'mil' (Spoken), or millimeter, is a thousandth part of a meter. A milliradian is a thousandth part of a radian that also equates to a meter of height at a distance of a thousand meters. Just wanted to clarify that for anyone who might be confused. Thanks.
It has NOTHING to do with metric units. Mil does NOT refer to millimetres. It just means "one-thousandth". If one mil (as in milliradian) covers 1 yard at 1000 yards range, it also covers 1 yard at 1000 yards, and 1 beer can at 1000 beer cans,. If the beer can covers 2 mils in your scope, it is clearly closer than 1000 cans by a factor of 2. So the range is 500 beer cans, or 500 metres, or 500 yards.,or 500 bees' dicks. The unit chosen does not matter.
@@johnx9318 Absolutely not. I found it difficult to follow, and I understand the subject very well. For someone new to this, it sounded thoroughly confusing.
@@johnx9318 Let me clarify. My original comment took issue with your statement that "the common use of the spoken word 'mil' in this context may cause some confusion for people who don't ordinarily use the metric system. A 'mil' (Spoken), or millimeter, is a thousandth part of a meter." That's where I differ with you. The use of "mil" in relation to optical ranging does not refer in any way to millimetres, it refers to milliradians. If you're a carpenter in a metric country, mil does refer to millimetre. But if you're using a scope to do optical ranging, a millimetre has no meaning or application. The mil turret and mil reticle do not refer to millimetres, only to milliradians. Are we back on the same page?
WhillyGhillie that’s a cool channel name, I enjoyed the video. Your drop charts look like they came from TiborasaurusRex. Between the charts and the SWFA, I am about 90% sure that you are a fellow "Sniper 101" fan. Am I wrong?
Mr NiceKnife yes absolutely! I just prefer the mill because of the smaller numbers when dealing with different target ranges 😆 So for example if it was 10 yards of drop at 1000yards, 3.6" * 10 = 36"(per mill) which is 1yard like you say, and so I only need to come up 10mills. But for the same amount of drop, 1.04"*10 = 10.4"(per MOA) so But with the same drop, 10yards of drop is like 34moa and having to remember 34 moa is harder than something like 10mills when targets are changing distances rapidly like in PRS matches so having to remember 25moa, 14moa, 22moa, 6moa Seems harder then for example 7mills, 3mills, 6mills, 2mills (Just an example) and totally just my opinion Thanks for the comment and watching, I absolutely agree with you, just wanted to make a video with the angular measurement I use
WillyGhillie yeah, I hear you. I've been shooting moa forever so I always find myself doing calculations to get inches and moa. I'm in the market for a new scope and I'm considering getting a mil/mil version but I'm not used to it. Moa is more intuitive for me...
Mr Serrano No, moa cannot be used in the same way as mils. Yes, it's an angular measure and so IN PRINCIPLE could be used the same way. But moa does not have a 1000:1 relationship with anything. The lazy, simplistic rule for moa works only for short distances in yards, and even then is only an approximation, growing by 5% with distance. At 100 yards, 1 moa is 1.047 inch. At 1000 yards, it's 10.47 inches, and so on. The difference with mils is that it's almost exact, and can be used at ANY distance and with ANY unit of measure. If your target is 18 inches (or yards, metres, cubits, etc) and covers 1 mil, the range is 18000 inches (or 500 yards, metres, cubits, etc). Just remember to use the same unit for both target and range. Multiple by 1000 and divide by mils covered in the scope to allow for targets that are closer or further than 1000 units. Mils are both simpler and more accurate. The KISS principle is a good one, especially where it gives a BETTER result! Moa does not have such a relationship with anything, so unless you're committed to using a calculator at all ranges, and you really understand the maths involved, forget about moa. Moa is for math nerds or retards who don't know there's a 5% error, or don't care. But above all, remember that any system of optical ranging is subject to the same significant limitation. Judging a target's size in mils or moa accurately can be quite difficult. Your target may be moving, or partly obscured, or poorly lit. . The difference between a target of 3 mils, or 3.2, or 3.4 can be difficult to judge, and at extended range your projectile can be falling like the proverbial rainbow, and a misjudgment of range can cause your bullet to fall short or go flying over.Using rule of thumb such as 6 foot soldiers, 7 foot doorways and 4 foot fence posts can also cause errors if you're dealing with an atypical specimen.
Don’t bother with degrees. Your conversation to degrees makes the whole thing confusing. 1 milliradian is 1/1000th of the radius in arc length. If the radius is 1000m, that arc is 1 meter. Because the angle is so small, the 1 meter target is approximately that arc. This is straight geometry and common sense. It requires no formulas or calculators.
Kent Goldings Correct. You can tell who really understands something and who just memorises some rules by how simply they can state it. So many people find it too confusing because they've only ever heard it poorly explained, and so fall back on the simplistic 1 moa = 1 inch at 100 yards rule that is inaccurate by 5%.
@@richardofoz2167 Teaching calculus for 23 years... Radian measure is a natural form of angular measure. When the aliens invade, they’ll use angular measure. I expect the targeting optics on their blaster rifles will use radiations. Probably not MRAD because of the whole base-10 thing.
@@richardofoz2167 I don’t disagree with you. I was agreeing with you, after a fashion. Radian measures has *everything* to do with calculus. The independent variable in trigonometric functions is an angular value. Depending on how you measure your angle, this can introduce a fudge-factor into differentiation. This fudge-factor can be a chore to keep track of in computations. However, the fudge-factor is essentially one for radian measure. Radian measure is the only natural way to measure angles Range calculations are trigonometry. Quick ranging takes advantage of the fact that both sine and tangent can be approximated by the radian measure as long as the angle is very small.
You are turning this into a math class. Stop and stick to how to use a scope . You don't need to k own all the crap you are talking about. Talk about the stata or mil dots on a scope and their values at 100 , 200 , 400 or more yards. You are confusing people. Nobody will ever learn how to use a scope rectal because you are talking to much about theory. Get to your point. What is your point. Do you even know? Confusing.
High school math, not even college, most detallied tutorial on RUclips ,thank you!
zs Xie thanks for watching! I remade this video because I noticed how long it was. The new one has a quick example and how to sight the rifle in aswell 👍🏼
Best video I watched on the matter.
I need to watch it at least one more time and take notes.
Thank you so much!!!
WillyGhillie: I've just seen your answer at about 43:00-44:00 and can't believe my poor eyes and ears. By now, I know how much you love your calculator, but who do you think wants to know the range in metres to the 4th decimal place? At that distance you're talking about the thickness of an eyelash. Keep it real, Willy. Not only is this an incredibly small dimension, but there is no way on earth that anyone can determine the size of their target in mils to such a fine degree of accuracy, for the following reasons: it will be moving, or poorly lit, or partly obstructed, or in front of an indistinct background, or distorted by mirage. At 800 metres, or even a fraction of that, you'll have trouble determining your target to within a tenth of a milrad, let alone the precision you imagine here. If you're shooting at paper targets of known size, you might come close, but in that case you will generally be firing at a range of known distance anyway. Before you put your calculator away, try calculating the precision (in mrads) to which you would have to know the size of your target in order to arrive at such an astounding precision in your range to target. I can't be bothered doing it myself, but I suspect that your trusty TI will finally run out of decimal places.
It goes without saying that you're an engineer. You clearly understand the principle involved, but you've forgotten that we're using this as a means of ESTIMATING the range, not measuring it with calipers. It reminds me of the practice on Indian railways of showing a station's height above mean sea level to the nearest mm, despite being half a continent from the nearest coast, and without designating the exact spot on the platform that they're purporting to measure. Their self belief is impressive, but reveals that they're applying a formula slavishly without regard to practical realities, just as you are here.
I don't wish to be unkind, but this presentation is academic in the extreme, and totally beyond the realm of practical application. I doubt that even the most avid astronomer or surveyor would ever be interested in measuring degrees to seven decimal places.You clearly have learned this as a theoretical exercise, and have never applied it in the field. Come on, 'fess up!
This is supposed to be an educational video, I understand that this formula is an estimate, and I rarely use it as I just use a range finder 99% of the time.
My bad for putting so many decimals, I just get into a habit of putting many decimal places when I do proofs because in small angle estimation the decimals do matter.
Good comment on the mirage, it makes it very difficult to estimate the mil. The only time I use this is in some shooting competitions when they don’t allow range finders, so this comes in handy. But I know many old school shooters who still use this just to double check their range finder
Dude have you ever fired a scoped rifle at 600 yards in Your whole life ? I don't think so.
Best RUclips video on the subject! Thanks. Ignore some of the negative comments made by some posters. Yes, there are more simple formulas that you can use. However, it's always good to know the "real math" behind how those simple formulas were derived.
Thanks, I appreciate the comment 😄
Thanks for clearing that up .that's a calculation that can be done quick and accurate.
Anytime! Glad I can help 😊
Thanks for this, as a mortarman we do everything in mils, our sight data, and adjustments from a forward observer
Hugh Jass thanks for watching brotha! 🇺🇸
Good video. I tend to think of it all in trig terms. If I can remember that 1 mil is .052796 degrees, the rest is basic. My distance is tan(the number of mils covered by target in scope x .057296) / height of target. The range formula we all memorize is a very close approximation of the actual math - (1000/number of mils covered) ~ 1/(tan(.057296 x number mils covered).
actuary 1776 thanks for watching :)
NO,NO,NO,NO,NO!!!!
Forget you ever saw 57.2796 blah blah degrees. Banish that number from your mind, and REMEMBER THIS ONE THING:
Estimate target size (in mm or metres or yards or cubits or your girlfriend's legs. Multiply that by 1000 and divide by the mils covered by your target.
YOU NOW KNOW EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW. DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
A long time ago when I first got started playing with subtention math using the mil (Imperially) I often wondered where the 27.8 factor came from. When I figured out it was simply the "subtenion unit" I thought to myself well could any subtention unit be used in the algebraic form of the equation? As it turned out it worked, from MOA to ballistic reticle subtentions to iron sights and even archery sight pins. As it turns out the mil-ranging formula can also be used to calculate downrange zeroing corrections as well. And factor the inversely proportional quality of subtention vs. magnification of 2nd FP reticles and that's even more fun. Reverse milling too. It's been a fun education over the years...but it really requires the right mindset. My gunsmith put it perfectly awhile back--he said it takes a marksman with a bit more than a passing interest in math. And he was right. I have seen some thing's accomplished with this math that blew my mind--FUN STUFF!!
Thanks for watching! Yes this rabbit hole math is vey fun!
Thanks for telling what it is; however, a shooter only needs to know mils is an angular unit of measurement, which is used for range finding with a scope or optic's mil scaled reticle using the formula: target size in yards X 1000 / target size in mils (as it appears on reticle) = range to target in yards. Example, a 36 inch diameter target which appears to measure 1 mil, the formula would be: 1 X 1000 / 1 = 1000 yards. Another formula which gets the same result: target size in inches X 27.78 / target size in mils = yards to target. Since ranging in mils is a very course angular unit of measurement shooters may find an MOA scaled reticle to get better results. Here's the formula for MOA: target size in inches X 95.5 / target size in MOA = distance to target in yards. Example, a 36 inch target which appears to measure 3 MOA, the formula would be 36 X 95.5 / 3 = 1,146 yards. No math needs to be done in the field with either formula for a known size target, just make a range card with formula worked out for sub tension possibilities and then associate the distance to target with columns for bullet drop compensation in mils and MOA, and a 10 mph wind hold off in mils, MOA and inches. This method yields most information to get a good first round hit after flat ground distance to target has been determined using slope formula: cosign for angle X line of sight distance to target = flat ground distance to target (the distance feeling effects of gravity). Creds: US Distinguished Rifleman, NRA Long Range High Master Club, SDM Instructor and SAFS Coach.
Charles Ludwig thank you for your comment, I hope others will read 👍🏼
MOA is a more granular measurement of angle, but there is a reason they went with Mils in the military. KISS - keep it simple stupid. People are much more likely to retain a formula that is units of 1000’s, versus a decimal. Mils are less refined but may be easier to work with in the field and under pressure. Probably not relevant to your average shooter, pick whichever one you like best and learn to work with it.
actuary 1776 completely agree, easier to remember 10mills of elevation rather than 34.3MOA when turning the dials
actuary 1776: Correct! Except that you should FORGET about that 27.78 formula. If there's anything that's going to make you miss your range, it's that bloody 27.78 formula. Just remember that 1000:1 ratio (reduced for mils covered) and you're done! It's that simple, and you're right. That's all you need as a shooter.
In the first 13 minutes, he shows that you can effectively use standard trig right angle functions to estimate subtensions, e.g. 1 mil = 1 meter at 1000 meters. Couldn't continue.
Zoom Zoom Zoom, Thats you flying over my head! LOL
HammaH here is a simplified version of it helps! ruclips.net/video/VSGgG3dCZHg/видео.html
Lol me too, I was lost from 2 pie R
Lets see... 5 yrs later and hopefully you realize that anything you put into this formula is still the circumference of a circle of whatever unit of measurement you decide to use. As long as it represents the actual size of your target in that chosen measure. Whether its inches, feet, yards, meters, fingers, or toes; The tan remains the same (.001). Only the diameter of the circle changes. A 1m MIL circle is larger than a 1 inch MIL circle, and so on,,,, but the ratio remains constant. tan ( 0.0572957795 ) = .001 So.. If your target is 72 fingers tall or wide, and you see 1.7 mils then you know its 42,353 Fingers away from you. Now, since 2 fingers (My Fingers) represents about an inch then divide that by 72 and you'll get approx range to target of 588 yards. Any discrepancy should still be well within your danger zone at that range. Edit: Good explanation btw. I enjoyed watching.
you got it my friend! great job with the fingers analogy!
@@WillyGhillie Stay well ,and stay free buddy.
TheOkWoodsman 🇺🇸
Follow this.
I paused you.
It as overwhelming my mind
You clearly know and understand this on a different level,possibly dimension
And,eye enjoyed what I saw,will finish vid later
I have about 8700 questions.
This did not anger or piss me off,
Sometimes my ignorance is astounding to me,arithmetic math ,I basically never learned too much.
So, thanks so far,
I had a friend that was border line maniac nutz but he was amazing at math,
Hahahah a.
He fell asleep on the toilet one night,he found some math equation and just kept on using his wrist watch calculator.if I said go figure , he would literally.
He quit school in Knoxville because he was bored and lacked focus,,some high engineering never situ...
For me , learn a way to estimate the range then know the reticle come ups,
What is missing in these vids,most are trying to picture ,imagine the bullet drop trajectory on this,
Guess it would be established ahead of time for all ranges ,then you would know the come up?
That had to be the one factor..its just not talked about..
It's like a big empty space, a worry,an anxiety,
..
Have a swfa SS 10x42
I couldn't a bit more tell you how to use it than a man n the moon..
But from memory I know what a person looks like thru it at different distances and deer,and a few other things..
I saved this to favs and will study on it.
.thanks for the vid.
6.24.2021 exhausting
I have e watched a lot of videos on this subject and what is this. it's a 15 degree December morning my nose is running my hands are numerous I left my calculator and white board home and when I see that 10 piont buck standing sideways in a clear lane and in my scope his chest is the size of 1 dot in that scope how do I calculate how many yards away (with my heart pounding) is said buck.failed high school math at lease the math he using. HELP ?
this formula is best used in situations with ample time. That being said, I have had to use this formula at a sniper competition. but the target size was given.
If you want an easier method, pre calculate how many mills an average sized buck will cover in increments of 100yards
for example, if a buck is 3.5ft tall, its 1.16yards so:
# of mills = (1.166yds*1000)/100yds
@100yds, the buck will cover 11.66mills
@200yds, the buck will cover 5.83 mills
@300yds, the buck will cover 3.88mills
@400yds, the buck will cover 2.92mills
keep this taped to you rifle, and you can get a quick estimate.
Hope this helps!
So you have never fired a scoped rifle at 600 yards in your lifetime right ?
How many clicks is one MIL, is it 1 click or 10 clicks?
Stephen Luke most mill scopes are 10clicks = 1 Mil 👍🏼
@@WillyGhillie Thanks. So does the 10clicks that = 1 Mil also mean that those 10 click are the equivalent of 1mm adjustment and and that 1 click is the equivalent to one 10th of a mm?
Stephen Luke close, 1mill at 1000m is 1meter or 100cm.
So 1mill at 100m is 10cm.
So one click at 100m is 1cm
Thus, 1mill at 100m = 3.937inches or
1mill at 100yds = 3.6inches
@@WillyGhillie Thanks.
Stephen Luke anytime brotha, thanks for watching 😄
Thanks for the video and the information.
You have good information but the presentation was a bit hard to follow. (For me anyway) I do appreciate your efforts.
I worry that the common use of the spoken word 'mil' in this context may cause some confusion for people who don't ordinarily use the metric system.
A 'mil' (Spoken), or millimeter, is a thousandth part of a meter.
A milliradian is a thousandth part of a radian that also equates to a meter of height at a distance of a thousand meters.
Just wanted to clarify that for anyone who might be confused.
Thanks.
It has NOTHING to do with metric units.
Mil does NOT refer to millimetres. It just means "one-thousandth".
If one mil (as in milliradian) covers 1 yard at 1000 yards range, it also covers 1 yard at 1000 yards, and 1 beer can at 1000 beer cans,. If the beer can covers 2 mils in your scope, it is clearly closer than 1000 cans by a factor of 2. So the range is 500 beer cans, or 500 metres, or 500 yards.,or 500 bees' dicks. The unit chosen does not matter.
@@richardofoz2167 So, nothing wrong in what I said then?
@@johnx9318 Absolutely not. I found it difficult to follow, and I understand the subject very well. For someone new to this, it sounded thoroughly confusing.
@@richardofoz2167 The other comments must have been from people who understood me.
Never mind.
@@johnx9318 Let me clarify. My original comment took issue with your statement that "the common use of the spoken word 'mil' in this context may cause some confusion for people who don't ordinarily use the metric system. A 'mil' (Spoken), or millimeter, is a thousandth part of a meter."
That's where I differ with you. The use of "mil" in relation to optical ranging does not refer in any way to millimetres, it refers to milliradians.
If you're a carpenter in a metric country, mil does refer to millimetre. But if you're using a scope to do optical ranging, a millimetre has no meaning or application. The mil turret and mil reticle do not refer to millimetres, only to milliradians.
Are we back on the same page?
WhillyGhillie that’s a cool channel name, I enjoyed the video. Your drop charts look like they came from TiborasaurusRex. Between the charts and the SWFA, I am about 90% sure that you are a fellow "Sniper 101" fan. Am I wrong?
Thank you! and Yes, Big fan of TiborasaurusRex!!
Very Good!!!
Took me 20 minutes to realise you were showing the viewer how to range your target by using the mill dot reticle. Maybe it’s time for bed lol
Thank for making this video.
I'm sure you know by now but 1mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards.... MOA can be used in a similar equation to solve for range also.
Mr NiceKnife yes absolutely! I just prefer the mill because of the smaller numbers when dealing with different target ranges 😆
So for example if it was 10 yards of drop at 1000yards,
3.6" * 10 = 36"(per mill) which is 1yard like you say, and so I only need to come up 10mills.
But for the same amount of drop, 1.04"*10 = 10.4"(per MOA) so
But with the same drop, 10yards of drop is like 34moa and having to remember 34 moa is harder than something like 10mills when targets are changing distances rapidly like in PRS matches so having to remember 25moa, 14moa, 22moa, 6moa
Seems harder then for example
7mills, 3mills, 6mills, 2mills
(Just an example) and totally just my opinion
Thanks for the comment and watching, I absolutely agree with you, just wanted to make a video with the angular measurement I use
WillyGhillie yeah, I hear you. I've been shooting moa forever so I always find myself doing calculations to get inches and moa. I'm in the market for a new scope and I'm considering getting a mil/mil version but I'm not used to it. Moa is more intuitive for me...
Mr NiceKnife I'll say, stick with what you are most comfortable with 😁
Mr Serrano No, moa cannot be used in the same way as mils.
Yes, it's an angular measure and so IN PRINCIPLE could be used the same way. But moa does not have a 1000:1 relationship with anything. The lazy, simplistic rule for moa works only for short distances in yards, and even then is only an approximation, growing by 5% with distance. At 100 yards, 1 moa is 1.047 inch. At 1000 yards, it's 10.47 inches, and so on.
The difference with mils is that it's almost exact, and can be used at ANY distance and with ANY unit of measure. If your target is 18 inches (or yards, metres, cubits, etc) and covers 1 mil, the range is 18000 inches (or 500 yards, metres, cubits, etc). Just remember to use the same unit for both target and range. Multiple by 1000 and divide by mils covered in the scope to allow for targets that are closer or further than 1000 units.
Mils are both simpler and more accurate. The KISS principle is a good one, especially where it gives a BETTER result!
Moa does not have such a relationship with anything, so unless you're committed to using a calculator at all ranges, and you really understand the maths involved, forget about moa. Moa is for math nerds or retards who don't know there's a 5% error, or don't care.
But above all, remember that any system of optical ranging is subject to the same significant limitation. Judging a target's size in mils or moa accurately can be quite difficult. Your target may be moving, or partly obscured, or poorly lit. . The difference between a target of 3 mils, or 3.2, or 3.4 can be difficult to judge, and at extended range your projectile can be falling like the proverbial rainbow, and a misjudgment of range can cause your bullet to fall short or go flying over.Using rule of thumb such as 6 foot soldiers, 7 foot doorways and 4 foot fence posts can also cause errors if you're dealing with an atypical specimen.
@@MrNiceKnife ...but less accurate.
Don’t bother with degrees. Your conversation to degrees makes the whole thing confusing. 1 milliradian is 1/1000th of the radius in arc length. If the radius is 1000m, that arc is 1 meter. Because the angle is so small, the 1 meter target is approximately that arc. This is straight geometry and common sense. It requires no formulas or calculators.
Kent Goldings Correct. You can tell who really understands something and who just memorises some rules by how simply they can state it. So many people find it too confusing because they've only ever heard it poorly explained, and so fall back on the simplistic 1 moa = 1 inch at 100 yards rule that is inaccurate by 5%.
@@richardofoz2167 Teaching calculus for 23 years... Radian measure is a natural form of angular measure. When the aliens invade, they’ll use angular measure. I expect the targeting optics on their blaster rifles will use radiations. Probably not MRAD because of the whole base-10 thing.
@@kentgoldings Not sure how calculus or aliens relate to any of this. Are you taking issue with something I've said?
@@richardofoz2167 I don’t disagree with you. I was agreeing with you, after a fashion.
Radian measures has *everything* to do with calculus. The independent variable in trigonometric functions is an angular value. Depending on how you measure your angle, this can introduce a fudge-factor into differentiation. This fudge-factor can be a chore to keep track of in computations. However, the fudge-factor is essentially one for radian measure. Radian measure is the only natural way to measure angles
Range calculations are trigonometry. Quick ranging takes advantage of the fact that both sine and tangent can be approximated by the radian measure as long as the angle is very small.
@@kentgoldings OK, gotcha.
great. verry informatove. thank you.
Height multiplied by 1000 divided by the mils covering the target.
Correct. And the units chosen cam be ANYTHING.
I thought Germans were known to overly complicate things-lol
thanks!
Can't see nothing on board need better illustrations and heavier markings this is way over my head
What a complicated presentation. Do it again and follow a prepared script.
thanks man, i though so too, so made a short 16min video after this one. i made it like an year ago
um... circumference = pi (R squared) ... not 2R ... just saying
Corey Sorrenti area of circle=pi(R squared) circumference of circle= 2pi(radius)
YOUR HAND IS OFF CAMERA
You are turning this into a math class. Stop and stick to how to use a scope . You don't need to k own all the crap you are talking about. Talk about the stata or mil dots on a scope and their values at 100 , 200 , 400 or more yards. You are confusing people. Nobody will ever learn how to use a scope rectal because you are talking to much about theory. Get to your point. What is your point. Do you even know? Confusing.