Could someone provide me with a visual example of using the reticle? Basically If I have a 5 foot target that fits between three mildots, whats that mean?
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
5/3 x 1000 feet.
Note: the upper torso, neck, and head of a human male averages about 1 yard. The mil dot reticule is ideal for ranging people.
Note: the upper torso, neck, and head of a human male averages about 1 yard. The mil dot reticule is ideal for ranging people.
Last edited:
See this is what I'm talking about, I don't know what that means. I wanna learn this stuff but I have no foundational knowledge. I never even learned how to do long division for goodness sakes!
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
The actual trigonometry is not very interesting.
My sister had a job teaching navy crews how to navigate with pen and paper. One day, the power went down and she was the only one able to do the calculations by had. She got a commendation for it. She’s not a genius, it just takes practice.
People train to shoot. People train to use modern equipment. But, they also train to do these calculations in their head.
I’m just familiar with the math.
My sister had a job teaching navy crews how to navigate with pen and paper. One day, the power went down and she was the only one able to do the calculations by had. She got a commendation for it. She’s not a genius, it just takes practice.
People train to shoot. People train to use modern equipment. But, they also train to do these calculations in their head.
I’m just familiar with the math.
Oh, oh, oh. I get it! I read 5/3 as a fraction not 5 divided by 3. I was like "five thirds by 1000?! That fuck does that mean?!5/3 x 1000 feet.
Note: the upper torso, neck, and head of a human male averages about 1 yard. The mil dot reticule is ideal for ranging people.
Thats is a simple enough calculation for me to handle.......... with a calculator. I could do it in my head I suppose, but I'd have to stick my tounge out I think.
@Kent Goldings, could you give me a similar example using meters? Metric is easier to calculate and I'm more familiar due to my military background.
Thank you very much by the way. This is very important stuff for me to understand.
Now I gotta get @meketrefe to demonstrate how to true the scope to the bore and how to verfiy it.
Thank you very much by the way. This is very important stuff for me to understand.
Now I gotta get @meketrefe to demonstrate how to true the scope to the bore and how to verfiy it.
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
5/3 is division. Fractions are division.
5/3=1.667
Multiplication by 1000 is moving the decimal point 3 place right.
The units don’t matter.
A one meter tall target subtending two mils is 500 meters away.
1/2 x 1000 =500
5/3=1.667
Multiplication by 1000 is moving the decimal point 3 place right.
The units don’t matter.
A one meter tall target subtending two mils is 500 meters away.
1/2 x 1000 =500
Okay, I get it now, pretty simple, even for me.
I suppose that if our man size target is covered by just 1 dot it would be about 1000 meters away then? Not that it really matters that distance is far outside my capability and that of the 5.55, a 1x6 scope and a 16" AR15.
These calculation are dependent on me knowing the rough size of the target. Is there a way for me to figure the size of a target if that is also unknown?
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
That’s the trick. You need to range an object with predictable size.
Reference only, items are rough averages.
Average Height:
Mexico – male 65.5” female 59.5”
China – male 66” female 60”
Iraq – male 65” female 61”
Turkey – male 68” female 62”
USA – male 70” female 64”
Iran – male 67” female 62”
Average human head width:
5.9 to 7.0 inches or 15 – 18 cm
Average adult male shoulder width 18.3”
Average exterior door width USA 36”
Average bedroom window 36” x 48”
Average vehicle width 6' or 72”
Average length by category:
Sedan Compact 1990 – 176”
2006 – 177”
Sedan Midsized 1990 – 191”
2007 – 190”
Sedan Large 1990 – 209”
2007 – 206”
SUV Compact 1992 – 176”
2007 – 187”
SUV Midsized 1995 – 179”
2007 – 187”
SUV Large 1999 – 220”
2007 – 208”
Average Wheel Diameter USA 16”
Average Car Height USA 51.2” to 59”
Vehicle windshield width by make
Hummer H2 2002 60.25”
Hummer H3 2005 44.75
Mercedes Eclass 2005 44.75”
Mercedes Gclass 2005 50.00”
Mercedes Mclass 2005 43.50”
Jeep Cherokee 2003 44.20”
Jeep Liberty 2003 41.75”
Ford Superduty 1999 51.00”
Ford Taurus 89-99 36.25”
Ford Taurus 2003 41.13”
Ford Explorer 200 43.00”
Dodge Ram 2009 48.00”
Dodge Dakota 2011 42.00”
Dodge Charger 2006 42.00”
Dodge Stratus 2004 37.70”
Chrysler Sebring 2008 40.50”
Chrysler Crossfire 2006 36.50”
Chevy Full size Van 2002 53.60”
Chevy Tahoe 2002 47.00”
Chevy Silverado 2007 48.00”
Chevy Impala 2008 42.00”
Chevy Camaro 2010 44.00”
Chevy Camaro 82-92 41.00”
Chevy Avalanche 2002 48.00”
BMW 318i 39”
BMW 323ci 37”
BMW 325is 38.20”
Buick Regal 1978 41.25”
Acura NSX 2005 32.5”
Standard US STOP sign 36" x 36"
White upper case letters stand 10"
Standard US YIELD sign 48" x 48"
Standard US ONE WAY sign 36" x 12" (skinny)
Standard US ONE WAY sign 30" x 24" (squarish)
Standard US NO Right Turn sign 24" x 24"
Standard US NO Left Turn sign 24" x 24"
Standard US NO TURNS sign 24" x 24"
Standard US NO U TURN sign 24" x 24"
Standard US NO MOTOR VEHICLES sign 24" x 24"
Standard US NO VENDING sign 24" x 24"
Standard M4 Sherman Tank Dimensions
Length 19' 2"
Width 8' 7"
Tall 8'
Toyota Corolla
Height 57.7"
Width 69.4"
Length 179.3"
Toyota Tacoma
Height 65.8"
Width 72.2"
Lenght 190.4"
Toyota Tundra
Height 75.6"
Width 79.9"
Length 228.7"
Toyota Land Cruiser 40 series
Height 78.8"
Width 65.6"
Length 151.2"
Toyota Land Cruiser 50 series
Height 73.4"
Width 68.3"
Length 184.1"
Toyota Land Cruiser 60 series
Height 68.9"
Width 70.9"
Length 184.1"
Toyota Land Cruiser 80 series
Height 73"
Width 76"
Length189"
Ford Ranger 2011
Height 66.2"
Width 69.3"
Length 189.4"
Ford Ranger 1999
Height 64.9"
Width 69.4"
Length 107.3"
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Mil-Dots generally are used center to center as 1 mil, not the dot covering 1 mil, and it indicates "subtensions", meaning the angular "slice" that a particular feature (dot, line width) subtends. This reference is from Vortex, but others are similar.
http://www.vortexoptics.com/uploads/web_manual_reticle_mildot-sfp_2014.pdf
EDT: And here's one from Weaver (matches a scoped I have)
http://weaveroptics.com/downloads/WO267_EMDR_Reticle_11_x_8-5.pdf
I'm new at using mil dots myself, but something to be aware of; never Never NEVER get a scope that has a reticle that is mil-dot and controls that are MOA (or vice versa) as it will drive you out of your freakin' mind trying to do the conversion math.
Last edited:
Okay, thanks to eveyone's replies I know have a good handle on how mildots work. The quick and dirty ranging and resultant holdovers are exactly what I want for this rifle. Now if shit could just stop popping up and taking my scope funds away...........
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I'd be interested on anyone's thoughts regarding the AD-Delta; no cantilever, but it looks solid as a rock. My purpose would be to be able to swap a really good optic onto different platforms.
American Defense MFG, LLC | AD Delta Scope Mount
I think they are good quality also given the hardened steel and locking system but you have them for almost 1/2 cost
and like podmonkey mentioned most people can use a bit of cantilever so you can play with the eye relieve and rifle/mount type
but you will not know until you have the scope and the rifle and then you can measure.
Same thing than the ring height. The rings or mounts should be the last thing to buy as I explained in earlier posts.
We set everything (including ergonomics) to fit the shooter and not the other way around.
I don't think this will be the lightest mount but the robustness by design is there.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Here is the simplicity of the mil system, just because one can pivot on the metric system that is base of 10.
Mil: 1 mil at 1000 meters is 1 meter. (around 3 ft)
Moa: 1+ inch at 100 yards ... 10+ inches at 1000 yards. (1000 yards is 914 meters )
Now lets say I am shooting at 750 meters with a correction of 7 mils but due to wind and temp and other errors I am
overshooting and after spotting I need to come down or hold about 1ft that is 33cm more or less.
my scope has 1/10 mil adjustment (or stadia subtensions for holding over)
So at 750 meters, 1 mil is 75 cm because 1meter is 100cm. (base of ten)
so one click in my scope will be 7.5cm since the clicks are also 1 mil /10 (base of 10)
So with 5 clicks down I will have 7.5x5 = 37.5cm or with 4 clicks 30cm and just hold those 2 or 3 difference on the
target ( that is 1 inch so it doesnt matter that much)
This math I can do in my head w/o need and no matter what unit of measure. Since I use meters the centimeters
come out naturally and since we know 1 mt is close to 3 ft is all we need to relate to imperial if we want.
If we have a MOA turret with either 1/4 or 1/8 MOA adjustments is not as simple to do the math or fine tune
shots w/o an additional table or calculator. Some stadia designs are mixed embedding some sort of Unit of measure
to help the shooter but must be in first focal or you will make mistakes unless using the computer.
The mil can also be used for ranging very easily. Of course one needs to have a reference for the object size
like the ones provided in military field manuals.
MOA can work but is not inherently simple just like the imperial system itself that is a bit retarded if you think
about it.
In addition mil stadias might have hash marks and dot designs for raging and fine tuning like the Army dot vs.
the marines oblong although these are being migrated by more sophisticated stadia designs.
The russians and other eastern military also provided some smart stadia designs and while some glass was very
good the mil spec scopes lacked many features and were heavy and awkward. This is also changing with globalization.
Mil: 1 mil at 1000 meters is 1 meter. (around 3 ft)
Moa: 1+ inch at 100 yards ... 10+ inches at 1000 yards. (1000 yards is 914 meters )
Now lets say I am shooting at 750 meters with a correction of 7 mils but due to wind and temp and other errors I am
overshooting and after spotting I need to come down or hold about 1ft that is 33cm more or less.
my scope has 1/10 mil adjustment (or stadia subtensions for holding over)
So at 750 meters, 1 mil is 75 cm because 1meter is 100cm. (base of ten)
so one click in my scope will be 7.5cm since the clicks are also 1 mil /10 (base of 10)
So with 5 clicks down I will have 7.5x5 = 37.5cm or with 4 clicks 30cm and just hold those 2 or 3 difference on the
target ( that is 1 inch so it doesnt matter that much)
This math I can do in my head w/o need and no matter what unit of measure. Since I use meters the centimeters
come out naturally and since we know 1 mt is close to 3 ft is all we need to relate to imperial if we want.
If we have a MOA turret with either 1/4 or 1/8 MOA adjustments is not as simple to do the math or fine tune
shots w/o an additional table or calculator. Some stadia designs are mixed embedding some sort of Unit of measure
to help the shooter but must be in first focal or you will make mistakes unless using the computer.
The mil can also be used for ranging very easily. Of course one needs to have a reference for the object size
like the ones provided in military field manuals.
MOA can work but is not inherently simple just like the imperial system itself that is a bit retarded if you think
about it.
In addition mil stadias might have hash marks and dot designs for raging and fine tuning like the Army dot vs.
the marines oblong although these are being migrated by more sophisticated stadia designs.
The russians and other eastern military also provided some smart stadia designs and while some glass was very
good the mil spec scopes lacked many features and were heavy and awkward. This is also changing with globalization.
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
Milliradians are unitless.
1 meter at 1000 meters
1 yard at 1000 yards
1 inch at 1000 inches
1 mile at 1000 miles.
The angle is the same.
The problem with measuring angles in Degrees and minutes is that is not a natural measure of angle. 360 degrees, 60 minutes of arc was devised by the Babylonians who used a base 60 number system. Computations using degrees and minutes will always require a conversion factor.
For example, 1 minute is 1.04 inches at 100 yards. Using the 1 inch rule is expedient.
Using radian measure is dirt simple because you just divide the size of the target by the number of radians it subtends to find the range.
After a little practice, anyone can do this in their head.
However, MOA adjustments are more refined for shooting at the range. Particularly when you are shooting at fixed targets using simple cross hair reticules.
I think people need to do a reality check when they decide on optics.
1 meter at 1000 meters
1 yard at 1000 yards
1 inch at 1000 inches
1 mile at 1000 miles.
The angle is the same.
The problem with measuring angles in Degrees and minutes is that is not a natural measure of angle. 360 degrees, 60 minutes of arc was devised by the Babylonians who used a base 60 number system. Computations using degrees and minutes will always require a conversion factor.
For example, 1 minute is 1.04 inches at 100 yards. Using the 1 inch rule is expedient.
Using radian measure is dirt simple because you just divide the size of the target by the number of radians it subtends to find the range.
After a little practice, anyone can do this in their head.
However, MOA adjustments are more refined for shooting at the range. Particularly when you are shooting at fixed targets using simple cross hair reticules.
I think people need to do a reality check when they decide on optics.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
yes they are unities but they are more useful when the base unit of measure is a base of 10 or otherwise easy to convert mentally.
That is why in the military we use Kilometers and meters and not yards.
1yard at 1000 yards is good but 1 yard is not 100 inches nor a multiple of 10.
is not even a base of 4 that we use for coin.
Again the problem is not the radian system but the absurd imperial system to start with.
Even nasa has finally converted to the metric system after many decades of useless conversions
from computational systems.
That is why in the military we use Kilometers and meters and not yards.
1yard at 1000 yards is good but 1 yard is not 100 inches nor a multiple of 10.
is not even a base of 4 that we use for coin.
Again the problem is not the radian system but the absurd imperial system to start with.
Even nasa has finally converted to the metric system after many decades of useless conversions
from computational systems.
96coal449
.308 Win
Hi Pod.
Have you seen the new/newer USoptics 1-8 with what they call a plume reticle? Looks like a funnel inside a funnel .... kinda. Interesting FFP, self ranging, and doesn't look to busy. Ranges shoulder and head span simultaneously. It's not on the web site yet. Saw it in Recoil magazine issue 35.
Have you seen the new/newer USoptics 1-8 with what they call a plume reticle? Looks like a funnel inside a funnel .... kinda. Interesting FFP, self ranging, and doesn't look to busy. Ranges shoulder and head span simultaneously. It's not on the web site yet. Saw it in Recoil magazine issue 35.
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
I teach nurses to covert between convert between units and different systems of measurement for dosage calculations.
The metric system is handy. This is one of the reasons most of the world prefers it. I was only pointing out that radians are not inherently metric.
Radian measure is simply the natural way to measure an angle. The math works well with metric units because metric units work better with all math. This is primarily due to our common number system being base 10.
On some alien planet, the beings have eight fingers. The eight fingered aliens use octal not decimal. If their skill with math progresses far enough, you’ll discover they use radian measure. Their rifles scopes will use milliradian reticules. Their 1000 meters will only measure 512 of ours. But, one millradian will be the same angle.
The metric system is handy. This is one of the reasons most of the world prefers it. I was only pointing out that radians are not inherently metric.
Radian measure is simply the natural way to measure an angle. The math works well with metric units because metric units work better with all math. This is primarily due to our common number system being base 10.
On some alien planet, the beings have eight fingers. The eight fingered aliens use octal not decimal. If their skill with math progresses far enough, you’ll discover they use radian measure. Their rifles scopes will use milliradian reticules. Their 1000 meters will only measure 512 of ours. But, one millradian will be the same angle.
Last edited:
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
maybe in a different planet the little green guys do not use numbers and use light (colors) instead.
That is how the person with the highest record of the number PI sees and processes huge computations all in his head. He is one of the few savants one can actually have a normal conversation with. All off topic but interesting nevertheless.
That is how the person with the highest record of the number PI sees and processes huge computations all in his head. He is one of the few savants one can actually have a normal conversation with. All off topic but interesting nevertheless.
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
Off topic, yes.
But, at least no one has chimed in for BDC reticules. You need a smartphone app to use them.
But, at least no one has chimed in for BDC reticules. You need a smartphone app to use them.
I shoot different types of ammo, 55gr, 62/64gr and 77gr. Renders a BDC moot. Even if I settled on 62gr it wouldn't be regulated to the Gold Dots I like.
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
That’s what I mean. You need to look up the bdc ranges for each load. Most of my hunting guns have Nikon bdc reticules. I rarely use them.
SmallGameAddict
.308 Win
Ok, so what's wrong with Leupold's Custom Dial System. Range it, dial it, shoot it. You can order a separate dial for each load you want to shoot.
If you are gonna use kentucky windage for unregulated loads why not just have a plain reticle then? BDCs are to situational. I'm definitely going with a Mil Reticle. And I'm gonna try for that new NX8 1-8.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
BDC is not 100% necessarily needed but there are two huge problems with them and why people who want to
extend their range have to turn tot he computer or simply give up, for a good reason.
One is that when the ballistics change considerably one will have to know what the hold value corresponds in a
known unit of meausre then do the calculation and convert back to the reticle.(Double conversion).
If the reticle has some sort reference that helps with that conversion like additional hash marks then one could
use those to hold the difference from the original pattern.
The 2nd problem is that since they are BDC the turrets are in a standard measure that is different from the hold
values and on top many are in 2nd focal plane that only compounds on the probability of error.
So bottom line it will be extremely hard to come up with a quick formula even for a coarse adjustment and most
people will forget about the bdc hold and simply dial the correction. So like you well suggested most people will
give up on any math and rely on the computer.
Even a comprehensive BDC like those introduced by Pride scopes with FFP is not as simple as it seems and will require
double conversion. Interestly how some folks at the long range hunting used these budget 22LR BDCs for LR PD and coyote
hunting with a certain degree of sucess but not without a full workout of conversion tables.
The BDC fashion will stay for the average use and hunting folks but will not evolve with the long range or precision shooting consumers.
Is as limiting as the stupid custom turrets.
What is happening that folks want to talk about other things than politics? Something wrong ? Lol
extend their range have to turn tot he computer or simply give up, for a good reason.
One is that when the ballistics change considerably one will have to know what the hold value corresponds in a
known unit of meausre then do the calculation and convert back to the reticle.(Double conversion).
If the reticle has some sort reference that helps with that conversion like additional hash marks then one could
use those to hold the difference from the original pattern.
The 2nd problem is that since they are BDC the turrets are in a standard measure that is different from the hold
values and on top many are in 2nd focal plane that only compounds on the probability of error.
So bottom line it will be extremely hard to come up with a quick formula even for a coarse adjustment and most
people will forget about the bdc hold and simply dial the correction. So like you well suggested most people will
give up on any math and rely on the computer.
Even a comprehensive BDC like those introduced by Pride scopes with FFP is not as simple as it seems and will require
double conversion. Interestly how some folks at the long range hunting used these budget 22LR BDCs for LR PD and coyote
hunting with a certain degree of sucess but not without a full workout of conversion tables.
The BDC fashion will stay for the average use and hunting folks but will not evolve with the long range or precision shooting consumers.
Is as limiting as the stupid custom turrets.
What is happening that folks want to talk about other things than politics? Something wrong ? Lol
Thats fine for the range, a little fiddly maybe but fine. Not appropriate for field use at all though.
Not lookin to split playing cards, just get hits under a variety of circumstance and conditions.
Kent Goldings
.357 mag
I find interchangeable dials a little clumsy.
The Nikon Prostaff scopes are good optics. But, I haven’t had the energy to work up the bdc chart for my hand loads.
The Nikon Prostaff scopes are good optics. But, I haven’t had the energy to work up the bdc chart for my hand loads.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
the glass is high end camera lense quality in the Monarch line so it is awesome.
The BDC does not work for the serious shooter. Also the lines are too coarse and will be distracting.
Not just my opinion. This was been discussed here and in other forums many times before.
I think the glass for the target folks along with a consistent quality is what continues to attract more people but eventually
the nikon BDC will have to evolve into something useful.
Searched around for it, apparently the 1-8 is discontinued. They now have a 1.8-10. Why not just say 2-10? Couldn't find a pic of the reticle you described. I did see some dimensional specs though. Pretty big, the proverbial 12" monster as @Willjr75 says.