Specs

[VendetAR]

Why is milrad the way to go? If we all grow up thinking in inches how is it better to change the language?

Our number system is base 10 and being that shooting is a mathematical system, base 10 is easier, read FASTER, than Imperial units once you learn said shooting system.

Mil/Mil for me.

[studiousjr]

If I'm looking down range I think in yards. Targets are in yards - usually. So then I think In inches - what's my drop in inches. Then clicks usually in 1/4 inches. So 4 clicks 1 MOA.. 1 inch at 100 yards. This is easy for my brain because it's basic and I can gauge an inch or 10 inches of a target that is 300 yards out. Visually it's simple. But if I had to guess how many centimeters I was hitting low, so I could figure out how many mils I had to turn the turrets or clicks in .1 mil... I can't even tell you how many .1 of a mil is 10 cm... It's confusing as all hell. Now, I know I'm thinking about mils in the wrong terms as pieces rather than parts of a whole. But when I see in inches, think in inches and click in 1/4 MOA the math is easy to figure out on the fly. To rearrange the way I have been trained to think all my life, so I can try to understand how to shoot in metrics feels backwards. To me cutting things in halves and quarters or doubling 1 inch at 200, 3 inch at 300 etc. is elementary. Please someone help me see the light of day how thinking in mils is somehow easier and faster because itsbase is 10. Add stress, a buzzer or timing to the situation and I feel like I would be second guessing when inches have certainty. Does anyone else feel the same way about this?

[VendetAR]

If I'm looking down range I think in yards. Targets are in yards - usually. So then I think In inches - what's my drop in inches. Then clicks usually in 1/4 inches. So 4 clicks 1 MOA.. 1 inch at 100 yards. This is easy for my brain because it's basic and I can gauge an inch or 10 inches of the target is 300 yards out. Visually it's simple. But if I had to guess how many centimeters I was hitting low, so I could figure out how many mils I had to turn the turrets or clicks in .1 mil... I can't even tell you how many .1 of a mil is 10 cm... It's confusing as all hell. Now, I know I'm thinking about mils in the wrong terms as pieces rather than parts of a whole. But when I see in inches, think in inches and click in 1/4 MOA the math is easy to figure out on the fly. To rearrange the way I have been trained to think all my life, so I can try to understand how to shoot in metrics feels backwards.

If you stop being so resistant to change,youd notice that you also have learned all your life to count to 10, 100, 1000, ect. I know where you're coming from, but learning something new or doing something new isnt always a bad thing.

A smart guy told me over sandwiches about a thing called "Institutional Inertia", its the resistance to change because the inertia of the current system was overpowering to new techniques. You might wanna think to yourself if you are a victim of that.

[FMJBT]

If I'm looking down range I think in yards. Targets are in yards - usually. So then I think In inches - what's my drop in inches. Then clicks usually in 1/4 inches. So 4 clicks 1 MOA.. 1 inch at 100 yards. This is easy for my brain because it's basic and I can gauge an inch or 10 inches of a target that is 300 yards out. Visually it's simple. But if I had to guess how many centimeters I was hitting low, so I could figure out how many mils I had to turn the turrets or clicks in .1 mil... I can't even tell you how many .1 of a mil is 10 cm... It's confusing as all hell. Now, I know I'm thinking about mils in the wrong terms as pieces rather than parts of a whole. But when I see in inches, think in inches and click in 1/4 MOA the math is easy to figure out on the fly. To rearrange the way I have been trained to think all my life, so I can try to understand how to shoot in metrics feels backwards. To me cutting things in halves and quarters or doubling 1 inch at 200, 3 inch at 300 etc. is elementary. Please someone help me see the light of day how thinking in mils is somehow easier and faster because itsbase is 10. Add stress, a buzzer or timing to the situation and I feel like I would be second guessing when inches have certainty. Does anyone else feel the same way about this?

Don't think of it as "Thinking in metric". Going at it that way just complicates it needlessly. You have to think of mils not as a unit of distance or length, but as a unit of angular measurement. Having a mil based reticle makes it very easy. If you are spotting a miss at any distance, simply use the reticle to determine how many mils your shot was off, then dial the same correction on the turret and you are done. No conversions or goofy fractions to deal with, you simply dial in what you see through the reticle. Once you get over the mental roadblock of going "metric", it's very simple.

[studiousjr]

I guess I'm not ready or willing to go MIL just quite yet. The Kahles 1-6x offers an MOA reticle with hash marks for estimating bullet drop and you can even use the reticle for wind (sort of) - albeit not the most features, but GLASS, DOT and EYEBOX won the battle. However, it was a limited playing field...and if another manufacturer offered excellent glass with MOA / MOA tac turrets - I would have gone with that. The Burris glass was very good, but no Swarovski/Kahles level - obviously. And it was heavier and 2-10x. For this build a light weight optic was required...and 1X Preferred. It's just too bad there wasn't much out there with tac turrets in the high end glass market with at a sub 2K price point. The Kahles was on demo price, so it was a good value. I'll post pics and dope when I get to it in a few weeks. Thanks everyone for all your contributions - if this was for a bolt action I may have just gone with mils and a higher power, but for this fast light set up it was a different beast!

[VendetAR]

I am not the foremost authority on shooting, not by a friggin long shot, but I dont think you even know how the mil system works in a practical sense, you may not even know how to use the MOA system in a practical sense.

You shouldn;t be using the scope to come up or hold off in actual inches. If you are doing that, you are just strapping a massive ball and chain to your leg. You use the reticle to adjust like so...

Your point of aim is dead on, point of impact is 4 low and 2 left. I didnt say if its Mil's or MOA, just that its 4 low and 2 left. Where things get screwy is when you have MOA and Mils together and when you have to do math to make turret adjustments.

[studiousjr]

Estimated size of target multiplied by 1000 and divided by the number of MILS as measured by the reticle gives the distance of the object in whatever unit of measure In size. A 36" target multipled by 1000 divided by 2 MILS for example is a target that is 500 yards away. 56 inches of bullet drop say, so convert those minutes to MILS to determine clicks. Am I wrong here? Or is this how MILS are used in the most basic sense...

[shortround1]

Yeah, just make sure your turrets' unit of measurement matches the type of reticle you have. And if using a variable power scope, make sure it's a 1st focal plane scope. This allows you to make simple corrections as the previous posts have said. I suggest watching some of the sniper 101 choosing optics videos by tiborasaurus rex on youtube, some really helpful stuff on his vids.

I went for a MIL/MIL 1st focal plane scope because my brain is lazy and I don't want to do math at the range. No matter what the distance to the target, if I can see where I missed I can use the reticle to see exactly how many mils off it is. Then I can just dial accordingly no matter what my magnification is. Don't over-complicate things.

[VendetAR]

Estimated size of target multiplied by 1000 and divided by the number of MILS as measured by the reticle gives the distance of the object in whatever unit of measure In size. A 36" target multipled by 1000 divided by 2 MILS for example is a target that is 500 yards away. 56 inches of bullet drop say, so convert those minutes to MILS to determine clicks. Am I wrong here? Or is this how MILS are used in the most basic sense...

You are right on that height measurement, but you need to stop worrying about the MEASUREMENT!!!

If you are low, you spot it in mils at the range you are shooting. Doesnt matter if you are low 2 mils at 100 feet, 247 meters, 1234 yards, 2.6 acres. You are two mils low.

When you grasp that, you will understand. And it doesnt matter if its MOA or MRAD, you shoot it the same... or at least I do. Ranging is a different issue altogether and it doesnt sound like you are doing UKD shooting. If you need to do range estimation, you'll (hopefully) have a cheat sheet of known target sizes. A 6' man is 2mils at 1000 yards, a standard size window is 36 MOA at 100 yards... Thats when a certain reticle will matter to a certain shooter, I know you arent that guy.

Lets just say that it helps to be of unaverage height, surrounded by unaverage height people with unaverage sized objects surrounding you if you have a sniper ranging you without a rangefinder. If your lucky, they will be a few feet off on the first shot and you have a chance to hide before they make their basic mil or moa holds to hit you on the second try (thats a real world example)...

[studiousjr]

Ok - I get it and it makes a lot of sense to go MILS as much as it does MOA - IMO.

So, what if I want to spend less than $600 on an MOA/MOA Or MIL/MIL. I'll pick one up to try out on my 223 and practice to learn either system. Albeit GLASS/TURRETS & RETICLE being the driver in that order.

Who makes the best glass/reticle with exposed turrets for under $600? No BDC and not PLEX.

One other caveat: 1" Tube. I have a warne mount already. I think the Burris mentioned above is ideal, but price point a little higher than I want to go... And I don't need low power as critical since I have an offset red dot.

[VendetAR]

Everyone is going towards 30mm tubes now and its trending towards 34mm tubes so you may be SOL. For your price point, http://www.primaryarms.com/Primary_A...pa4-14xffp.htm this is the scope to get.

I've heard very good things about it and its hard to complain about the price. The Military Arms channel picked this scope for their 1000 yards for $1000 build and he was pingin steel with a Savage. He tried other scopes in the second video and stuck with that one, which was also one of the cheapest from the group.

If you are willing to come up to just under a grand, the Vortex PST or Bushnell Elite Tactical offerings are damn nice too.

[studiousjr]

MIL fans would be proud. I broke down and picked up a Leopold Mark AR w TMR reticle and MIL turrets-

The price and features was just too good to pass up. And weighing in at 12.5 oz. It's a tremendous value in a small package.

This will start on a 22 LR and then move up to a Varminter.

It was really the only viable option for a tactical scope in a 1" tube.