I have been shooting with an MOA Mil-dot scope for 25yrs and was a little scared to go mil mil but after watching this it looks easier. I bought a mil mil scope today and it seems much simpler than converting moa to mil on my old scope. Thanks so much for simply explaining the concept. Will make up dope cards at different temps off of JBM and on the day I shoot. Thanks again. This mil mil is going to be so much easier.
Thank you, thank you for this video! I’ve been searching for several hours to find a solid explanation on mil dot scopes. Everything I found was only really showing either the math with very little practical knowledge or someone doing a great video of zeroing in their scope, but always using MOA. I’d love to see that video, in fact of zeroing in the rifle and showing the adjustments on the turrets. Explanation was great irregardless.
Good explanation. Best line; "doesn't matter if it is 10 yards or 10 miles, a mil is a mil is a mil.." Brilliant. Fuzzy camera made my eyes hurt a bit ;-) Second best line; "if you are not willing to do the work, you have no business taking shots at live animals at these distances." BZ!
Henry Cole Stage yeah the phone was constantly fighting me. I did this in one single take. there was also a dead spot of audio that came due to an alarm activating. the only good news was it happened at a point that really cost no valuable content.
@@henrycolestage7650 Actually, the prefix for one thousandth is milli, not mil. Mil is just an ambiguous abbreviation, which is also used for millimetres, which may be why many Americans get confused. You're right that radians make more sense, but you're wrong to say that going from moa to mrads is going from imperial to metric. I'm guessing that you say that because of the common association of moa with inches and yards. But that does not make moa an imperial unit. It's a term that comes from mathematics - specifically, geometry. Our surviving base 60 units, such as time and angle, come to us from the Sumerian civilisation of 5000 years ago. They foisted it onto the Babylonians and eventually onto us. Base 60 systems were not included in the English system or the British Imperial system, although the English did contrive to measure length in dozens of different multiples of things like miles/furlongs/chains/yards/feet/inches, and roods, acres and perches. That was just to show how creative they could be and to deter people trying to learn and apply them. Fortunately, the always-contrary French confounded their eternal enemies the English by developing in Bonaparte's time a scientific system that actually made sense. Vive la France! Vive l'empereur! Strictly speaking, you're right in describing radians as an SI unit, though only in a technical sense. Needing a measure of angle, and recognising the radian as a natural and universal measure for the ratio between a circle and its circumference, the radian was included in a special group of units called "supplemental" units, to distinguish it from the 7 "base" units and the many "derived" units. Because of its universal validity, the radian could have been classified as a base unit, but instead it was re-classified in 1995 as a "dimensionless derived" unit, despite its not being derived from any of the other SI units. So much for making sense. Moa and milrads differ in another sense. Milrads can be used with any units of measure. They're equally comfortable with inches, feet and yards as with centimetres and metres - the only exception being that you will probably need a calculator to convert 17000 inches to yards, whereas 17000 cm can be converted to metres by just dropping off the extra zeros. Milrads don't discriminate at all, and can even be used with cubits, if that's your thing. Moas are not so forgiving.
@@richardofoz2167 Pedantic, much? Yeah, now that you've explained how smart you are maybe you can just be a normal human for a second and understand that a 'Mil' is just an abreviation for 'milli' and get the hell over yourself.
Great video and perfect example of how a how to video should be done, very good work sir. When you said a mil is a mil no matter the distance, thats when i got it.
Been confused for a while on this . Thanks for this info. I finally see it it clearly for the first time . Excellent video and your teaching method was perfect.
Great point on temperature on data! A dear friend on mine from NC went to Wyoming. He used his NC data ( Summer) and missed a huge Elk ( Fall) . He didn't change his data. Real important info. Great Work!!!!!
Awesome video. I'm glad you mentioned atmospheric conditions, air density can drastically change your bullet trajectory if you don't factor it into your firing solutions before you dial in. A zero one day may not be the same zero for the next day
Thanks for a quick reply. I'm new to long range shooting. Just recently purchased a Leopold M4 ER/T M5 and trying to understand the proper adjustments. I will surely check your other video. Thanks again.
Does effect of wind on a projectile differ enough to change windage adjustments between different bullet grains? This video has been by far the most informative MRAD video. You've saved me a world of head scratching, and headaches. Thanks man!
Thank you for the response. I am glad you said because I am wondering if that is the case why wouldn't long range shooters be more in favor of MOA than the more ever growing MIL/MIL set up?
Just learning and this answered 80% of my questions. The next 10 are about SFP the multiplication of less than full power for hunting purposes. I will have to set up some known targets and do some measurements to confirm what I think is right.
SFP refers to Second Focal Plane. In a First Focal Plane (FFP) scope, the milrads will be accurate at any magnification, but your reticle may be too fine or too coarse when you change the mag. In an SFP scope, you must set the magnification at the setting calibrated for that scope, but the reticle will not change in size with different mag settings. Some shooters (like Tiborasurus Rex), prefer an FFP scope so the mrads can be relied on even if you forget to check the mag setting. But it's a mistake to be dogmatic about that. It all depends where you stand on the trade-off between mag setting and reticle size. But remember that once you've chosen an FFP for its convenience, there's nothing you can do about your reticle size, and it may be too fine to see easily or too coarse to allow an unobstructed view of your target. whereas an SFP scope will give you a constant reticle size, and you just need to take care when mil-ranging. For me and many others, SFP is better for most situations.
Great video, thanks. One question though, how can you zero a rifle or create a dope chart if shooting at very long distances and can’t see the point of impact on a piece of paper because it’s 700 yards away?
With mrad in mind, shotgun shooters can estimate the ranges without a scope (though is accurate up to around 200m). Take a transperent ruler, point it with straight hand and bended 90°wrist to the object and by knowing your length of eye-ruler (which is constant) and knowing the object hight you can est. the distance. For example: my eye-ruler is 0,7m (it's a constant). Object that I am targeting is 3m tall and ruler showed me 21mm. Distance=H.obj x 0.7/ruler result [m]. Dis.=3×0.7/0.021=100m
One thing I feel that is worth note is the Mil = Milliradian. Radian as in good old HS math. 360 degrees = 2π radians thing. Because of radians being based on the circumference (unit circle radius = 1) if you multiply the radius (distance from you to a point) by the radian measure (or milliradian since that's 1/1000 of a radian) that would be the distance of the arc length between that point and the adjusted point/height (note height up/down/etc. is not the same as this arclength but on the milliradian scale it's kind of moot since they would be fairly close for approximation).
Thanks,I think. I was at about a minus or negative 100 out of 100 ,Now. At near negative 50, that's on me,, Will re watch this... My 10x42 fixed SS scope is clear ,great etc. But,I really never understood it, not sure what it is ,it's a mil dot reticle but the rest of it.... Does any ne know of an animated ,live representation of these scopes and the application and adjustments,maybe a dvd or computer program? 6.23.2021 Thanks
Great info. Between 1/4 MOA to 1/10MIL at 100 yards. Is MOA a more accurate measurement and finer adjustment over MIL? Or is it to close to call? Thanks.
1MOA = 1.047" at 100 yards 1MIL= ~3.6" at 100 yards 1/4(1.047)=~0.25" 1/10(3.6)= 0.36" MOA is finer, but unless you can tell the difference between a 1.1" POI at 1000 yards, it won't matter. Commonality between reticle and turret is more important. MIL-MIL, or MOA-MOA. Avoid mixing (although it isn't that hard to learn how deal with MIL-MOA, and considering how many mixed unit scopes are out there, good shooters should learn how to deal with mixed unit scopes in case they have to use someone else's rifle.
.1 mil....the distance varies. Different loads fall and drift at different rates. Run your data on a ballistics solver as was stated in the video. Or fire and correct. Your choice.
Simple. Because I use yards everyday... and never meters. And because it doesn't make any difference. The system works regardless which linear measure you choose to use. The scope does not care whether you call out a target as 200m or 219yds. It only cares that you need .8 mils to hit it. I can change my dope to meters, change my rangefinder to meters, and walk onto a meter based range....and I will be fine. People who sweat meters vs yards don't grasp how angular units of measure work.
I got the Mildot on a savage 110 FCP 338 Lapua mag. I took it to the range at 100 yard without any problem. Next weekend I will take to the 500 yard and I will follow your instruction. By the way, where can I get that dope card?
Any ballistic calculator app will spit out a whole table of ranges and angular adjustments after you input the appropriate info. That data will be your baseline as far as what to dial when you go out for the first time at those ranges. Those table values get you in the ballpark. On the range, you then create a separate small DOPE sheet for your exact rifle, ammo, conditions, etc, and THAT is the DOPE card that you will rely on tactically (in Situ) for that specific setup. You can do this for all your rifles. Each one will be different. The calculator gets you close to dial in faster. In some cases you might get lucky. That’s what groups are for - to confirm the dialing and DOPE. Edit: Didn’t realize this comment was 10 years old. At any rate, maybe it’s still useful to someone.
Good video, wish I had found it before I wasted the time I did watching all the other DYI sniper videos. And for the record I don't care how many dots and lines my scope has , I never shoot at anything that is not well within my comfort zone
So if you have a 2nd focal plane scope how would you measure the size of the target? Zoom all the way in or out? And wouldn't a 1st focal plane scope be a lot better?
On a second focal plane their is a mil setting on the magnification dial. Most scopes have it at max magnification but not always. I have a 4-16x42mm that has it at 10X. Nightforce NXS 8-32x50mm have it at 22X. The point is it's at one particular magnification. And depending where it's located can be a benefit for some applications. FFP is kinda pointless for say benchrest rifles as they shoot one distance and they really don't use the reticle (the target's score rings are graduated). A scope with a very short magnification range (3-9) is kinda pointless as well since what magnification are gonna use to shoot distance....max magnification. Anything close your not really holding over so being shrunk down isn't too handy. But for a long range field rig with a vast magnification range....FFP all day long.
I really like the sound of a FFP scope as long as the reticle don't get so small that you can't mesure very well with it at long distance. I'm pretty use to my MOA style scope and have never used a MRAD style scope before. I hope it's as easy to zero and dope as you explained in the video.
Just remember to use the reticle as your guide. Sight in on a blank sheet of paper with a small dot 1/2"-3/4" dot as your aiming point. After quickly looking down the bore to make sure I'm on paper with the first round. I've zeroed many times in 3 rounds.
Sounds simple man. There isn't all the math involved. Just shoot and use the reticle and write down the drop data. Then next time you already know the dope. Provided the weather is the same. You have pretty much talked me into buying one. Gonna start looking at a nightforce or leupold scope. Thanks again for answering all the questions.
@@DFOOSKING just to explain myself what those numbers are. If I got it right 1mrad=2yards @2000yards. Edit: - All clear 👌.It's just a math. Good video though 👍especially the scopes drawing with reticle types
I have both MIL and MOA scopes. They both work on the same principle however the MIL requires a MIL DOT calculator, MOA can be done with simple mental math. Also, using the reticles for determining range to the target is far easier with MOA, again, MIL requires a calculator for ranging. I used MIL scopes for decades until I discovered the simplicity of MOA.
use whatever you want....it makes no god damn difference whatsoever. The scope does not know or care you are calling 200 meters 218 yards....or vice versa.
I don't think you really have explained what a milrad is, and I'm surprised and unconvinced by those who say here that they finally understand the subject .In fact, I'm pretty sure they still MISunderstand it. Yes, a milliradian (mil) is one thousandth of a radian, but how many of your viewers understand what a radian is? Stated simply, a miiliradian (or mrad, or mil) is the angle at which your range to target is 1000 times the target size. If your target measures 18 inches, for example, (or 18 cm, or 18 anything) and covers 1 mil in your scope, then your range to target is 18000 inches (or 18000 cm etc). If your target measures 2 mils in your scope, it's obviously closer than that by a factor of 2, and if it's 0.5 mil, it's obviously further away by a factor of 2. So your range calculation is as follows: target size X 1000 / mils as measured by your scope. There's no need to be any more complicated than that. There is a 1:1000 ratio between the target size covered by your scope and the range. There. Done!. No need for other formulas such as 27.78 or any reference to metrics, because it is not limited to metric units. It may be simpler to use with metric units, but only because they already embed the notion of hundreds and thousands. So using the example above, you may need a calculator to convert 8000 inches to 500 yards, while with metres, you can easily recognise 18000 cm as 180 mtres. Mrads work for ANY units and at ANY range. It is much simpler and way more accurate than the usual moa rule of 1 inch @ 100 yards (which results in a 5% error). I can never understand why so many shooters are scared of or confused by milrad measurements, except that so few of these videos even mention the 1000:1 ratio, let alone emphasise it. It is the CORE principle behind Mrads, and if you don't understand that you have an incomplete understanding of the subject, and will lose or miss a shot while you work through the details. One further issue, and it applies to any system of optical ranging (mils or moa). While the theory is perfectly correct and reliable, it can be difficult to estimate whether your target is really 3.1 or 3.4 mil (or moa, for that matter). This is because your target may be moving, or poorly lit, or indistinct against the background, or partly obscured. Or, you may be assuming that your man-sized target is 6 feet tall, or that fence post is 4 feet tall, or that doorway is 7 feet tall, but in reality you're dealing with a target that does not conform to your assumption. As I said, ANY system of optical ranging can be return an incorrect value if your inputs are wrong. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings out there. It should not require a 15 minute video to make these core points. It took me less than 15 minutes to write this and for you to read it.
Wow.... a lot to unpack. Okay....your right that they may not understand it afterwards. But they can and have freely asked questions if they didn't. So not sure where you are coming from that the entire internet will grasp these concepts straight out of the gate the first go round no matter how its presented. Next....the video is Understand how to use mil based adjustment and a mil reticle. Not "how deep in the weeds can you bury yourself in math that honestly has little substantive value. No shooter is resulting to radian based math during the shot process. This provides them info in easy to swallow chunks to get moving without burning them out. Third. The mil relation formulas you have pointed out....are not presented at all in this video. As making sight adjustments and mil relation ranging are two completely separate tasks. It's not here because its not supposed to be here. Fourth. You state you can easily recognize 18000cm. Guess what? I cannot. You know why? I don't ever use metric values in day to day life. So your premise is immediately flawed as not all people are indoctrinated in that system. My presentation is accurate even if you seem to have some kind of bias against it. Fifth. Your written statement that it works with any measurement isnt even contested.....if anything its it's even in written note stated as such in the video. Sixth. I nowhere claim to be Steven Speilberg. This and other videos were done in a single uninterrupted take. Your rant with how long I take to present this and how long it takes you type something has no bearing on anything. You clearly are inculcated with the necessary knowledge and assume the people watching this video take information in on concepts that they likely never have used before can be absorbed as easily and in as much time. Which is patently false. I have taken the time to look at your channel and you have not in any way presented this information yourself. So if you cannot immediately provide a better presentation of your own creation....I suggest you take grandstanding elsewhere. It does not impress me. And if you have so much time and energy tearing down others work....then you yourself should be providing better. Good day sir.
@@rkba4923 But it doesn't. Apologies for hurting your wounded pride. I didn't realise you'd be such a sensitive soul. Take a pill and a comfortable chair in a dark room. You may feel better in the morning.
RKBA: NO! Clearly this video did not teach you what you need to know. You are still confused. Please refer to my explanation elsewhere on this thread and let me know if it helped.
@@richardofoz2167 So, you're saying that, even though there are 3.4377 MOA per MIL; and, therefore, each 1/10th MIL = 0.34377; that, times 3 it doesn't come quite close to equaling 1 MOA for each 3/10ths MILs? e.g. 3 x 0.34377 = 1.03131MOA! ???
@@rkba4923 No, I'm not saying that at all. If you're making the point that moa is a finer increment than rads, you're right. But who cares? Anyway, your mrad reticle and turret increments in tenths, your moa only in quarters usually. But you're gettiing lost in irrelevant detail. If you try working that through while you're out in the field, say goodby to that beautiful elk as he disappears into the next county. Mrad ranging is so much simpler than all that. All you need to understand is that if you know the real life height or width of your target and it covers 1 milrad in your scope, it is 1000 times as far away as that. . Example: you're looking at a paper target that is 1 milrad tall in your scope. You know that the target is 18 inches tall. Your target is therefore 18000 inches away from you, or 500 yards. If the target is just 0.5 mil in your scope, it must be twice as far away, right? So divide the 500 yards by 0.5 and you get 1000 yards. Conversely, it if measure 2 milrads in your scope, it must be only half as far away. So 18 inches times 1000 divided by 2 = 250 yards. There's nothing more to mrad ranging than that. You're done - go out and practice! If you think metric, the calculation is the same. It's actually even simpler, because you don't need to convert inches to yards. You just drop off the extra zeros. 50,000 centimetres is 500 metres. Done. CAUTION: Do not expect to get a precisely accurate range like your laser rangefinder gives you. You won't always be able to measure your mrads to the nearest tenth. Your target may be moving, or be poorly lit, or partly obstructed by grass, or distorted by mirage. You'll just have to do the best you can, or bracket your readings and take an average. The point is, you're not measuring your range precisely, you're estimating it. But at least your reticle won't run out of batteries, or fail in bright sun.
@@rkba4923 Works well because you're able to hit that deer-sized animal in the rib cage from 100 yds? Nothing to be proud of there! Actually, if you're really interested in optical ranging, you could do with several more lessons. But as the wise man said: "None is so deaf as he who will not hear. And none so blind as he who will not see." Hahahaha!
