Mil-Dot calculations with metrics

[Slayerious]

Hello!

I was taught by the internet that one should calculate the distance to the target by this formula:
target height in meters x 1000 / mildots.

So for a 10cm (3,6") high target with 1 mildot it would come out as:
0.10 x 1000 / 1 = 100 meters

But I felt odd dividing the 10 centimeters in my head to meters first, just to multiply it by 1000!

So now.. Please do prove me wrong until I embarass myself further but, would it not just be easier to calculate:

10cm x 10 / 1 = 100 meters?

Say for a person, (internet way)
1,80m x 1000 / 2 = 900 meters

Or this my odd-way:

180cm x 10 / 2 = 900 meters

Why the decimals and multiplying by 1000?
What am I missing?

Yours truly,
Slayerious

PS. Damn I have the worst kind of Athlon fever!

 

[bill_dd97]

Well, mil-dot was developed for much larger targets, like a man's torso sized or even vehicle sized targets and much longer ranges than airgunner generally shoot at.

Your way is the same, you're just moving the decimal points.

 

[Slayerious]

Yeah, but even the calculations with larger objects is easier in centimeters. So why bother adding unnecessary 0s?

 

[Gunnertrones]

Quoting Kmd1984 also goes for this subject? 

SheharyarGuys
Why don’t the label the scopes turrets in Mils.

Because that would make total sense… and we can’t have that.

 

[Slayerious]

Exactly.. Like the simpliest solutions are heavily overlooked and just plain neglected.

I am so glad that for example Athlon has made their scopes moa/moa and mil/mil.

In 5-10 years people will think, why on earth did people back then were buying incompatible scopes?

 

[jpcolt]

Works for metric. But most in US use imperial for size of target and distance
remember that mil-dot is milliradian it measure angle not distance i.e. CM

 

[Slayerious]

If I got your reply right (which I found hard to understand) that is why there is moa too.

In the end just the angle is <pretty much> useless without knowing the target size or the distance, which have values in cm or inches..

 

[Saltlake58]

MOA/MOA - Mil/Mil - MOA/MIL

It seems ridiculous to mix two measurement systems, unless you simply intend to ignore one. If you have an MOA turret, and a Mildot Reticle, the intent must be fore you to zero your scope and never look at the turrets again. Hence, most turret caps seal the turret, so the MOA on the turret doesn't matter.

For people that intend to adjust the turret while shooting, it seems insanity to mix two measurement methods. Glad to see new scopes coming out with Mil/Mil systems built in.

Purchased my first relatively nice scope a few months ago. The BSA version of the Primary Arms 4-14 FFP. It's a great scope you can see through even at high magnification. As an FFP, you can actually use the mildot turrets to adjust for range, or you can just "Hold over"

As long as people buy the older mix measurement scopes, the manufacturers will continue to make them. If people hold out and demand Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA and FFP, the manufacturers will respond with new products. If we cave and continue to buy old style, they'll make old style.

It's all up to us.

 

[Scotchmo]

It makes sense to me. 1mm/m is convenient to use when milling a target.

A milliradian is an angle representing radian/1000. That means that a dot space is 1 unit at 1000 units distance. It can be 1 meter at 1000 meters, 1 yard at 1000 yards, or 1 foot at 1000 feet. Any single unit works.

The Imperial system uses yard (yd), foot (1/3yd), and inch (1/12ft). In imperial, dot spacing is 3.6in/100yard. That is not the most convenient for head math.

If you are using airgun distances, and you have a 12x scope, the 10x/12x dot space at 12x magnification is a convenient ratio.

I still use the imperial system but think of distances in feet when milling an airgun target which is usually small (inches).

I use 12x scopes with 1/4inch turrets. At 12x, dot spacing is 1in/100ft. And as an added bonus, one dot correction requires 12 clicks.
Easy to remember.