Why do 99% scopes have MOA knobs and Mil reticles?


PDA






Lucky
March 25, 2009, 10:43 AM
I can understand they'd have money invested in the machines to make MOA clickers. So why not just make MOA reticles to match? Nightforce has one or two, but do people really enjoy doing extra redundant math? Is it that important to copy something the militaries use, even if it makes less sense?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do 99% scopes have MOA knobs and Mil reticles?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
n00b
March 25, 2009, 11:14 AM
Lucky,

I am not sure what you mean...

Mil Dots are usually used to help range est. MOA is used to measure group and/or correct POI. Two very different task. (Yes you can use Mil Dot for hold over marks but as far as I know that is not its primary job.)

If you had a scope that had MOA markings in the Reticle you would have way too many marks.

For example if you had a scope that had a 10' feild of view at 100yards and it was marked in MOA you would have 120 marks... that would be a little too busy (at least for me).

lipadj46
March 25, 2009, 11:39 AM
First of all moa and mil dots are just 2 different units of measuring the same thing and they are not that different from each other in magnitude. Also there are things called fractions (turrets clicks are generally a fraction of an MOA) so just because some cannot wrap their head around it does not mean it would not make more sense :evil: Here is a moa reticle from nightforce and to me it looks very logical in layout:

http://practicalrifler.6.forumer.com/a/new-moa-reticle-in-nightforce-scopes_post262.html

To the OP yes it would make more sense and yes it would cut out a step of math and I have no idea why more scopes are not setup that way. It is probably just a traditional thing but it makes way more sense to a lot of people I would guess.

Lucky
March 25, 2009, 12:02 PM
If you had a scope that had MOA markings in the Reticle you would have way too many marks.

Nope, just different spacing of the lines that would exactly equate to the adjustments on the knobs, minutes instead of mils. I found a scope, eventually, that had mil turrets to match the reticule, but you'd think reticules like the NF one would be the rule, not the exception.

You could use minutes to measure stuff too.

Zak Smith
March 25, 2009, 01:01 PM
It's because of "legacy thinking."

It makes way more sense to have matching angular systems on the knobs and reticle.

Most of the LR shooters I shoot with have gone either MOA/MOA or mils/mils. Nightforce and USO have MOA/MOA and mil/mil options. S&B and Premier have mil/mil options.

IMO, mils/mils make more sense.

Mil Dots are usually used to help range est. MOA is used to measure group and/or correct POI. Two very different task. (Yes you can use Mil Dot for hold over marks but as far as I know that is not its primary job.)
If you spot a miss (yours or your partner's) in your mil reticle and then want to give a correction, they're not that different after all. There are a number of tasks one accomplishes using the reticle features and knobs, and they are almost all easier if the systems match.

-z

RyanM
March 25, 2009, 01:42 PM
Probably logistics. I guess you've mainly been looking at military/tactical type scopes, since the majority of "hunting/sporting" scopes seem to just have plain old crosshair reticles. Standardized MOA clicks for all the scopes, even the mil-dot ones, means they're cheaper to make.

And mil-dots can work fine for holdover, just takes a bit of math and a lot of luck with your ammo's trajectory. Like here's a reference chart I made for my AES-10B.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=95039&stc=1&d=1237999314

Zak Smith
March 25, 2009, 01:47 PM
The 3-12x50 S&B scope recently adopted by the USMC is mils/mils.

To convert MOA dope to mils, simply divide by 3.43

benzy2
March 25, 2009, 01:48 PM
RyanM - That was the point I thought of the thread. They all work, its just more math and more time consuming. I would love to have a scope with MOA marks on the reticle. It makes a lot of sense since I have a good understanding of MOA. I wouldn't mind if the scope manufacturers moved to mils either, it would just take a little bit more effort to get used to the conversions before I was decent with the scope. I would absolutely love to have MOA hash marks on a scope, without having to spend NF money.

EDIT: Zak Smith - I can't divide by 3.43 in my head though maybe by 3.5 and hope its close enough.

Zak Smith
March 25, 2009, 01:59 PM
Well, the point is if the systems match you don't have to. Old data can be converted over (once) easily.

In any case, in the practical long-range shooting scope market, the manufacturers do offer matching systems of your choice (some even IPHY as well)

1858
March 25, 2009, 02:53 PM
Zak, what are the benefits of Mil/Mil vs MOA/MOA or vice versa? I would think that a MOA reticle would be quite "busy". Out of interest, do you see more Mil/Mil scopes ... I would think so?

All of my Mark 4 scopes have Mil reticles and MOA knobs but it's not a problem for me yet since I'm not lucky enough to have a long-range practical shooting club near me. For the "long-range" matches that I shoot my set up is fine since I have plenty of time to dial in any necessary adjustments. In fact, my setup would probably work quite well in a practical scenario given the bullet drop in Mils below. Rounding to the nearest 1/2 or 1/4 Mil would work quite well if the objective is to stay under 2 MOA.

100 yards = -0.44 mils
200 yards = O mils
300 yards = 0.63 mils
600 yards = 2.99 mils
800 yards = 4.93 mils
1000 yards = 7.22 mils

:)

Zak Smith
March 25, 2009, 03:20 PM
There are more mil reticles out there than MOA reticles, so the chances someone will be spotting your shots with a mil reticle is higher. 0.1 mil is slightly more coarse than 0.25 MOA (typical click values), but finer than 0.5 MOA (actually it's 0.34 MOA). Mil dope numbers are in "decimal" fractions and the fraction is a number of clicks (ie, 3.4 is to 3 mils and 4 clicks past); whereas MOA dope numbers typically end in 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 which correspond to 1, 2, or 3 clicks (ie, some conversion necessary). Mil dope numbers are also less digits. A mil is a "unitless" fraction which is easy to remember (1 part transverse in 1000 parts length).

MOA reticles aren't necessarily busy. They key is that the features are based on MOA-based intervals, not necessarily "every MOA."

Another thing to think about is windage. In field-style matches, it is uncommon for people to dial wind-- we hold it with reticle features based on our wind call and the "full value" on our data sheet.

If you have systems that match, you can use a combination of reticle + knobs for any specification or correction (from spotted hit/miss).

-z

gbran
March 25, 2009, 04:54 PM
RyanM

That chart makes way too much sense. Gud job.

Zak Smith
March 25, 2009, 04:56 PM
Here's how my .308 data looks when printed in both mils and MOA:

308 155 LAP @ 2925
Z 100yd 6200'DA
RANGE ELEV- moa mil | WIND(10) moa mil RANGE
50 0" 1.00 0.3mil | 0" 0.25 0.1mil 50
100 0" 0.00 0.0mil | 0" 0.50 0.1mil 100
150 1" 0.50 0.1mil | 1" 0.75 0.2mil 150
200 3" 1.25 0.3mil | 2" 1.00 0.3mil 200
250 6" 2.25 0.6mil | 3" 1.25 0.3mil 250
300 10" 3.25 0.9mil | 4" 1.50 0.4mil 300
350 16" 4.25 1.3mil | 6" 1.75 0.5mil 350
400 23" 5.50 1.6mil | 8" 2.00 0.6mil 400
450 32" 6.75 2.0mil | 11" 2.25 0.7mil 450
500 43" 8.25 2.4mil | 13" 2.50 0.7mil 500
550 55" 9.50 2.8mil | 16" 2.75 0.8mil 550
600 69" 11.00 3.2mil | 20" 3.00 0.9mil 600
650 85" 12.50 3.6mil | 23" 3.50 1.0mil 650
700 103" 14.00 4.1mil | 27" 3.75 1.1mil 700
750 124" 15.75 4.6mil | 32" 4.00 1.2mil 750
800 146" 17.50 5.1mil | 37" 4.50 1.3mil 800
850 172" 19.25 5.6mil | 42" 4.75 1.4mil 850
900 200" 21.25 6.2mil | 48" 5.00 1.5mil 900
950 230" 23.25 6.7mil | 54" 5.50 1.6mil 950
1000 264" 25.25 7.3mil | 61" 5.75 1.7mil 1000

Lucky
March 26, 2009, 07:38 AM
great posts & info

bhk
March 26, 2009, 08:40 AM
I think the real advantage of a MOA reticle would be in the hunting field. Knowing that a 20 mph wind would push the bullet so many inches at 100 yards would translate instantly in my mind to the proper reticle mark to use. No math involved. Same would go for holdover 375 yard antelope that is only going to be standing still for the next 3 seconds.

Don't figure in would make much difference on the target range.

Zak Smith
March 26, 2009, 12:39 PM
You shouldn't work in inches, because then you have to convert based on the distance. Always think in the native angular units your setup has (MOA or mils).

-z

SharpsDressedMan
March 26, 2009, 12:56 PM
I don't have a problem with the MOA adjustments and the mil reticle. When I am sighting the scope in at a certain range, I make my MOA adjustments based on the
POI, and then leave them alone. If I am utilizing the mil reticle, I use it for fast acquisition for range, windage,lead, etc. If I have time, and know the static distance to a target (say, when shooting hi power competition), then I mark my settings, use my "come ups" or "come downs" on the MOA turrets, and record such, so I can immediately reset to my sight in zero after the match. Works like a champ, even at the 1000 yards shoots. I have gone from my standing 700 yard zero on my long range rifle, A Rem 700 .300WM, and gotten sighted at 1000 yards with two shots. Then put it right back dead on at 700 by counting back my match adjustments. I basically use the mil scale for tactical (read that FAST) applications, and verifying ranging.

Jerry D
March 26, 2009, 01:03 PM
Here is a great link to read on Mil scopes

http://forum.pafoa.org/optics-46/41258-mil-dots-everything-you-want-know.html

It also compares mils vs moa

Jim Watson
March 26, 2009, 01:45 PM
It works very well in the French System.
One centimeter at 100 metres is .1 mil.

I see reticles with half-mil marks, a 2 MOA graduation would be no "busier" to look through, if you are wedded to the system.

Reid73
March 26, 2009, 02:24 PM
99% scopes have ... Mil reticlesReally?

lipadj46
March 26, 2009, 02:33 PM
I think he means to say MOA reticles are not very common. And if you were to look at the scopes that have MOA or Mil reticles 99% have Mil Reticles. I would assume the greatest % of scopes have a duplex type reticle.

roscoe
March 26, 2009, 05:03 PM
Where did mils come from? Is it just some archaic leftover like pecks, gills, and drachms?

Zak Smith
March 26, 2009, 05:07 PM
Radians are the standard unit of angular measure, used throughout geometry. There are 1000 milliradians (mils) per radian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
The milliradian (0.001 rad, or 1 mrad) is used in gunnery and targeting, because it corresponds to an error of 1 m at a range of 1000 m (at such small angles, the curvature is negligible). The divergence of laser beams is also usually measured in milliradians.

n00b
March 26, 2009, 06:18 PM
Where did mils come from? Is it just some archaic leftover like pecks, gills, and drachms?

Archaic no... we are the using a the archaic "Imperial" measurements (inches) that don't work well with milliradian system so we instead use MOA. But if you were used to the metric system than milliradian works much better than MOA.

1 milliradian = 1 meter at 1000 meters
1 milliradian = 10 centimeter at 100 meters


lipadj46,

"moa and mil dots are just 2 different units"

#1. Incorrect MOA measures angle, but Mil-Dot is a reticle design.
#2. Even if you meant milliradian, I said that they are used for "Two very different taskes" I said nothing of what they actually measured

Would you measure the distance from your house to work in Inches/MM? No... Could you use it? YES... But why? Just use Miles/Kilometers

Zak Smith
March 26, 2009, 06:25 PM
Mils are not specific to the metric system. They're 1 unit traverse in 1000 units length, e.g. 1 yard/1000 yards, 3.6"/3600" (ie, 100 yards), etc.

Coronach
March 26, 2009, 07:28 PM
I have nothing to add to this conversation except to say that SharpsDressedMan wins the award for best username of March 2009.

Carry on :)

Mike

1858
March 26, 2009, 08:27 PM
Mils are not specific to the metric system. They're 1 unit traverse in 1000 units length, e.g. 1 yard/1000 yards, 3.6"/3600" (ie, 100 yards), etc.

I think what nOOb was getting at is that milli comes from the SI system of units which is the metric system as we know it. Radians have been around in their current form for 300 years ... and maybe a lot longer. The milliradian is now an SI derived unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit).

10^-24 = yocto
10^-21 = zepto
10^-18 = atto
10^-15 = femto
10^-12 = pico
10^-9 = nano
10^-6 = micro
10^-3 = milli
10^-2 = centi
10^-1 = deci
10^1 = deca
10^2 = hecto
10^3 = kilo
10^6 = mega
10^9 = giga
10^12 = tera
10^15 = peta
10^18 = exa
10^21 = zetta
10^24 = yotta

:)

shaggy430
March 26, 2009, 11:23 PM
I've shot lots of scoped rifles and I would have to say that none have ever had a mil-dot scope.

lipadj46
March 26, 2009, 11:37 PM
#1. Incorrect MOA measures angle, but Mil-Dot is a reticle design.

You get my point I meant a mil. Don't be sore that you got it wrong it's ok you are a noob we all get it wrong at first. It still stands that a mil is about a 1/4 moa so they are not that different. Your claim that a mil dot reticle is only used for ranging is completely false also I might add. As discussed above they are also used as hold overs and to call corrections to a shooting partner or yourself for that matter. An MOA reticle can also be used to range for that matter.

Zak Smith
March 26, 2009, 11:41 PM
It still stands that a mil is about a 1/4 moa so they are not that different.
Backwards.
1 MIL = 3.43 MOA

1858
March 26, 2009, 11:42 PM
It still stands that a mil is about a 1/4 moa so they are not that different.

You have that backwards surely ... a MOA is approximately 0.28 of a milliradian.

:)

lipadj46
March 26, 2009, 11:47 PM
Yep you got me my bad, I'm brain dead, I was at a science fair at an inner city school this evening and made ice cream with 250 kids in 2 hours. Ain't science grand? I've never seen inner city kids so excited about science until I yelled who wants free ice cream. And then they ask me what you mean we gotta make it?

My point still stands that a milliradian and moa are for all intensive purposes the same, they measure the same thing and are within an order of magnitude with each other so an MOA reticle can do whatever a mil reticle can do and mil turrets can do anything that moa turrets can do and vice versa so why not unify the scope.

Lucky
March 27, 2009, 12:18 AM
I thought using minutes as a system for measuring a circle goes way back to the Sumerians? I could swear I read somewhere that Nato bastardized mils by arbitrarily setting the number in a circle to 300 or such.

n00b
March 27, 2009, 12:28 AM
Lipadj46,

Do you not read? I said its primary use is Range Est... And it can be used for hold overs, but it was designed to help range est... Maybe it is too much to ask for users on forums to actually read before they post!!??!

And yes MOA can be used for Range Est. too. But lets look at that... take man that is about 6 feet tall or about 2 Meters tall (this is an estamate again)
At 100 yards you have to count 72 MOA... 72...!
But at 100 meters he will take up 20milliriadens...

Which is more realistic to count in timed shoot?

It gets back to, do you use inches or miles to measure a road? You use Miles and say close enough...

Zak Smith
March 27, 2009, 12:31 AM
If he's counting mils or moa to range something within 300 yards, maybe the shooter should apply some common sense first ?!

With laser range-finders ubiquitous, the application of the reticle - mils or moa - is now more to correct for drop, wind, or lead than to range.

n00b
March 27, 2009, 12:53 AM
So your out in the field... And you see a target at an unknown distance... Do you put your rifle down and dig out your range finder then "Shot" the target with the laser? Then put the range finder down and pick the rifle back up and figure your hold over (hope you did not forget the range remember your under a time limit here) and take the shot? :confused: Also if this long range shot with target mostly hiden you just had to change your sight picture serveral times, so I hope you can easily find it again!

If this target is some sort of pray (Deer or whatever) he most likely heard you missing with your stuff and took off while you where playing with your toy!:cuss:

What if this target is another "sniper"? Your shot dead before you even get the range finder turned on! :banghead:

But if that target is paper your safe go ahead and shoot. :D

I for one will learn to use Range Est. Reticles :what: because my shoot will be for dinner (and if the SHTF it might be my life). Range Finders are nice toys only to be used when time allows. If you are depending a Battery Operated Electronic device you are setting yourself up for failure.

If you setup a "sniper hide" and have time before targets arrive use the range finder to make note of major landmarks in the area with the distance to them, then go ahead and use this time and technology to your advantage.

lipadj46
March 27, 2009, 12:59 AM
Maybe it is too much to ask for users on forums to actually read before they post!!??!

Life's a b!tch ain't it? It must be tough to be the only level headed rational man in this forum.

But at 100 meters he will take up 20milliriadens...

A mil dot reticle as I recall has 10 dots on the vert and 10 on the horizontal (even the gen II) so you would have to range half of him anyway. Regardless why would you even need to range 100 yards? If you look at the MOA reticle in the 3rd post above you will see something that is comparable that could do the same thing as far as ranging goes for a man sized target over 300 meters.

n00b
March 27, 2009, 01:09 AM
Again you missed the point. No matter the distance you are still going to have about 3.5 times more increaments to count for MOA compared to Mil-Dot. That means it will take you about 3.5 times longer.

SharpsDressedMan
March 27, 2009, 01:14 AM
Guys! Mils, minutes. Get out and SHOOT. Quit laboring over measurements in theory. Once you get out and play with a mil-dot scope with MOA turret adjustments, you'll decide how and why to use what, and you'll all be happy and much better informed, via the HANDS ON method. Trust me.

Zak Smith
March 27, 2009, 01:20 AM
So your out in the field... And you see a target at an unknown distance... Do you put your rifle down and dig out your range finder then "Shot" the target with the laser? Then put the range finder down and pick the rifle back up and figure your hold over (hope you did not forget the range remember your under a time limit here) and take the shot? Also if this long range shot with target mostly hiden you just had to change your sight picture serveral times, so I hope you can easily find it again!

Like many parts of practical shooting it is a set of skills that takes some practice and training and is awkward (as you describe) for those that are doing it for the first time. Those that practice do it very efficiently and with little wasted time.

http://demigodllc.com/photo/SteelSafari-2008/icon/D462_6886_img.jpg
article | Colorado Multigun 2008 Steel Safari Practical Rifle Match http://demigodllc.com/icon/extwh3.png (http://demigodllc.com/articles/colorado-multigun-steel-safari-2008)

I for one will learn to use Range Est. Reticles because my shoot will be for dinner (and if the SHTF it might be my life).
Well, I guess it depends. One of the weaknesses of reticle-based range estimation is knowing the exact size of your target. Beyond 400 yards a 10% ranging error due to either errant target size assumptions or human error will cause a miss on a reasonably small target. At major 3-Gun matches (which are not "LR" matches), the top 10% of rifle shooters can usually range with their Mk-I eyeball +/- about 50 yards out to about 500 yards, most of the time.

I'm not arguing that knowing how to reticle-range isn't a useful skill. I stated that the majority of people shooting UKD LR targets are using LRFs these days, not using their reticle to range things. One only has to observe some LR shooters practicing on a UKD range, shooting a field match, or LR hunting to confirm. People use better tools when they have access to them. In response to a dogmatic rejection of LRFs, I reply that it makes more sense to know how use the best tools efficiently, and the legacy method for back-up. In any case, people do use MOA reticles for ranging successfully.

It is interesting to note that in challenges such as the match posted above, that involve target location, ranging, and engagement from awkward field positions under pretty stringent time pressure, 100% of competitors use a laser rangefinder. None of them think it's faster or more efficient to range with their reticle. I think that counts as data.

Zak Smith
March 27, 2009, 01:22 AM
. No matter the distance you are still going to have about 3.5 times more increaments to count for MOA compared to Mil-Dot.
The most popular Nightforce MOA retice is the NPR1. It does not have "3.5 more increments".

If you look at the amount of information in either a NPR1 reticle (a choice MOA reticle) or a S&B P4 reticle (a choice mil reticle) , they have approximately the same information.

1858
March 27, 2009, 01:26 AM
A visual aid might help ... and let's try to keep this civil. The S&B P4 reticle on the right looks very similar to Leupold's TMR reticle ... well, at 25X anyway.

http://128.171.62.162/hawthorn-engineering/thr/NP-R1.jpg http://128.171.62.162/hawthorn-engineering/thr/S&B_P4.jpg

Here's the P4 reticle that Zak mentioned at 5X ... WOW ... that's an impressive reticle!! Those Germans are amazing!!

http://128.171.62.162/hawthorn-engineering/thr/S&B_P4(2).jpg

:)

lipadj46
March 27, 2009, 01:31 AM
Guys! Mils, minutes. Get out and SHOOT. Quit laboring over measurements in theory.

Isn't that what we are supposed to do on the internet? Besides I am going shooting all weekend just me my M1A and 3 battle packs of south african.

Again you missed the point. No matter the distance you are still going to have about 3.5 times more increaments to count for MOA compared to Mil-Dot. That means it will take you about 3.5 times longer.

Look at the reticle above and see how it is broken down incrementally like a ruler so you can easily read it in a split second. I don't need to count 12 I just count 2 past the 10 mark. When you measure a 8 foot 2x4 do you count each inch from the beginning?

they have approximately the same information.

That is the point I tried to make in post 3 guess if I would have turned down the sarcasm we probably would not be arguing.

Zak Smith
March 27, 2009, 01:32 AM
Nah you measure it in miles and round to zero. :evil:

lipadj46
March 27, 2009, 01:40 AM
Well I actually take 2 other 2x4s make a right triangle with the board I want the length as the hypotenuse then I measure the other sides and calculate the c=sqrt (a^2+b^2). Or better yet measure the angles and use SOH, CAH, or TOA depending on how I am feeling that day.

sscoyote
April 14, 2009, 03:49 PM
Hope this is still active, as i love playing with the mathematics part of shooting. I always calculate a rangefinding system with the reticles i use--all based on the mil-ranging formula from simple plex to Ballistic Plex, etc. I get a lot of experience ranging deer and antelope while out coyote hunting, and have had about 95% success to within 3% of lasered all the way out to about 500 lasered yds.

I put my rangefinding dope in a Butler Creek Blizzard-style objective cover. U can take the Blizzard apart put the dope on a sticker attached to a thin piece of cardboard and slip it between the clear plastic cover and keeper ring. When u flip it up it's all right there to see without having to get out of position. I calculate rangefinding and point blank range rangefinding with all my reticles/target sizes.

The best part of the mil-dot is the mil-ranging formula that's used to actually calculate the distance to target. While researching it many years ago i realized that it's not specific to the mil-dot angles themselves (the milliradian). It can be used with any multi-stadia reticle as i mentioned above, any angle really. It could even be used with archery sight pins or the front blade sight of a revolver if one were enterprising enuf to play with it some. It also defines downrange zeroing as well. These points are something that are never brought up in any of the mil-dot mil-ranging discussions i've seen, and these concepts are way bigger than the mil-dot itself.

LogicGS
April 14, 2009, 04:17 PM
I don't understand the argument here.

They're both measurements of angle, that is all.

A radian is defined as the measure of the angle which describes an arc who's length is equal in length to the radius of the circle being measured:

http://www.logicpaintball.com/Radian.jpg

A degree is defined simply as the angle describing 1/360th of a circle, regardless of the length of arc created.

MOA (Minute of Angle) describes a smaller devision of the degree, which in the imperial system of measurement is broken up into two smaller units, namely minutes and seconds. Thus, a circle contains 360 degrees, a degree contains 60 minutes (or 21,600 minutes in a circle), and a minute contains 60 seconds (or 1,296,000 seconds in a circle).

They both measure the same thing, it's just different units.

Radians is easier to convert without pen and paper, 'cause the metric system defines the relationship between range and elevation/windage very simply. 1 radian = 1 unit of elevation/windage per 1 unit of range. A milliradian (mil) is just 1/1000th of a radian, so 1 mil = 1 unit of elevation/windage per 1000 units of range.

Either system can be made to work just fine, but IMO the mil system is much easier to work in your head on the fly, especially when you don't have the luxury of a laser rangefinder on hand.

But, I'm just a long rifle noob, so I could be FOS. Do your own research and decide for yourself.

Reid73
April 15, 2009, 01:14 PM
Either system can be made to work just fine, but IMO the mil system is much easier to work in your head on the fly, especially when you don't have the luxury of a laser rangefinder on hand.To each his own. Personally, I have always preferred the 'eyeball' method. Assuming that one is conservative in one's shooting (say, under 400 yards) and uses a reasonably flat-shooting rifle, it generally works well.

One of the weaknesses of reticle-based range estimation is knowing the exact size of your target. Beyond 400 yards a 10% ranging error due to either errant target size assumptions or human error will cause a miss on a reasonably small target. At major 3-Gun matches (which are not "LR" matches), the top 10% of rifle shooters can usually range with their Mk-I eyeball +/- about 50 yards out to about 500 yards, most of the time.I agree.

Estimating the total distance to a target, or estimating the size of a target, both require guesswork.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do 99% scopes have MOA knobs and Mil reticles?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!