Is this Turret correct?

[BBob]

I'm sure you know but to ensure others aren't confused, 0.1 Mil should = 1 CM at 100 meters.

Yup, but most everyone references yds on their ballistics charts therefore I referenced it to 100yds.

As a side note yards to meters, meters to yards is roughly a 10% difference. 500m = 550yds, 100m = 110yds and so on.

 

[Jordan Smith]

To put it simply, marking the turret cap in "1 cm/100 m" is exactly the same as marking "0.1 mrad." This is a factory mrad-based turret.

 

[skipper907]

you should be going out and testing it at distance to ensure the turret matches the ballistics of the ammo you are shooting

 

[jkoehle1]

1cm = .1mil at 100yds
(to be exact .1094mil = 1cm @ 100 yds)

.1mil per click and .2mil per hash mark.

10cm mark = ~1mil

120cm mark = ~12mil

As per my initial post it looks as though you should have enough in the turret to make it work. Go shoot it and see if it does and if they got it right.

1 cm = .1 mil at 100m - exactly

Thats what an MRAD is.... by definition a milliradian is where the arc length is defined as 1/1,000⁠ of the radius. 1 mil is 1/1000th of 100 yards =3.6" or shown in reverse... at 100 yards (3.6" x 1000 = 3600" / 12" = 300' or 100 yards).

So at 1000 yards - 1 mil = 36"

Etc...

 

[BBob]

So why do we persist with referencing and producing drop charts or even referencing things in yards when there’s been a big changeover to mill/mil optics? This thread got me thinking. Back in the 80’s we started seeing and using mil reticles in moa scopes (mil/moa) where we went through all the gymnastics to make that work in the field. Then slowly we started getting mil/mil. Swarovski’s first laser rangefinder was meters only but we still mentally converted that back to yards. How many of you have gone to mil/mil meters? Seems there’s no reason today not to or for at least a lot of us. There’d still be shooting at the range marked in yards but that’s an easy and quick mental calc. ???

 

[Jordan Smith]

So why do we persist with referencing and producing drop charts or even referencing things in yards when there’s been a big changeover to mill/mil optics? This thread got me thinking. Back in the 80’s we started seeing and using mil reticles in moa scopes (mil/moa) where we went through all the gymnastics to make that work in the field. Then slowly we started getting mil/mil. Swarovski’s first laser rangefinder was meters only but we still mentally converted that back to yards. How many of you have gone to mil/mil meters? Seems there’s no reason today not to or for at least a lot of us. There’d still be shooting at the range marked in yards but that’s an easy and quick mental calc. ???

I have because it makes things a bit easier, but it's not absolutely necessary. The reason that meters are easier when using mrad is because scope adjustments are in 0.01 m (1 cm) per 100 m. When speaking in yards, 0.1 mrad is equal to 0.01 yard per 100 yards, and 0.01 yard is 0.36" - not a nice, neat increment.

This doesn't make much of a difference for shooting and working at distance, but it can help simplify things when zeroing at 100 m and assessing target size in cm (or estimating range in m when the target size is known in either cm or m).

 

[SDHNTR]

To put it simply, marking the turret cap in "1 cm/100 m" is exactly the same as marking "0.1 mrad." This is a factory mrad-based turret.

Right, but why use cm’s at all? Since Jesus speaks in mils, why not just just stick with the standard and avoid the brain pain?

 

[Jordan Smith]

Right, but why use cm’s at all? Since Jesus speaks in mils, why not just just stick with the standard and avoid the brain pain?

Because it’s made in Europe, and centimeters are second-nature over there.

 

[SDHNTR]

Because it’s made in Europe, and centimeters are second-nature over there.

Ok, but we don’t have scope turrets in inches here in the US….