Thread: Poll metric or imperial

Originally Posted by Moutere

You'd expect a poll regarding measuring distance based on the thread title, no?

Tick box 4 gives us clue to the applications of the first three tick box subjects, ie as units of windage/elevation

Then conveniently Vietnamcam uses a modifier to the title in the form of a question in the first post in his thread.

So there's two clues as to what he's on about, one more subtle than the other.

So you are right, it's a poll on measuring distance, and the first clue is in the heading, and the second clue is in the question in the first post, both telling us it's windage/elevation distance.

People use the term "kentucky windage" colloquially to refer to holdover as well as windage.

MOA for me! Most scopes & apps use it so i've just gone along for the ride.

And this only further sells it thanks Greg:

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

Not so, the MOA PMII only has around 65 moa in moa & around 95 moa in mil for elevation.

They only have so many clicks in their turrets, the mil click is a bigger/courser measurement.

I prefer the finer (therefore some would say more accurate) imperial measurement

I can't see the poll with tapatalk but while I can work with both systems as I'm in my mid thirties I never learnt that weird old imperial system at school so I don't use it for anything unless I have to

What does it matter if you can hit what your shooting at?
When in the Army I was taught metric but I am more comfortable with and use imperial now. Imperial still rules the reloading world.
Doesn't bother me either way as scopes still only have the same maximum amount of windage and elevation no matter what you use. Measuring distance is the same.

Its just a turn of a turret.
I navigate in metric if using a map and compass.

Originally Posted by R93

Doesn't bother me either way as scopes still only have the same maximum amount of windage and elevation no matter what you use.

Its just a turn of a turret.

Not so, the MOA PMII only has around 65 moa in moa & around 95 moa in mil for elevation.

They only have so many clicks in their turrets, the mil click is a bigger/courser measurement.

I prefer the finer (therefore some would say more accurate) imperial measurement

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

Not so, the MOA PMII only has around 65 moa in moa & around 95 moa in mil for elevation.

They only have so many clicks in their turrets, the mil click is a bigger/courser measurement.

I prefer the finer (therefore some would say more accurate) imperial measurement

Ha, didn't know that. Thought you could only wind a screw so far no matter how it was graduated.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

I prefer the finer (therefore some would say more accurate) imperial measurement

Originally Posted by stub

I wonder why how is something that is pretty much 1.5 times per click going to be as accurate at long range .

The maximum error that can possibly be ascribed to click value is half of one click, as perfect data will put point of impact within that margin of point of aim.

For a scope that adjusts .1mil, this is <5cm at 1000m

For a scope that adjusts .25moa this is <3.45cm at 1000m

If that 1.55cm potential additional maximum aiming error at 1000 metres is responsible for a miss, there was never going to be a meaningful hit anyway.

Double the numbers for 2 kilometres if you wish and it's still utterly insignificant

If the reticle matches the turrets, the ballistics chart and reading from the range finder, what does it matter?
I don't feel either is better or worse. Perhaps if trying to judge distance with the reticle it may help to be in metric, but then 1mil is equal to 4moa so it's not particularly difficult to use either.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

If the reticle matches the turrets, the ballistics chart and reading from the range finder, what does it matter?
I don't feel either is better or worse. Perhaps if trying to judge distance with the reticle it may help to be in metric, but then 1mil is equal to 3.6 moa so it's particularly difficult to use either.

Fixed it for you

That's why we use rangefinders.

Using a reticle as a rangefinder for hunting is dumb, unless all your targets are a know x amount in size

I use MOA, I am young enough to have been brought up with the metric system but the last 30years or so has seen predominantly American or aimed at the American market scopes in MOA on the shelves.

I shoot MOA. I will never change. You see the day I lay several thousand on the counter to my first NF 5.5-22 with NP-r2 reticule that was the beginning of the end for me. At the time I just followed Tracey’s advice. It was good advice. I now have 3 NP-R2 and the new one turns up today with MORA? Whatever it is. Is it better than metric I don’t know you guys can argue that one out. All I know is it would cost thousands to change over now. I do find it much easier to make corrections from a bullet splash with the NP-R2 compared to the mil reticule though.

Originally Posted by Bugger That

I shoot MOA. I will never change. You see the day I lay several thousand on the counter to my first NF 5.5-22 with NP-r2 reticule that was the beginning of the end for me. At the time I just followed Tracey’s advice. It was good advice. I now have 3 NP-R2 and the new one turns up today with MORA? Whatever it is. Is it better than metric I don’t know you guys can argue that one out. All I know is it would cost thousands to change over now. I do find it much easier to make corrections from a bullet splash with the NP-R2 compared to the mil reticule though.

Have you tried the NP-R1 reticle ?

Originally Posted by 7mmsaum

Have you tried the NP-R1 reticle ?

No but I have looked through them. The hairs are very fine. I shyed away for hunting but then the NP-R2 is often too fine as well. Fortunately the NF illumination is excellent and seems to run forever and with that on you see into shadows no problem at all. In hind sight the NP-R1 may have been better for the shooting I am doing. The 2 moa ele and 4 moa wind is a little too much for making corrections at times.

Daily stuff metric. Shooting is moa, it just makes sense.