User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:16:22 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They worked backwards. They just divided up the circle into 6400 small sections they called "mils", then figured out via trigonometry what each of those "mils" equaled and came up with an equation. That's how I did it way back in '08 (see my pic posted a few above of that original paper). Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: But now I don't know how the heck our military got 1/6,400? 6.4 triangles per circle?  They worked backwards. They just divided up the circle into 6400 small sections they called "mils", then figured out via trigonometry what each of those "mils" equaled and came up with an equation. That's how I did it way back in '08 (see my pic posted a few above of that original paper). Oh.........thanks again!! This thread is one of the best in Arfcom history. But as a layman, to me, it would seem better math wise to just go with double the PIE amount or 6.28 instead of making it 6.4...........oh well, there has to be a good reason. Thanks again! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:18:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TAG for future reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:37:04 AM EDT
[#3]
I also would like a copy please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:38:52 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also would like a copy please. It should be made a sticky in the tech forums. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:41:05 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryThis thread is one of the best in Arfcom history. But as a layman, to me, it would seem better math wise to just go with double the PIE amount or 6.28 instead of making it 6.4...........oh well, there has to be a good reason. Thanks again! Maybe this answers your question: From: Field Artillery Applied Mathematics An Analytical Treatise 0f the Principles Underlying the Preparation of Field Artillery Firing Data LLOYD E JONES Major Field Artillery University of Missouri 1922: |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:43:37 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe this answers your question: From: Field Artillery Applied Mathematics An Analytical Treatise 0f the Principles Underlying the Preparation of Field Artillery Firing Data LLOYD E JONES Major Field Artillery University of Missouri 1922: 6 A) circle divided into 6283 parts would give no convenient value for the division of the circle into quadrants and the uneveness of the figure would give men trying to handle it under hostile fire a great amount of trouble thereby opening up opportunity for mathematical error where an error might have serious consequences. The Field Artillery of all nations has therefore accepted the division of the circle in 6400 parts and have thereby derived a unit of measure called the Artillery Mil. Sucn mathematical truths as exist in connection with the True Mil are accepted for the handling of the Artillery Mil without thereby introducing error of any military importance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread is one of the best in Arfcom history. But as a layman, to me, it would seem better math wise to just go with double the PIE amount or 6.28 instead of making it 6.4...........oh well, there has to be a good reason. Thanks again! Maybe this answers your question: From: Field Artillery Applied Mathematics An Analytical Treatise 0f the Principles Underlying the Preparation of Field Artillery Firing Data LLOYD E JONES Major Field Artillery University of Missouri 1922: 6 A) circle divided into 6283 parts would give no convenient value for the division of the circle into quadrants and the uneveness of the figure would give men trying to handle it under hostile fire a great amount of trouble thereby opening up opportunity for mathematical error where an error might have serious consequences. The Field Artillery of all nations has therefore accepted the division of the circle in 6400 parts and have thereby derived a unit of measure called the Artillery Mil. Sucn mathematical truths as exist in connection with the True Mil are accepted for the handling of the Artillery Mil without thereby introducing error of any military importance. Well yes it does help to a point but what I am missing is why not 6.3?................why 6.4? Is it better to have it rounded to an even number? If so, why not 6.2? Why "quadrants"? Oh well, I'm sure there is a good reason............I have always been a math nerd. 
ETA: I guess with artillery it makes no real difference at all and 1,600 parts per quadrant is a nice even number.......I am being too anal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:56:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Hello all.
Can you please email me both copies of the paper also? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:58:37 AM EDT
[#8]
Going from memory (periscopes) isn't there something missing from the equation, at least for variable power scopes?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:06:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going from memory (periscopes) isn't there something missing from the equation, at least for variable power scopes? I'm assuming if you had, for example, your scope set at 4x you would multiply the distance by 4 to get your actual distance. So if you had a guy 2 meters tall that covered 6 mills in your scope...........you'd think he was 333 meters away without magnifying but you'd have to multiply that by 4 (because it is set at 4x) to get the true meters distance he was away from you? ETA: And then you would compute your bullet drop from that corrected distance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:20:38 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, artillery and tanks,especially,use mils differently. What they are referring to is a gunner's mil, not a miliradian. A gunner's mil is 1/6400 part of a circle. So there are 17.778 mils per degree. There are 17.453 miliradians per degree. Russian and some other armies use different # of mils per degree. I came here to post this mil != millirad |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:24:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:30:31 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TAG for future reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:30:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Prior to the universal adoption of "field artillery" there was horse, siege and coastal artillery. All 3 of them used different forms of measure for direction, the siege artillery tended to use a measurement closest to what we call Mils today, and the First World War being an artillery war, specifically a siege artillery war led to its means of measure becoming standardized throughout western militaries.
That is why you have 6400 circles on your lensatic compasses, on the tripods of machine guns, in tank sights and in laser range finders. It is also a bit laughable for people to think it really makes all that much difference in measure distance for most applications. When we use to use survey to subtend distances to locate howitzers, we limited the distance at which we considered the use of substence accurate even using precision survey instruments and candy cane like aiming posts being measured |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:04:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no such thing as a gunners mil, its a mil or a NATO Mil. The Russian system is called the DC system and is 1/6000 of a circle. The Mil has been used by European militaries since the late 1800s and entered US military service in 1904 when we bought French Pantels, it also used on various other sights, compasses and on tripods. The shooting community has misappropriated the term Mil to refer to milaradians, a term that had been used for over a hundred years and on thousands of weapons sights prior to the guys at WTBN using milradians instead of mils like the rest of the military. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Actually, artillery and tanks,especially,use mils differently. What they are referring to is a gunner's mil, not a miliradian. A gunner's mil is 1/6400 part of a circle. So there are 17.778 mils per degree. There are 17.453 miliradians per degree. Russian and some other armies use different # of mils per degree. There is no such thing as a gunners mil, its a mil or a NATO Mil. The Russian system is called the DC system and is 1/6000 of a circle. The Mil has been used by European militaries since the late 1800s and entered US military service in 1904 when we bought French Pantels, it also used on various other sights, compasses and on tripods. The shooting community has misappropriated the term Mil to refer to milaradians, a term that had been used for over a hundred years and on thousands of weapons sights prior to the guys at WTBN using milradians instead of mils like the rest of the military. We only called them gunner's mils because of all of the people who continually misused milliradians as mils. Not an official term but just convention for clarity sake. We had to integrate stabilized headmirrors to existing and some new tanks, foreign and domestic. Lots of confusion out there. The turret rings of many vehicles are marked in mils. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:11:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should be made a sticky in the tech forums. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I also would like a copy please. It should be made a sticky in the tech forums.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:15:01 PM EDT
[#16]
This should be a sticky. Great work and great info!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:23:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:03:00 PM EDT
[#18]
I downloaded the first one - but it won't let me do the second one. I will have to read it later. I sorta understand the concepts, but not nearly enough to master it, though I don't have the range or equipment to really put it too good use yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:11:16 PM EDT
[#19]
Glad you posted this here, OP. I saw it hanging out in Math & Science, thought it was a great paper. GD needs it much more
Fundamentally understanding what a minute of angle is, what a milliradian is, and learning some basic math to apply those concepts can bring you to a whole new level in your marksmanship. It's an exercise in applied trigonometry. Please, if you don't understand, ask questions. ETA: OP, the second one cannot be downloaded without paying. I don't know if you are receiving royalties or anything, and don't want to screw that up for you. If not, if you could email me a copy, I know some people that could use it, and could help in forwarding it to some member.s |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:29:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This should be a sticky. Great work and great info! Tacked it in Math & Science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:36:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ETA: OP, the second one cannot be downloaded without paying. I don't know if you are receiving royalties or anything, and don't want to screw that up for you. If not, if you could email me a copy, I know some people that could use it, and could help in forwarding it to some member.s No, NOT receiving any sort of royalties or payment of any kind. Just wrote them for the good of our great community. Please feel free to download them, pass them along or whatever. If you can't DL them, send me an email and I'll send them to you that way. Thanks, Bags |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:54:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Nice write-up. Thanks for posting!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:58:47 PM EDT
[#23]
The links in op aren't working for me.
What's the alternative way to get this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:09:42 PM EDT
[#24]
I'd like a copy emailed to me if possible!! Thanks for the info!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:10:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The links in op aren't working for me. What's the alternative way to get this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 7:03:32 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prior to the universal adoption of "field artillery" there was horse, siege and coastal artillery. All 3 of them used different forms of measure for direction, the siege artillery tended to use a measurement closest to what we call Mils today, and the First World War being an artillery war, specifically a siege artillery war led to its means of measure becoming standardized throughout western militaries. That is why you have 6400 circles on your lensatic compasses, on the tripods of machine guns, in tank sights and in laser range finders. It is also a bit laughable for people to think it really makes all that much difference in measure distance for most applications. When we use to use survey to subtend distances to locate howitzers, we limited the distance at which we considered the use of substence accurate even using precision survey instruments and candy cane like aiming posts being measured Interesting............thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 7:19:27 AM EDT
[#27]
So that said, who here runs mil optics and who runs moa? I have both, moa is mostly on my hunting rifles
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 7:28:55 AM EDT
[#28]
Wow. And all those folks who said learning trigonometry with radians thought it was useless.
I've always wanted to shoot at long range and figure out the range to the target. Thanks OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:39:28 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Going from memory (periscopes) isn't there something missing from the equation, at least for variable power scopes? Depends on what type of scope you have. With a first focal plane scope (FFP), the reticle shrinks/grows with the adjustment of magnification (Mils always read true). With a second focal plane scope (SFP), the reticle stays the same size while what you're looking at shrinks/grows with magnification. (Mils are only true under one magnification setting, usually the highest). So with a FFP you can range at any magnification, with a SFP, you need to range at the magnification that the mil reticle reads true, usually the highest. Check your instruction manual. Many scopes today market FFP for that very reason. From http://www.sniperforums.com/forum/optics/18213-first-focal-plane-vs-second-focal-plane.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:09:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Can I get an emailed copy? Please and thank you
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:09:41 AM EDT
[#31]
Tag...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:34:28 AM EDT
[#32]
From a one time math major I love both. I learned/conscripted to MOA first because it was what all my turrets were based on. Once I got into math it all made simple sense for degree and minutes/seconds of a degree. As I worked through trig courses I naturally found out what a radian is and grew into true math based mil-radian measure.
Once a person understands what a radian is, that it is an arc/sweep where the distance traveled along the edge of the circle is the same as the radius, figuring out the mil-radian(1/1000) sweep is easy regardless of if you are using metric or standard units of measurement. The military/artillery use of "mils" is just strange. Once it is defined for the purpose of knowing it exists, I have yet to run into any need for knowing about it. It may be hundreds of years old but given what the shooting industry has standardized the military term is pretty much just an interesting foot note of knowledge now. If I had been exposed to mils sooner in my precision shooting life I bet I would favor Mil style turrets along with a mil-dot reticle. Otherwise I could have gone MOA turrets with MOA scope but I was never rich enough when I was younger to afford the scopes that were MOA turret/reticle. Knowing this info is helpful because if a person is inclined towards getting a serious scope where you can choose precisely what reticle you want, MOA or Mil-radian, you can likely choose whether to have your turrets match. And having turrets that match your ranging reticle can help take a piece of math out of the equation. I know when I was younger a few european scopes came with turrets that were Mil based. At the time I didnt understand it and it is a shame because working in metric with a Mil-Radian reticle and radian based turrets is retarded easy. I think a lot of people stick to MOA based scopes due to the standard mile/inch measurement system. They can get "1 inch at 100 yards" easy enough(forget the extra .047 effectively). For many mils and radians is just too much thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:46:18 AM EDT
[#33]
OST
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:58:35 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on what type of scopeyou have. With a firstfocal plane scope (FFP), the reticle shrinks/grows with the adjustment ofmagnification (Mils always read true). With a second focal plane scope (SFP),the reticle stays the same size while what you're looking at shrinks/growswith magnification. (Mils are only true under one magnification setting, usually the highest). So with a FFP you can range at any magnification, with a SFP, you need to range at the magnification that the mil reticle reads true, usually the highest. Check your instruction manual. Many scopes today market FFP for that very reason. From http://www.sniperforums.com/forum/optics/18213-first-focal-plane-vs-second-focal-plane.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Going from memory (periscopes) isn't there something missing from the equation, at least for variable power scopes? Depends on what type of scopeyou have. With a firstfocal plane scope (FFP), the reticle shrinks/grows with the adjustment ofmagnification (Mils always read true). With a second focal plane scope (SFP),the reticle stays the same size while what you're looking at shrinks/growswith magnification. (Mils are only true under one magnification setting, usually the highest). So with a FFP you can range at any magnification, with a SFP, you need to range at the magnification that the mil reticle reads true, usually the highest. Check your instruction manual. Many scopes today market FFP for that very reason. From http://www.sniperforums.com/forum/optics/18213-first-focal-plane-vs-second-focal-plane.html What if you have a magnifier separate from the scope? Wouldn't you have to multiply the result by the magnification number to get the true distance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:04:32 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow. And all those folks who said learning trigonometry with radians thought it was useless. I've always wanted to shoot at long range and figure out the range to the target. Thanks OP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:11:20 AM EDT
[#36]
MOA explained
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:12:07 AM EDT
[#37]
Mills explained
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:18:16 AM EDT
[#38]
Webpage not available, too many redirects.??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:19:57 AM EDT
[#39]
The fact that people need mils and MOA explained is a great example of the failure of secondary math education.
Anyone who has taken trigonometry and some sort of classical mechanics (a first course in physics) should find this stuff intuitive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:53:32 AM EDT
[#40]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:59:46 AM EDT
[#41]
could I get a copy emailed to me also. Thank you
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 12:14:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Taggage. I'd love to have a copy, but really would rather not sign up for another website.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:15:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Taggage. I'd love to have a copy, but really would rather not sign up for another website. If you'd like a copy via email, please press the email option below and send me an email. I'll get your return email with that and I'll send them to you. Thank you. Bob |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 1:14:49 PM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:27:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Can you email me your paper? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 2:40:19 AM EDT
[#46]
Hornetdriver is a A+ guy! Thanks for sharing man!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 8:45:06 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hornetdriver is a A+ guy! Thanks for sharing man! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 8:47:36 AM EDT
[#48]
Looks like a good read, any way to get it without creating an account?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/30/2015 8:48:55 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like a good read, any way to get it without creating an account? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 7:57:00 AM EDT
[#50]
Gentlemen, I will be glad to send you the papers via email if anybody is having problems downloading the papers. Just press the IM or Email buttons below and send me your email address and I'll fwd the papers. Thank you. Bob
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
