# Optics: MOA Vs Milliradian & Mil-Dot



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

I keep seeing MOA, Mil-Dot and Milliradian bantered about interchangeably,
Even by optics retailers that should know the difference in their products.

Its even worse on the firearms sights...
Lots of false information out there.

Milliradian is NOT MOA!

Here is a link that sorts out the differences pretty well without confusing the reader...
http://dexadine.com/WhatMOA.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Lots of false information out there.


On that we agree


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

an easy way to see the difference and get a fair idea of what your rounds flight will look like 

http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

I think no Winchester has a calculator as well and Remington has one that you can have a trial on.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Calculators are fine, but its theroy until you get out and shoot repeatable groups...
Those repeatable group adjustments are what wind up on the ballistic table taped to the rifle.

Notice there is an input for 'Zero', that 'Zero' is not a given at 100 yards (or meters),
And the adjustments come from your 'Zero' point/range...

An input for optic center height over bore center is also a good idea.
I often have to work that differental out on the bench shooting groups since every manufacturer seems to have different 'Low', 'Medium' & 'High' rings with no industry standards.

The mounts/rings we used in the Marines were Marine 'Standard',
Already figured into the ballistic tables we were issued.
I find that a wild card that sometimes perplexes me!

Having 'High' cheek bones is always fun to find rings for since you want the optic centerline to line up with your Eyeball (Mk I) when your cheek welds to the stock.

Some guys (me included in some cases) use a cheek comb or stock boot to bring the cheek bone/eyeball to the center line of the optics,
But when I custom fit a rifle, its adjusted so bare stock meets cheek bone.
Bare stock doesn't fall off, get lost, mold when damp, slip around, ect...

Stocks with adjustable cheek rests come in two flavors in my experence,
1. Cheap, floppy, wobbly, loose.
2. EXPENSIVE, but they work pretty well.
Look at the price of a McMillan stock! Can't do much better than McMillan...

I've tried dozens of HS Precision stocks, a LOT of people like them, including the US Army,
But personally I don't care for them at all,
If you like HSP, they are MUCH cheaper than McMillan.

I simply mill a wood stock, insert a cheek comb that fits the shooter.
One thing about the 'Average' wood stock, with some wood, glue, rasp, sandpaper and 'Finish In A Can' you can get EXACTLY what you want for very little money...

Fitting ANY optic to the centerline of the eye will make your sight picture ultra quick,
And you will have a TON less misses!
When your cheek bone finds a home, sighting becomes so natural its not funny!

The other thing that works for some people is to rotate the butt pad right or left a little.
The idea here is to put a level on the receiver or optics.
The level will train you to keep the reticle plumb so you aren't canting the rifle/optics at an angle where the bullet goes stray...

Some of us that are VERY set in our ways,
Or guys with arthritis, torn rotator cuffs, other issues you can't get around requiring you to seat the rifle deeper in,
A rotated butt pad will correct the rifle while its seated,
Giving you a more vertical natural grip when it seats.

The other thing I often do helps with pull length.
Using the same rifle in summer, it needs to be a little longer,
In winter, with heavy layered cloths, you want a little shorter pull length.
A removable block between butt pad & stock, two screws to install or remove, helps you seat the rifle faster and helps with sight picture acquisition.
Makes the rifle feel very natural, an extension of your body.

Getting that optic at EXACTLY the centerline of my eyeball when the cheek 'Welds' to the stock,
Having the correct Pull length, and having the optic with correct eye relief so you get a full, clear sight picture in the optic makes for MUCH faster target acquisition,
And being able to hold on a target longer without shaking or weaving.

I'm no spring chicken, more lard than lean, so having that rifle fit puts me on target faster, so I don't have to hold and hunt for the target.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Notice there is an input for 'Zero', that 'Zero' is not a given at 100 yards (or meters),
> And the adjustments come from your 'Zero' point/range...


Notice that no matter what numbers you enter, the trajectory will cross the line* of sight *twice unless you "zero" at less than 25 yds


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Your "zero" not matter the distance is the farther of the 2 points where the bullet crosses or impacts the line of sight. I'm not sure what marine sniper school you went to but all my dope cards had a "zero" in meters and clicks for elevation according to range.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

That is a decent, succinct write-up on the link at the top. 
I'd never seen a piece of software with the IPHY/IPHM concept built in, but it is kind of cool. Makes me wish that IPHY was adopted way back when, rather than MOA. With metric optics advancing to mil-reticles (MD, Horace, whatever), and having mil adjustments, the old imperial standards are really starting to show their underpants.

I didn't have time to watch the videos, but recognized the guy in the thumbnails. His name is Ryan Cleckner. He's a former Ranger, and one of those rare tremendous shooters without the ego that normally accompanies the skill. I worked with him for several years, and have worked a podium with him, and he's one of the most articulate instructors you're likely to meet, so I'm sure the videos are worth the time to watch if it is a topic you want to learn about. The last I spoke with him, he's now teaching law - dude of many, varied talents.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I watched the MOA video he does a nice job all my optics are MOA and I was familiar with it but I think I may have the 4-H kid watch the video 


22 silhouettes is a great place to teach this because of the drop of a 22lr at 100 meters , is about 8 inches for standard velocity 22lr 

as for cheek risers , I like horse wrap and yoga mat/camping sleeping pad , but I stole the idea from a servicemen who used camping pad and medical wrap only difference is the horse wrap is 1/4 the price for the same thing

but for my purposes I can't modify the gun , my budget is tight and in a few hours it may need to be changed for another user 

and it sure beats card board and masking tape for comfort


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

As for 'Zero' and 'Clicks',
That was my point ENTIRELY.
'Zero' isn't just 100 yards... Or any specific range.

Pick a range, get bullet point of impact being point of aim,
The loosen and 'Zero' the turrets.
All further doping of the scope is done from 'Zero',
Then turrets are returned to 'Zero'.
Then dope for the next range target from 'Zero'.

A guy that 'Zeros' at 100 yards/meters,
Then tries to crank in enough elevation for a 600 yard/meter shot is going to find the limits of the scope adjustment,
And he's going to be well out of the optical center of the lens set, reducing probability of a first round hit.

On long range rifles, even with a top shelf optic, you often can't trust the mounts/rings.
I take the rifle out, bench rest or clamp it,
Center the reticle in the optic,
Then hone/lap the rings to get it close at 500 or 600 yards,
BEFORE I start using up the adjustment in the optical center of the lens set.

That *Should* give the guy center optic accuracy from about 200 out to over 1,000.

Guys that never shoot beyond a couple hundred don't need to go to the trouble,
They will never try to shoot a 4" group at 600 yards anyway...

Intermediate range rifles, out to about 600 with a .223,
I 'Zero' the optic tube for about 400 or 500 yards.
Easy to dial down from there, and the rifle/optic is inherently capable of dialing up if they want to.

You can dial/dope in 'Clicks' or just have a look at the turret graduations.
Higher end optics with those big stupid adjustment turrets usually have numbered graduations...
---------------

That comes back around to 'APPLICATION'...

*IF* you are a short range hunter, or plinker,
And you are NEVER going to attempt a 600 or 1,000 yard cold bore shot,
THEN WHY THE BIG TARGET/'SNIPER' ADJUSTMENT TURRETS?

Why worry about 'Clicks' at all?

The short FRICTION adjustments that hide under a button cap,
A cap you won't take off for YEARS after you get your 100 yard 'Zero' make a TON more sense!

Friction adjustments don't have 'Clicks' so you can fine tune the point of aim to less than '1/4 MOA' or 'INCH', getting you a PRECISE POA/POI, 
Not 1/4" this way or that way...
And they don't get hung on things, they aren't the point of impact when the rifle gets knocked around, ect...

Reticle with an approximate bullet drop compensation and those little streamline adjuster turrets make a LOT more sense...

Everytime I see a 'Deer Rifle' here, where you will be lucky to see in the brush for 100 yards,
Have optics on that rifle with 'Target Turrets' I'm thinking 'How long until that turret takes a hard whack and he's not even close at 100 yards'...

Also a 1,000 yard graduated optic on a .30-30 or similar round rifle makes me chuckle!

The 16X optic on a short barrel muzzle loader made me laugh out loud this year!
16x zoom, enough knobs to fly the space shuttle with, complaining his batteries were dead,
All mounted on a $5 set of rings on a 150 yard black powder rifle!
Couldn't help myself, I just lost it and could not stop laughing.

I have about the same reaction when I see a 16x or 20x 'Target' scope on a box stock Ruger 10/22 that half the length of the rifle...
Are you going to shoot the squirrel or count hairs!?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GCP, horse wrap is a good idea!
Gail McMillan told us to use 'Mole Skin' on the cheek comb, and I still do it today.
Cheap, easily replaceable, works great for when you spend long hours on the scope.

My old standby was duct tape & spare socks,
Something a Marine never travels without!
The McMillan stocks were an order of magnitude better than the wooden stocks I started with.
Adjustable cheek comb, butt pads made the rifles fit so much better,
And Gail McMillan stocks don't rattle, wobble, come loose, ect.

They used to issue leather & nylon canvas stock/cheek pads,
And in about 5 days in the jungle they started to smell like a fat guys underwear.
In a month, the rivets/stitching would rot out of the leather ones,
In two months the nylon would rot apart.
Unforgiving environment...

I don't know who made them, but the local 4H club had a canvas job with an air bladder under the cheek they could easily pump up, like those sneakers that pumped up.
I thought that was a good idea for short range .22 shooting for the kids,
There is so much variation in kids faces at that age I would have been lost for an idea.

Horse wrap is a good idea, washable, quick & durable.

I spend so much time custom fitting to one particular owner I forget there are 'Family' & pass around rifles...


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

I agree that zero can be any range you want. I don't agree that you cannot trust even the high end stuff, because why would you buy it? My 300 rum is dialed in at 300 and I go 1500 with it. If you zero is already 600 on a 308 your already out of your center 10% of your scope. I have adjusted my scope to within 5 clicks of the end and still hit my target 3 times consecutively. Application, hunting out west. More importantly because I can and have the ability. Your "gospel" can be refuted by many accurately. I would quit reading everything off sniper forums and long range forums and read a book.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

when the yoga mat and horse wrap is right and going to be kept in position for a while a little black hockey tape locks it in and leaves a fairly soft surface to put your cheek on


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> If you zero is already 600 on a 308 your already out of your center 10% of your scope. I have adjusted my scope to within 5 clicks of the end and still hit my target 3 times consecutively. Application, hunting out west. More importantly because I can and have the ability. Your "gospel" can be refuted by many accurately. I would quit reading everything off sniper forums and long range forums and read a book.


Doh! Here it comes.

He's going to tell you that anyone who doesn't use a mount with fixed-in elevation for a 600+ zero is an idiot. Of course, it's going to take 3,000 words to do it, and is going to take several tangents starting with things like:
"Propellant basics?"
and
"Now let's talk about sling swivels..." 

Of course the "dead" 90% of your optic theory is hogwash. The M2010 is outfitted with a 34mm main-tube optic with a 120MOA elevation adjustment, sitting on a 20MOA rail. The Army zeros at 100m, and considers max-effective to be 1300m, so they spend A LOT of time outside the "10%" schwacking bad guys.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Doh! Here it comes.
> 
> He's going to tell you that anyone who doesn't use a mount with fixed-in elevation for a 600+ zero is an idiot. Of course, it's going to take 3,000 words to do it, and is going to take several tangents starting with things like:
> "Propellant basics?"
> ...


You know this and I know this! I just did it in the Marines.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I've done a lot of long range shooting. I have a 1000 yrd range at my house. For me a ffp (first focal plane) mil dot scope is the way to go. In general the mils of a decent scope are spot on. primary arms has some great affordable scopes. And there are some great free apps that calculate everything right there on the spot.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I agree that zero can be any range you want. ]
> 
> *I don't agree that you cannot trust even the high end stuff, because why would you buy it?*


Well, that's NOT what I said.
I said EVEN WITH high end optics, something that has a lens set that is optically centered in the tube,
*YOU CAN'T TRUST THE MOUNTS/RINGS MANY TIMES*

If you want to pay $200 or $300 for a matched set of mount/rings with MOA built in so you don't have to crank on the optic knobs a bunch,
Then be my guest...

What I usually see is $20 mounts/rings and $100 optics.
Even when someone shows up with a Leupold or the like, they still have cheap mounts/rings that aren't even close to centered...



> My 300 rum is dialed in at 300 and I go 1500 with it.
> If you zero is already 600 on a 308 your already out of your center 10% of your scope.


Yup, that's what I'm talking about.
Either get a mount with MOA built in so you don't have to crank on the optics a ton,
Or lap the ring set you have until you have it pretty well zeroed in before you start cranking on the adjustments, so you don't get out of the optical centers of the lens sets.

I like to have the optic pretty well centered at my 'Zero', so I have adjustment both shorter and longer ranges, 
Longer ranges take a lot more adjustment, so I start a little long in the first place with the MOUNT MOA, then I'm just fine tuning for 'Zero'/Point Of Impact.
That leaves me with most of my adjustment for much longer shots that take a LOT of adjustment.



> I have adjusted my scope to within 5 clicks of the end and still hit my target 3 times consecutively.
> Application, hunting out west. More importantly because I can and have the ability. Your "gospel" can be refuted by many accurately.


A high quality optic will allow you to do that,
Bet a $1,000 cash you can't do that with a 'BSA' or some other 'China' optic.

The point should have been, 
Why are getting to the point you are within 5 clicks of your end of adjustment?
A mount with MOA built in (or lapped in) will give you more adjustment on the big end, without getting into the extreme edges of what the optic will do.



> I would quit reading everything off sniper forums and long range forums and read a book.


Yeah,
You can keep those comments to yourself.
The only 'Sniper' manuals I have are Marine Corps issued.
What I'm trying to impart is first hand long range competition and hunting know how...

Actual 'Snipers' are military trained, know exactly what they are doing, and don't need any coaching from someone that's been retired for 20+ years...

It's the 'Common Joe' that is often fuzzy on things, haven't quite worked through all the details...
You know, like why people selling high end mount/ring sets list them in Zero MOA, 10 MOA, 20 MOA, 30 MOA, Ect.
The 'Average Joe' doesn't understand building MOA into the mount to keep the optics centered and saving his adjustment for range changes...

The 'Average Joe' buys flat mounts (Zero MOA) then burns up his adjustment trying to reach out to the limits of the adjustment...
That is providing 'Average Joe' ever tries to reach beyond 300 yards or so....


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Withdrawing from the argument.
Not interested in arguing.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

JeepHammer said:


> *Actually, that's an absolute & outright lie...
> 
> First Off,
> 120 MOA in the optic, plus 20 MOA in the mount = 140 MOA total.
> ...


Easy there. Slow your roll, homes', before you suffocate yourself on your own CO2.

The M2010 is a 24" 300WM. The M24 is no longer supported by TACOM, and the Army has full-fleeted them into M2010s. Ballistic charts for the Mk248 Mod1 attached, as well as a drop comparison between Mk 248 Mod1, Mod0, and M118LR.

The hard chart I had handy only went to 1200m, but you can see that, with a 100m zero, Mod 1 requires 47.3 MOA (14 mils) elevation. The comparative chart shows the Mod 1 having about 650 in. of drop at 1300, so about 50 minutes - well within the allowable adjustment of the optic. Assuming perfect optical/platform alignment, there is 60moa north and south of the standard, with 20moa baked back into the cake from the rail. With a 100m zero, you're good with just the knob at 1300.

Doubt it? Just ask, well, me. I've done it. 100m zero, dial in the dope, sight on 1300m target, pull trigger, let rifle settle, watch POA become POI a moment later. 

And, just to make your skin REALLY crawl, the H58 reticle has another 6 or 7 mils of registration marks below the standard, when at 20x, just gassing you _right out to the edge of your optical envelope_, WAYYYYYY past your beloved 10%-center.

Care to call me a liar again, bro-ham?


You really need to start thinking twice before posting these "I'm bout ta church up the yokels on booksticks" threads. I don't recall anyone here confusing MOA and mils, but value could still be found in the thread being here, I suppose, until you decide to muck it all up with your partial-comprehension. Then it just ends up making you look stupid.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

In closing:



JeepHammer said:


> *
> 
> Y"OU CAN'T FIX STUPID, NOT EVEN WITH DUCT TAPE" -- Larry The Cable Guy.*


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

WOW! Just WOW!


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

You are REALLY struggling with this...

First off, the range is in METERS, you laid that down.
2,950 FPS is 899 METERS Per Second...

2,950 METERS per second comes up to around 9,678 Feet per second.
Can't think of one single rifle round that travels at 9,678 FPS...

I guess if I screwed with the speed like that, I could get a chart to read about anything...


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

1moa at 1300=13" 323moa at 1300=4199 inches total which is a touch shy of 350 feet. I think you are confused by MOA.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

FYI- Swarovski ain't cheap or low end. BSA actually has a lifetime warranty now and they are still cheap. Never ran a 15$ set of rings. I put the best on mine because I am capable of it. Once again your gospel ain't all there.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Brother, we're talking about a SOCOM type-classified cartridge, used in a type-classified Army rifle. This is not theoretical hand-load data. This is actual on-rifle data published by Crane. 

And your "super-rare version of the M24 in .338LM" is the "M24A3" never adopted by the Army. That's just Remington's name for it. The Army doesn't have a .338, outside of the skunk-works stuff that units like CAG have, and are only just now looking at competing one. 

...and they DO have ranges to shoot them on. They just have to overlay the safety cone on a crew-served/artillery range, which they do. 

So, instead of just admitting you were wrong about a 100m zero with in-optic 1300m dope, you decide to take another hard right turn. 

It's like you have an orangutan driving your car, and you're just on screen for all of our amusement.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> FYI- Swarovski ain't cheap or low end. BSA actually has a lifetime warranty now and they are still cheap. Never ran a 15$ set of rings. I put the best on mine because I am capable of it. Once again your gospel ain't all there.


...and I took part in a class in Columbia with dudes running Vortex scopes, and they were rocking steel at 1200m, first shot, w/ published dope off 100m-zeros. 

Love the dudes at Leupold like brothers, but they done lost their patent on "decent optics". 

Posters on here have proven, time and time again, that you don't have to spend a million dollars to build a rifle that is minute-of-practical. 
Would somebody forward that memo to ol' Jeep?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

I agree.i have had great luck with Burris and Redfield as well. Have not tried vortex yet but I am planning on it.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)




----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)




----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Jeeper, I reckon your theories got some misprints. FYI that's for your beloved M24


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

This is the 500 yrd mark of my range. This gun here is one of the best out of the box long range guns right now for the money. It's a ruger precision 6.5 creedmore. Toped with a primary arms 4- 14x42 ffp. The 6.5 has a bc over 600 with factory hunting ammo. Can achieve better with match ammo. At 500 yards for the first time shooting on a windy day was 2.7 inches 5 shot. Not even broke in yet. Drop rate was 28 inches. The mils worked perfectly.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

All the 6.5s are some dang fine rounds. I'm particularly fond of the .264 win. I guess Nosler replaced it with the 26 Nosler. Both amazing rounds and the 6.5 is one of those friction and gravity defying little buggers, not literally but y'all comprehend.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> All the 6.5s are some dang fine rounds. I'm particularly fond of the .264 win. I guess Nosler replaced it with the 26 Nosler. Both amazing rounds and the 6.5 is one of those friction and gravity defying little buggers, not literally but y'all comprehend.


I agree. I'm really eyeing a 6.5x55 swed right now. It's a great price for a fine shooting gun. Just gotta wait fir the tax return. The bc on the 6.5 is amazing. Negates alot of issues. I was thinking of a 7mm variant as the bc is even higher with this new ammo copper creek is putting out. But I want to keep recoil and ammo cost down.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

...and now comes our lecture on how anybody that throws 6.5mm bullets are idiots because the PWS said so. 

...or, worse, we'll get a 3-post dissertation on 6.5mm sectional densities, because we're all all holding our breath to know, and Jeep needs to show us that HE does know before he turns into a pumpkin. 

Still ain't going to to admit he was wrong...about the revolver balls, or the 1300m dope, or the M24, or AR receiver finishes, or bullet trajectory relative to line of sight, or...

There's probably somebody that hangs out in his garage and feeds his image that he knows what he's talking about. 

Somebody should find that guy and see if he needs help...or medication...or a sense of self-worth.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

If you look at my 2 pictures I proved his "manual" wrong by showing the actual manual even though it is the army's.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> If you look at my 2 pictures I proved his "manual" wrong by showing the actual manual even though it is the army's.


Here is what someone else had to say:



> Krieger barrels put an ad in Precision Shooting Magazine saying that with one of their barrels, Bart Bobbitt had shot a
> 
> *3.325" 20 shot group at 800 yards with a 308*.
> 
> ...





> Bart Bobbitt:
> US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
> Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
> NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
> NRA Smallbore Prone Master


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here is what someone else had to say:


I never said there were not other ways to do it. I was simply showing the manual that the army uses/used. I do not think the 20 round string at 800 was the zeroing process but maybe I wasn't there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I never said there were not other ways to do it. I was simply showing the manual that the army uses/used. I do not think the 20 round string at 800 was the zeroing process but maybe I wasn't there.


He shot that just for the group. 
As far as I know the different branches all use the same Sniper schools and instructors for much of the training even if the weapons aren't identical.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

They all have the same concepts and principles.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He shot that just for the group.
> As far as I know the different branches all use the same Sniper schools and instructors for much of the training even if the weapons aren't identical.


The Army and Marines have pretty vastly different schools. They're even different in scope and length. Even the Army SF school is its own beast.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

JeepHammer said:


> Withdrawing from the argument.
> Not interested in arguing.


Apparently you're also not interested in admitting you were wrong, even after hard, published, commonly available data proved you were wrong.

If your interest was solely in "withdrawing from the argument", you wouldn't have to delete your entire post; a post in which you said the M24 had a 1:10" twist, that the Army had "super scarce M24s in .338", but didn't have ranges to shoot them on, and that the M24 had drop at 1300m of 322 minutes off a 100m zero. 

M118LR has a PUBLISHED drop of 966 inches at 1300m (~74 minutes), but you were claiming it was 348 ft (322 minutes).

You start a thread about how you're so frustrated with people confusing MOA and MILS, and then went on to demonstrate that you can't even grasp the difference between inches and feet. Having your post there was good for comedy relief, if nothing else. But you had to go and delete it to save face. 

I kinda wish I had quoted your entire post, so it wasn't lost to anyone who wanted to read it and see if you really had a clue what you were talking about.

But, at least we still have this:



JeepHammer said:


> You are REALLY struggling with this...
> 
> First off, the range is in METERS, you laid that down.
> 2,950 FPS is 899 METERS Per Second...
> ...


Someone posts an Army ballistic chart proving you WRONG (so very, very wrong), and to try to wiggle out of it, you post this?

Your "argument" was to convert FPS to MPS, then change the unit of measure on the FPS figure to MPS, and convert that back to FPS to create a ridiculous velocity figure. 

What is that?!?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

In a stroke of dumb luck, I happened to find a browser window still open that had the post calling me a liar, prior to the edit to save face, preserved in all its hilarity.

I especially like the part suggesting that if I ran his figures through the ballistic calculator posted in this thread, I would find the actual data "very close to what (he) stated, since (he) know(s) what (he's) talking about..."

So, I did. 
I put a 168 Hornady factory load (since it was Hornady&#8217;s calculator) into that calculator, and it came up with an 82 MOA come-up to 1300m with a 100m zero. That&#8217;s a 168gr, 0.475BC, 2700fps factory load that has less favorable ballistics than the M24&#8217;s standard M118LR (175gr, 0.495BC, 2650fps).

Just so I&#8217;m sure, is there much difference between 82 and 332 minutes @ 1300m?

What?!? 270 feet, you say?!?!

Then, by his own words, Jeep &#8220;doesn&#8217;t know what he&#8217;s talking about&#8221;.

I wonder if he&#8217;ll ever apologize for calling me a liar?



JeepHammer said:


> GunMonkeyIntl said:
> 
> 
> > Doh! Here it comes.
> ...


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

I guess he picked up a book and saw he was way wrong. A real man would admit being wrong!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Yeah, that's the thing about not calling people who disagree with you idiots and liars...

...when you realize you're wrong, you just have to say "my bad, I was wrong on that", and all you'll usually get as a response is "no worries, happens to all of us."

But when you're wrong A LOT, and, still, you walk around blowing hard, talking down to people, and calling them morons, it costs you a little more face to admit you were wrong. 

Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter-accusations.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Just so you know, a certain know-it-all in this thread accused me of fixing up a civilian jeep and then calling it an Army jeep. He was 100% incorrect. After I pointed out with photos and data proving my jeep was a retired military jeep, did he admit he was wrong? Of course, not. I have very little respect for anything he posts.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Was that on a thread, Cabin, or in PM?
I'd like to read the thread and see the pics.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Was that on a thread, Cabin, or in PM?
> I'd like to read the thread and see the pics.


http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/co...op-talk/545519-securing-jeep-car-trailer.html


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

That's a nice rig, and I appreciate what you use it for (that first pic is one to frame and hold on to).

I'm glad there wasn't another page of the discussion, though. When he "apologized" with this, my jaw went slack - when *YOU* turned it into an argument?!?!. 
Dude's internal wiring is definitely 'off'.



JeepHammer said:


> Now all you need are the antenna mounts, black out light switch, lift rings at the wheels, ect. to restore it.
> 
> Funny, you didn't show any of this when the discussion started and you turned it into an argument...


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yup yup that's the jeep hammer I know, enough people prove him wrong and he pops smoke and never admits he is wrong!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

I have a couple buddies who worked in the PWS around the time when (I'm guessing) he would have been there, and I described Jeep's posts to them. 
Both were immediately sure who they thought it was. 

The first's reaction, when he stopped laughing, was "Bro, I bet you a case of beer that's Xxxx Xxxxx". 

The second's response was "Nope. Not taking that bet."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

I've seen this behavior on at least 3 different forums


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

At the end of the day, y'all are pretty much past me. I'm fine with the old standard Dual-X crosshair, in medium caliber cartridges. If the wind ain't giving me fits, on a decent day from a good rest with a good rifle, I can hit a bowling pin around 75% of the time.

That's about all I need, for what I do.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Jolly said:


> At the end of the day, y'all are pretty much past me. I'm fine with the old standard Dual-X crosshair, in medium caliber cartridges. If the wind ain't giving me fits, on a decent day from a good rest with a good rifle, I can hit a bowling pin around 75% of the time.
> 
> That's about all I need, for what I do.


Most no one here cares. Some people like fishing or drinking and some like shooting excessively. No worries


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

Nope, punched in the trajectory, calnculator reset to defaults between windows on this phone, got results based on defaults,

Now, Wait for it...
* I POSTED WRONG RESULTS.*

Now, jump on that, fill up two or three pages with 'I told you so!'
Get it out of your systems...


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> In a stroke of dumb luck, I happened to find a browser window still open that had the post calling me a liar, prior to the edit to save face, preserved in all its hilarity.


Dumb luck my ass, you are following me on every post saving anything posted...
I assume its because you have noting else to do,
Or you are collecting tips/tricks to try and actually hot something farther than your toes...



> Then, by his own words, Jeep âdoesnât know what heâs talking about."





> I wonder if heâll ever apologize for calling me a liar?


Sure I will,
Since you insist on following every post I make, saving them for you pleasure,
AND insisting everything posted is all from 'Web Sites',
Then I give you a heart felt and sincere apology right after you prove your convictions that I'm capable of nothing...

Just stand in front of my 600 yard target for about 1 minute and I'll apologize.
If you are right, you would be perfectly safe and I'll apologize.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Jeep. Seriously?
I posted a fact about the current Army sniper rifle, and you called me a liar. I posted published data to prove what I said was true, and asked if you'd apologize for calling me a liar. 
...and your response is to call me a liar again?
What is your malfunction?

I don't have everything you post "saved". There is no way "save" your forum posts. When you delete a post to *save face*, it is gone. It just happened that, at one point, I had looked at this thread on my phone, and that page was still loaded there - from before you deleted the post to *save face*. 

I don't follow everything you post. In fact, when Cabin Fever posted on this thread about how you'd similarly showed your rump in his thread, I had to ask him where it was. I had no idea you'd put on the same display elsewhere. For the record; since you're interested in *saving face* you probably ought to go gut that thread as well - that one REALLY made you look dumb.

And I never accused you of not being able to hit a 600m target. Check my posts. I never said anything even remotely like that. So there is no way that you proving you can hit a 600m target should have anything to do with apologizing for calling me a liar (now twice). I proved that what I said was correct, with data, for which you called me a liar, and, if you're a man, you will apologize.


And as far as hounding you about being WRONG about your M24 1300m dope, we here all understand errors. They happen. But you were using the figures you posted as a way to "prove" that you knew what you were talking about, and to "prove" that I was a liar. If you forgot the context of your own post, the one you deleted to *save face*, it's posted right above here. 

*...you were using the figures you posted as a way to "prove" that you knew what you were talking about, and to "prove" that I was a liar...*

And you weren't wrong by a little bit. You were wrong by A LOT. You were wrong by so much that, had your "target" been standing in front of a 25 story luxury hotel, *you would have missed the hotel.* Your bullet would have flown 20 ft. over top of the 25 story hotel's roof. 

That is not an error in margin. That is an error in comprehension.
Remember when you lectured us with this:


JeepHammer said:


> Calculators are fine, but its theroy until you get out and shoot repeatable groups...
> Those repeatable group adjustments are what wind up on the ballistic table taped to the rifle.


Someone who spent 20 years shooting long-range competition, and had a basic experience level with long-range shooting, *let alone enough expertise to come here and lecture US on long-range shooting*, and had data-actual ballistic tables taped to the stocks of their rifles, would have looked at that 322 MOA figure the calculator spit out and said "whoa, that's not right".

But, let's forget about you being wrong on your M24 data, your M24A3, the Army's lack of .338 ranges, the M24s twist rate, the M24s optic rail, the difference between a CJ5 and M38A1, and all the other hockey you pitch around here, and focus on one thing:

I posted a statement about Army SOP for their current sniper rifle, and you called me a liar. I posted the drop tables to prove that they do it.

A man would apologize and admit he was wrong.

Simple as that. Where you at, Jeep?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Some apology! Here stand in front of my target and then I'll apologize! Sounds more like a threat than an apology.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

I almost forgot the thread about ball size in BP revolvers. Called uberti, Colt, traditions, ect...wrong for their published manuals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sure I will,
> Since you insist on f*ollowing every post I make, saving them for you pleasure*,
> AND insisting everything posted is all from 'Web Sites',
> Then I give you a heart felt and sincere apology right after you prove your convictions that I'm capable of nothing...


They don't have to be saved. Much of the internet is "forever".
I don't think everything you post is "from websites" though
I think you make some of it up as you go along.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

That's it?
That's all you can come up with?
You can fill up at least 3 more pages of posts...
Your intent was to disrupt anything posted, you can do better than this!

And just for the lying record,
I'm no fan of the M24 SWS.
Just another lie being pumped out to disrupt the thread.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

For crying out loud! Man up admit you were wrong and apologize. If you are what you say you are, you know it's the right thing. Maybe your red card got lost!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> That's it?
> That's all you can come up with?
> You can fill up at least 3 more pages of posts...
> Your intent was to disrupt anything posted, you can do better than this!
> ...


You keep saying that, but still all the data *shown* contradicts most of what you claim. 

You've had plenty of chances to show some proof or admit you got it wrong, and you still just resort to name calling

You've lost all your credibility


----------

