My new scope...Apex Tactical 6-25x50 GMIR

**Tomcat088** · May 5th, 2010, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by arrrrgh15

I would say your ranging pretty good. less than a percent off at 700 yards.

I agree with you R15, that's pretty good ranging. Within 5 yards at 715 is more than acceptable, and much better than average. I can understand how you might do better sometimes ReconLdr, but that's pretty dang good. I wouldn't be disappointed with that accuracy of milling. Keep in mind just slight variations in field conditions like light, slight angle, target/background contrast and colors all effect your reading on top of just being able to hold that steady, pick exactly how many mils, etc.

ReconLdr, you do know there's a formula for target height in inches that comes up with the range in yards, without having to do the conversion to height in yards, right? You're converting the height to yards, then using the height in yards formula. You can use the height in inches formula and it's one less thing to divide by. [Height of Target (Inches) * 27.778] / Image Size(mils)] = Distance to Target(Yards). The only difference is you just multiply by 27.778 and divide by the mils, as opposed to having to divide by 36, multiply by 1,000 and then divide by mils. Did you just not like having to remember 27.778? I know lots of peopl easily remember how to convert to yards, and can remember 1,000. I was just curious, and wanted to throw that formula out there in case you weren't aware of it, and for others that might see the thread and want to know how to mil. Hope that helps, and I'd say you did a pretty good job milling.

**ReconLdr** · May 5th, 2010, 10:35 PM

Tomcat and R15, thanks for the compliments/encouragement.

Since all of my targets were 19.5 inches I really didn't do all that math... I knew that 19.5/36*1000 would always be 541.67. So all I had to do was divide that figure by the mil dots on my scope. (this is the formula recommended in the owners manual)

I have been doing Reconnaissance in the military since 1988 (wow I must be old) and used to be really good (+/- 5m) with targets much further out. I have done Call for Fire against armored vehicles and got 1st round fire for effect. (155mm HE vs BRDM2 really is an unfair fight) I guess I was expecting a smaller margin of error since none of the targets were more than 720 yds out.

**Tomcat088** · May 5th, 2010, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by ReconLdr

Tomcat and R15, thanks for the compliments/encouragement.

Since all of my targets were 19.5 inches I really didn't do all that math... I knew that 19.5/36*1000 would always be 541.67. So all I had to do was divide that figure by the mil dots on my scope. (this is the formula recommended in the owners manual)

I have been doing Reconnaissance in the military since 1988 (wow I must be old) and used to be really good (+/- 5m) with targets much further out. I have done Call for Fire against armored vehicles and got 1st round fire for effect. (155mm HE vs BRDM2 really is an unfair fight) I guess I was expecting a smaller margin of error since none of the targets were more than 720 yds out.

That was a good shortcut you were using, and probably what I would have been doing too, lol. As long as the target is the same size, it works well.

I figured that you had quite a bit of practice from your name, and I knew your military experience. +/- 5 yards at further distances is really exceptional, and not something that most pepole can do. If you do it often and have a good eye, you can. I usually mil much better than most people as well, but when I'm not doing as often, I get a little rusty. The average person shooting a .308 can't mil accurate enough past 800 yards to use it as an effective range estimater. Your margin of error is pretty small though, so don't get discouraged. I have no doubt that you can do better though, and I'm sure as you keep doing it more, you'll cut that down.

I would also say that your accurate is related at least partially to reticle. I haven't looked through the ghost mil's your using yet, but they don't look like the easiest thing to mil with either. They're set up with the half mil dot like a Gen II mil-dot, but they're such small points, I would think it would be a little more difficult to mil with. Even using the outside of the dot as your subtension, the most accurate measurement you can get is .375. Because the dot is .25 mils, half that, and it's .125 from the edge of the circle to the half mil dot, so .375 mil. You could half that distance effectively with your eye to .1875, or roughly .19 mils. I still think it might be hard to resolve the halfway point between the edge of that circle and the very small half mil reference dot.

Using a standard Gen II mil-dot the dots are .2 mils, so resolution using only one halfway point one is able to resolve to .2 mils. It's actually not quite as good as your ghost mil, but pretty much the same. I would prefer the Gen II mil-dot over the ghost mil though, because I believe it would be easier for ME to use the line and dot as a reference.

Now let's compare both of those numbers to a TMR reticle. It has the mil and half-mil hashes, but at the last mil of the reticle on each part, it has .2 mil gradients. Since you have a hash ever .2 mil's, using the halfway method, it's quite easy to get down to .1 mil accuracy. So technically, if you are milling for range, you could probably cut your margin of error in half.

It's obvious that people that are good at milling can section up distance between mils into quarters. They take the half, and find the halfway point between that. That's the only way that some of us (yourself included) can come up with such small margins of error, that would appear to be much lower than what the reticle is capable of. So even with the ghost mils, you can probably get pretty close to .1 mil resolution. If you can "half the half" on a TMR reticle though, you'd be accurate to around .05 mils. Again, it still cuts your margin of error in half. You are familiar with milling, and have had to do it "for real", so you know very well how much even .1 mil can make at longer ranges. Here's both of those reticles with subtensions to help others watching this thread know what I'm talking about.

Gen II mil-dot

TMR reticle (Don't pay attention to the yardages, look at how many marks)

Either way, I'm not trying to sell one reticle over another. What I'm trying to say is that part of your accuracy is related to what reticle you're using. Because while you're very good at measuring distance with your eyes, the reticle only helps you so much. Were you using a different reticle when you were calling in fire with greater accuracy at further distances? You also may have been doing it so often, that you were just that good at it. Either way, just some things to think about. Don't sell yourself short, that's a hell of a good job with that reticle. I don't know if I could have as good of accuracy with your particular reticle.

**ReconLdr** · May 5th, 2010, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Tomcat088

That was a good shortcut you were using, and probably what I would have been doing too, lol. As long as the target is the same size, it works well.

I figured that you had quite a bit of practice from your name, and I knew your military experience. +/- 5 yards at further distances is really exceptional, and not something that most pepole can do. If you do it often and have a good eye, you can. I usually mil much better than most people as well, but when I'm not doing as often, I get a little rusty. The average person shooting a .308 can't mil accurate enough past 800 yards to use it as an effective range estimater. Your margin of error is pretty small though, so don't get discouraged. I have no doubt that you can do better though, and I'm sure as you keep doing it more, you'll cut that down.

I would also say that your accurate is related at least partially to reticle. I haven't looked through the ghost mil's your using yet, but they don't look like the easiest thing to mil with either. They're set up with the half mil dot like a Gen II mil-dot, but they're such small points, I would think it would be a little more difficult to mil with. Even using the outside of the dot as your subtension, the most accurate measurement you can get is .375. Because the dot is .25 mils, half that, and it's .125 from the edge of the circle to the half mil dot, so .375 mil. You could half that distance effectively with your eye to .1875, or roughly .19 mils. I still think it might be hard to resolve the halfway point between the edge of that circle and the very small half mil reference dot.

Using a standard Gen II mil-dot the dots are .2 mils, so resolution using only one halfway point one is able to resolve to .2 mils. It's actually not quite as good as your ghost mil, but pretty much the same. I would prefer the Gen II mil-dot over the ghost mil though, because I believe it would be easier for ME to use the line and dot as a reference.

Now let's compare both of those numbers to a TMR reticle. It has the mil and half-mil hashes, but at the last mil of the reticle on each part, it has .2 mil gradients. Since you have a hash ever .2 mil's, using the halfway method, it's quite easy to get down to .1 mil accuracy. So technically, if you are milling for range, you could probably cut your margin of error in half.

It's obvious that people that are good at milling can section up distance between mils into quarters. They take the half, and find the halfway point between that. That's the only way that some of us (yourself included) can come up with such small margins of error, that would appear to be much lower than what the reticle is capable of. So even with the ghost mils, you can probably get pretty close to .1 mil resolution. If you can "half the half" on a TMR reticle though, you'd be accurate to around .05 mils. Again, it still cuts your margin of error in half. You are familiar with milling, and have had to do it "for real", so you know very well how much even .1 mil can make at longer ranges. Here's both of those reticles with subtensions to help others watching this thread know what I'm talking about.

Gen II mil-dot

TMR reticle (Don't pay attention to the yardages, look at how many marks)

Either way, I'm not trying to sell one reticle over another. What I'm trying to say is that part of your accuracy is related to what reticle you're using. Because while you're very good at measuring distance with your eyes, the reticle only helps you so much. Were you using a different reticle when you were calling in fire with greater accuracy at further distances? You also may have been doing it so often, that you were just that good at it. Either way, just some things to think about. Don't sell yourself short, that's a hell of a good job with that reticle. I don't know if I could have as good of accuracy with your particular reticle.

I was using USGI M22 Binos and a Map/Compass. I used a combination of the reticle and terrain association to determine distance/target location. I also used vehicle mounted optics (very stable) when ever possible.

I am not a school trained sniper so I have to admit, it took a little practice and use of a sand sock to stabilize the rifle enough for accurate milling. (I also kept the caffeine to a minimum that day).

I really like the ghost mil reticle for shooting, but would probably choose binos or a spotting scope for ranging if available. In certain light conditions the ghost dots were hard to make out. I really had to focus to see the dots with the sun to my back.

All in all, I am still glad I got this scope. I am planning to do some further testing this weekend. I will be sure to post the results.

**arrrrgh15** · May 6th, 2010, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by ReconLdr

I was using USGI M22 Binos and a Map/Compass. I used a combination of the reticle and terrain association to determine distance/target location. I also used vehicle mounted optics (very stable) when ever possible.

I am not a school trained sniper so I have to admit, it took a little practice and use of a sand sock to stabilize the rifle enough for accurate milling. (I also kept the caffeine to a minimum that day).

I really like the ghost mil reticle for shooting, but would probably choose binos or a spotting scope for ranging if available. In certain light conditions the ghost dots were hard to make out. I really had to focus to see the dots with the sun to my back.

All in all, I am still glad I got this scope. I am planning to do some further testing this weekend. I will be sure to post the results.

Multiple methods yield better results. I alway try to have a map handy or make a range card. If you have common target sizes, the quick method is to already have the target size multiplied out, so all you need to do is divide by mills. Exactly the way you did it.

The TMR reticle is great in the leupold spotter. I rarely use the mildot reticle of the scope for range estimation anymore. Mostly just holdovers. I'll see if I can get some "in the field" photos this weekend of some steel targets. Maybe we could post them up in Tomcats thread as a quiz.

Scouts Out!

**ReconLdr** · May 8th, 2010, 06:19 PM

UPDATE:

I finally got out and did some shooting at mid range today. (farmers working in the field) As it turns out, I got to do a whole lot of training as well. I considered not shooting because of the wind but, I don't always have the fields available for shooting.

Weather: (from weather.com at the time of this post)
Right Now

Mostly Cloudy / Windy
65° F
Feels Like: 65° F
Wind: From W at 31mph gusting to 45mph
Details

Set up:

I tried to drive the targets from my earlier post into the ground and shoot at them. The wind picked them up and blew them all over the place so I had to get creative. I painted some GI ammo cans white for contrast and shot them up.

I used my GPS to drop the targets at 100yd intervals and stapled some targets to a 1x12 and bolted it to a post at 400 yds.

I also put 2 2.5" pasters on a 2x4 40" center to center and drove that into the ground at 100 yds.

I went back to the firing point and watched the wind for a while. I determined that I had a 1/4 value wind from 0 to 200 yds and 3/4 value from 200 on.

The shooting:

1) I shot the 100 yd target to verify my 100 yd zero for range then started dialing in the wind. Once I was confident I could stay with in MOA. (in this case Minute of Ammo Can)

2) I engaged the targets between 100 and 300 dialing the range and wind each time. ( to verify the scope tracked and returned to zero)

3) I applied 40 MOA elevation to my 100yd zero, aimed at the lower paster on the 2x4 and hit 39.5" inches above it in the paster. (to verify the scope has enough elevation to reach 1000 yds)

4) I returned the scope to the 100 yd zero and aimed at the lower paster on the 2x4 and POA=POI. (to verify the scope would return to zero after doping for long range shots... my old scope wouldn't return to zero if I doped out passed 600)

5) I dialed in the range/wind for 400 yds and shot for group size. (See picture)

6) I removed the 400 yd target and laid it on its side at 300 yds and shot for group size. (See Picture)

The Verdict:

This scope performed well for me to date. It tracked consistently through more than 30 dope changes and has enough adjustment to get me to 1000yds. (even though I am not quite to that skill level yet)

I am pleased with my purchase and would buy another Apex Tactical scope if/when I build another LR rifle.

Note: All of todays testing/shooting was done with M118LR