David Hancock Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 When setting zero and setting up Strelok, do you chaps favour metres or imperial. I'm getting my pants in a twist over this for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akeld Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Imperial, as that is what my range finder and scope are, if I had a metric scope then I'd have the same range finder and set strelok accordingly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCetrizine Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Metric because that's how my brain works and how my club's range was built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhhudson Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 My scope is metric 1cm click @100m. Which is equal to 1/3MOA click, but i use imperial,, dont know why as at work i use metric,, i guess it makes things sound further away in yards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus otter Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Imperial, because Napoleon and Hitler failed to impose their finger-counting system on us, and l don't see why this generation should surrender to some cheap suits in Brussels. maximus otter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackb Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 metric , slowly going over to all metric , ten basing is easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarovski1 Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 I am easy.will use either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22lrman Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Imperial, as that is what my range finder and scope are, if I had a metric scope then I'd have the same range finder and set strelok accordingly .... what he says It makes things so much easier. I also dislike scopes with MOA turrets and MIL reticles, and vice versa. Defeats the a benefit of having reticle graduations if they dont match the turret clicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 A rose by any other name..... Of course,"One metre" has an elegance and simplicity that "39.37 inches approximately" simply can't aspire to, despite it's clumsy adoption of decimals. "one chain equals twenty two yards" is ok,but then the imperialists have given up 'chains' and such numerical incongruency,except for measuring cricket floors. Maximus,minimus...Oedipus,Schmoedipus-what does it matter so long as your moma likes her figure? gbal IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldie Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 Imperial. I tried a metric scope, and simply couldn't get on with it. I was forever over correcting. Plus MIL is too coarse for my liking. Either works....dont make the mistake of mixing them.....that doesn't. I don't like metric in any shape or form personally. I work in Imperial as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackb Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 What age are you Dave ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 Metric and mils for me despite being in my late 50's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 I can work in both, being of that age,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brillo Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 As far as shooting is concerned I prefer imperial. The contradiction for me is, despite working in metric for more years than I care to admit, I can still visualise inches (and fractions), feet, yards and one mile and even one acre, but not so with metric. If someone said something measured 200mm I wouldn't be able to see it in my mind but call it 8" and I see it immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 Doesn't a metric scope adjust 10mm ? Imperial is 1/4" which is about 6mm ? As Dave says its too course for precision stuff ( 10mm / 100mm @1000 ) , 1/8th even finer but not as much total elevation I think in the same scope ? Heads going hazey now lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 it depends on what the graduations are though 1 mil is more than 1moa -but as you say,1/4 inch per click is generally too course for Target Shooters,who prefer 1/8 inch per click,but these are both imperial. 1 mil is courser than .1 mil,both being metric. There is no principled reason why an imperial scope could not be calibrated in 1/10" per click,it's just convention that they are not..just as rulers have several sizes of inch division (typically in thirty seconds of an inch- an eight being four thirty seconds) to suit particular precision needs in measurement,though it could just as well be in tenths of an inch...and ditto metric rulers,though they will all be multiples of ten,as in ten millimetres is one centimetre,a hundred cms is one metre. I don't think any of this affects the actual range of adjustment....an inch,after all,is 2.54 cms or 25.4 mms-"neither more,nor less"....even for Alice in Wonderland,and the fuzzy Hatter crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dogge Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 Imperial, because Napoleon and Hitler failed to impose their finger-counting system on us, and l don't see why this generation should surrender to some cheap suits in Brussels. But you can count on your fingers in sexagesimal just fine, which may be how the Sumerians ended up with the number system. I have a light preference for metric, it is far more logical and practical, but use whatever unit is most convenient at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldie Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 What age are you Dave ? 50 in January. I was taught in both at primary school, even though decimalisation had just happened. I simply cannot visualise in metric, apart from 30cms...ie a 12" ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 I was coming up for 17 when the UK swapped over and it just seemed to click, I can happily swap from imperial to metric and back, can gauge distance in metres and yards and wind in mph and m/sec. Living with a foreigner helps as she was taught wind speed in m/sec, plus slow walking speed is around 1m/sec so perfect with mils for gauging lead on moving targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tackb Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 50 in January. I was taught in both at primary school, even though decimalisation had just happened. I simply cannot visualise in metric, apart from 30cms...ie a 12" ruler. I'm 45 and learnt both , I find working in metric easier but like you visualise in imperial ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 In a sense you can have your cake and eat it with 0.05 milrad (angular measurement) turrets ...can be thought of as 0.5cm @ 100m or 1/6 moa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 Daavid,yes that's a nice pragmatic translation for anyone caught with the unfamiliar common scope choices. The Dogge's sexagesimal -based on 60-is something the Summarian's passed on to to the Babylonians,but it not at all a sexagesimal transmitted disease-the Babylonians were fine builders (we have to assume the Hanging Gardens were intentional!) and the system is still used in trigonometry and navigation (latitude and longitude). That fits,because the sexagessimal system is another angular based one (like mil and moa), with degrees minutes and seconds (60). One degree is 1/360 th of the full circle;and divides into 60 minutes and each minute into 60 seconds. So,in sexy speak, 5 22' 3" is 5+ 22/60 + 3/360 ie 5+.37+ .008 which adds to 5.378 I can't quite get my head around how this is done with fingers,though-prefer digits. But if you are not ambiwhateverous with mils and moas,be grateful we don't import scopes from the above regions,calibrated to yet another base. :-) gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 'Big sigh'...Although Mils are not metric and never have been. I find that all this difficulty simply melts away, once you start thinking in angles instead of measurements accross the face of the target. It really doesn't matter what measure you use for the range to the target - the angles are always the same angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 'Big sigh'...Although Mils are not metric and never have been. I find that all this difficulty simply melts away, once you start thinking in angles instead of measurements accross the face of the target. It really doesn't matter what measure you use for the range to the target - the angles are always the same angles. I didn't notice the 'metric claim' for Mils ....as I said in my post " another angular based system (like mil and I'd imagine some would have some difficulty "imagining an angle across the face of the target",though mil are indeed angular measures....many wil translate into linear....up six clicks,or across 5cm/2 inches and such like.... Sometimes it gets like formulae-knowing the formula is distinct from understanding,or using appropriately ,or especially explaining it in use (not that I'm suggesting the first two of those are apparent here.) "pragmatic" might just allow a slight imprecision-if it works conveniently "good enough for purpose" -indeed,that's pretty much what it means. In that slight distortion,being to the base ten the units (mms,cms,metres) are considerably more ''metric' looking than "12 inches in a foot.three feet in a yard,one yard in a farm...)...but it's a quibble about language labels,mostly,and comes down to "up a bit/click and across a tad/half a ring before the wind changes" :-) gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.