With cheaper range finders available, not too much seems to be written about ranging with mil dot scopes. After finally figuring out how to do it, I find it fascinating and easy using distance cards that you can download free, laminate and have stuck between your stock and extra cartridge loops. I try not to be too noticeable recording the measurement of things and I have a inexpensive unmounted mil dot scope to make distance measurements without creating panic in the neighborhood. With practice you can get pretty good at ranging.
I found following description of the process in the online catalog of a scope manufacturer.
“MIL-DOT RANGE ESTIMATING EXAMPLE:
For example, based on past experiences, the length of a known animal from shoulder to tail is 72 inches, and we see through the scope to find that it occupies 5 mils. Therefore, the distance can be derived from using the scope’s formula below - “ And they go on to compute the distance of the animal to be 400 yards which is correct.
I take issue in using the width of things rather than height to measure distance simply because the target can be at an angle to the shooter making its apparent width less than it really is. The object will then fill fewer mil dots in your scope and cause you to overestimate the range.
Taking the above example, if the 72" wide animal is at a 45 degree angle to the shooter it will occupy about 3.75 mil dots rather than 5 mils causing you to compute the animal at 533 yards away rather than 400. You would think that such a large angle would be obvious or noticeable to the shooter, but it is not especially at longer distances.
Measuring height of objects is the way to go. That way the animal would have to lean so far over that he would topple before it would affect your distance calculation. Leave the windage mils for wind correction only.
Sherlok
I found following description of the process in the online catalog of a scope manufacturer.
“MIL-DOT RANGE ESTIMATING EXAMPLE:
For example, based on past experiences, the length of a known animal from shoulder to tail is 72 inches, and we see through the scope to find that it occupies 5 mils. Therefore, the distance can be derived from using the scope’s formula below - “ And they go on to compute the distance of the animal to be 400 yards which is correct.
I take issue in using the width of things rather than height to measure distance simply because the target can be at an angle to the shooter making its apparent width less than it really is. The object will then fill fewer mil dots in your scope and cause you to overestimate the range.
Taking the above example, if the 72" wide animal is at a 45 degree angle to the shooter it will occupy about 3.75 mil dots rather than 5 mils causing you to compute the animal at 533 yards away rather than 400. You would think that such a large angle would be obvious or noticeable to the shooter, but it is not especially at longer distances.
Measuring height of objects is the way to go. That way the animal would have to lean so far over that he would topple before it would affect your distance calculation. Leave the windage mils for wind correction only.
Sherlok
