I know that there is the good old estimating trick picturing a football field. Are there any other eye balling tricks or techniques for estimating range? I was thinking maybe there is a way to use the size of the target?
Thanks
John
Thanks
John
Fieldcraft range est. by eye
- Thread starter 223man
- Start date
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe....we could put little dots inside the scope.
On the crosshairs....and use 'em for reference....... </div></div>
Lol, yes that is a good idea but I was thinking of something to do fast on the fly. You know it's the hole time and opportunity thing. But please keep the good ideas coming.
Thanks,
John
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tripwire</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe....we could put little dots inside the scope.
On the crosshairs....and use 'em for reference....... </div></div>
Lol, yes that is a good idea but I was thinking of something to do fast on the fly. You know it's the hole time and opportunity thing. But please keep the good ideas coming.
Thanks,
John
Re: range est. by eye
I use a laser range finder and estimate the distance to be pretty close to what is displayed...
In all seriousness, if you get used to using one consistently, it goes down very quickly with no guessing involved.
I use a laser range finder and estimate the distance to be pretty close to what is displayed...
In all seriousness, if you get used to using one consistently, it goes down very quickly with no guessing involved.
Re: range est. by eye
Just practice "guessing" the range and then immediately check yourself with a rangefinder. It doesn't take long to get pretty good at estimating.
Downsides:
Only works so far out, as the bullet trajectory makes small errors unacceptable.
Under combat stress, the brain is often useless at this, even if if was excellent before.
Just practice "guessing" the range and then immediately check yourself with a rangefinder. It doesn't take long to get pretty good at estimating.
Downsides:
Only works so far out, as the bullet trajectory makes small errors unacceptable.
Under combat stress, the brain is often useless at this, even if if was excellent before.
Re: range est. by eye
Bracket the distance look for what you think is half way, and estimate that. Try to learn that the second half of the total, looks shorter than it really is to you eye. Check your results with a laser range finder, if you have one. Also if the ground between you and the target is not all flat and visable ie berms, ditches, vegitation breaking the line of sight along the ground, learn how to estimate that. You will most likely under estimate those at first.
Bracket the distance look for what you think is half way, and estimate that. Try to learn that the second half of the total, looks shorter than it really is to you eye. Check your results with a laser range finder, if you have one. Also if the ground between you and the target is not all flat and visable ie berms, ditches, vegitation breaking the line of sight along the ground, learn how to estimate that. You will most likely under estimate those at first.
Re: range est. by eye
We used to have a term for all of this; "As the crow bars...".
Another; "Guestimate".
I'd estimate long, aim high, and take what I get.
IMHO, that has as much chance of success as anything I'm reading above.
Come on, folks; a responsible shooter doesn't wing it. There are too many potentially unpleasant consequences of guessing wrong.
Greg
We used to have a term for all of this; "As the crow bars...".
Another; "Guestimate".
I'd estimate long, aim high, and take what I get.
IMHO, that has as much chance of success as anything I'm reading above.
Come on, folks; a responsible shooter doesn't wing it. There are too many potentially unpleasant consequences of guessing wrong.
Greg
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We used to have a term for all of this; "As the crow bars...".
Another; "Guestimate".
I'd estimate long, aim high, and take what I get.
IMHO, that has as much chance of success as anything I'm reading above.
Come on, folks; a responsible shooter doesn't wing it. There are too many potentially unpleasant consequences of guessing wrong.
Greg</div></div>
Greg,
Really?
The OP asked about naked eye range estimation techniques, something that has been and continues to be in any marksmanship school’s curriculum. Now we all know you are a been there done that kind of a guy on any and all subjects up to and including astro-physics. But your bovine fecal matter is getting deep and smelly.
If you practice naked eye ranging, achieving ranging errors small enough to keep impacts in the “danger space” of a target has been done for years. Just a H.W. McBride!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We used to have a term for all of this; "As the crow bars...".
Another; "Guestimate".
I'd estimate long, aim high, and take what I get.
IMHO, that has as much chance of success as anything I'm reading above.
Come on, folks; a responsible shooter doesn't wing it. There are too many potentially unpleasant consequences of guessing wrong.
Greg</div></div>
Greg,
Really?
The OP asked about naked eye range estimation techniques, something that has been and continues to be in any marksmanship school’s curriculum. Now we all know you are a been there done that kind of a guy on any and all subjects up to and including astro-physics. But your bovine fecal matter is getting deep and smelly.
If you practice naked eye ranging, achieving ranging errors small enough to keep impacts in the “danger space” of a target has been done for years. Just a H.W. McBride!
Re: range est. by eye
+1 there Curt!
I have used the football field method for years with good results. I have found that besides the common methods of milling, lasers, GPS and topo maps. I found that finding your pace count and using it every chance you get to compare distances that you have shot by taking the shot, pace it off, look back at where you shot from etc. You do this enough and the distances become second nature in your mind. I have never owned a range finder, but you can ask Jaeger308 how close I came estimating 300, 500 and 1000 yrds in an open hayfield a few weeks ago. I use it hunting woodchucks every shot...You see the woodchuck, estimate the range in your mind, take the shot, pace off the distance to the varmint, look back at the spot you shot from and bingo you just gave yourself alittle more training.
+1 there Curt!
I have used the football field method for years with good results. I have found that besides the common methods of milling, lasers, GPS and topo maps. I found that finding your pace count and using it every chance you get to compare distances that you have shot by taking the shot, pace it off, look back at where you shot from etc. You do this enough and the distances become second nature in your mind. I have never owned a range finder, but you can ask Jaeger308 how close I came estimating 300, 500 and 1000 yrds in an open hayfield a few weeks ago. I use it hunting woodchucks every shot...You see the woodchuck, estimate the range in your mind, take the shot, pace off the distance to the varmint, look back at the spot you shot from and bingo you just gave yourself alittle more training.
Re: range est. by eye
my method is to know that a person with "good" vision....should... be able to discern around 1moa of clarity or target detail for lack of a better term at any given distance with the naked eye. so...if am shooting at an ukd target i try to gauge the size of it and how much detail i can discern. i then take a swag with the yardage and i'm fairly close with it.
ymmv but it works for me.
my method is to know that a person with "good" vision....should... be able to discern around 1moa of clarity or target detail for lack of a better term at any given distance with the naked eye. so...if am shooting at an ukd target i try to gauge the size of it and how much detail i can discern. i then take a swag with the yardage and i'm fairly close with it.
ymmv but it works for me.
Re: range est. by eye
Curt;
We've met and I like you. I would have expected better from you. I would not have referred to you in the terms you've chosen.
No matter how you choose to characterize my views, they are what I think, honestly; and if I haven't done the things or been the places I say, I am open to correction. I make mistakes, too, just like the rest of us. Sorry if I've failed to meet with your standards.
I'm sure we'll meet again soon at Odessa, almost certainly.
When we do, I'll be treating you with more respect and decency than you've shown today.
Mostly though, I think I'll just leave you to yourself. I know better than to go where I'm not wanted.
<span style="text-decoration: line-through">I learned something today. I hadn't realized how some folks can hold someone in such contempt and still manage to smile and wish them well to their face.</span> (Sorry this goes too far.)
Tom; is this how you feel, too?
Live well and prosper.
Greg
Curt;
We've met and I like you. I would have expected better from you. I would not have referred to you in the terms you've chosen.
No matter how you choose to characterize my views, they are what I think, honestly; and if I haven't done the things or been the places I say, I am open to correction. I make mistakes, too, just like the rest of us. Sorry if I've failed to meet with your standards.
I'm sure we'll meet again soon at Odessa, almost certainly.
When we do, I'll be treating you with more respect and decency than you've shown today.
Mostly though, I think I'll just leave you to yourself. I know better than to go where I'm not wanted.
<span style="text-decoration: line-through">I learned something today. I hadn't realized how some folks can hold someone in such contempt and still manage to smile and wish them well to their face.</span> (Sorry this goes too far.)
Tom; is this how you feel, too?
Live well and prosper.
Greg
Re: range est. by eye
yalls eyes dont have digital range readout? wtf?
yalls eyes dont have digital range readout? wtf?
Re: range est. by eye
i have it broke down to "how many of my dicks high is the target" if he is 15 dicks tall he is at 100 yards, 3/4 of my dick high is 1,000 yards, not perfect but thats how i does it
i have it broke down to "how many of my dicks high is the target" if he is 15 dicks tall he is at 100 yards, 3/4 of my dick high is 1,000 yards, not perfect but thats how i does it
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have it broke down to "how many of my dicks high is the target" if he is 15 dicks tall he is at 100 yards, 3/4 of my dick high is 1,000 yards, not perfect but thats how i does it </div></div>
Is that a hard or soft estimation?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have it broke down to "how many of my dicks high is the target" if he is 15 dicks tall he is at 100 yards, 3/4 of my dick high is 1,000 yards, not perfect but thats how i does it </div></div>
Is that a hard or soft estimation?
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO, that has as much chance of success as anything I'm reading above.
Greg</div></div>
Greg, I believe this quote from you is what set Curt off. He was the only responder that actually gave the poster a "real" answer to his question and you in one swipe of the keyboard "Dissed" all the posters prior to yourself.
So if agreeing with the post of a trained 8541 brother makes me quilty than so be it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO, that has as much chance of success as anything I'm reading above.
Greg</div></div>
Greg, I believe this quote from you is what set Curt off. He was the only responder that actually gave the poster a "real" answer to his question and you in one swipe of the keyboard "Dissed" all the posters prior to yourself.
So if agreeing with the post of a trained 8541 brother makes me quilty than so be it.
Re: range est. by eye
OK, I can understand that. Bravo for supporting your Brother, too. S/F.
My response was to the OP and not actually aimed at Curt. If I gave that impression, I'm sorry, and that's definitely not anything I meant.
I would <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> deliberately disparage Curt, and I'm (again) sorry if I gave that impression.
I would (and we all would) take exception to being portrayed as BS Agent. So I vented. I tried to look past the heat and took a message, that I need (A) to be more clear about whom I am responding to; and (B), stick closer to my own knowledge base. I also tried to keep my response short of being pejorative.
You guys are my icons. You're the real thing.
Putting wedges between you and I is not a valid goal.
Pax! I say again, Pax!
Greg
OK, I can understand that. Bravo for supporting your Brother, too. S/F.
My response was to the OP and not actually aimed at Curt. If I gave that impression, I'm sorry, and that's definitely not anything I meant.
I would <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> deliberately disparage Curt, and I'm (again) sorry if I gave that impression.
I would (and we all would) take exception to being portrayed as BS Agent. So I vented. I tried to look past the heat and took a message, that I need (A) to be more clear about whom I am responding to; and (B), stick closer to my own knowledge base. I also tried to keep my response short of being pejorative.
You guys are my icons. You're the real thing.
Putting wedges between you and I is not a valid goal.
Pax! I say again, Pax!
Greg
Re: range est. by eye
Curt;
Interesting that your disapproval extends to my views on astrophysics; it being one of the few post-secondary school subjects where I actually have some (small) formal training.
I think that physics and cosmology are truly exciting. Maybe that makes me weird, but I'll accept that.
My curse is that I think outside the box, and I do a lot (too much, no question...) of it. I view and (re)view all the Discovery channel popular cosmology stuff, and all it does for me is spark new questions. When you're retired, you can watch a lot of TV. The hard part is finding the useful stuff.
So I look for the questions that I don't see being asked.
Like; we can't see dark matter, but we seem to be able to see its effects. Based on what effects we can see, how does this help the blind men see the elephant?
No, I mean accurately...
That's where <span style="font-style: italic">my</span> head's at.
So I have no trouble understanding why folks have trouble with what I say, occasionally.
Greg
Curt;
Interesting that your disapproval extends to my views on astrophysics; it being one of the few post-secondary school subjects where I actually have some (small) formal training.
I think that physics and cosmology are truly exciting. Maybe that makes me weird, but I'll accept that.
My curse is that I think outside the box, and I do a lot (too much, no question...) of it. I view and (re)view all the Discovery channel popular cosmology stuff, and all it does for me is spark new questions. When you're retired, you can watch a lot of TV. The hard part is finding the useful stuff.
So I look for the questions that I don't see being asked.
Like; we can't see dark matter, but we seem to be able to see its effects. Based on what effects we can see, how does this help the blind men see the elephant?
No, I mean accurately...
That's where <span style="font-style: italic">my</span> head's at.
So I have no trouble understanding why folks have trouble with what I say, occasionally.
Greg
Re: range est. by eye
Greg,
No harm no foul, When we do get togather at the next shoot or match, let us carry on. The internet or email can be a funny thing, at times it looses in ones dialog of presenting a message and things can be taken wrong.
S/F
Greg,
No harm no foul, When we do get togather at the next shoot or match, let us carry on. The internet or email can be a funny thing, at times it looses in ones dialog of presenting a message and things can be taken wrong.
S/F
Re: range est. by eye
Dang; I'm just happy this turned out well.
Looking forward to seeing seeing you and all the other guys again at Odessa.
Reasonable people can always find agreement; especially Marines, ahem...
I'm not sure I can help, but I'll always try...
Greg
Dang; I'm just happy this turned out well.
Looking forward to seeing seeing you and all the other guys again at Odessa.
Reasonable people can always find agreement; especially Marines, ahem...
I'm not sure I can help, but I'll always try...
Greg
Re: range est. by eye
Wow, this turned out to be a good day after all.
Wow, this turned out to be a good day after all.
Re: range est. by eye
Cool! So when is the next Odessa shoot?
Cool! So when is the next Odessa shoot?
Re: range est. by eye
OK to the OP, 223man, apology for pissing on your post.
If you like to read there are many, many books out there. One that is highly recommended for your question would be "A rifleman went to War" by H.W. McBride. This book was written after the First World War and all other books or manuals even today's, can trace back to it. Just because it is old does not mean it’s irrelevant.
Amazon link
OK to the OP, 223man, apology for pissing on your post.
If you like to read there are many, many books out there. One that is highly recommended for your question would be "A rifleman went to War" by H.W. McBride. This book was written after the First World War and all other books or manuals even today's, can trace back to it. Just because it is old does not mean it’s irrelevant.
Amazon link
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jaeger308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK to the OP, 223man, apology for pissing on your post.
If you like to read there are many, many books out there. One that is highly recommended for your question would be "A rifleman went to War" by H.W. McBride. This book was written after the First World War and all other books or manuals even today's, can trace back to it. Just because it is old does not mean it’s irrelevant.
Amazon link </div></div>
No apologies necessary, you and usmcsniperone were the ones to give me a straight no bs answer. And also thanks for the heads up on the book.
Thanks
John
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jaeger308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK to the OP, 223man, apology for pissing on your post.
If you like to read there are many, many books out there. One that is highly recommended for your question would be "A rifleman went to War" by H.W. McBride. This book was written after the First World War and all other books or manuals even today's, can trace back to it. Just because it is old does not mean it’s irrelevant.
Amazon link </div></div>
No apologies necessary, you and usmcsniperone were the ones to give me a straight no bs answer. And also thanks for the heads up on the book.
Thanks
John
Re: range est. by eye
we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this.
we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this.
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this. </div></div>
You formula is correct for meters. Ensure you are using the same measurement, meaning...
If you are using say 40" (E-type top to bottom) make sure you mil top to bottom.
If you are doing that, then it may just be a problem with your understanding the reticle inside the binos and how to use it... or you position with the binos was not stable enough to accurately mil.
Getting within 10% of true range with binos is not difficult.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this. </div></div>
You formula is correct for meters. Ensure you are using the same measurement, meaning...
If you are using say 40" (E-type top to bottom) make sure you mil top to bottom.
If you are doing that, then it may just be a problem with your understanding the reticle inside the binos and how to use it... or you position with the binos was not stable enough to accurately mil.
Getting within 10% of true range with binos is not difficult.
Re: range est. by eye
Here's something more like what I should have said;
Guessing distances is not especially compatible with precision, which is the direction we take here.
Range estimation by eye is not what I'd consider reliable. I'd certainly not bet my one and only 'money shot' on the process.
But sometimes there's no choice.
At USMC ITR (Infantry Training), we were taught how to use battle sights.
It starts with a 300yd/m sight setting, and aims at different portions of the body, as a hedge against range estimation error.
If you think they're further than 300yd, you hold even with the top of the head. If you think they're nearer, you hold even with the hips. If you think the 300yd estimate is about right, you hold on the belt buckle. And if you're really frosty, you watch what your squadmates are achieving and estimate accordingly.
The football field method is obviously also a good approach.
But the better approach is to remove doubt.
Ranging by fire is more reliable, but doesn't work well when your presence isn't supposed to be known. eh?
As was pointed out elsewhere, 'never participated in Sniper Instruction. I did manage to spend a week with the Marine Corps Teams at Quantico, and some of what we did took place in the Sniper schoolhouse. Classes were under way at the time.
Not the same thing, but it is something. It was special arrangement where NJ Marine Corps League Detachment and Department shooting team members got to train with the teams on their ranges.
As Msgt Parker, then Teams Commander put it, we were treated to the the dog and pony show usually reserved for Congressional visitors, only they got a day's worth, and we got a week.
These days essentially all my shooting, except for maybe the occasional woodchuck, gets done at known distances; so I'm not especially proficient right now with range estimation.
As for the next Odessa Shoot, I've already checked with Scotty some weeks back to make sure he's OK with targets, and he is. At that time there was some vague reference to the end of this month, but no specifics. I would have guessed this W/E, but he usually gives a week's warning order, so probably not. We've both been a bit harried by side issues, so I guess our FV200-foo is a little rusty right now.
Greg
Here's something more like what I should have said;
Guessing distances is not especially compatible with precision, which is the direction we take here.
Range estimation by eye is not what I'd consider reliable. I'd certainly not bet my one and only 'money shot' on the process.
But sometimes there's no choice.
At USMC ITR (Infantry Training), we were taught how to use battle sights.
It starts with a 300yd/m sight setting, and aims at different portions of the body, as a hedge against range estimation error.
If you think they're further than 300yd, you hold even with the top of the head. If you think they're nearer, you hold even with the hips. If you think the 300yd estimate is about right, you hold on the belt buckle. And if you're really frosty, you watch what your squadmates are achieving and estimate accordingly.
The football field method is obviously also a good approach.
But the better approach is to remove doubt.
Ranging by fire is more reliable, but doesn't work well when your presence isn't supposed to be known. eh?
As was pointed out elsewhere, 'never participated in Sniper Instruction. I did manage to spend a week with the Marine Corps Teams at Quantico, and some of what we did took place in the Sniper schoolhouse. Classes were under way at the time.
Not the same thing, but it is something. It was special arrangement where NJ Marine Corps League Detachment and Department shooting team members got to train with the teams on their ranges.
As Msgt Parker, then Teams Commander put it, we were treated to the the dog and pony show usually reserved for Congressional visitors, only they got a day's worth, and we got a week.
These days essentially all my shooting, except for maybe the occasional woodchuck, gets done at known distances; so I'm not especially proficient right now with range estimation.
As for the next Odessa Shoot, I've already checked with Scotty some weeks back to make sure he's OK with targets, and he is. At that time there was some vague reference to the end of this month, but no specifics. I would have guessed this W/E, but he usually gives a week's warning order, so probably not. We've both been a bit harried by side issues, so I guess our FV200-foo is a little rusty right now.
Greg
Re: range est. by eye
I try to picture/imagine how far I can throw a baseball which is about 100 yards with my bad shoulder.
I try to picture/imagine how far I can throw a baseball which is about 100 yards with my bad shoulder.
Re: range est. by eye
to be very accurate with eyeball ranging takes alot of practice and im sure we all no at least 1 old seasoned hunter who never carries a lrf but yet nails everything out to 500 meters ! things i was taught to help was halving, guess the range to something half way to the target then double it , and bracketing,.. say its no more than 350m but no less than 250m so a good guess is 300m. there is still a large margin of error with these methods but they can help.objects placed beside items bigger than themselves will often seem further away,eg a fox next to a large tree. me i allways bring the lrf !
to be very accurate with eyeball ranging takes alot of practice and im sure we all no at least 1 old seasoned hunter who never carries a lrf but yet nails everything out to 500 meters ! things i was taught to help was halving, guess the range to something half way to the target then double it , and bracketing,.. say its no more than 350m but no less than 250m so a good guess is 300m. there is still a large margin of error with these methods but they can help.objects placed beside items bigger than themselves will often seem further away,eg a fox next to a large tree. me i allways bring the lrf !
Re: range est. by eye
I use Google Earth downloaded to my PC or something similar on a smart phone or GPS Mapping device when have the time. The ruler in Google Earth lets me know things like the middle of the barn roof cupola is 1290m out my the front window from my living room chair. Google Earth helps me estimate damn close when have time. Like when set up a range.
Sometimes a fun 'smoke an mirror trick' to blows people away. For example, my survey friends are fun to play with - on job sites pre-survey predict results telling them I just want their signature and just as a double check so it won't cost as much right? Usually spot on to mess with their heads. Also helps find property corners thanks to software and technology available.
When do not have the time in the field. It depends where / what shooting. For example if elk, know how big the middle of their body is at different distances in the scope of the rifle I hunt them with (it has marks). Also helps me estimate holdover / wind at distance usually measured from the top of the back above heart / lung kill zone ribs behind shoulder EZ point to see. I also practice shots at expected kill distances often in the terrain where hunt to 'get the feel for it' for when it counts. To be in my comfort zone to make it happen.
So depends on all kinds of things. Some guys who hunt where there are lots of fence posts around combine with the marks on the scope receptacle to estimate distance by eye.
Is and has been the kind of things we do when don't have a rangefinder, before they were common, to become a good estimator of distance 'by eye'. Often in practice have to get the job done or miss a shot with no range finder in real world situations - in snow they like to fog, range finders don't seem to enjoy rain, often opportunities are a surprise with limited time, batteries go out, ...
Rangefinders are worth the money, and make it much easier when able to use. Also make you better at estimating by eye when you use one often at what you like to shoot at. Play a game: guess it then range it and see how close you are - in time those who exercise improve.
I use Google Earth downloaded to my PC or something similar on a smart phone or GPS Mapping device when have the time. The ruler in Google Earth lets me know things like the middle of the barn roof cupola is 1290m out my the front window from my living room chair. Google Earth helps me estimate damn close when have time. Like when set up a range.
Sometimes a fun 'smoke an mirror trick' to blows people away. For example, my survey friends are fun to play with - on job sites pre-survey predict results telling them I just want their signature and just as a double check so it won't cost as much right? Usually spot on to mess with their heads. Also helps find property corners thanks to software and technology available.
When do not have the time in the field. It depends where / what shooting. For example if elk, know how big the middle of their body is at different distances in the scope of the rifle I hunt them with (it has marks). Also helps me estimate holdover / wind at distance usually measured from the top of the back above heart / lung kill zone ribs behind shoulder EZ point to see. I also practice shots at expected kill distances often in the terrain where hunt to 'get the feel for it' for when it counts. To be in my comfort zone to make it happen.
So depends on all kinds of things. Some guys who hunt where there are lots of fence posts around combine with the marks on the scope receptacle to estimate distance by eye.
Is and has been the kind of things we do when don't have a rangefinder, before they were common, to become a good estimator of distance 'by eye'. Often in practice have to get the job done or miss a shot with no range finder in real world situations - in snow they like to fog, range finders don't seem to enjoy rain, often opportunities are a surprise with limited time, batteries go out, ...
Rangefinders are worth the money, and make it much easier when able to use. Also make you better at estimating by eye when you use one often at what you like to shoot at. Play a game: guess it then range it and see how close you are - in time those who exercise improve.
Re: range est. by eye
Something that helped me was an apperance of objects list that mainly focuses on accurately estimating the range of a person, but can be applied to other things at the shorter ranges. Practice is the best solution and confirming with other methods such as mil-dot or lrf.
100m- Eye can distinguish 1in of detail
200m- Clear in all detail, i.e. color of skin equipment, etc.
300m- Clear body outline, face color good, remaining detail blurred
400m- Body outline clear, remaining detail blurred
500m- Body tapers, head becomes indistinct (also lose light between legs)
600m-Body now a wedge shape, no head apparent
700m- Solid wedge of outline of body
Hope this helps
Something that helped me was an apperance of objects list that mainly focuses on accurately estimating the range of a person, but can be applied to other things at the shorter ranges. Practice is the best solution and confirming with other methods such as mil-dot or lrf.
100m- Eye can distinguish 1in of detail
200m- Clear in all detail, i.e. color of skin equipment, etc.
300m- Clear body outline, face color good, remaining detail blurred
400m- Body outline clear, remaining detail blurred
500m- Body tapers, head becomes indistinct (also lose light between legs)
600m-Body now a wedge shape, no head apparent
700m- Solid wedge of outline of body
Hope this helps
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperJas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something that helped me was an apperance of objects list that mainly focuses on accurately estimating the range of a person, but can be applied to other things at the shorter ranges. Practice is the best solution and confirming with other methods such as mil-dot or lrf.
100m- Eye can distinguish 1in of detail
200m- Clear in all detail, i.e. color of skin equipment, etc.
300m- Clear body outline, face color good, remaining detail blurred
400m- Body outline clear, remaining detail blurred
500m- Body tapers, head becomes indistinct (also lose light between legs)
600m-Body now a wedge shape, no head apparent
700m- Solid wedge of outline of body
Hope this helps </div></div>
This is what I was taught, along with anything else you can observe about the item being ranged. Detail of the writing on a shirt, when certain colors blend into others, etc.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperJas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something that helped me was an apperance of objects list that mainly focuses on accurately estimating the range of a person, but can be applied to other things at the shorter ranges. Practice is the best solution and confirming with other methods such as mil-dot or lrf.
100m- Eye can distinguish 1in of detail
200m- Clear in all detail, i.e. color of skin equipment, etc.
300m- Clear body outline, face color good, remaining detail blurred
400m- Body outline clear, remaining detail blurred
500m- Body tapers, head becomes indistinct (also lose light between legs)
600m-Body now a wedge shape, no head apparent
700m- Solid wedge of outline of body
Hope this helps </div></div>
This is what I was taught, along with anything else you can observe about the item being ranged. Detail of the writing on a shirt, when certain colors blend into others, etc.
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this. </div></div>
You formula is correct for meters. Ensure you are using the same measurement, meaning...
If you are using say 40" (E-type top to bottom) make sure you mil top to bottom.
If you are doing that, then it may just be a problem with your understanding the reticle inside the binos and how to use it... or you position with the binos was not stable enough to accurately mil.
Getting within 10% of true range with binos is not difficult. </div></div>
I was resting the Bino's on top of my K-pot and pushing down with my fingers making it a nice solid platform. As I understand it the first hash mark from the center, is 5mils then 10, 15, 20 etc. and the width of the hash marks are 3mils wide for the smaller one and 6mils wide for the larger ones.
Is there a better, more reliable, formula to use than the one we were given? or is that the standard?
numbers for that day are:
1st distance
eye: 214
bino's: 225
acog: 310
actual: 320 (found via LRF)
2nd distance
eye: 400
bino: 362.8
acog: 400
actual: 408
3rd distance
eye:500
bino:534
acog:500
actual:508
4th distance
eye:600
bino:635
acog:610
actual:603
5th distance
eye:750
bino:846
acog:800
actual: 815
maybe I'm just weird, but doing it by eye has always been better for me? anyone else like that?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this. </div></div>
You formula is correct for meters. Ensure you are using the same measurement, meaning...
If you are using say 40" (E-type top to bottom) make sure you mil top to bottom.
If you are doing that, then it may just be a problem with your understanding the reticle inside the binos and how to use it... or you position with the binos was not stable enough to accurately mil.
Getting within 10% of true range with binos is not difficult. </div></div>
I was resting the Bino's on top of my K-pot and pushing down with my fingers making it a nice solid platform. As I understand it the first hash mark from the center, is 5mils then 10, 15, 20 etc. and the width of the hash marks are 3mils wide for the smaller one and 6mils wide for the larger ones.
Is there a better, more reliable, formula to use than the one we were given? or is that the standard?
numbers for that day are:
1st distance
eye: 214
bino's: 225
acog: 310
actual: 320 (found via LRF)
2nd distance
eye: 400
bino: 362.8
acog: 400
actual: 408
3rd distance
eye:500
bino:534
acog:500
actual:508
4th distance
eye:600
bino:635
acog:610
actual:603
5th distance
eye:750
bino:846
acog:800
actual: 815
maybe I'm just weird, but doing it by eye has always been better for me? anyone else like that?
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this. </div></div>
You formula is correct for meters. Ensure you are using the same measurement, meaning...
If you are using say 40" (E-type top to bottom) make sure you mil top to bottom.
If you are doing that, then it may just be a problem with your understanding the reticle inside the binos and how to use it... or you position with the binos was not stable enough to accurately mil.
Getting within 10% of true range with binos is not difficult. </div></div>
I was resting the Bino's on top of my K-pot and pushing down with my fingers making it a nice solid platform. As I understand it the first hash mark from the center, is 5mils then 10, 15, 20 etc. and the width of the hash marks are 3mils wide for the smaller one and 6mils wide for the larger ones.
Is there a better, more reliable, formula to use than the one we were given? or is that the standard?
numbers for that day are:
1st distance
eye: 214
bino's: 225
acog: 310
actual: 320 (found via LRF)
2nd distance
eye: 400
bino: 362.8
acog: 400
actual: 408
3rd distance
eye:500
bino:534
acog:500
actual:508
4th distance
eye:600
bino:635
acog:610
actual:603
5th distance
eye:750
bino:846
acog:800
actual: 815
maybe I'm just weird, but doing it by eye has always been better for me? anyone else like that? </div></div>
Having that stable platform for the binos is crucial. The formula is good to.
From my past experiences the reticle in the binos were only guaranteed for the distance between hash marks. The actual size (3,6) of the hash marks was not guaranteed by the manufacturer. If you have a mil board you can verify the true size of the hash marks. Chances are they are close, but close sometimes isn't enough when miling a target. The .2 they may be off can make a difference.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KNIGHT11B4</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11BJohnT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we were in the field for the last week and did a day estimating range at various distances, elevation changes, all with the naked eyes an Acog and M22/24 bino's. I was more accurate naked eye and acog than I was with the M22's. maybe the formula I got was whack, but everything depends on your eyes. just remember when looking down things seem further and when looking up, they seem closer.
the formula we were given was:
Target in inches x 25.4
-------------------------------- = distance
mils estimated
I defiantly need more training with this. </div></div>
You formula is correct for meters. Ensure you are using the same measurement, meaning...
If you are using say 40" (E-type top to bottom) make sure you mil top to bottom.
If you are doing that, then it may just be a problem with your understanding the reticle inside the binos and how to use it... or you position with the binos was not stable enough to accurately mil.
Getting within 10% of true range with binos is not difficult. </div></div>
I was resting the Bino's on top of my K-pot and pushing down with my fingers making it a nice solid platform. As I understand it the first hash mark from the center, is 5mils then 10, 15, 20 etc. and the width of the hash marks are 3mils wide for the smaller one and 6mils wide for the larger ones.
Is there a better, more reliable, formula to use than the one we were given? or is that the standard?
numbers for that day are:
1st distance
eye: 214
bino's: 225
acog: 310
actual: 320 (found via LRF)
2nd distance
eye: 400
bino: 362.8
acog: 400
actual: 408
3rd distance
eye:500
bino:534
acog:500
actual:508
4th distance
eye:600
bino:635
acog:610
actual:603
5th distance
eye:750
bino:846
acog:800
actual: 815
maybe I'm just weird, but doing it by eye has always been better for me? anyone else like that? </div></div>
Having that stable platform for the binos is crucial. The formula is good to.
From my past experiences the reticle in the binos were only guaranteed for the distance between hash marks. The actual size (3,6) of the hash marks was not guaranteed by the manufacturer. If you have a mil board you can verify the true size of the hash marks. Chances are they are close, but close sometimes isn't enough when miling a target. The .2 they may be off can make a difference.
Re: range est. by eye
This works very well for Range-E exercises with human targets and makes meeting the standards for the DA 7328-R easier to accomplish.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperJas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something that helped me was an apperance of objects list that mainly focuses on accurately estimating the range of a person, but can be applied to other things at the shorter ranges. Practice is the best solution and confirming with other methods such as mil-dot or lrf.
100m- Eye can distinguish 1in of detail
200m- Clear in all detail, i.e. color of skin equipment, etc.
300m- Clear body outline, face color good, remaining detail blurred
400m- Body outline clear, remaining detail blurred
500m- Body tapers, head becomes indistinct (also lose light between legs)
600m-Body now a wedge shape, no head apparent
700m- Solid wedge of outline of body
Hope this helps </div></div>
This works very well for Range-E exercises with human targets and makes meeting the standards for the DA 7328-R easier to accomplish.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperJas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something that helped me was an apperance of objects list that mainly focuses on accurately estimating the range of a person, but can be applied to other things at the shorter ranges. Practice is the best solution and confirming with other methods such as mil-dot or lrf.
100m- Eye can distinguish 1in of detail
200m- Clear in all detail, i.e. color of skin equipment, etc.
300m- Clear body outline, face color good, remaining detail blurred
400m- Body outline clear, remaining detail blurred
500m- Body tapers, head becomes indistinct (also lose light between legs)
600m-Body now a wedge shape, no head apparent
700m- Solid wedge of outline of body
Hope this helps </div></div>
Re: range est. by eye
The M22 binos stadia lines are probably not to any standard, good advise above...check them!
Also to the guy ranging targets at an angle, this will throw you off big time because the target will appear smaller in size.
The M22 binos stadia lines are probably not to any standard, good advise above...check them!
Also to the guy ranging targets at an angle, this will throw you off big time because the target will appear smaller in size.
Re: range est. by eye
I would just get a set of lrf and then guess the distance remember what your gut tells you i dont know how many times second guessing caused my range e. to go out of wack. once you have our guess range right it down then check with the range finders. its kinda like shooting practice practice practice and if you dont do it for awhile you'll loose some of the skills.
I would just get a set of lrf and then guess the distance remember what your gut tells you i dont know how many times second guessing caused my range e. to go out of wack. once you have our guess range right it down then check with the range finders. its kinda like shooting practice practice practice and if you dont do it for awhile you'll loose some of the skills.
Re: range est. by eye
the football feild method works pretty good. just as others have said relize that a smaller area seen by your eye gets used per football feild the further out it goes.
the football feild method works pretty good. just as others have said relize that a smaller area seen by your eye gets used per football feild the further out it goes.
Re: range est. by eye
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have it broke down to "how many of my dicks high is the target" if he is 15 dicks tall he is at 100 yards, 3/4 of my dick high is 1,000 yards, not perfect but thats how i does it </div></div>
This did not get enough credit as a valid range estimation process. Hilarious and useful. Just don't forget sunscreen on sunny days!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have it broke down to "how many of my dicks high is the target" if he is 15 dicks tall he is at 100 yards, 3/4 of my dick high is 1,000 yards, not perfect but thats how i does it </div></div>
This did not get enough credit as a valid range estimation process. Hilarious and useful. Just don't forget sunscreen on sunny days!
Re: range est. by eye
If any of you guys have golfed a long time.. you get a gut feel for what you bring out of the bag. Especially if you do not get to play a lot of courses that have the yardages marked.
I look at things from SW (100M) to Driver (300M) then double from there...
It's a feel thing.. that I have been able to do in golf and if the terrain is right.. I can usually do it well enough to back up calcs.
If any of you guys have golfed a long time.. you get a gut feel for what you bring out of the bag. Especially if you do not get to play a lot of courses that have the yardages marked.
I look at things from SW (100M) to Driver (300M) then double from there...
It's a feel thing.. that I have been able to do in golf and if the terrain is right.. I can usually do it well enough to back up calcs.
Similar threads
