Rifle Scopes question about range estimation

[kstraughen]

As i understand it is easiest to perform range estimation with a 10x optic. So as i am thinking if you have a 4.5-14 power scope. I would have to measure the target on the 10th power to get the proper range? I have done some reading and was thinking this is the easiest way. Please inform me if i am wrong.

Thanks in advance.

KS

 

[KNIGHT11B4]

Re: question about range estimation

That is not always correct.

It depends on the optic.

Which optic are you using? Im guess that you have a Leupold Mark 4, is that correct?

 

[Truck10]

Re: question about range estimation

Any variable power scope will have a ranging power if it has a ranging reticle. That being said, it's usually at its highest power, not necessarily at 10x.

 

[Laseredge]

Re: question about range estimation

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but for ranging reticles on SFP scopes it is usually at the highest magnification, and only the highest magnification.

FFP scopes will range at any power.

I have a IOR 3-18 that ranges in minutes at 18, and mils at 10.

 

[KNIGHT11B4]

Re: question about range estimation

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LCJones</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone correct me if I am wrong, but for ranging reticles on SFP scopes it is usually at the highest magnification, and only the highest magnification.

FFP scopes will range at any power.

I have a IOR 3-18 that ranges in minutes at 18, and mils at 10. </div></div>

Many scope manufacturers set the reticle to subtend correctly at the max magnification... many but not all. Some require the scope to be set at a specific power that is not max power.

 

[Truck10]

Re: question about range estimation

If your reticle is a Mildot or any "Mil" reticle, make a target with heavy marks 3.6 inches apart and place it at 100 yards, dial your power up until the dots on the reticle perfectly cover the marks on your target and you have your ranging power.

 

[Canis Latrans]

Re: question about range estimation

What the heck have you been reading?? It's not "easier" to range at 10x. Like said above, the magnification power where the reticle is set up to be accurate is where you want to range at. If your scope reticle is on the second focal plane, this means when you change magnification, the size of the mil-dots will change in relation to the size of your target in the scope. You can't use this to range without extra math. If your scope is second focal plane, I bet anything that the correct magnification for ranging will be either 10, 12, or 14x. Larger magnifications are easier to use to range the target, as the mildots are larger and easier to divide up mentally.

I'm not sure what 10truck is actually trying to say. If he is saying make a target at 100 yards with marks with 3.6" BETWEEN the marks, and line up your reticle and change power until the space between the marks equals the space between the dots, center to center, than yes that's correct. If he is saying make a 3.6" dot and have one mildot cover that dot perfectly, then that is completely wrong.

If you actually want to range with mildots, STOP USING YARDS AND INCHES. Use the metric system like the rest of the world, so you can say, "hey, that target is 50cm(.5 meters) wide, and measures 1.2 mils. .5/1.2 = .416 = 416 meters. One piece of simple division, no multiplying by 27.777 or 54.444 or any other dumb number.

 

[kstraughen]

Re: question about range estimation

Then why would someone want a 10x fixed scope? just their preference?

Thanks for the info provided. Especially the 3.6 at 100 idea. i forgot about reading this.

Still learning something new everyday. thanks

 

[triceratops3]

Re: question about range estimation

I'm pretty new to this and not an expert by any means at all but I do believe I have an okay understanding of how some of this stuff works.

Canis Latrans, I think 10truck was trying to say the first situation you explained.. Mark lines on a piece of paper 3.6 inches apart, not make one big 3.6inch mark.

Also, it's not that difficult to range things with mildots in inches and yards but it does seem pretty easy to do so with the metric system, but I'd rather do it in yards because that's how I've thought all my life and i'm not good at estimating with the metric system. But if that's what you like then congrats to you, I wish I knew the metric system like I do the standard system.

Kstraughen, someone would like a 10x scope mainly because it is a pretty good middle of the road magnification for anywhere from 100 yards to 1000+ yards, well for general target shooting at least.

 

[DWood]

Re: question about range estimation

A milradian has nothing to do with the metric system. Read the stickies.

 

[Canis Latrans]

Re: question about range estimation

OP: 10x is just the best of what they had when sniping as we know it today really started to get off the ground. A fixed powe scope is also generally more rugged than one with more moving parts and gives you better glass for the money.

Triceratops, you don't need to know the metric system really. If you can think in yards you can think in meters, I bet you don't think in yards accurate enough for 10% to make any difference. You really don't need to think in inches at all because there are no inches in your scope, unless you have 1/4 MOA clicks and need to use that but I feel the mil/mil system is way easier and since he is starting out I am making sure to recommend it.

Dwood:
When did I ever say a mil was part of the metric system?

 

[triceratops3]

Re: question about range estimation

Canis Latrans, I think that it really doesn't matter which system you think in when using a mil/mil scope, as long as you know one. what do you mean if I think in yards, I can think in meters? I realize that they are similar in length and for shorter distances someone said point out 10 meters and 10 yards or 40 meters and 40 yards, I would probably point at the same place because they will be pretty close but once you get out to 100's of yards then the difference can become significant, but they are different and I'm used to one but not the other.

Also, I realize that I don't need to think about inches when ranging and such unless my scope had moa adjustments, which some of them do. I agree, I would recommend the mil/mil system to anybody but thats the magic of the mil/mil system, its extremely easy to use once you get used to it and can use it with any units of measure you want and it still works perfectly.

 

[DWood]

Re: question about range estimation

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Canis Latrans</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Dwood:
When did I ever say a mil was part of the metric system? </div></div>

That would be where you stated:

<span style="font-weight: bold">If you actually want to range with mildots, STOP USING YARDS AND INCHES. Use the metric system like the rest of the world</span>

which somehow equated a need for metric linear measurement units to use a system that utilizes an angular unit of measure like the milradian.

You didn't say that a mil was part of the metric system but you did connect them.

There are plenty of great threads and info available that teach the concept of thinking, visualizing, and communicating in mils.