Pythagorean Theorem?
01-06-2009 | 06:46 PM
#11
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Oct 1998
Posts: 18,322
Likes: 0
From: Hughesville, PA USA
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
ORIGINAL: OHbowhntr
I think your RIGHT On Dan, but I think a guy in the mountain in Colorado chasing elk may benefit from an ARC rangefinder on an extreme uphill or downhill shot, but in most instances, they don't make a huge difference.
I think your RIGHT On Dan, but I think a guy in the mountain in Colorado chasing elk may benefit from an ARC rangefinder on an extreme uphill or downhill shot, but in most instances, they don't make a huge difference.
The distance is never more than 2 yards and the farther the target the less it gets.
In an elk environment and bow distance, I still think they are irrelevant. Maybe in ballistics and mountain ranges only.
Now, when high in a tree and looking at a target on an extreme down hill scenario, yes they may have merit. On my whitetail hunt in IL I wish I would have had one. The distance difference in some of the things I ranged from the ground and then at the trees on the same level was 5 yards.
01-06-2009 | 06:58 PM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,184
Likes: 0
From: Boardman, Ohio
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
In 1994 I thought about arc but I was hullicinating heavilyas I watched Bevis and Butthead and did not finish my calculations.........thanks for the flashback of that moment and the unibomber math teacher I had in high school
Rob hit it right on the head above........
Rob hit it right on the head above........
01-06-2009 | 07:09 PM
#13
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,465
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer
In an elk environment and bow distance, I still think they are irrelevant. Maybe in ballistics and mountain ranges only.
In an elk environment and bow distance, I still think they are irrelevant. Maybe in ballistics and mountain ranges only.
My question is, if buying new....why NOT get one with the ARC built in? Doesn't hurt anything..
but that said, I agree 100% with you in that, if you already have one, don't waste your money buying a new one soley for that feature.
01-06-2009 | 07:13 PM
#14
Typical Buck
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
From: hunterdon NJ
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
ORIGINAL: MeanV2
With all the rage about the new arc rangefinders I did a little math. On a right triangle the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides. A squared plus B squared= C squared.
A being (in most cases) the height of your treestand from the ground, one side of a right triangle.
B being the distance your shot is from the base of the tree, one side of the right triangle
C being what the normal rangefinder reads orbeing the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
1st scenario
Treestand height 10 yards (30 ft., yep thats higher than most but just to take the extreme case)
Deer is 15 yards from base of Tree
My rangefinder would read 18 yards (actual distance18.02)
Would this shot be any different if you did or did Not have a new Arc rangefinder?
2nd scenario
Treestand height again 10 yards
Deer is 40 yards from base of Tree
My rangefinder would read 41 yards (actual distance 41.23)
Would this shot be any different if did or did Not have a new Arc rangefinder?
Just interested in everyone's thoughts, views, and opinions (I know we all have them) I was watching an Ad on the Outdoor Channel and they were showing a pretty significant difference to make it appear you would miss the Deer if you did not have one of their angle compensating rangefinders.
I decided to do the math. I think shooting typical angles that areencountered in normalTreestand hunting are more affected by your form than the angle.
Dan
With all the rage about the new arc rangefinders I did a little math. On a right triangle the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides. A squared plus B squared= C squared.
A being (in most cases) the height of your treestand from the ground, one side of a right triangle.
B being the distance your shot is from the base of the tree, one side of the right triangle
C being what the normal rangefinder reads orbeing the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
1st scenario
Treestand height 10 yards (30 ft., yep thats higher than most but just to take the extreme case)
Deer is 15 yards from base of Tree
My rangefinder would read 18 yards (actual distance18.02)
Would this shot be any different if you did or did Not have a new Arc rangefinder?
2nd scenario
Treestand height again 10 yards
Deer is 40 yards from base of Tree
My rangefinder would read 41 yards (actual distance 41.23)
Would this shot be any different if did or did Not have a new Arc rangefinder?
Just interested in everyone's thoughts, views, and opinions (I know we all have them
) I was watching an Ad on the Outdoor Channel and they were showing a pretty significant difference to make it appear you would miss the Deer if you did not have one of their angle compensating rangefinders. I decided to do the math. I think shooting typical angles that areencountered in normalTreestand hunting are more affected by your form than the angle.
Dan
I find this really funny because last year in school i did a "geometery in the real world" project and this was the topic in discussion. PS dad didn't find it funny when i told him his 300 some dollar range finder doesn't do ****
01-06-2009 | 07:59 PM
#16
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,367
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
Actually my point is that for the average Bowhunter they are definitely not needed.
They should put an ad out with a goat in the mountains. It might have some merit.
I also agree if mine ever blows out and I had to buy a new one, well.............................................
Why not!
I hunted Elk twice and it never let me down. Maybe if I had hunted different/rougher terrain?
Dan
They should put an ad out with a goat in the mountains. It might have some merit.
I also agree if mine ever blows out and I had to buy a new one, well.............................................
Why not!
I hunted Elk twice and it never let me down. Maybe if I had hunted different/rougher terrain?
Dan
01-06-2009 | 08:29 PM
#17
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,634
Likes: 0
From: HENDERSON KY USA
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
Not needed for typical deer stand hunting but could be quite useful in hills and mountains where really steep angles could be encounterd.
I had 1 stand setup that had me probaly 50' above my shooting lanes and had another set that I was probaly even higher than that.Could be usefull in these types of setups but I had trees to range straight out to so it wasn't a huge issue for me.
I had 1 stand setup that had me probaly 50' above my shooting lanes and had another set that I was probaly even higher than that.Could be usefull in these types of setups but I had trees to range straight out to so it wasn't a huge issue for me.
01-06-2009 | 08:34 PM
#19
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,634
Likes: 0
From: HENDERSON KY USA
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
Now, when high in a tree and looking at a target on an extreme down hill scenario, yes they may have merit. On my whitetail hunt in IL I wish I would have had one. The distance difference in some of the things I ranged from the ground and then at the trees on the same level was 5 yards.
I would like to have one as well,besides,the price difference doesn't seem to be that great.
01-06-2009 | 08:36 PM
#20
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,465
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
ORIGINAL: TFOX
Exactly,but luckily,we both have had trees in those cases,but in the mountains and when shooting up hill,that isn't possible.
I would like to have one as well,besides,the price difference doesn't seem to be that great.
Now, when high in a tree and looking at a target on an extreme down hill scenario, yes they may have merit. On my whitetail hunt in IL I wish I would have had one. The distance difference in some of the things I ranged from the ground and then at the trees on the same level was 5 yards.
I would like to have one as well,besides,the price difference doesn't seem to be that great.