Pythagorean Theorem?
01-06-2009, 05:30 PM
#1
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 7,367
Pythagorean Theorem?
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
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
01-06-2009, 05:42 PM
#3
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mont County, Pa
Posts: 7,368
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
01-06-2009, 05:53 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,796
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
Even if the differences where bigger it wouldn't amount to much because the verticle part of the arrows flight (going down) doesn't really matter. Gravity has a bigger effect on your arrows drop than wind resistance, that extra .2yard is going downhill anyways so it doesn't really matter.
01-06-2009, 05:56 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 4,679
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
I can tell you as someone that competes in field archery out to 80 yards, over rough terrain and bizarre angles.......the arc style rangefinders don't get close enough to hit the X ring every time assuming a perfect shot. The best thing you can do is use Ontarget1 or a similar ballistics program and print out a cut sheet showing the correct yardage cut for different distances/angles. I carry one of these with me that is specific for each 3D and Field archery specific setup I use.
01-06-2009, 06:16 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 2,531
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
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.
01-06-2009, 06:36 PM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern MD
Posts: 2,520
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
I have done that math and got the same answers. So, now, after I get into my stand, I range differenttrees around me. I range them at my height and that is the range of my shot.
01-06-2009, 06:40 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 3,465
RE: Pythagorean Theorem?
Only instance I see them being of use is for rifle hunters shooting longer distances, and mountain hunts.
If you are on a mountain goat hunt, and you see a billy 50 yards (ranged) on a 40* decline....you would hold for a 38.302 yard shot.....
this IS quite the difference....and eliminates calculations on the hunters part in crunch time, not that the calculations are that difficult. This is a step further than the pythagorean theorum, but is still extremely basic trigonometry.
If you are on a mountain goat hunt, and you see a billy 50 yards (ranged) on a 40* decline....you would hold for a 38.302 yard shot.....
this IS quite the difference....and eliminates calculations on the hunters part in crunch time, not that the calculations are that difficult. This is a step further than the pythagorean theorum, but is still extremely basic trigonometry.