Nomercy448

This thread back in February was a reminder to me about swapping my Leica 1200 for a 1600, so I went looking - ran across the new Sig Kilo 2000. Only had it for about a month, but it's been as fast and repeatable as my Leica 1200, faster and more accurate/repeatable than either of my Bushnells as well as my BIL's Leup 600.

The nice part, the SigSauer Kilo 2000 cost about $250-300 less than the Leica 1600, so I didn't worry about selling my Leica 1200, I just bought the Sig outright.

Tufrthnails

I don't leave home without mine. I feel I owe it to the game I am hunting to have predetermined distances well before the shot ever takes place. If I am rifle hunting I still take it for the same reason sometimes like on the farm there isn't a landmark to judge so if the deer is relaxed I hit it with the finder just to verify even though it's not as big a deal to be off a little judging the distance until you get past 300 yards.

flags

I don't use one. Many years ago I learned to use the duplex reticle on my old Leupold for ranging. Since a deer where I do most my hunting is normally 20-22 inches through the chest I played with it through the various power settings to see what power the reticle covered the distance from at different ranges. I can just go through the power settings 3-9 until the chest is within the duplex and it gives me a good range estimate. For instance I know at a 5X setting what range a deer chest falls within the duplex (right at 250 yards) and since I'm already on the deer the shot is taken right then. Once I got used to it, using this system is easy but if I ever change out scopes I'll have to do it all over again.

Jenks

Quite a few years ago a hunting magazine had an article in it about estimating range using the top of the duplex post and the center of the crosshairs to estimate range in the manner that Flags uses. It said that a lot of scopes, when at their highest power, would have 6 inches between the post top and crosshairs at 100 yards. At 200 yards it would be 12 inches, at 300 yards it would be 18 inches. If a deer's body at broadside is 18 inches from bottom to top then we have a system. If the deer's body more then filled the space then it is closer then 300 yards, if it does not fill the space then it is further away. If it only filled 3/4 of the space it was appx. 400 yards away. You get the idea. Of course you need to check your scope at the highest power at 100 yards to make sure that it has 6 inches between post top and crosshairs and you need to know where your rifle shoots at the various ranges. I use the system with a 30-06 sighted in at 200 yards, at 300 yards it shoots a few inches low, at 400 yards about 2 feet low. I don't usually shoot that far, 300 yards is about as far as I would try and then at a standing broadside from a solid rest.

Nomercy448

Measure twice, shoot once. Or better still, measure thrice or "quadrice"...

These are the 4 ways I measure range for hunting/shooting.

#1 Pre-hunt ranging & Marking For an ambush style set or stand, before the hunt, I'll range out different landmarks and record the field on a map. If landmarks don't exist, I'll even put up range flags around the field to remain throughout season. Obviously this isn't possible for stalk or still-hunt type hunts.

#2 Eye Balling It's worth while to spend time training your eye to recognize ranges, especially in hilly territory. Our brain estimates range naturally by measuring how much land it sees between us and the target, which means our brain is easily fooled by looking over hills or valleys. So our instinct can be improved by paying attention to what certain common elements look like at different ranges - paying attention to the relative height of fence posts, height and width of trees and tree trunks, resolution of grasses, branches, tree leaves, etc. Of course, being able to tell the difference between 800 and 850yrds, or even 800 and 900yrds with the naked eye is rather difficult - the accuracy of the instrument just isn't there.

#3 Reticle Ranging I use Mil-dot scopes primarily, but I keep note of the subtensions for all of my scopes so I can use the reticle to determine range. Like Flags mentioned, this changes with different magnification setting - for second focal plane scopes at least - so it pays to practice with your scopes at known distances with known common objects. I don't like to use game animals for my primary reference - with the exception of relatively short ranges - because variation in body size means variation in range if you assume the same common size. Huge step up from eyeballing in terms of accuracy.

#4 Laser or optical Rangefinder It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's more accurate than any other method, without question. At longer ranges where being off by 10yrds can mean the difference in wounding/crippling game, but not quickly killing it or even a complete miss, this makes a lot more difference than it does at shorter ranges where 50yrds might only mean 2" of change in POI.

Ridge Runner

that's providing every deer is 18" top to bottom.
you hafta know either the size of the target, or the range.....you have to know one or the other to be accurate estimating range with a reticle. lots of difference in a 120# deer and 250# one.
RR

Sheridan

#4

#4 Laser or optical Rangefinder It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's more accurate than any other method, without question. At longer ranges where being off by 10yrds can mean the difference in wounding/crippling game, but not quickly killing it or even a complete miss, this makes a lot more difference than it does at shorter ranges where 50yrds might only mean 2" of change in POI. NoMercy

+1

Although I do hunt in the real world also ........... Shoot - LOL !

dzumwalt

I have never used one but now that I am looking those are not to bad on price and have pretty darn good reviews. http://amzn.to/1WXpduH

I may have to get me one now.

Thanks!