MRAD reticle yardage measuring: tips & experience

[Jordan Smith]

For sure. I'm not smart enough to multiply something in my head by 27.77 though.

Using what I showed I can relatively quickly get a range and then use Quick Drop to get a hit, all in my head without relying on a card or my phone.

I'll demonstrate this out in the field at some point and share it here.

Agreed. Aside from very limited simple cases (like an average man being 2 yards tall), memorizing target size in yards or meters would also require mental bandwidth or data card consultation, though. Either that, or fairly coarse target size approximations.

I work in inches and meters and just round down to 25, making the math very simple without much error.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

memorizing target size in yards or meters would also require mental bandwidth or data card consultation, though.

Not necessarily when the animal is half a yard high in the body or one yard from hoof to back.

 

[nm.otter]

when the animal is half a yard high in the body or one yard from hoof to back.

I'm still thinking that 1 mil box on the THLR could be fast at this.

 

[solarshooter]

I'm still thinking that 1 mil box on the THLR could be fast at this.

The original "full feature" THLR reticle in the Minox had a ranging feature built in. I'm guessing it's assuming the same "man sized" 2m x 0.5m target.

 

[RockAndSage]

The original "full feature" THLR reticle in the Minox had a ranging feature built in. I'm guessing it's assuming the same "man sized" 2m x 0.5m target.

View attachment 1043034

IIRC, this doesn't reference from height - it references shoulder-width (at the armpits?).

 

[solarshooter]

IIRC, this doesn't reference from height - it references shoulder-width (at the armpits?).

Gotcha yeah I haven't dug into it, just know it has that function.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Not necessarily when the animal is half a yard high in the body or one yard from hoof to back.

True, but half a yard is a pretty coarse approximation. If you're talking about a smaller deer or a Coues, with a 14" depth versus the 18" of a large WT, or the 22" depth of a good sized MD, that introduces about 20-30% error in the range estimate.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

True, but half a yard is a pretty coarse approximation. If you're talking about a smaller deer or a Coues, with a 14" depth versus the 18" of a large WT, or the 22" depth of a good sized MD, that introduces about 20-30% error in the range estimate.

Good thing my sheep are almost perfectly half a yard high in the body .

 

[Jordan Smith]

Good thing my sheep are almost perfectly half a yard high in the body .

Indeed. Like I said, it would work well in very specific cases, but is overly coarse to be applied generally without consulting some data about depths and heights in yards or meters.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

I went out into the mountains yesterday to prove out Mil ranging as I explained how I like to do it, combined with Quick Drop and Gun Number. Ie. 1 yard marked out on a snowy rock & rode snowmachine to an unknown distance.

Here is a video showing the first engagement. I talk through what I am doing during the video.

It worked. After the shot I ranged the target and was off by about 60 yards, hence the impact higher in the box.

I next rode out further and this is where things fells apart. My first shot sailed over the rock. I then ranged again and took a bit more time to determine the size in mils, using my rough Nightforce Mil dot reticle. It was 1.3 ish mils (769 yards) I then realized I needed my phone this time to make the calculation. I fired and hit a few inches outside of the 18” box.

My takeaway is that I would need a LOT more practice and ideally a finer graduated reticle to be proficient out past 500 yards without using a RF and a Ballistic Calculator.

 

[Bluumoon]

IIRC, this doesn't reference from height - it references shoulder-width (at the armpits?).

On an "average eastern man", not avg western man.