Before lasers

bru · #1 03-21-2006, 04:32 PM

What are the older methods of scaling range. Before the use of lasers how did people measure yardage through binoculars/range finders. Were older binoculars or range finders built in guages? I can't help but imagine the parascope in a sub with its tick marks. I'm interested in the GPSvsCompass aspect here. I'm sure there are antique methods to scaling range with older equipment.
THNX

fabsroman · #2 03-21-2006, 05:41 PM

The parascope with its tick marks is the same thing used in scopes a while ago and today. They are termed ballistic plex. On some of them, you could tell how away a deer was based upon how many tick marks the deer's shoulders filled in the scope. The tick marks on the bottom would be the required elevation. Nowadays, they sell these scopes for particular cartridges at particular speeds. It helps the shooter, even if he/she has a laser range finder.

I would assume that before all this technology came about, hunters spent a lot more time in the woods (i.e., we depended on hunting a lot more) and they were good at estimating range because dinner depended on it.

Jack · #3 03-21-2006, 10:47 PM

Well, they guessed, and often guessed wrong.
With lotsa practice in the varmint fields, where you did a lot of range estimating, you were wrong less often than if you didn't practice.

They also used to make split image, hand held rangefinders. Those, once you got used to using them, were almost completely useless. If you didn't practice with them, they were completely useless.
There were also artillery rangefinders- big things you put on tripods. They work. But, you sure don't tote one of those around, as they're 4 feet long, or more, and heavy.
The laser rangefinder is a HUGE advance.

M.T. Pockets · #4 03-22-2006, 07:38 AM

I'd dare to say that estimating range by eyeballing it is the easiest way to start an argument among everyone present.

Rocky Raab · #5 03-22-2006, 09:12 AM

<chuckle>

"Hey, Bob. That looks like 375 yards. My .270 is a better rifle for it than your .30-06."

Instant fistfight.

Jack · #6 03-22-2006, 10:37 AM

Oh, yeah.
"Marv, that deer was 450 yards if he was a foot! Killed him with one shot ! My rifle shoots so flat I didn't hold over a bit !"
Translation: America's dumbest deer walked out in front of me at around 120 yards, and I got really lucky.

bru · #7 03-22-2006, 11:09 AM

I need a chuckle first thing in the morning, thanx. Found a guy talking about a russian, 1980's, binocular with rangefinding recticle and another mono eyepiece device that merges two images completing 2/3 factors in the range equation giving you pretty acurate measurements within reason. Both around $100 or less. For $10 you can invest another $50 or so and get one of the cheaper laser finders though which is definately oneof the few moderizations that really can't be disputed. I do like seeing the best historical technology. Very interesting innovations. It's like a sniper being good with iron sights or an athelete that still goes for walks instead of the high tech equipment at the gym. I might get that mono eye piece one if can track one down. He mentioned $20, can't beat that. I may compose two field kits, a modern one and a vintage one. This is my little fantasy not including first aid, my cell phone, or anything critical like that in an emergency. It would be really fun on occassion to scout around with a pack containing the very best there was to offer 20 years ago.

petey · #8 03-22-2006, 12:02 PM

Here's a picture of a Swedish optical rangefinder manufactured by WILD during WWII that we use for long range hunting. The optics are 10x's clearer than that of any today and is "more" accurate than any moderen "laser" range finder. (it's the bazoka looking thing out front)

The downfall, it weights around 40 pounds so not very portable & it ranges in meters not yards (but who can't do the math?)

Here's a site selling one for under $300..A pretty good buy in this day and age

http://www.samcoglobal.com/access.html

denton · #9 03-24-2006, 12:03 PM

One common method was the old system used on rangefinder type cameras. Basically, you have two views of the target, and you adjust an internal mirror until the two images overlay each other. You get distance from how far you had to adjust the internal mirror to get that condition. E A Brown had some of these for about $100 a while back.

BILLY D. · #10 03-24-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by petey
Here's a picture of a Swedish optical rangefinder manufactured by WILD during WWII that we use for long range hunting. The optics are 10x's clearer than that of any today and is "more" accurate than any moderen "laser" range finder. (it's the bazoka looking thing out front)

The downfall, it weights around 40 pounds so not very portable & it ranges in meters not yards (but who can't do the math?)

Here's a site selling one for under $300..A pretty good buy in this day and age

http://www.samcoglobal.com/access.html

darn it petey, every time i get over the urge to buy one of the wilds i see a picture like that and strange ideas start going through my feeble mind again. aren't they good to about 20000 meters? i know they are accurate. you can drop a long range cannon shell in somebodys lap with one of those.

i wonder if weaver makes a set of rings and bases for one of those so i can mount it on my target rifle?

did i tell you about my new light weight rifle? i got all kinds of stuff mounted on it and it only weighs 14 #.

where did you get that tripod with all the accessories that the firearm is setting on? is that a homemade deal or did you buy it?

Skyline · #11 03-24-2006, 03:03 PM

Wow!!!!!!! That looks like a real portable hunting outfit.

Even to go to the range you'd need a small pick-up for all of that stuff.

Well, since I rarely shoot past 300 yards at big game, I just don't have much of a need for a lot of that stuff. Somehow I can usually put on a bit of a sneak and close the gap to within the 'point blank' range of my rifle. The rest is simple.

BILLY D. · #12 03-24-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyline
Wow!!!!!!! That looks like a real portable hunting outfit.

Even to go to the range you'd need a small pick-up for all of that stuff.

Well, since I rarely shoot past 300 yards at big game, I just don't have much of a need for a lot of that stuff. Somehow I can usually put on a bit of a sneak and close the gap to within the 'point blank' range of my rifle. The rest is simple.

hey sky

i agree, i was thinking varmints. i like the yotes that run out about 3-400 yds then turn around and look at ya and stick out their tongues. i've fixed a couple of those.

Skyline · #13 03-25-2006, 09:25 AM

Bill it does make you feel good when you drop one of those rascals.........standing there looking rather smug and then they meet Mr. .25-06.

BILLY D. · #14 04-13-2006, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyline
Bill it does make you feel good when you drop one of those rascals.........standing there looking rather smug and then they meet Mr. .25-06.

kelly

mine met a 22-250 ai wth a 75gr amax out front. and yes it dooooooo feel good.

Mike Moss · #15 04-13-2006, 09:51 PM

Jack gave a good account of what went on.

I started varmint hunting with a 222 Rem and I used to pace off just about everything I did. For instance I would pace to the targets at the range where it was a measured 50 or 100yds for practice. Even then it was easy to be off.

So I just would not take a shot over 250 yds. Not that I never did but the longest shots that I made on chucks with that cartridge were all at 295 yds. Sort of wish that I could say it was 300 yds but it was 295 long paces.

Later I got a 243 and a 264 and did some long range bombing and had some fun with the help of a spotter. I never could get into this much however as I don't like wounding stuff.

So after thousands of chucks I still get up close as I can. If the shot is close then I shoot them offhand.

Today I have a Leica 1200 LR Scan and it proves me wrong over and over except that I still can see 250 yds without it and most cartridges are quite flat to that range.