Originally Posted by Triple BB
I copied this from a write up on another site. Still trying to figure what he's saying. Wish the author would've include a sample diagram. Anyone use this method? If so, how about more detail.
"Another Rule-of-Thumb, suggested to me by Sergeant Neal Terry, a longtime
sniper instructor and police SWAT sniper, is to draw an invisible vertical line
through the up or down target, and where this line intersects the earth's surface,
range it! Disregard the angle, ignore the direct distance from muzzle-to-target,
concentrate only on adjusting elevation for the distance to where that vertical line
touches the earth. Compensate for that distance, aim dead-on and fire. We've
worn out several pads of paper comparing Neal's math to other kinds of up/down
calculations - it works and it's the essence of simplicity!"
That method takes the horizontal component of the distance and using that for range ("rifleman" method). It could be useful in some scenarios. You could do the same thing with the Angle/Cosine indicator if you multiplied the cos of the angle against the distance ranged to target.
Some nice things about the a/c indicator, you don't need a very steep background that is nearly the same horizontal distance from you as the horizontal component of the distance of your target to you. You could multiply the cos of the angle by your moa adjustment for the direct range (see link to article below) to get a hold estimation. Finally, you could enter the angle into a good ballistics program and get a more precise model of what adjustment is needed to get on target. see - http://www.longrangehunting.com/arti...e-shooting.php
You could run some simulations using angles and the three different methods, then see what you get. Is your method getting you "close enough" to be "on target"? After all, isn't that the goal of much of this?
Hope that helps Triple BB
Here is an article with some diagrams and better explanation. http://www.longrangehunting.com/arti...e-shooting.php