How to use range estimation on Leupold VXIII 3.5-10 40mm

F

FarmerSid

New member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Eastern Ontario-Napanee Area
Hey all! Just picked up a 2 yr old VXIII 3.5-10 40mm to put on my new X-Bolt Stainless stalker 22-250. It came with no manuals or anything so I read the online version to figure out how to use the range estimation feature. I don't find it very clear to understand.

I understand the 16 inches between the center and top of the thick post but not what it means when it says that at 200 yrds. I scoped a page wire fence and viewed 2 panels (16 inches) at 10 power. How do I read the range from he eye piece?

Thanks! Going out now to fire the X-bolt for the first time.
 
That system is set up for estimateing range on a deer sized target, so its not real useful on anything you're likely to be using your 22/250 for. There's 2 rows of numbers on the eyepiece. One is magnification, the other is the yardage. What you do is turn the power up until you bracket the deer's chest between the center aiming point and the tip of either the top or bottom thick post. When that fits, read the yardage off the eyepiece.
A quick and dirty way with many, even most common calibers in the 2900-3100 fps range is to sight in for the maximum point blank range by sighting 3" high at 100 and holding center to about 300. With your scope cranked to 10, if you can get the top and bottom thick post touching hair at the same time, pull the trigger and get your knife out.
 
That system is set up for estimateing range on a deer sized target, so its not real useful on anything you're likely to be using your 22/250 for.
Click to expand...

And that is for the so called "average deer" that has a chest that is 16" deep.A big northern buck can exceed 16",and a small deer can be smaller,either of which will cause an error in your estimation.
 
Yep, a big 11%.
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with 11%?Have you measured the chest depth of the largest and smallest deer in Canada to come up with that figure.That would be the only way to determine the true accuracy of the system.

Moving to the thick part of the crosshairs instead of the points will take care of the 18" deer.
Click to expand...

How about a 19" deer?or a 19.5" deer?

Care to calculate the range where a 11% error is going to start mattering?
Click to expand...

Depending on the cartridge and load,it can matter as close as 250 yards,or not until 400 yards or so,but you still haven't proven the accuracy to within 11%.
 
Dogleg said:
That system is set up for estimateing range on a deer sized target, so its not real useful on anything you're likely to be using your 22/250 for. There's 2 rows of numbers on the eyepiece. One is magnification, the other is the yardage. What you do is turn the power up until you bracket the deer's chest between the center aiming point and the tip of either the top or bottom thick post. When that fits, read the yardage off the eyepiece.
A quick and dirty way with many, even most common calibers in the 2900-3100 fps range is to sight in for the maximum point blank range by sighting 3" high at 100 and holding center to about 300. With your scope cranked to 10, if you can get the top and bottom thick post touching hair at the same time, pull the trigger and get your knife out.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand. I follow you up until you say to read the yardage off of the eye piece. The eyepiece has the magnification numbers and closer to the eyepiece there are numbers. Those are 2 at 3.5X and 6 at 10X with 3,4,5 in between those. Do you multiply those numbers with the magnification numbers?
 
stubblejumper said:
Where do you come up with 11%?Have you measured the chest depth of the largest and smallest deer in Canada to come up with that figure.That would be the only way to determine the true accuracy of the system.



How about a 19" deer?or a 19.5" deer?



Depending on the cartridge and load,it can matter as close as 250 yards,or not until 400 yards or so,but you still haven't proven the accuracy to within 11%.
Click to expand...



For the 11% I used your own numbers, 18-16=2. 2/18 =.1111 11%


If you want to shoot fawns 16-14 =2 2/16 = .125 12.5%

Reticle subtension range estimation has been around longer than laser range finders, and longer than either of us. It costs nothing,requires no batteries and is hard to leave in the truck. It requires a knowledge of game size, and the assumption that the shooter is smarter than a crosshair.

They call it range estimation, not measureing. Therefore it seems fair to compare the system to the human eyeball, not a LRF.
 
Those are 2 at 3.5X and 6 at 10X with 3,4,5 in between those. Do you multiply those numbers with the magnification numbers?
Click to expand...

You don't multiply anything,the 2 through 6 represent hundreds of yards.You adjust the magnification until the deer appears to fill the 16" spacing,then read off the yardage using the 2 through 6 in hundreds of yards.Does that answer your question?

Reticle subtension range estimation has been around longer than laser range finders, and longer than either of us.
Click to expand...

Yes it has,and laser rangefinders have caught on so well,because they have proven to be much more accurate.If the reticle system was accurate,the laser rangefinder would not have caught on nearly so well.

It costs nothing,requires no batteries and is hard to leave in the truck.
Click to expand...

Actually many of the rangefinding reticle systems are extra cost options,or are only offered on the more expensive scopes.Leupold does not offer this system on the VXII,VXI or the rifleman.

It requires a knowledge of game size,
Click to expand...

It requires an assumption of game size.A deer can weigh less than 150 lbs,or well in excess of 300lbs.I merely used the 18" as an example,because our northern deer are much larger than southern deer.In fact I edited my post very quickly to remove the 18" number, because it is quite possible to find a 350lb+ deer where I hunt,and the measurement would likely exceed 18".

They call it range estimation, not measureing.Therefore it seems fair to compare the system to the human eyeball, not a LRF.
Click to expand...

Since the Leupold system lets you read the supposed ranges directly off of the scope,I think of this "estimating" as a crude system of measuring.When using only the the human eye to estimate ranges,you aren't reading numbers directly off of an instrument such as a riflescope.Since both a LRF and a rangefinding reticle involve reading ranges directly off of an instrument,I see nothing wrong with comparing the two systems.
 
stubblejumper said:
You don't multiply anything,the 2 through 6 represent hundreds of yards.You adjust the magnification until the deer appears to fill the 16" spacing,then read off the yardage using the 2 through 6 in hundreds of yards.Does that answer your question?



Yes it has,and laser rangefinders have caught on so well,because they have proven to be much more accurate.If the reticle system was accurate,the laser rangefinder would not have caught on nearly so well.



Actually many of the rangefinding reticle systems are extra cost options,or are only offered on the more expensive scopes.Leupold does not offer this system on the VXII,VXI or the rifleman.



It requires an assumption of game size.A deer can weigh less than 150 lbs,or well in excess of 300lbs.I merely used the 18" as an example,because our northern deer are much larger than southern deer.In fact I edited my post very quickly to remove the 18" number, because it is quite possible to find a 350lb+ deer where I hunt,and the measurement would likely exceed 18".



Since the Leupold system lets you read the supposed ranges directly off of the scope,I think of this "estimating" as a crude system of measuring.When using only the the human eye to estimate ranges,you aren't reading numbers directly off of an instrument such as a riflescope.Since both a LRF and a rangefinding reticle involve reading ranges directly off of an instrument,I see nothing wrong with comparing the two systems.
Click to expand...

Since Leupold calls it an estimateing tool, holding it to a higher standard than the manufacturer seems unreasonable. Besides I'm not argueing that subtension is more accurate than a LRF, I'm telling the OP how it works.

FWIW my normal method is using one of my STWs and not thinking about range until it looks like 400. After that a LRF, Kestral, different rifles and a set of turrets looks pretty good.
 
I think between the two of us,we have answered the question of how to use the Leupold system.

As for my own method,I have gone to a set of Leica Geovids.While examining an animal and deciding whether to shoot it,I take a range reading at the same time,so no time is wasted estimating range.Since I never hunt big game without binoculars,I have no extra gear to carry around,although the Geovids do weigh a few ounces more than a pair or regular binoculars.
 
Did you get the HDs? I looked at the old ones at some blowout pricing, then made the mistake of looking through the HDs. I suppose I could sell a couple Leicas and my Zeiss and Swarovski binos, but it's easier to tell my kid to carry one of them.
 
Yes I bought the HDs.I bought them from Doug at Cameraland the day before Leica canceled the rebate on them.I was one of the few people to receive a rebate on the HDs.I usually think about such purchases more,but in this case,I am glad that I acted quickly on impulse.
I actually never compared the HDs to the regular Geovids,I just figured that they were to be my last pair of binoculars,so I went with the best.Have you compared them side by side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom