Targets

That is being worked on... hopefully, it will be in the not too distant future.

Even if a place is never found, there is nothing preventing you from using UKD field shooting techniques on a square range. They work just as well, but the opposite is not true of trying to take the square range techniques into field shooting.
 
No, they're a useful tool. But, they do have limitations, and sometimes it's actually better to use the reticle.

A rangefinder has the capability of being more precise than reticle ranging, especially when the danger space is no longer overlapping with reticle ranging. But, the LRF's accuracy comes at a cost: it requires you to break your position and it requires you to be very steady. If you aren't steady, you may be ranging a bush or a tree trunk in front of or in back of your target and not the target itself. If you have time to range with the LRF, you should. But, if you need to range quickly, you're within the limits of reticle ranging and your targets are sufficiently tall that you have overlapping dangerspace, then the reticle is preferable.

When using the reticle, don't try and do the math on the fly, create a little reference chart that changes it from a math exercize into a lookup.

 
Last edited:
So refreshing to hear someone that actually gets it and can speak to other people about it. Thanks for sharing that info kombayotch, I have been shooting FFP MIL/MIL for several years now and it did take a little while to catch on, but once I did I never looked back. Key thing I have found is to test and calibrate your scope upon initial installation to make sure you get what the turrets and reticle say you should get, it is amazing how far off some scopes actually are. Good read there folks!
 
So just for educational purposes...
What are the top five (or three) FFP MIL/MIL scopes being used today?
I'm in the market for a scope and thought I knew what I wanted...
This thread has me re-evaluating that decision. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom