range finder question

[the frenchman]

hi to all

i would like to know if there's a big difference between a normal range finder and a range finder that gives you the true balistic range

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/conte ... 23sn03.jpg

example:i tought that if you look into your range finder from the bottom of your tree stand and it says 20yards and then you go up into your tree stand since your higther id would says 23yards approx

so is this example realistic or not if yes what it is the difference between the normal and the true balistic range?
hope you guy's undestand my question

Michel

[LoneWolf]

example:i tought that if you look into your range finder from the bottom of your tree stand and it says 20yards and then you go up into your tree stand since your higther id would says 23yards approx

That's why you should always range out you distances from the bottom of the tree and never from an elevated treestand, cause if you range the distances when your in your stand it will give you the wrong readings. As you said, it will actually give you a reading of approx 23 yards when you're really only 20 yards away.

[BUCKSHOT]

From a Mathematical standpoint the distance to your target should increase slightly!

If you are 60' from a target, at the base of a tree.
Go up 5' and the distance to the target become 60.2'
Go to 10', distance = 60.8'
Go to 15', distance = 61.8'
Go to 20', distance = 63.2'

Basically from ground level to 20' up, the distance at 60' from the base will increase by 1 yd. Most Rangefinders are accurate to within +/- 1 yd.

I would think a regular Rangefinder would do the trick, I agree with Lonewolf that it is best to take your readings from the ground, just remember you will have a slight increase in distance, perhaps not the same value you would get out of your rangefinder!
Hope this helps!

[patmax]

Couldn't you range the base of the tree from the stand - then range the target and shoot based on the difference? ie; If the tree stand is 20 feet high and the target is 20 yards (60 ft.) then the effective shot is 40ft/3= 13.334 yards. A calculator in the stand would be nice. THIS IS WHY I SHOOT FROM THE GROUND......

Good hunting,
patmax

[decee]

My teachers told me the Pythagorean formula would come in handy some day!

That was about 35 years ago

[Matthias72]

Sorry guys, but what is the problem to measure distance from target directly from tree-stand before the shoot???

[the frenchman]

ok i will give you another example

if I am on top of a mountain or a tree just says 50 feet hight and looking at a target down below.

If I use a normal range finder or a true ballistic range finder will it give me the same reading distance(yardages)?

what I'm trying to find out is there a difference between the 2

thank's

Michel

[LeGrand]

Well I won't have to worry about the reading, since I misplaced my rangefinder in my garage and still haven't found it after one month

[Matthias72]

Guys,
when you shoot with a positive or negative angle the trajectory changes.
If you shoot up or down the arrow will arrives higher.
How higher is determining by arrow speed, angle and target distance, but it could do the difference.
True Ballistic Range will make a huge impact on your accuracy, giving you a much more accurate measurement than the straight line ditance to your target. The Range Finder uses an inclinometer to measure up and down hill shots, coupled with the ballistics of your projectile to give you the equivalent horizontal range, and for rifle hunters, a holdover/holdunder point or an MOA adjustment. No other rangefinder does so much to help you make the shot of a lifetime.

Matthias

[BUCKSHOT]

This has become an interesting thread in that you are so determined to get a straight yes or no!
Yes there is a difference between straight line range and ballistic range!

As Mathias posted, there is a bit of information about it on the Leopold Web Site for Ballistic Range Finders.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-dig ... inder.html

Truthfully I think that Ballistic Range becomes more important at greater ranges than the ranges you will be hunting with a Bow.
True Ballistic range is a lot less critical at 40 yds than it would be at 300 yds. It takes into account many factors including trajectory weight, distance, speed, wind speed, wind direction, speed of the target, incline, decline e.t.c.
I learned that Ballistic range falls into a category called External Ballistics, there is quite a bit of info in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics

To me it would just be easier to go with the straight line distance for Bow hunting, keeping in mind that my scope is set for the appropriate "straight line" yardage, and that gravity has a lot less effect on an arrow/bolt when shooting uphill/downhill.

[Hawkeye]

Just my two cents...
I ordered an RX-III from Leupold, and was not impressed; and returned it. The main reason was I found it not be too user friendly for bow hunting. There were too many buttons to have to remember the sequence in which to use them while bow-hunting. And I could never get the "ballistics" option to work properly anyway. Also in talking to the salesperson about my return, he said the ballistics option is a lot more useful for long-range rifle hunting when an incline is involved anyway, not so much for short-range bow-hunting.
I have since ordered another Bushnell YardagePro Scout. It was a rangefinder I've had in the past, and worked just fine for bow-hunting.

[the frenchman]

thank's to all

so for what i can read for short distance the normal rangefinder is doing the job
and for what Hawkeye said maybe it's not worth it to spend the extra money for the true ballistic range finder.

If I would ask you guys: wich range finders are the best for crossbow hunting?

Michel