Where to measure from?

[AnimalHitman]

When ranging, is the distance to target from the scope ocular, objective, or rifle muzzle? Thanks

 

[steve-l]

When ranging, is the distance to target from the scope ocular, objective, or rifle muzzle? Thanks

I suggest that if it makes a difference, your pellet is going really, really slooooow!

 

[Matt247365]

When I range something it's from my eye ball to the target.

Matt

 

[TheIceman]

In the field hunting, or at the range shooting, you most likely will be holding your rangefinder to your eye, and that's where your range information comes from. It's not practical to measure from anywhere else, and as Steve pointed out, if it makes a difference, you have a very, very slow pellet! 

 

[Skip-in-WV]

In my opinion it doesn't really matter. As long as you are consistent, and know the holdovers ot clicks.

 

[Macros]

It can make a difference if initially you zero at close range in your back yard, say 15yards so your far zero will be around 50. In that case accidentally measuring 16yards will make a difference downrange.

In that scenario range from the end of the barrel to the target.

It'll still be a bit rough due to the inherent error in zeroing close, but all else equal you'll closer when it comes to fine tuning zero further out.

Once all is locked in though, it's exactly as the guys above have said - barely worth thinking about. And should you have the range to just zero at 50 from the get go, this is a moot point

 

[Imold]

Well when I set up my 25,50,75,100 yard shooting course or put up new targets I stand where the end of my muzzle would be while sitting at the bench and take my measurements, so I do it muzzle to target, velocity is also measured at muzzle and at target,distances traveled.

 

[AnimalHitman]

Yes, Imold; this makes the most sense to me as well. Thanks . I am really only interested in this for zeroing. Since the validity of all the other ballistic metrics is dependent on a solid zero, I want that to be pristine. But, I do concur with the sentiments of the others who have responded; in general practice, the difference is de minimis.

 

[Scotchmo]

When ranging, is the distance to target from the scope ocular, objective, or rifle muzzle? Thanks

If ranging by scope (stadiametric), it is taken from the reticle. At least that is what I have been using. Though the pivot point (gimbal) of the erector tube is the true base of the angular adjustments (clicks).

The difference between the scope and muzzle is rarely more than 2 feet. That difference might be critical for a close shot of say 30 feet. But as you move farther out, the difference becomes a smaller percentage of the total.

If you are using the scope for focus rangefinding as they do in field target, you will likely be labeling each distance, so you can take it from anywhere that you want.

Something to remember: when clicking or using moa or mil stadia, all corrections are with respect to the scope. For trajectory calculations, it's with respect to the muzzle.

 

[AnimalHitman]

Scotch, thank you for that scholarly response! I realize now that you need more info. I use a hand-held tilt-technology laser rangefinder that gives true horizontal distance regardless of the angle. [This way I can simply use the Chairgun hold-offs (I use mil-dot) for zero angle per se.] The distance from the ocular of my scope to my muzzle is 26". Since my optimum zero distance is 44.8 yds, I suppose that this whole issue is probably moot. It would be interesting to me to understand the physics involved though. I hope this helps.

 

[Coldair]

This post made me think of Shooter1721 with the LONG tape measure whenever watching his videos.


CA