# Rangefinder vs inclinometer



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

knarrly said:


> Just wondering how the new rangefinders with angle compensation compare vs doing the math with an inclinometer? Anyting is better than my method of taking either 2 or 5 yards off depending on the feel of the incline.
> 
> 
> Do the rangefinders work well at finding the true yardage up and down hills?


As most on here know, I'm not keen on the "techno-toys". I also understand however, that most on here haven't been shooting field archery for 45+ years like I have either; thus, they figure that they don't have "time" to gain the experience. That is fine...but....most of the best of the best don't intimately trust the "techno-toys"...they use them as a BACKUP to their gut instincts and experience!

Personally, I do have a techno-toy that I have used sometimes...in the way of a rangefinder with angle compensation incorporated into it. It works just fine. But again....I read the target, know how MY equipment shoots, and know my impact points, and then use the rangefinder to confirm what I'm seeing and what my experience tells me to finalize what I'm going to do.

There are going to be targets out there that fool you, or make you scratch your head on how to shoot them....so....the smart ones use the rangefinder to confirm things...but NOT as the absolute gospel. The inclinometer works fine...but tells you NOTHING about the YARDAGE as in...if it is mis-measured, or if the target just "shoots funny" or not! Of course the range finder doesn't tell you about the target that "shoots funny" due to foot positioning, etc. either.

The "techno-toys" are a great "guide", but nothing replaces knowing how YOU and how YOUR equipment shoots, and how to read things. You gotta know how YOU react to front foot high or front foot low; how YOU react to having a bend at the waist up or down and how this not only affects your vertical impact point, but how it affects your left/right impact point as well...and there isn't a "techno-toy" made that will "give" you this critical information.

For ME....I'd opt for the rangefinder first. Mine has an 8X ocular in it...which helps me to read the target as I'm "ranging" it to confirm my gut feeling about how this target is going to pan out.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

field14 said:


> That is fine...but....most of the best of the best don't intimately trust the "techno-toys"...they use them as a BACKUP to their gut instincts and experience!


Not the ones I know.......if they aren't checking a target it's because they know that course and don't need to use it. Watch the video of Dave shooting over seas.....trust me he uses one A LOT. From shooting with others personally I know they use them. Don't fool yourself.....or anyone else. :wink:

From my use I would say that the ranges I have shot the better working rangefinders with the compensator built in work VERY well....


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> Not the ones I know.......if they aren't checking a target it's because they know that course and don't need to use it. Watch the video of Dave shooting over seas.....trust me he uses one A LOT. From shooting with others personally I know they use them. Don't fool yourself.....or anyone else. :wink:
> 
> From my use I would say that the ranges I have shot the better working rangefinders with the compensator built in work VERY well....


I shot with Dave in Redding a couple years in a row and not once did he touch a rangefinder.



Darin Cooper was standing right beside him giving him all the cuts with his.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Bobmuley said:


> I shot with Dave in Redding a couple years in a row and not once did he touch a rangefinder.
> 
> 
> 
> Darin Cooper was standing right beside him giving him all the cuts with his.


 I was talking about an inclinometer though 

But that is still hilarious


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Brown Hornet said:


> Not the ones I know.......if they aren't checking a target it's because they know that course and don't need to use it. Watch the video of Dave shooting over seas.....trust me he uses one A LOT. From shooting with others personally I know they use them. Don't fool yourself.....or anyone else. :wink:
> 
> From my use I would say that the ranges I have shot the better working rangefinders with the compensator built in work VERY well....


Those EUROPEAN courses are not the pancakes like we have in the USA. In addition, you cannot know for sure exactly what he was doing with that rangefinder either.

MOST of us cannot hold steady enough to tell 1/4 yard, or even 1/2 yard of a "problem"...so we wouldn't know for sure if WE are at fault for the high/low miss, or the RANGE is at fault.

I also know MANY top echelon shooters that only use their rangefinder to CONFIRM their gut feeling, or if they are stumped on a particular target...so they verify it with the rangefinder.

The cut charts for the Darrington course were initially done by Mike Leiter and I think Dean Pridgen...and NEITHER of them used a rangefinder for those "cut charts", but rather their EXPERIENCE and knowledge. Of course, you are talking with perhaps two of the greatest FIELD shooters to ever compete in the game.....

It is like shooting with fat shafts.....a 58-60X shooter MIGHT get to the 60X plateau with the use of the FAT SHAFTS, but a 40X shooter? FORGET IT....simply going to fat shafts won't turn you magically into a 60X shooter.

With the "techno-toys"...a 530 shooter is NOT going to become a 550 shooter just by buying and using a "techno-toy"....there is way more to it than just having at tool tell you something that may be "bogus" or give you information you are ill-prepared to properly USE.

IF you don't know how YOU react to body positioning for uphill and downhill (or sidehill/downhill), then having the "cut" ain't gonna do squat for you....Then, if you 'use' the cut and still miss....it sure ain't gonna tell you much either....other than you just got the "4" or "3"...that wasn't supposed to happen cuz the "techno-toy" was supposed to automatically "give you" the "5".

Having the "toy" is one thing, having it and knowing HOW and WHEN to use it and make it worth-while...is yet another "experience" that cannot be simply purchased and become automatic.

Of course we have to add that the first perfect 560's in NATIONAL competition...were done WITHOUT the techno-toys, WITHOUT computerized site tapes, and WITHOUT carbon arrows and super fast bows.

But as with the other toys in this game, lotsa money is going to be spent with people trying to BUY perfect scores with money better spent on COACHING and PRACTICE first.... only to not obtain the automatic higher scores and end up having to get coaching and more practice/experience anyways.

Always remember: If you don't have the "A game" before you get to the tournament...simply buying a new "techno-toy" won't GIVE you the "A-game" as you get there either."

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Ok f14......I only read part of your last post because it was heading down the road we all are bored with. :doh:

first of all I was talking about Dave and others using an inclinometer. He uses one....it's on camera....and he even says he uses one on a very regular basis. :wink: I know Hinky used one when he won his National titles.....and in practice when he on a course that he doesn't shoot on a regular basis.....he also carries a range finder.......he used to carry a Palm but he doesn't anymore.....now he carries an iPhone with Archer's Mark in it....it has an inclinometer and does your marks for you and tells you the target distance so you don't drop points like I did because of a miss marked course....twice. :doh:

Pretty positive Jesse uses an inclinometer also. Haven't shot with him a great deal.....but I would almost put money on it.

But can you get off your whole "techno toy" is the anti christ kick....seriously.....we all know you don't like them. Guess what....that's GREAT :clap: Don't use them.....we know that in 1954 when bows shot -56 fps you didn't have them. It's called advancement in technology......you don't like them then get it passed that they aren't allowed....till then :zip: on them really.  Your on the internet on your fancy computer with that magical internet to talk to us....what happened to the day when you had to see people to talk to them and beeoottcchhh..... :embara:

We all know you don't need them....I don't use a range finder or an inclinometer.....and know many that don't. Do fine without them.....have learned on my own and do fine. But I know your also not riding a single speed bike like the ones made back in the days of the -56 fps bows either......

now that I think about it.....that nice fancy Merlin ya have is a lot shorter....faster....more forgiving and better made then the -56 fps bows......and so are the arrows..... you give up all that and guys will gladly stop using an inclinometer or a rangefinder....

what release are you shooting????? Does someone have a nail and piece of wood for him :noidea:


I guess I should give up my B-Stingers and go back to the old stabs also. :faint: 

the old day "archers leaving" because of the target change thing is tiresome also.......if people left because they made the targets the size they are now....so what..... bye...see ya....thanks for playing and sorry you left because you liked thinking your better then you are. The old scoring was very "forgiving". I think I would have shot in the 548-553 range everyday at Nationals last summer....or HIGHER. The old scoring was like hunter class in 3D is to open A in ASA. Not taking anything away for the Mike L. and Ragsdales and Dean etc....those bows could flat out put it down and still can. But the targets are better now. 

you have a lot going when it comes to useful good info......just stop being that freakin' crotchity old dude over stooopid stuff. Good lord man

:darkbeer:


----------



## Ron Meadows (Aug 17, 2005)

Oh for crying out loud.....they work just fine and we all know that they won't make you shoot like Jesse or Dave....simple question....simple answer Field....The range finders work as designed and will give you the correct distance of flight for the arrow....the rest, as it's always been, is up to the archer. You don't have to have shot for 200 years, use a Wee-gee board, or read tea leaves to get them to work properly.....making the shot hasn't changed over time...you still have to execute.



field14 said:


> Those EUROPEAN courses are not the pancakes like we have in the USA. In addition, you cannot know for sure exactly what he was doing with that rangefinder either.
> 
> MOST of us cannot hold steady enough to tell 1/4 yard, or even 1/2 yard of a "problem"...so we wouldn't know for sure if WE are at fault for the high/low miss, or the RANGE is at fault.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mike2787 (Jul 16, 2002)

Hornet - just to set the record straight. Terry, Dean and I shot those scores using the exact same targets and the exact same scoring that Jesse and Dave use today. It was not an easier, bigger scoring area. The 5 ring was the same size. I know its hard to believe that anyone could approach 550 scores using that antiquated equipment but we were good too.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Field 14 is long winded, but that's just part of his charm. 

But, I do kind of like it when someone talking about what it takes to shoot 550's has actually shot a few of them. :zip:


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Mike2787 said:


> Hornet - just to set the record straight. Terry, Dean and I shot those scores using the exact same targets and the exact same scoring that Jesse and Dave use today. It was not an easier, bigger scoring area. The 5 ring was the same size. I know its hard to believe that anyone could approach 550 scores using that antiquated equipment but we were good too.


that's not what I am saying Mikey :wink:

Like I said about the equipment.....which is really what it was all about....you boys were still stroken'


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

TNMAN said:


> But, I do kind of like it when someone talking about what it takes to shoot 550's has actually shot a few of them. :zip:


nobody is talking about what it takes......and all he is doing in these kinds of post is complaining about technology.....


----------



## Moparmatty (Jun 23, 2003)

Ron Meadows said:


> Oh for crying out loud.....they work just fine and we all know that they won't make you shoot like Jesse or Dave....simple question....simple answer Field....The range finders work as designed and will give you the correct distance of flight for the arrow....the rest, as it's always been, is up to the archer. You don't have to have shot for 200 years, use a Wee-gee board, or read tea leaves to get them to work properly.....making the shot hasn't changed over time...you still have to execute.


Way to take the wind out of my sails Ron! :doh:

I just finished up making a new Wee Gee board, but I guess I'll have to resort back to VooDoo dolls to gain an advantage.


----------



## Ron Meadows (Aug 17, 2005)

I don't know if I spelled Wee Gee or WiGi or however you spell it correctly, but I'm glad the meaning was conveyed correctly just the same. 



Moparmatty said:


> Way to take the wind out of my sails Ron! :doh:
> 
> I just finished up making a new Wee Gee board, but I guess I'll have to resort back to VooDoo dolls to gain an advantage.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

TNMAN said:


> Field 14 is long winded, but that's just part of his charm.
> 
> But, I do kind of like it when someone talking about what it takes to shoot 550's has actually shot a few of them. :zip:


Actually, in my case, it wasn't just a "few" 550+ scores....however, I also NEVER ONCE shot a perfect 560 on the "new" NFAA target face...557 field and 557 hunter were my lifetime personal bests...ALL of them with aluminum arrows, bow at under 225 fps, SPRINGIE or Golden Premier Launcher arrow rest, SHOT IN site marks, and NO inclinometers or rangefinders.

AND...Like Mike Leiter states very accurately...it was done on this SAME target face, hunter and field that we are using TODAY. Same size, same distances shot...but most of the time in less time out on the course, too.

Seems that today's 'hot dogs' think that the ONLY way to shoot well at all is to have the "toys" and that today's scores exceed those from say 10 - 20 years ago...which is not true. While the 550+ scores are more frequently posted, they aren't a result of the "techno-toys" but rather the dedication of those shooters willing to PRACTICE and put in the time needed to perfect their form and shot execution.

However, those 560's do not REQUIRE the faster bows or the "nano arrow" or the X-10 arrow technology to be achieved! You do not REQUIRE 250+ fps to achieve it either.

Yes, the Mike Leiters, Dean Pridgens, Terry Ragsdales, were THAT GOOD, plain and simple. It would be interesting indeed to put the "techno-toys" in the hands of these shooters of the past when they were in their "prime" and WATCH THEM POST the 560's like they were nothing...cuz they were doing it without all that stuff anyways and again....they were THAT GOOD at it without all the hype and talk.

The point I'm trying to make is that simply purchasing and "trying" to use the techno-toys is NOT a sure-fire way to the 550+ plateau, and positively won't turn a 530 shooter into a 550+ shooter overnight either.

Too many today believe it is the "toys" that are giving the shooters that are the caliber of the Dave Cousins, Reo Wildes, Jesse Broadwaters, etc that final edge...when in all reality and practicality it is the QUALITY OF THE SHOOTER that is determining that difference.

They can hold that steady to know what a 1/2 yard "cut" will or won't do for them. Most of us cannot do this. They know their form and how uneven stances and body angles affect not only their aiming, but their impact points too.

Again, folks, just cuz you know the "cut" (or think you do) is in no way a guarantee of nailing the X or the "5". It may just give you a closer "4", haha.

The fieldman frankly doesn't care what you do...as long as you comply with the rules and make any time limits involved. Besides, it was/is funner than heck to paddle a techo-toy user on the course by using the ole "noodle" and experience...and a slower bow and "cheaper" arrows...hahahahahaha.

Yep, that new Merlin is one fancy bow...but it shoots arrows....just like the bows of old....when properly fit and setup...into the same hole, time and time again...when not interfered with by the operator.:wink:

Just hate seeing people being duped into believing that field shooting is ALL ABOUT use of the "techno-toys" and that you just gotta have them to do well on a field course...that is a LIE and nothing but marketing HYPE.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Ron Meadows said:


> I don't know if I spelled Wee Gee or WiGi or however you spell it correctly, but I'm glad the meaning was conveyed correctly just the same.


While you may have gotten the PRONUNCIATION correct...Neither of you got the name of the board game correct....it is OUIJA board...and in days of old when we were young and bold...the "Church" didn't want us to be out there piddling with those OUIJA boards.

Oh, by the way, the fieldman....has one sitting right in front of him.

The box says, Ouija (pronounced Wee-Gee or We-Ja)....(The mystifying Oracle)....

THE LATEST AND MOST SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF FORTUNE TELLING.

Weird and mysterious. Surpasses, in its unique results, mind reading, clairvoyance and second sight. It furhishes never failing amusement and recreation for the entire family. As unexplainable as Hindu Magic - - -more intense and absorbingly interesting than a mystery story.

Sorta like trying to shoot a 560 field score while relying fully on a "techno-toy" for all the answers...."ouijanometer" or "ouijaranger", hahahaha

Believe it if you will or wanna...but it is likely it won't ever happen, haha.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Jbird (May 21, 2002)

*Horn Toad*

"tells you the target distance so you don't drop points like I did because of a miss marked course....twice"

Are you saying the Iphone with Archer's Mark also functions as a range finder? If not, how is it going to tell you the correct distance to the target?

Jbird


----------



## Ron Meadows (Aug 17, 2005)

Well thankfully, just like the dinosaurs, that game or whatever it was happened before my time.

My point was that the OP asked if the tools, not techno-toys as you keep referring to them, work. Short answer is yes they do what they were designed to do and we all realize that the archer still has to execute a good shot for the score to happen. The rest of the voodoo that you continually post has no bearing on the question whatsoever. Don't know where the talk of how we did it in the good old days when we walked up hill to school both ways through driving snow, with one sock that had a hole in it became relevant to the OP's question. 



field14 said:


> While you may have gotten the PRONUNCIATION correct...Neither of you got the name of the board game correct....it is OUIJA board...and in days of old when we were young and bold...the "Church" didn't want us to be out there piddling with those OUIJA boards.
> 
> Oh, by the way, the fieldman....has one sitting right in front of him.
> 
> ...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Ron Meadows said:


> Well thankfully, just like the dinosaurs, that game or whatever it was happened before my time.
> 
> My point was that the OP asked if the tools, not techno-toys as you keep referring to them, work. Short answer is yes they do what they were designed to do and we all realize that the archer still has to execute a good shot for the score to happen. The rest of the voodoo that you continually post has no bearing on the question whatsoever. Don't know where the talk of how we did it in the good old days when we walked up hill to school both ways through driving snow, with one sock that had a hole in it became relevant to the OP's question.


The GAME hasn't changed at all...it is still the same game...attempting to shoot all 112 shots into the bullseye and strive for that elusive 560 score. SAME TARGET since 1976...and it is the "since 1976" that I'm talking about when I discuss the items I do with regard to "NEEDS" vs. "Wants".

The point I"m trying to make is that you do not NEED those out there as badly as you NEED solid form, shot execution, and "target know-how". People just aren't realizing that while those "toys" help...they are NOT the magical final answer.
For some shooters, relying on those toys are a detriment, because it puts them into a position of reliance and when they miss, they are more lost than ever.
Most won't take the time to even bother to find out how THEIR equipment shoots. They won't take the time to intentionally mis-set their site and LEARN their impact points based upon how far off they mis-set their sites. They won't take the time to analyze what varying body/foot positioning does to their impact points.

Rather, they shoot for practice on "perfectly set, dead on" per the "cut chart" site settings, shoot for perfect SCORE every time they practice, and otherwise think SCORE first...instead of getting out there and learning about their equipment and how it performs, and more importantly THEMSELVES and how they perform under different conditions from perfect.

What I'm saying is that an archer needs to learn other things first....before becoming reliant upon an electronic device to cure all that ails them.

Go right ahead and used the "toys"....but be realistic about it...and quit placing the emphasis on the "techno-toys" to the top shooters and ignore the FACT that while they do use those toys....they also KNOW HOW TO SHOOT WITHOUT THEM....

Those techno-toys are an AID...but too many are using them as a crutch and expecting them to hold them and their scores up under all circumstances.

You "modern people" haven't been taught how to USE the noodle...but rather have been taught how to use a set of tables or a calculator to give you answers....but we have lost the art of doing things manually...and that even includes speling....er....spelling....grammar.....counting change...and on and on and on....always depending upon electronics to be your crutch to the final answers....so you don't have to do any WORK on your own.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Ron Meadows (Aug 17, 2005)

You were on a roll until the quoted section below and I think this is the crux of the problem that I always have with your posts. Experience is a wonderful thing but it isn't the only thing. You say that us "modern people" haven't been taught how to think, or use our noodle to be exact, and that is complete BS. We just think differently than you do. If I can rely on a "gadget" to do the cuts, or anything for that matter, for me then I'm free to concentrate on other things and remove one more variable from the equation how can that be a bad thing? By it's very definition experience takes a long time to acquire. Why, if a tool exists to do the job for me, should I guess for years while building up a basis for that experience and bleed points the whole time? Does that make sense? To me it sure doesn't. Why do you continually run "us" down for solving the same problems that you did, albeit in a manner much, much simpler? You're inability, or unwillingness, to accept modern technology doesn't diminish the value of those tools to those of us who do and are looking for any edge that we can legally get. 

I'm amazed at the scores that were shot by the folks who didn't have such tools and respect those accomplishments greatly. The fact of the matter is that the Mike, Terry, and Dean's of all generations will exist and excel no matter what tools are available during whichever era they are currently shooting in. So will the Jesse, Dave, and Reo's. The fact that the "modern people" use that tools that are available to us doesn't make our accomplishments any less than those of the guys that came before us, it just makes them different. The cream will always rise to the top and that's the problem when trying to compare the accomplishments of athlete's from generation to generation. The records of one don't, or shouldn't, dimish those of the ones before or after us. 

We're not just talking about rangefinders or clinometers but with everything that you post about. I just don't understand the mentality of "well if you didn't solve the problem the same way that I do then you're wrong", nor do I choose to accept that way of thinking. If you want to continue to make things harder for yourself than they are then by all means do so, just don't slam "us" and everyone that comes on the forum seeking advice with your tainted views on things.



field14 said:


> You "modern people" haven't been taught how to USE the noodle...but rather have been taught how to use a set of tables or a calculator to give you answers....but we have lost the art of doing things manually...and that even includes speling....er....spelling....grammar.....counting change...and on and on and on....always depending upon electronics to be your crutch to the final answers....so you don't have to do any WORK on your own.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Jbird said:


> "tells you the target distance so you don't drop points like I did because of a miss marked course....twice"
> 
> Are you saying the Iphone with Archer's Mark also functions as a range finder? If not, how is it going to tell you the correct distance to the target?
> 
> Jbird


No it doesn't have a rangefinder....I don't have all the distances memorized on the hunter round....just don't shoot that round enough. 

But Archer's Marks lays out your target distances for you. So when you get to a miss marked stake....you don't shoot a 59 for 57 or a 53 for 51 or a 44 for 45 :wink: that has happened to me on several occasions....I actually carry a laminated card with the distances because of it


----------



## knarrly (Dec 21, 2004)

field14 said:


> The GAME hasn't changed at all
> 
> You "modern people" haven't been taught how to USE the noodle...but rather have been taught how to use a set of tables or a calculator to give you answers....but we have lost the art of doing things manually...and that even includes speling....er....spelling....grammar.....counting change...and on and on and on....always depending upon electronics to be your crutch to the final answers....so you don't have to do any WORK on your own.


1. Thanks all for responses

2. I shot my first field shoot 3-4 years ago so I don't have a clue but I've heard that the "change" was the doom of field archery so something changed, what was it?

3. Field14 I've read many of your posts and lots of good info in them but.....I'm sure you have a lot more techno toys than I ever will . Heck, I haven't even shot a moveable pin sight yet (picked one up about a year ago but haven't tried it yet), let alone one with a lens.

4. I'm starting too learn up and down marked yardage late in the game and figured if the new rangefinders can do what inclinometers, palm whatevers, and old rangefinders do all in one it would be less techno toys to play with (1 versus 3),

5. Thanks again to all.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

field14 said:


> Those EUROPEAN courses are not the pancakes like we have in the USA. In addition, you cannot know for sure exactly what he was doing with that rangefinder either.
> 
> 
> Having the "toy" is one thing, having it and knowing HOW and WHEN to use it and make it worth-while...is yet another "experience" that cannot be simply purchased and become automatic.
> ...


Good post Tom and youre correct about those European courses(pic EFAC09), anybody going to Dahn in Germany for WFAC10 expect some VERY tough shots.

I purchased a Rangefinder a couple of years ago, somebody stole it 4 months later but the short time I used it helped confirm the experience I've acquired over the years of IFAA marked Field and unmarked 3D is that I didn't really need it anyway.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

knarrly said:


> 1. Thanks all for responses
> 
> 2. I shot my first field shoot 3-4 years ago so I don't have a clue but I've heard that the "change" was the doom of field archery so something changed, what was it?
> 
> ...


Well, I guess you nailed me on this one, ha!:wink:

People think I'm "complaining" or I'm "anti" techno-toys...but obviously over the years, we have all accumulated more of them that we realize. However, the POINT is....the "inclinometers" and "rangefinders" and "Palm Pilots" are not NEEDED as much as they are being promoted as a "have to have" series of items.
The "Daddy tell me this" mentality, or "teacher GIVE me the answer to the problem" mentality isn't doing much to help the test scores go up; nor does it help the thinking ability and ability to stand on one's own two feet either. Lowering the standards also doesn't help one iota. Keep lowering the bar for performance and figuring things out on one's own, and the reverse happens...people get WORSE instead of better at something.

I've seen it on courses where a few 'shooters' don't even have a site tape on their bow site...but rather will "plug in" the information to their palm pilot for each shot and let the computer "tell them" where to set their site! Not many have gone to this length...but they ARE out there doing this! 
Of course, on the "older front", I've shot with people that took the "lack of techno-toys" to the extreme by having a separate site bar and scope for each field/hunter course that they competed on. They would go out and "site in" a given site and scope for a particular course and use that set only for that course! The funniest thing was that I don't recall them ever once winning a competition on said course with that type of system....which made it even funnier for us, and sad for them! :wink::wink:

I still will go on record and say that the NEED for those isn't there as a priority item over practice, experience, and coaching. Until a person has the know how as far as how THEY shoot and how the EQUIPMENT performs, the money is better spent on practice and a good coach; then worry about the purchase of a "techno-toy." Without the form...the toy is practically useless and can become of burden instead of the fine aid it is intended to be.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## sps3172 (Dec 14, 2007)

So I found this old horse...er post...and figured I'd bring it out for another beating 

Actually, rather than debate coaching/practice vs. 'techo toys' I'm simply wanting some specific product recommendations.

If I'm dead set on purchasing a range finder and inclinometer (or combo unit), what's the best way to go? I've read that some of the units that 'do the math for you' and provide a 'pre-cut' yardage may not be as accurate as if you were to range the target, measure the angle separately, and do the trig yourself.

Thoughts/theories?

What to buy?

P.S. I PROMISE not to steal money from my coaching/practice budget to fund this project.


----------



## sps3172 (Dec 14, 2007)

Bueller?.....Bueller?......Bueller?


----------



## JayMc (Jan 4, 2005)

Technology is the debil.

I have a sophisticated incline/decline rangefinder that will give me horizontal and hypotenuse distances. I also have a clinometer on my iphone that will give me angles. I also have printed cosine charts that I built in excel to give me percentages to cut with.

I use none of that b/c the rangefinder and phone use batteries. I used a laptop to create the cosine chart, so batteries were involved there too.

Here's the clinometer I'm using now to get the angles; I will also calculate the hypotenuse in my head on every target instead of using the cosine charts...


----------



## TANC (Mar 14, 2005)




----------



## sps3172 (Dec 14, 2007)

JayMc said:


> Technology is the debil.
> 
> I have a sophisticated incline/decline rangefinder that will give me horizontal and hypotenuse distances. I also have a clinometer on my iphone that will give me angles. I also have printed cosine charts that I built in excel to give me percentages to cut with.
> 
> ...


Which specific model of 'sophisticated incline/decline rangefinder' do you have? Does it provide 'hypotenuse distances' that are accurate to your satisfaction? I read somewhere (can't find it again) that some of these 'round' the hyp-distance at a level good enough for hunting but not quite to the level that satisfies someone shooting field rounds. That's really the fact I'm hoping to get confirmed or denied.

Luckily, I hated my iphone and the blackberry I have in exchange won't perform inclinomenter fucntions....so the devil can't tempt me with that software *smile*


----------



## JayMc (Jan 4, 2005)

I have a Nikon Riflemaster 550 and I really like it. I know how it runs compared to my steel tape out to 80yds. I've tested the angles to as high and low of points I can and it seems to work well (within my margin of error in shooting ability of course).

I'm pretty new to field, but I've worked the course at my local club to get the cuts. I used my iphone and cosine chart. I cruised timber and was active in forestry in high school and college. I'm comfortable with angles and using tools in the woods to collect data. I would just assume estimate the angle and check it with my phone or a clinometer and then figure the cut. I prefer to do that instead of using my rangefinder b/c I focus better if I stay in a routine; maybe it's b/c I'm OCD. The reason I use my phone is because it's always in my pocket. One less thing to carry if I just use it to get cuts. 

The cosine chart I made is below. I keep a laminated copy in my quiver 

If you notice, with good form a cut is not really needed at all until you hit an 8d angle and even then it doesn't become worth really looking at until you've got some yardage. I look at the shot and get an idea of what the angle is, consult the cut chart and calculate in my head how much to take off. My first round at sectionals a few weeks ago I studied the angles and then I pretty much knew what I needed to now for the subsequent 4 times around the 14 target course. I can't say any of my misses there were the result of bad cuts, they just weren't my best shots.

I practice my cuts as often as I can. My wife walked out the other day and I was standing on top of a ladder on the deck shooting birdie targets on a block target down in the yard. She just rolled her eyes and went back inside


----------



## TANC (Mar 14, 2005)

You're a sick man, JayMc. :wink:


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

Mike2787 said:


> Hornet - just to set the record straight. Terry, Dean and I shot those scores using the exact same targets and the exact same scoring that Jesse and Dave use today. It was not an easier, bigger scoring area. The 5 ring was the same size. I know its hard to believe that anyone could approach 550 scores using that antiquated equipment but we were good too.


Mike what you guys did in the past impressed me more then the 560s that were shot recently. Hornet was not around in those days and to be honest I was just getting started in field when you were tearing up the courses. I have often wondered what kinda scores you guys could have shot with the new and improved equipment of today. I am not taking anything away from Jesse and Dave because these guys are still top notch but I believe that what you all did in the late 80's and early 90's was mind boggeling. See you soon Ed


----------

