Quote Originally Posted by chukarmandoo View Post
Well, beings that there are countless articles on ranging with mil and moa reticles which use yards, meters, and inches in figuring the solution of an unknown range, I will say this I really don't know if any one method would work best under all circumstances in engagement with targets while under stress. The biggest factor is knowing the size of the target you are engaging.
If I was targeting deer, 18 inches from its back to the bottom of its chest would be the gauge I would use but for simplicity I would convert 18" to yards if I was using a mil reticle and ranging in yards. Target size, in this case .5 yards x 1000 divided by mils = range. Example: .5 yds. x 1000 = 500 divided by .87 mils as measured with reticle = 575 yards.
So in reality using a moa reticle would basically be the same but using different numbers. Example: 18 inches x 95.5 = divided by 3 moa = 573 yards.
I hope this was what you were questioning .
It was, and the fact is people have been (attempting) to judge distance in this manor for many decades using dots.
It dosent work well regardles of the reticle at least on things like animals of unknown proportions.
So you are correct in that knowing the size of the target is extremly important.
A deer laying down for example would pose an entirly different picture as would a smaller deer.
A 6" bull on a target would be a little easier, and thats what most are referring to when they talk about ranging with a reticle.
There are lots of armchair experts in doing these type things. Quite possibly military snipers are trained to use these things but
thats part of the training. In actual practice i doubt many would be doing that. According to Chris Kyles book all his kills had to
be confirmed. Meaning there was someone acting as a (spotter)? So im assuming by that, information such as distance is fed to
the shooter, at least in some instances.