I'm totally not badmouthing the application of trigonometry in right triangles, but right triangles aren't always available while you're hiking. One thing that IS always available is the ability to hike 100 yards and shoot another azimuth. For this reason, the law of sines is infinitely more applicable in a hiking situation, and only slightly harder to understand. :thumb:thanks, it wasnt too hard to understand
d = (Tan (90 - (A -B))) x Ref is indeed a simpler formula. Just make sure you understand that it only works for right triangles, and you may not always be able to walk perpendicular to your target.I believe the basis of your formula is still 2 azimuth readings.
this is alot simpler, just find the tangent
d = (Tan (90 - (A -B))) x Ref
I'll test it on a known distance course as soon as I can to see if it's solid method, but I have to say that 'solve for the tangent' is a more field expedient formula to stick to, especially if you have a scientific calc on hand.
plus the advantage of my way is alot less walking, hence it'd be ideal for a long range marksman.
Correct me if Im wrong here but wouldnt walking 2x farther for the reference distance make your estimation 2x more accurate?
That will find your location on a map, which you could then use to quickly scale the distance to your target. The law of sines works without a map, and is more accurate. :thumb:You guys got it backwards. Stay put and get 2 seperate azimuths back to your position from known terrain points using terrain association and your 7 1/2 minute topo maps(you DO have them don't you?)and do the trig back to your position.
Just get out there and try both methods out. You'll find out real quick which one is better for whatever your application is.Im OK with the idea of a right triangle type formula, what exactly is the downside?
I cant think of many scenarios where I wouldnt be able to walk 10-20 yards (left or right) to get my 2 azimuths to tgt.
Im assuming to get better results when walking perpendicular to the target azimuth I would only have to do a 90 deg. offset. 1st azimuth minus 90 degrees, walk 10yds...shoot 2nd azimuth.
I can get +/- 5% easy. That's pretty dang good for a <5 second, no equipment required estimation.We all have reticle scopes of some sort, and they'll be accurate down to 10-25yds at 1,000 if you know a reference dimension.
Estimating how much daylight hours you might have with a thumb makes more sense than trying to estimate something you need precision for like range estimation. Plus the thumb width method will get you 200 meter +/- accuracy at 1,000 meters...
So unless you're a mortarman..