Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,016 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anyone have a source of something like this for the Swedish used Ajack scope (if this isn't for the Ajack)? I think this came out of Bowser's Finn Mosin "Rifles of the White Death" book.

3789641
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,016 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
PS: here is where I did a quick comparison with 24" wide target boards at 100 and 200 yds (the 100' yard on the left is 24" wide, the 200yd target has another 24" wide target board clipped to it for at total combined width of 48", the right target without any notations on it wasn't mine).

3789643
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,497 Posts
FWIW: sight picture through a Leupold 4.5x14X (second focal plane) with the German #1 reticle. The target is 12"x12" @ 100 yds.
I am assuming that the post width on a typical German #1 reticle is the same, or close to it.
3789701
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
My great uncle told me how to use the front sight of the M1 as a range finder.
If you can get a torso size target in view if the "target is wider than the post you aim at the belly button area, if the target hides behind the front sight you favor the shoulders.

you can also draw up some targets for up close checking. Figure out the "moa" of your reticle or its sub tensions.

We all know MOA is 1.047" or .01047 per yard.... so you can roughly figure out the coverage at very short distances. Know this changes with different magX with 2nd plane scopes so you might have to do a little more work if its not a fix magX scope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
FWIW: sight picture through a Leupold 4.5x14X (second focal plane) with the German #1 reticle. The target is 12"x12" @ 100 yds.
I am assuming that the post width on a typical German #1 reticle is the same, or close to it. View attachment 3789701
so basically looks like your posts are about 4moa wide = you can almost fit three posts on that 12x12 target on what ever that magnification is. so you know those reticles are 4 moa at the current magX so you just figure out the yardage by how many posts you can fit on that 12x12 target out to distance.

Like the old school 30/30 reticle. knowing your target size is important.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,497 Posts
so basically looks like your posts are about 4moa wide = you can almost fit three posts on that 12x12 target on what ever that magnification is. so you know those reticles are 4 moa at the current magX so you just figure out the yardage by how many posts you can fit on that 12x12 target out to distance.

Like the old school 30/30 reticle. knowing your target size is important.
All scope ranging systems work the same way. With a SFP scope the mil or MOA graduations or other references are valid only at maximum magnification, while the FFP scope reticle is scaled correctly at any magnification. I don't see the limitation of a SFP scope to be significant because I use it at maximum magnification most of the time. The only time I dial back on magnification is to deal with mirage.

For iron sights on e.g. the M1 Garand we were taught to use the blade height, width, and distance between the blade and the guard for range estimation. But that was more than 50 years ago and I don't remember the factors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
so basically looks like your posts are about 4moa wide = you can almost fit three posts on that 12x12 target on what ever that magnification is. so you know those reticles are 4 moa at the current magX so you just figure out the yardage by how many posts you can fit on that 12x12 target out to distance.

Like the old school 30/30 reticle.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
Distance can be estimated using the gap between the two horizontal posts and the width of a human. For the life of me I can't remember the any of the important numbers or formula.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,783 Posts
One of the nice things about he M16A1 was the built in rangefinder/ front sight:

Target width same as the sight (19 inches): 175 M
Target width 1/2 the width of the sight: 350 M, transition to the long range sight, if the target was 1/2 or less of front sight width.

Forget how much the L range was elevated but you used that for 350 to 460 M, normal zeroed for 275 M, in range from 330 to 250 you could get by with either setting, never fired over 300 anyway on qualification range.

simple enough for a 18 year old to remember. Only time you might make a long shot was....not sure as when the target was 1/2 the width of the front post...you could not generally see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
I started in on this when I thought I would go hunting with my little Oviedo carbine (like the '94 Swede but in 7 x 57mm). I quickly figured out that I could use the relative size of a deer's body and the "ears" on the front of the rifle to establish the range I was seeing. I never expected to take a shot much beyond 100 yards so this "exercise" was relatively easy. I put a deer silhouette at 50, 75 and 100 yards and noted what it looked like, relative to the ears, when my sight was on.

Old artillery guys (my grandfather in WW1) would often extend their arm and use the width of their thumb to estimate "minutes of angle", after the range had been calculated...if the target was visible. Establish knowns with your rifle and the ammunition you will be using.

I never thought about the "knowns" a telescopic sights could provide so this thread was educational and thanks to the OP for enlightening me!!
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,497 Posts
When I was at Fort Sill for OBC - officers' basic course - back in the pre GPS and laser range finder era - we were taught to use the mil scale in issue binoculars for range estimation and adjustment of fire. We were taught the "WORM" formula: width (of target) over range (in 1000's of meters) = angle of subtension in mils. The practical application of this formula is "WAR" : width of target over (i.e. divided by) angle of subtension (in mils) = range in 1000's of meters.

I have a couple of military binoculars with mil scale reticles. Finding one in good condition at a sane price is not easy. If you are interested in using a bino with a mil scale, I can recommend this: Binoculars | SWFA Outdoors - SWFA Outdoors

You can read my review of it on the website. Click on the image to open the specifications page. This is a compact 12x bino, and it is made in Japan, so it is not crap Chicom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,834 Posts
Looking at #2, and recognising the images are fuzzy:
  • 24” @ 100 yd target board, equal about 3.25 post widths, so post width is about 7.35 moa
  • composite 48" target at 200 yds which equals about 3 post widths, so post width is about 8 moa
You could suspect the correct post width answer might be 7.2 moa (or two Mils using the 6400 system) but did the German army (remembering it is an Ajack scope) use a 6400 Mil system in WW2? It is also possible the Ajack graticule was made specially for the Swedes, who's "Streck" is a mil system using 6300 instead of the commonly accepted 6400 Mil system.

The gap from the tip of the post to the bar (3 and 1/3 posts), or the side of the post to the bar (2 and 2/3 posts) isn’t an even multiple of post widths, and may not be an even number of Mil’s doing the check this way.

To get rid of the fuzzy effect it would be possible to set up with the scope focussed as close as it can go, say 25 yards, and use a very fine grid to check the post dimensions. Checking it to both a 6300 and 6400 Mil system would give a final answer.

mil variant
number of mils in a full turn
% error (re 1 milliradian)
true mil (= milliradian)
2000p = 6283.1853+​
0​
C19, 20 military mil, French/US
6400​
1.86​
NATO
6400​
1.86​
former Soviet Union / Finnish
6000​
4.5​
Swedish ("streck")
6300​
0.27​
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,497 Posts
I was watching "The_Chieftain" doing a youtube on rangefinders. He said the the Germans did use mils during WW2.
Most combatants in WWII used the mil, either the French, Swedish or Soviet versions. The big exception were the British and empire forces. The British used degrees and minutes of angle.

Another British quirk was how they adjusted their artillery sights. While everybody else computed artillery elevation, azimuth and deflection in mils, and sent this to the guns for corresponding sight adjustments, the British method until NATO integration was quite different.

The sights on British artillery had engraved range scales - in yards of course - for every powder charge and projectile used with that particular gun. The fire direction center computed range to target and applied corrections, sending a range to the guns. This computed range was then set on the sight and the barrel was elevated to it. This system was quite effective and was useful for direct fire. But computing high-angle-of-fire was much more complicated, since with the barrel elevated beyond 45 degrees (or so; not talking about the "Paris Gun" and the German super artillery) increasing barrel elevation reduces range. So elaborate corrections were needed to set the sights for high angle plunging fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
FWIW: sight picture through a Leupold 4.5x14X (second focal plane) with the German #1 reticle. The target is 12"x12" @ 100 yds.
I am assuming that the post width on a typical German #1 reticle is the same, or close to it. View attachment 3789701
Can you post a link to where you bought that scope? I am really wanting the German #1 reticle but it is hard to find in a reproduction scope on the market. Thanks.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,497 Posts
Can you post a link to where you bought that scope? I am really wanting the German #1 reticle but it is hard to find in a reproduction scope on the market. Thanks.
I ordered the scope from Leupold's custom shop. However, this service is not available now: Custom Shop | Leupold

When Leupold's custom shop was operational, you could mail a scope back to them for retrofit of the reticle and turret knobs. You may want to contact Leupold to see if they can handle a reticle retrofit as a repair.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top