What are the older methods of scaling range. Before the use of lasers how did people measure yardage through binoculars/range finders. Were older binoculars or range finders built in guages? I can't help but imagine the parascope in a sub with its tick marks. I'm interested in the GPSvsCompass aspect here. I'm sure there are antique methods to scaling range with older equipment.
THNX :)

The Barr & Stroud field rangefinder was one of the best. They still come up for sale now and again, but they aren't cheap.

http://www.theglasgowstory.com/image.php?inum=TGSE00890

Bye
Jack

This nis what I do and come pretty close. Close enough to hit what I am shooting at anyway. If you kn ow how far 100 yards is, then find a fence line that is close and start counting out how many footbalkl fields you think will fit in that distance. It has all been a good educated guess until range finders. I still use the guessing method. Too cheap to buy a rangefinder.

Bru, before lasers the standard rangefinders were optical range finders. These used the distance between two points and the object to be ranged to find/compute the range.

You may have seen this method used on some older cameras. You turned the lens til two images inside the viewfinder lined up and became one.

The military used these extensively. you could buy small commercial versions from most sporting goods stores til a few years ago when laser rangfinders became popular. You can still buy some of the older military ones, but they are heavy and combursome compared to laser rangefinders.

Couple of survay guys who know what the devil they are doing and a theotolite....not a fast way to get distances, but still the prefered way to lay out a range.

Those optic rangefinders were never cheap...and certainly aren't now...but the big ones were certainly accurate enough.

I thought of the surveyors too this afternoon. I want to call around. I'd love to track down any gear thats been taken out of circulation. Found a guy talking about a russian, 1980's, binocular with rangefinding recticle and another mono eyepiece device that merges two images completing 2/3 factors in the range equation giving you pretty acurate measurements within reason. Both around $100 or less. For $10 you can invest another $50 or so and get one of the cheaper laser finders though which is definately oneof the few moderizations that really can't be disputed. I do like seeing the best historical technology. Very interesting innovations. It's like a sniper being good with iron sights or an athelete that still goes for walks instead of the high tech equipment at the gym. I might get that mono eye piece one if can track one down. He mentioned $20, can't beat that. I may compose two field kits, a modern one and a vintage one. This is my little fantasy not including first aid, my cell phone, or anything critical like that in an emergency. It would be really fun on occassion to scout around with a pack containing the very best there was to offer 20 years ago.

bru,
Some of the scope manufacturers gauge the distance between their heavy reticles above and below the crosshairs to be a certain length at 100 yards, at a certain power. For example, at 6 power, the distance might be 18 inches at 100 yards (or whatever). Knowing the "typical" body depth of a deer in your area, you could then get that deer in your scope and determine if the deer was "bracketed" by the heavier reticles (or if it filled up only half the space, in which it would then be approx 200 yards away) and make a distance judgement. An approximation at best, since deer differ about as much as people in size, but it gets you in the ballpark. I prefer Gismo's visualization of a football field length, personally.