does the range finder on this scope work?

yes

hint:

it's a million times better than anything western scopes have made for combat shooting. Any retard could use it.

>>33621363
No they just made it for shits and giggles.

File: psotutorial.jpg (38KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x360px

>>33621371
That's why we just built rangefinders, anon

Only on targets that are exactly 170 centimeters tall and perfectly vertical.

>>33621396
Does that mean being a manlet can save your life?

This thread just reminded me; Do contemporary military sniper rifles have digital, halo-style rangefinders (the ones that automatically measure and indicate the distance between you and a target)?

Not a gun expert so id like to know

>>33621396
so, you just compensate the few centimeters by raising/lowering the gun a bit

File: 1473316078798.png (272KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 785x757px

>>33621413
170 is a manlet

>>33621396
lol

>>33621413
No, the bdc is calibrated for Russian manlets

>>33621416
since the 90s... at least in the US Army

>>33621381
>5'8" in height

Ivan was hunting manlets

>>33621416
Rangefinders are an old tech. Scope-integrated rangefinder ? I think that's still new, but it's not very exotic tech either.

>>33621453
>>33621503
You are right, they chose the american enemy as reference.

>>33621416
There are systems like that in development and field testing, and are proving to be successful.

>>33621519
>>33621530
I assumed that it wouldn't be too difficult as weve had radar guns for decades and even cars nowadays come with proximity sensors that can detect and display the exact distance between your bumpers and an obstruction so a distance sensor couldn't be too hard

>>33621642
Tanks and Aircraft have had laser rangefinders with direct head-up display since the 1970's.
The only problem is when there is fog.

>>33621667
Thats what i was thinking about. Its reassuring to hear that theyve existed IRL for so long

A integrated rangefinder that requires zero calculations to use or thought at all is vastly superior for combat conditions, albiet you super special snipers who shoot once every 3 days might prefer a rangefinder. It's idiot proof. The 1.7m height is an average that works adequately for hitting man-sized targets with the integrated holdovers. it is also lighted for nighttime or dusk usage. Not a bad piece of equipment by any margin.

Question : the chevrons are only graduated for 4 ranges. What do you do if the target's range is in-between ?

File: Scopecat.jpg (166KB, 1202x1126px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1202x1126px

>>33623381
Wait

>>33621363
simple as fuck, put the feet on the bottom line, and see which line the top of the head is under. Telemetric scale is bretty gud

>>33623381
You're not supposed to use the chevrons for anything but 1100, 1200, 1300 meters. For all other distances, you use the top chevron in tandem with turning the elevation turret.

>>33621363
It works in that it is simple science, only problem is if the target is doing anything other than standing or you cant see their feet which is pretty much all the time. If theyre in a nother stance or behind some kind of cover you have to guess the position of their feet which could but you out by a few hundred meters if you fuck it up.

>>33625310
Or if they are taller/shorter than what your sight is graded too

>>33625339
Usually pretty easy to account for. Pretty sure 2 deviations of human height is like 15cm or something which accounts for 95% of the population.

>>33625339
How off would you actually be at combat distance if they were 5'10 instead of 5'8

File: manlet tries to buy a gun.png (732KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 800x533px

>>33621526
delet this

>>33625414
Some kind of trig function like:

Sin(angle at head-angle at foot) *for 5'10 person - Sin(angle at head-angle at foot) for 5'8 person

Been too long since ive done trig, anyone more familiar?
That formula would return the difference in perceived range.

>>33621503
Ivan knew earlier the real threat to him was Abduls

>>33621381
>align the ratget tightly between the bottom and top reclining line

?? Did it mean to say Target?

>>33626425
Im going to go with yes.

>>33621371
ACSS works pretty well but I do like the PSO style more

>>33625158
what about the x39 reticle?
No way it would work that way

>legitimate question because I couldn't figure out hold over on my PSO but the turret worked fine

File: po6x36_ret_600x.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>33625310
i've seen some scopes that are width based

>>33621381
>1.7 is manlet
Im about 170 millymeaters lmao, how can somebody be 1.7 lmao

>>33629890
wow, now that is really neat. what an elegant solution

>>33621381

Someone intentionally misplaced a decimal point when they made this graphic.

>>33621396
What does it matter if your shooting centre mass?

>>33629501
>PSO style more
whys that