I was reading about these new rangefinders in my Cabelas catalog and the numbers on their illustration don't seem to jive. It has always been my understanding whether shooting uphill or down, it is the true horizontal distance that matters and not actual line of sight. If I were shooting a rifle downhill and the line of sight distance was 350 yards but the true horizontal distance was only 310 yards, I should shoot for 310 yards.
Using the trig formula of c2 = a2 + b2, their 40 yard line of sight example equates to 34 yards hold (horizontal lineal distance I assume) - an archer would have to be about 77' in the air for that calculation. If I'm 25' in a treestand and my target is 40 yards line of sight, I woould aim as if the target is only 37 yards away. If the target is 20 yards away, I know I only need to shoot as if only 18 yards. That's why I try to range spots from the ground back to the tree I'm in instead of from up in the stand. Am I still correct in this thinking or does the earth have a bit more tilt than last year? Thanks.
Using the trig formula of c2 = a2 + b2, their 40 yard line of sight example equates to 34 yards hold (horizontal lineal distance I assume) - an archer would have to be about 77' in the air for that calculation. If I'm 25' in a treestand and my target is 40 yards line of sight, I woould aim as if the target is only 37 yards away. If the target is 20 yards away, I know I only need to shoot as if only 18 yards. That's why I try to range spots from the ground back to the tree I'm in instead of from up in the stand. Am I still correct in this thinking or does the earth have a bit more tilt than last year? Thanks.