What is the difference between these compases?

Crayola

Crayola

Joined
Sep 23, 1999
Messages
3,831
Hello! First of all, yes I went to the SAR meeting and it sounds cool. I'm thinking of joining in Jan. All of the training doesn't start until then anyways, so I have time to decide.

HEre's my question though. I have seen "orienteering" compases with the clear bases and lensatic compases like the US military issue. What is the difference between these styles? Where would a lensatic compass excell?
 
There may be other differences, but these come immediately to mind:

Orienteering is a RACE. A big, clunky lensatic is not what you want bouncing off of your chest when trotting through the brush. Also, most of the courses I've run were within an area of 5K square or less, so navigation was primarily by terrain association. We would get a general direction from the compass rather than follow strict azimuths.

Militarily, you tend to be travelling over greater distances, so shooting an accurate azimuth to a point on the horizon is very useful(unless that azimuth is shot and followed by what we called a "circle lieutenant"). Also, lensatics are much better for delineating fields of fire on weapon position range cards.

Everyone has a different navigating style. Some people are more comfortable vectoring from point to point, others follow terrain features. It is best to be able to do both and any decent compass will help.
 
There are many diferences but the one that I feel applies the most is the inclusion of a base plate and protractor in the orienteereing style compass. It makes all forms of map work much easier and is worth having. If you practice with any compass you will get by, but the orienteering style makes life a lot easier. If you are doing military style targeting you will need to have the sighting systems - otherwise go with a basic orienteering sytle compass.

Good Luck and enjoy the learning process, it is a lot of fun.

JP
 
Originally posted by MacHete
"circle lieutenant
Click to expand...

:D ROTFLMFAO!!!!!:D - oh stop - pleeze!!! My sides are killing me :D

Dan

BTW - I bought this one for my wife (a beginner in the woods)
83523.jpg


It's a Brunton 8097 Compass found Here at Campmor

I found I was using it more and more over my military compass as time went on. Great piece of gear (course I upgraded to a Suunto Vector watch - and highly recommend everyone does so :D) But I still use that Brunton.

Dan
 
Thanks for the great info folks!

And Jeff, thanks for the link.

Java: judging from your response I bet you've encountered a circle leutenant or two before :)
 
What's that saying - the most dangerous thing in the world is a second lieutenant with a map? :)
 
Crayola,
I don't know the differences between the two types, but I can recommend several good ones. A high end Brunton will cost you a lot, but they're probably about the best things going. Highly accurate and you can basically run over the darn things with a tank and still get good performance from them. For less money ( $50 U.S. or so ) You can get a Silva Ranger. This is what I personally carry. They're rugged, reliable and fairly easy to use. I've done surveying with mine, as well as used it for general outdoor use. Also very easy to adjust for declination. A good compass for the money.
Lagarto
 
Flotsam-

Every second lieutenant I ever knew had EXCELLENT map-reading skills...it was reading the ground they were walking on that gave them trouble. :D

We make fun, but there is a lesson to be learned here. Any idiot will eventually learn from his own mistakes. A truly wise person will learn from other peoples mistakes. A map and compass need to be used TOGETHER. You have to develop the habit of constantly checking BOTH of them to make sure they agree. Young officers, eager to prove their competence, tend to not check their navigational aids as often as they should for fear of appearing uncertain. Experienced officers tend to let their NCOs do the navigating. :D They really do; But wether that is because of the PLs confidence in his sergeants or a way of avoiding blame for getting lost probably varies case by case.

It is very easy to make mistakes in land-nav. You can fail to orient yourself to the map correctly i.e. not find the place on the map representing where you really are. You can lose or keep an inaccurate pace count. Terrain, fatigue, pack weight, traction, grade and elevation are just a few of the things that effect your length and cadence of stride. You can calculate declination, intersection, resection or triangulation wrong. You can find yourself veering to one side or the other because one shoe is tied too tight. You have to check often, especially if you find your surroundings looking even a little bit different than you expected.

All of that just to say this: There is much more shame in getting lost than in being careful.
 
MacHete - situations very familiar to me!

I spent some glorious hours "lost" in the woods during PLDC, and afterwards. If you can master terrain association, you needn't stop every 50ft to recheck the map (makes for an awfully long walk in the woods).

In fact, the easiest part of land nav was the map - all the info is there, if you know where to look. Confidence w/ the compass was much more difficult.

Of the many O-1s ve dealt with, most were pretty good, but some did not take kindly to helpful suggestions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top