Compass Recommendation

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
iAmKrzys said:
IMHO the super accurate markings on a compass are of limited use. Maybe if you are on a top of a mountain where you know exactly your position and you try to distinguish between two peaks far away from you but otherwise clustered nearby then maybe that 1 degree scale and notch & reticle sighting can help you determine what you are looking at. When it comes to off-trail hiking the reality is that in any nontrivial terrain walking in a perfectly straight line is almost impossible and that 1 degree won't matter anyways. If you have some time to spare do this experiment - go to some unfamiliar place where you could walk for half a mile in the woods to some landmark (e.g. a trail intersection) get a bearing from your map or gps and try to walk directly to this point using compass. Don't look at your gps until you think you walked for 0.5 mile and then review your track. Contrast this with 1 degree deviation from straight line.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I noticed that most of the authentic military compasses had a resolution of only 5 deg, which I was surprised by. I'm sure the uncertainty of taking a bearing is pretty large between holding the compass level, reading the bearing, lining up objects and then doing this many times over the course of a segment. I almost never look at the map on my GPS. When I am using map and compass I primarily use the GPS to reference my elevation so I generally have a very good idea of where I am on the map. I also like to pre-plot key waypoints in it at home when I plan a hike so I can get an instant bearing to key landmarks without having to estimate my position, plot on the map, etc. I'll add others along the way at known places for the same purpose. Major time saver, especially in windy or foul weather or the dark where handling a map is difficult or impossible.

When I am out purely experimenting and brushing up on my skills near my house I like to do what you described by following terrain only based on map and estimating my position from time to time. Periodically I will compare my estimate against the GPS map to confirm how accurate I was. When I get home I'll load the GPS file in CalTopo and compare what I did against what I thought I was doing. Very helpful learning experience. Not surprisingly, my most "typical" error is getting the elevation wrong and miscalculating my position because I forgot to calibrate the GPS to a known elevation before I started. Stupid technology. :)
 
I am familiar with baselines, handrails, intentional offsets and all that stuff. My goal for the resolution is to be able to read it, not navigate onto the top of a pin. The 2 deg marks on my compass now seem pretty close to a solid black line for me so magnifying it, or having more marks to use to identify the number would help.

hikerbrian - the 92' for 1 deg is a little misleading (although I agree with your overall premise) because it assumes you take 1 bearing and walk in a perfectly straight line on it. It is highly likely in the woods that you would take many bearings over the course of the mile, building an error into each one. And that 1 deg I bet is almost never that accurate with a normal compass. The distance between two marks is 2 deg but is so small that accurately assessing a 1 deg error is unlikely. And the magnetic declination adjustment on most compasses is microscopic and (at least on mine) is 2 deg increments as well, another source of error. (or worse in the case of manually doing off an arrow diagram on the map with no markings). And then there is the matter of taking that theoretically accurate bearing and then walking exactly on that line. When adding up all these uncertainties I would expect even an "accurate" actual path of travel could easily miss a target by hundreds of feet. That would be an interesting experiment actually. Plot a waypoint in GPS that is a mile from a start position. Take that actual bearing by GPS and then physically walk it to see how close you came to the actual target after walking one mile. I think I might try that.

Neesmuk - The area near my house I experiment in the most has a series of virtually identical wooded parallel ridges running West to East. Simply reading the terrain, even with an elevation known, is not enough to know one'e location. And the ridges all have sub-ridges that are not large enough to see on 20' contour intervals and the hollows have swampy areas or brooks that are virtually identical. So often keeping track of these involves a count of how many ridges I have traversed, use of other features like unmarked paths, etc. You can't just break out the map mid-hike and identify the terrain to see where you are without doing a little exploring. You really have to pay attention from the beginning so you have a point of reference.

I had an interesting argument on Facebook awhile back with a guy who boasted that using just the stars he could navigate to a spot 10 sq ft in size (roughly a 3.2 ft x 3.2 ft area). I not so politely responded that this claim was total nonsense so he chronicled a story about how he found a well 50 or so miles from where he was right down to the edge just by the stars. I asked him if he saw the well as he approached it and he said "Well, yah". So I offered to provide him with a non descript, landmark free patch of pine needles near my house with a frisbee on it to see if he could find it with just stars. And then the back pedaling began. He obviously used a visible landmark to reorient himself. And of course we do the same thing. We might be 150' off target but then see what we were looking for and we walk toward it. We didn't "bulls eye" the landmark.
 
Last edited:
DayTrip said:
I had an interesting argument on Facebook awhile back with a guy who boasted that using just the stars he could navigate to a spot 10 sq ft in size (roughly a 3.2 ft x 3.2 ft area). I not so politely responded that this claim was total nonsense
Click to expand...
My math could be off, but that means he was claiming to be able to tell the position of a star to 5mas with the naked eye. Hubble's resolution is about 50 mas. Nonsense doesn't begin.
 
While I don't have a specific recommendation for a compass with highly visible markings I can add that I carry this whistle / thermometer / mini compass / magnifying glass combo: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AUSD4/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 It is a bit on a cheap side (price & quality) but the magnifying glass is useful for checking if that tiny spot on my leg is a miniscule deer tick nymph or something else...
 
DayTrip said:
Neesmuk - The area near my house I experiment in the most has a series of virtually identical wooded parallel ridges running West to East. Simply reading the terrain, even with an elevation known, is not enough to know one'e location. And the ridges all have sub-ridges that are not large enough to see on 20' contour intervals and the hollows have swampy areas or brooks that are virtually identical. So often keeping track of these involves a count of how many ridges I have traversed, use of other features like unmarked paths, etc. You can't just break out the map mid-hike and identify the terrain to see where you are without doing a little exploring. You really have to pay attention from the beginning so you have a point of reference.
Click to expand...
Exactly. You can't drop someone in the middle of what I might call "confused terrain" with a map that looks basically the same everywhere and tell him to pinpoint his current position. just like driving to work in the morning, you begin at a known place, then navigate by known objects, road signs and intersections, etc. to get to your work place. If you dropped me in the middle of New York City (please no) on a random street with just a street map, I could probably eventually identify the Empire State Building and maybe a few others that I have seen previously or seen pictures of and then using the map I could find my way around from there. the same applies if I am dropped within visible sight of the distinct shape of Blue Mountain, or the shore of a lake with an identifiable shape I know.

Most of where I navigate is in the relatively lowland features of the western Adirondacks. There is not much major elevation change, so using elevation in that sense to navigate is not a usual priority for me. When I am standing on top of a hill, I am up high. When I am in the bottom of a ravine, I am down low. Map contours will help me with that. That's all I need to know.

I will often navigate along the side of ridges (although walking the crest is usually much easier) by counting the draws, ravines, and spurs that I traverse until I reach a definitive landmark that is also shown on the map. Maybe it is a bend in a stream or draw, maybe it is saddle point in the ridge or a steeper than usual rock face. From that known point forward, navigation starts anew to the next identifiable point.

The starman's claimed accuracy is definitely bogus. I flew as an Air Force navigator in my younger years. I used a sextant and thick books with tables of calculations from which I put star measurement data on a page of manual calculations. Getting a star fix (my location) to less than a nautical mile of error would be a rare event. In most cases I would be happy to get within a couple of miles of truth, even during several navigation competitions I was in. Close enough for the task at hand, but everything had to be perfect to get better than that.
 
Last edited:
Staying found is easier than figuring out where you are once you are lost. Before gps, we’d shoot back azimuths from two different points that were known to us. Plot the two lines on the map and where they intersected was where we were located.
 
egilbe said:
Staying found is easier than figuring out where you are once you are lost. Before gps, we’d shoot back azimuths from two different points that were known to us. Plot the two lines on the map and where they intersected was where we were located.
Click to expand...
Of course, that is an old well known method of finding your location by drawing lines of position (LOPs). Most people might call it triangulation, technically it is the method of resection. Most useful only if you have a clear view of two or more known distant terrain objects (map identifiable peaks, for example) from an elevated location. In dense woodland forest such as where I hike in most places outside of the high peaks in the Adirondacks, those geographic objects are rarely available for viewing through leaf cover. Fortunately there are plenty of other methods for successful precision navigation.

If you are standing on or near a known linear terrain feature (along the top of a ridge, or on a road, or on the edge of a lake or river), you already have one LOP. You may be able to get away with viewing only one known distant object, ideally at a near 90 degree angle from the line of your linear feature. This method is called Modified Resection.
 
Last edited:
DayTrip said:
When adding up all these uncertainties I would expect even an "accurate" actual path of travel could easily miss a target by hundreds of feet.
Click to expand...

Daytrip, sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's exactly the point I was trying to make. If you're really good with a compass, have a very good compass (i.e. well constructed and with a mirror sight), and pay careful attention, you still better expect to be off by 3 degrees (276' or about a football field, after 1 mile). According to Nessmuk, that's what military navigators - folks on whom life and death itself rests - that's what they go for. Much better to have some terrain features to work off of. Absent terrain features, one better understand the challenge they're undertaking and consider carefully the consequences of missing their mark.

I personally prefer to manually add (or subtract) declination with each reading. I doubt this adds more than a degree of error (and I rarely need to be THAT accurate anyway). I find this exercise to be quite trivial.

I've had to navigate by compass in very bad conditions on several occasions. It is not a party. The problem isn't so much getting a good compass bearing, it's that if you're in that situation - above treeline, for example, off trail and with zero visibility in heavy wind and blowing snow - well, you're probably just not having a very good time. For trips where I may possibly NEED my compass to save my a$$, the compass lives around my neck and my map is pre-folded to the day's itinerary in a clear bag/case attached to my hip. With this setup, I can use my body as a wind shield, the map bag provides enough rigidity to resist the wind (a second set of hands helps a lot in this situation), and I can get a good bearing in less than a minute. This is a photo from a Presi-traverse attempt a few years ago, during the 1 hour of decent visibility we had on that trip, so you can see the set up:
temp_map.jpg
The situation I try to be ready for is the one we read about a few weeks ago - the woman needing rescue in Ammo Ravine. She didn't need to be accurate within 3 degrees; probably within 10 degrees, combined with the terrain features, and she would have been fine. OTOH, finding the top of Lion Head is really pretty hard, and the consequences of missing are severe. So is finding the entrance into the trees from Bondcliff heading up Bond.
 
hikerbrian said:
Daytrip, sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's exactly the point I was trying to make. If you're really good with a compass, have a very good compass (i.e. well constructed and with a mirror sight), and pay careful attention, you still better expect to be off by 3 degrees (276' or about a football field, after 1 mile). According to Nessmuk, that's what military navigators - folks on whom life and death itself rests - that's what they go for. Much better to have some terrain features to work off of. Absent terrain features, one better understand the challenge they're undertaking and consider carefully the consequences of missing their mark.

I personally prefer to manually add (or subtract) declination with each reading. I doubt this adds more than a degree of error (and I rarely need to be THAT accurate anyway). I find this exercise to be quite trivial.

I've had to navigate by compass in very bad conditions on several occasions. It is not a party. The problem isn't so much getting a good compass bearing, it's that if you're in that situation - above treeline, for example, off trail and with zero visibility in heavy wind and blowing snow - well, you're probably just not having a very good time. For trips where I may possibly NEED my compass to save my a$$, the compass lives around my neck and my map is pre-folded to the day's itinerary in a clear bag/case attached to my hip. With this setup, I can use my body as a wind shield, the map bag provides enough rigidity to resist the wind (a second set of hands helps a lot in this situation), and I can get a good bearing in less than a minute. This is a photo from a Presi-traverse attempt a few years ago, during the 1 hour of decent visibility we had on that trip, so you can see the set up:
View attachment 5955
The situation I try to be ready for is the one we read about a few weeks ago - the woman needing rescue in Ammo Ravine. She didn't need to be accurate within 3 degrees; probably within 10 degrees, combined with the terrain features, and she would have been fine. OTOH, finding the top of Lion Head is really pretty hard, and the consequences of missing are severe. So is finding the entrance into the trees from Bondcliff heading up Bond.
Click to expand...

That's OK. I thought you were arguing the reverse the way I first read it: that it would be hard to miss your mark because you'd be less than 100' off because 1 deg error over a mile is not that big a deal. Not that I do any hard core navigating but I usually do the same thing as you: wear the compass on my neck and carry map in some sort of protective case in a chest pocket for easy reading (usually a sheet protector but I have a "hard core" case for bad weather). I love CalTopo for this. I usually print maps of my itinerary so I can scribble all over them, take notes, etc and I can blow up areas so features are easy to read. I keep a little overlap from page to page and just switch sheets as the area changes. Keep the real map in pack as a back up.

I currently have my compass adjusted for declination but I'm starting to waiver back toward the school of thought that it is easier to add/subtract the declination from each reading. Declination in all the areas I have hiked is rarely more than 1 1.5 deg different but it is still a small error built into my readings having it preset. (My compass needs a tiny jewelers screwdriver to adjust declination which combined with my diminishing vision ensures I never adjust it :) ).
 
The Suunto Compass that DayTrip came across could be their KB-14. Suunto makes a 360 degree and quadrant version. I will use it when working with a total station to perform topographic, layout and as-built surveys for work. It has 5 degree increment marks when views from the top and 1/2 degree marks on the dial when viewed through the sighting lens. I have used it for hiking and orienteering in the woods. However I would not recommend it for that use. Drawbacks are its costs, it is heavy, not good in low light and the need to wearing your glasses when using the sighting lens. When using the sighting lens you keep both eyes open and the dial and sight line is superimposed into your vision. Readings can be very precise even when compared to angles measured from a total station. Models include compass only and compass and clinometer combination. Compass models can have delineation correction. Literature that is included with the compass on the delineation adjustment needs to clarified/corrected and should be halved.

Top View KB-14 Top View.jpg
Side View KB-14 Side View.jpg
Sighting Lens KB-14 Slighting Lens.jpg

Sighting line on right is for declination correction.
 
Also a Suunto fan (I have one of the MC-2 versions) and I see they have one of those with a luminous dial. Been using that model for over 10 years now (replaced once, but only because I lost the first one). To me, the most important features are the clear base, sighting mirror and declination adjustment, the latter because I really don't want to deal with math in the woods. :)

Concerning vision, I'd just get a cheap, small magnifying glass, which seem to be sold in bulk, and tie it onto the lanyard. If it breaks, no big whoop.
 
egilbe said:
I just keep my glasses on. Without them I can't read very well, or see distances very well. Gotta love getting old.
Click to expand...
I take them off to read my compass... :)

I'm near-sighted and read without them, but wear them when hiking or skiing--makes the world a bit clearer. (I suppose I could get multi-focals or progressives, but I prefer the undistorted field of view of singles for hiking and skiing.)

Doug
 
briarpatch said:
The Suunto Compass that DayTrip came across could be their KB-14. Suunto makes a 360 degree and quadrant version. I will use it when working with a total station to perform topographic, layout and as-built surveys for work. It has 5 degree increment marks when views from the top and 1/2 degree marks on the dial when viewed through the sighting lens. I have used it for hiking and orienteering in the woods. However I would not recommend it for that use. Drawbacks are its costs, it is heavy, not good in low light and the need to wearing your glasses when using the sighting lens. When using the sighting lens you keep both eyes open and the dial and sight line is superimposed into your vision. Readings can be very precise even when compared to angles measured from a total station. Models include compass only and compass and clinometer combination. Compass models can have delineation correction. Literature that is included with the compass on the delineation adjustment needs to clarified/corrected and should be halved.

Top View View attachment 5957
Side View View attachment 5958
Sighting Lens View attachment 5959

Sighting line on right is for declination correction.
Click to expand...

I provided a link previously to the plastic version which is a bit more reasonable in cost. No declination adjustment but I think it has the same resolution. This style works a lot quicker for running a bearing line, just pick up, look forward with one eye through the compass and pick a tree or something else that is on the bearing and then find the path of least resistance to it. What can really introduce error is trying to look down at a bearing on a plate type compass held waste high. We did some tests with boy scouts and even though they knew they were being tested, trying to keep their body and eyes square to a plate compass introduces up to 20 degrees of total error (plus or minus 10). One thing to keep in mind if you order one make sure you get the right markings, Some have a 360 degree scale and some have a quadrant scale
 
Last edited:
I think I am going to get a K&R model I saw on the website peakbagger referenced. It was a base plate style with 1 deg marks, a sighting line in the lid and a flip up magnifying sight to read the bearings. Kind of a combination of base plate and lensatic. I think it was $26 and from what I read on other sites that brand I guess is pretty decent (although I personally have never heard of it). Didn't have a luminous dial but for the price I guess I'll live with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DayTrip
Dachstein Wool Products
Replies
12
Views
654
KRooney
K
DayTrip
Homemade Insulated Gaiters Or Overboots
Replies
16
Views
771
DayTrip
DayTrip
Salty
Ham radio: any SOTA chasers here
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
SAR-EMT40
SAR-EMT40
I
USFS Campsites on Cherry Mountain Road
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
ImYourHuckleberry
I
DayTrip
In Search Of High Quality Bivy Shelter
Replies
6
Views
1K
DayTrip
DayTrip

Latest posts

Top