Haha….apparently not everybody agrees w us on that.Nah, its good to try and understand things in depth
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Haha….apparently not everybody agrees w us on that.Nah, its good to try and understand things in depth
Ah, Nicky, Nicky, Nicky…and here I was so nice to you up there in PA@Baron23 is a troublemaker...LMAO
The rest is all mental masturabation
Haha. Frank said in the Marines that when shooting uphill to aim for their balls and you’ll hit them somewhere.n hunting, you should just aim low by this distance d using "Kentucky elevation" and avoid shooting over the back of the animal.
Well since Gravity and Acceleration are equivalent in general relativity, maybe I should calculate the time dilation the bullet experiences as it accelerates....Overheard at the next PRS event.
“Hey, wha happened? You normally shoot better.”
“Yeah, it’s my bullets. They’re gravitationally retarded.”
Thanks for that nugget of informationIt's actually not quite that simple, because drop and wind drift have to be considered differently for inclined shots.
Drop is similar to (but not exactly the same as) the horizontal distance, we've been over that here, but for wind drift you have to use the actual measured distance because it's not a gravity issue, it's a time of flight & wind issue. No nerd stuff necessary, but it's worth understanding that the horizontal distance isn't correct for estimating wind. (Of course estimating wind is hard enough that maybe this doesn't matter most of the time anyway.)
the bullet experiences as it accelerates....
nope - note that TOF is virtually the same for LOS and GD.I haven't reread the whole thread in depth, but the basics as I understand it is, gravity affects bullet drop over distance (and time). The shorter the time to target (which is related to horizontal distance to target and velocity), the less gravity affects the bullet.
If there is any take away, it is not to sweat the angle too much. By the time you are at sufficient angle that it really matters, you will KNOW that you need to account for that angle.As Marge Simpson said to John the Gay Antiques Dealer, when he told her, "Helen Lovejoy? She may look blonde, but I've heard cuffs and collar don't match - if you catch my drift ...":
"I don't ... but I loved hearing it."
I don't understand half of what's in this thread, and not sure I ever will ... but glad there's people out there who do.
All I really need to do is to remember what this does for my dope ... I think.
Who's with me?
hehehe...yeah, Frank, right you are....but I'm retired and bored so....LOL
Not everyone understands things here as well as they think they do, and not all of the answers you received are correct.hehehe...yeah, Frank, right you are....but I'm retired and bored so....LOL
And it was fairly surprising to see how many different takes there are on the "why" of it all.
Cheers
One of the first solutions suggested is the old "rifleman's rule" which is only a first order approximation. It is no longer adequate for accurate modern rifles. My "total drop from bore axis times [1 - Cos(Theta)]" solution is physics based, but is not quite a full 6-degree of freedom integration from launch conditions.Not everyone understands things here as well as they think they do, and not all of the answers you received are correct.
Sometimes the most complex explanations seem smart but are wrong because the person doesn’t understand it enough to give a simple answer. Just beware of what you trust.
Yeah but then we’d all have to argue whether it really made a difference or just helped with less case trimming.I think I'd understand perfectly if we'd refer to the "improved" version of Rifleman's rule as "Ackley".
You should try reading your own posts, and ask yourself if they sound like simple explanations or solutions. Even as an engineer who’s used to reading technical documents, your stuff is pretty hard to read.I consulted with Ted Almgren and the late Bill McDonald of Sierra on their uphill/downhill shooting correction. I believe that my formulation is equivalent to theirs, but simpler in application. Slant Range (R) and slope angle (A) are directly measured in the field nowadays. A table of "total bullet DROP from bore axis for horizontal firing" can be printed out ahead of time for the selected shooting equipment and the expected shooting conditions using Sierra Infinity, or any similar point-mass trajectory propagator. [Just temporarily set scope height to 0.0 and Zero Range to 5 or 10 yards or meters.] A pocket calculator can be used to interpolate the total DROP table values at the measured slant range R. My calculator can calculate the cosine of the slope angle A, so I would simply multiply the DROP*[1 - COS(A)] to find the overshoot distance (d) at the target. By applying of the Rigid Trajectory Theory over this small correction angle (d/R in radians), that overshoot distance is inherently perpendicular to your line-of-sight to the target, so dividing d*1000 by the slant range R to that target directly yields the (lower) aiming correction CORR in "milliradians (MILs)." A minute of angle (MOA) is 1/(360*60) of a full circle which is also 2000*Pi milliradians, so the conversion factor is 360*60/(2000*Pi) = 3.43775 MOA/MIL. [Write that conversion factor down and store it in your calculator if your scope adjustments are made in MOA.]
This formulation is based upon the fact that the gravity gradient is perpendicular to your line-of-sight throughout the bullet's flight to the target only when firing with the bore absolutely horizontal. I call this the total bullet DROP from the bore axis to the horizontal target range R. If the gravity gradient were hypothetically reduced all along the flight path of the bullet by a factor of [1 - COS(A)] as when firing uphill or downhill at slope A, the drop from the bore axis will be reduced by that same proportion [1 - COS(A)], with the air drag effects being the same in both cases. I reason that if you know how to hit a horizontally distant target with this equipment in these shooting conditions at a horizontal range R, then your point of impact would be high by about the correction distance d when shooting uphill or downhill with your line-of-sight sloping at a (positive of negative) angle A when using your best shooting "dope" for that horizontal range R. I say "about the same overshoot distance d" because the uphill and downhill cases are not quite identically symmetric due to the along-the-line-of-sight gravity force components acting on the bullet, but working in opposite directions. However, after considering the systematic differences in air-drag experienced by the two bullets along their two different trajectories, these differences in overshoot distance d are negligible in practical shooting.
I apologize for using too many big words, but the concept seems quite simple to me. It is another implementation of exactly the Sierra calculation which ptosis admired along with a simple physical explanation of how it works.You should try reading your own posts, and ask yourself if they sound like simple explanations or solutions. Even as an engineer who’s used to reading technical documents, your stuff is pretty hard to read.
If you want to reach the average long range shooter, you have to simplify your explanations and make the solution something that’s actually useful in the field.
If I have to carry a calculator (I.e. a smartphone these days) to solve this, I might as well just consult a ballistic app that can get closer anyway. The link ptosis posted above has about the only workable paper solution I’ve seen that’s good for longer distances.
A Kestrel 5700 and a Vectronix PLRF. Cool.A kestrel is the gold standard calculator (5700 level). (Everyone gets measured against it)
The "Improved Rifleman's rule" is the "in your head" standard.
The true gold standard is your DOPE
1. Any smaprtphone with Android or iOS, and the ballistic calculator app which has the user interface that you like best (they all do the same, to a rounding error close). My personal preference goes to calculators which understand and use publicly available Doppler-measured curves -- Lapua 6DOF and Strelok Pro.What is the gold standard civilian market, battery powered devices solution?
How about non-battery solution?
Some of you guys really need to go shoot 600+ yards at 30-45 degrees and report back what you find.
Here's what I've found:
1. Most people here will have a difficult time finding a suitable spot that offers such conditions due to the angle of repose of most soils and weathering of edges to shoot from.
2. Most people will find a 30-45 angle ridiculous enough that they can not shoot well.
Food for thought, the lowest number on the chart posted is -/+ 15 degrees only providing a 2-3" offset @ 1,000 yards. In context, that means you are having to shoot over 800 vertical feet at 1,000y -- at 45, you're need to shoot a crazy 3,000 foot vertical.
+1. In [pretty extreme] alpine terrain, most shots do not exceed ±20° LoS elevation. If I remember well, the steepest shot I ever had to take was -33°.Some of you guys really need to go shoot 600+ yards at 30-45 degrees and report back what you find.
Here's what I've found:
1. Most people here will have a difficult time finding a suitable spot that offers such conditions due to the angle of repose of most soils and weathering of edges to shoot from.
2. Most people will find a 30-45 angle ridiculous enough that they can not shoot well.
Food for thought, the lowest number on the chart posted is -/+ 15 degrees only providing a 2-3" offset @ 1,000 yards. In context, that means you are having to shoot over 800 vertical feet at 1,000y -- at 45, you're need to shoot a crazy 3,000 foot vertical.
LOL.I thought when you shot up hill, the air gets thinner causing your bullet to rise and when you shoot down hill gravity causes your bullet to speed up causing it to rise too.