Rotation of the Earth?

[paraiso]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I read a few pages of this thread, but not all. I came to a quick conclusion that I learned a long time ago. Get your own dope. We can't shoot targets by taking the shooter out of the equation. Likewise we can't shoot targets by taking CE out of the equation. Therefore, shoot and record all of your shots. I know what I can do with my rifle out to the effective range of ME and MY rifles. I have shot lots of days with absolutely no wind. That gives me a base, and I call winds off of that base.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paraiso</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. We can't shoot targets by taking the shooter out of the equation. Likewise we can't shoot targets by taking CE out of the equation. Therefore, shoot and record all of your shots. </div></div>

No offense but that is the debatable part.

What were people doing before ballistic computers, not hitting anything I suppose. We had .50s in the USMC in the 80's sans all this, we shot beyond 1000 yards with them, without calculating any of this.

So, while it may help in some cases, it certainly can be done without and has been for a very long time. Recording dope and correcting based off the shot and the conditions has been around a lot longer.

Do you think that Canadian used this... No, he completely missed the target and corrected off his impact using the reticle, exactly as they are taught. That is how most of these shots are done... by employing the proper fundamentals, being in a positions to observe the impact and then believing the bullet and making corrections based off the reticle. It is the method behind the Horus and the way most military snipers employ their systems. There is no time to check levels, run computations and do all that most casual shooters do. They dictate the pace, not the target, where as in a conflict the target dictates the pace and isn't going to wait for you to run the numbers, as well you shouldn't be coming off the scope taking your eyes off the target. Even a miss can be effective fire as long as it is delivered right the fuck now.

 

[Cmonroe]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Frank, your 338 will be an excellent choice. I would take a 300g load if you have any. If time allows try the new 300g Lapua.

 

[superde]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Aha! I have found the perfect new sigline!

I
I
I
V

 

[Guest]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even a miss can be effective fire as long as it is delivered right the fuck now.</div></div>

1st LT,...they said it skipped into him
Sgt,... Yes but he's still dead, that's a problem how, Sir?

 

[paraiso]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Recording dope and correcting based off the shot and the conditions has been around a lot longer.
</div></div>

Absolutely, and it is extremely important. I know that my first round on any given target from 600-1200 meters has a higher probability of hitting the target without applying what the ballistic computer has for CE/SD. I also know that my shooting partner is the exact opposite.

Your reference to movers and how the base hold from shooter to shooter is different, was to me a good example. As weird as it may seem, my zero wind base hold for movers is different from left-right than it is right-left. Dope is everything.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As weird as it may seem, my zero wind base hold for movers is different from left-right than it is right-left. </div></div>

That's not weird, thats really normal. I first noticed it when shooting moviers in sniper school in '78, and I was pretty good at it back then because I had been doing a lot of skeet shooting (which will help on shooting moving targets).

The Desinated Marksmanship CD put out by the AMU/CMP explains the reasoning and differances between left handed and right handed shooters.

 

[CSTactical]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

You have officially made my day unproductive. I have read every post. Thanks for the entertainment…

Mike @ CST

Emphasis added for cited resource:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y80D5NziFAA"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y80D5NziFAA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[The Mechanic]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I was pondering Greg's theory about the zero correction at the location and it REALLY sounds like what may be occurring as the longer the range the more the deflection and correction. I have a thought on how to verify Coriolis. Tell me what you guys think. Just like the Bonneville Salt Flats the record only stands if you run both ways. So to really check the effect of Coriolis it seems to me that a North to South string of shooting followed by a South to North string of shooting that way if you are corrected for wind and on target the effect should be very pronounced as you change direction based also on a wind correction that can cancel with an adjustment. OK so what do you guys think?

 

[Lindy]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK so what do you guys think?</div></div>

I think you're not making a distinction between the lateral effect of coriolis force, which is independent of shooting direction, and the vertical effect of the Eötvös effect, which is dependent on the shooting direction.

And, besides the wind will mask the lateral effect anyway - there is no way the wind will be the same when you switch directions - and maybe the Eötvös effect as well, depending on the direction of the wind.

If you really want to test all that objectively, what you need is a tunnel of at least 1000 yards, with enough height to allow max ordinate for the cartridge you're shooting. Let us know when you've got that ready.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Once you get that 1K tunnel I can get some real field dope for spin drift!

But the tunnel needs to be built in such a manner as to block or negate the effects of lunar drift......

 

[Møønlight]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK so what do you guys think?</div></div>

I think you're not making a distinction between the lateral effect of coriolis force, which is independent of shooting direction, and the vertical effect of the Eötvös effect, which is dependent on the shooting direction.

And, besides the wind will mask the lateral effect anyway - there is no way the wind will be the same when you switch directions - and maybe the Eötvös effect as well, depending on the direction of the wind.

If you really want to test all that objectively, what you need is a tunnel of at least 1000 yards, with enough height to allow max ordinate for the cartridge you're shooting. Let us know when you've got that ready.

</div></div>
Bravo.

1,500 yds away. How many different wind value's and speed's are we going to have on average? As we all know full well, the only real value we can measure very accurately is at your firing point?

CE vs. the slightest misread wind calculation... Common... Why is this even an argument? Someone's going to sit here and tell me, that they have basicly mastered wind? Or maybe they pray to the four-winds.

One of these ELR asstrollpsychophysiologist needs to break it down Barney style for me, because I'm clearly lost in the sauce on all of this.

A video with some range flags at every 200 meter's sure would do some justice...

Show me a strong video, otherwise I will remain a CE denier.
Happy huning,
MS

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

MS-I don't think you got Lindy's drift.....

 

[RobertB]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MS-I don't think you got Lindy's drift.....
</div></div>Ha,you said drift.

 

[goober]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

OK so what do you guys think?</div></div>

I think you're not making a distinction between the lateral effect of coriolis force, which is independent of shooting direction, and the vertical effect of the Eötvös effect, which is dependent on the shooting direction.

And, besides the wind will mask the lateral effect anyway - there is no way the wind will be the same when you switch directions - and maybe the Eötvös effect as well, depending on the direction of the wind.



If you really want to test all that objectively, what you need is a tunnel of at least 1000 yards, with enough height to allow max ordinate for the cartridge you're shooting. Let us know when you've got that ready.

]I am wondering Lindy about those mornings when there is no apparent wind at all for a time - at 2000 yards -do you or would you not include and allow for the spin drift of your bullet and the earths motion in your equation -remember no wind .

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I had to look up Eötvös effect. Jeez, talk about your arcane suborbital physics. I do believe I have finally encountered an effect that us even less significant than Coriolis.

 

[OFIS]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CSTACTICAL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have officially made my day unproductive. I have read every post. Thanks for the entertainment…

Mike @ CST

Emphasis added for cited resource:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y80D5NziFAA"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y80D5NziFAA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>

Mike, great job

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?


Eötvös effect

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Notation: a_u is the total centripetal acceleration when moving along the surface of the Earth. a_s is the centripetal acceleration when stationary with respect to the Earth. \Omega is the angular velocity of the Earth: one revolution per Sidereal day. \omega_r is the angular velocity of the airship relative to the angular velocity of the Earth. (\Omega + \omega_r) is the total angular velocity of the airship. \omega_r * R = u is the airship's velocity (velocity relative to the Earth). R is the Earth's radius.

\begin{align}
a_r & = a_u - a_s \\
& = (\Omega + \omega_r)^2 R - \Omega^2 R \\
& = \Omega^2 R + 2 \Omega \omega_r R + \omega_r^2 R - \Omega^2 R \\
& = 2 \Omega \omega_r R + \omega_r^2 R \\
& = 2 \Omega u + u^2 / R \\
\end{align}


It can readily be seen that in the case of motion along the equator the formula for any latitude simplifies into the formula above. a_r = 2 \Omega u \cos \phi + \frac{u^2 + v^2}{R} </div></div>

This shit is starting to hurt my head.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">remember no wind</div></div>

At 2000 yards, there is never no effective wind.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

OK, to simplify Eötvös effect, it is the primary reason most orbital launch facilities are built close to the equator, and why orbital launches are aimed West to East. If you can understand why that works, you understand pretty much all you need to know about Eötvös effect.

Greg

 

[Augustis]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, I get back to CO on Oct 5th, I have to be somewhere the weekend of the 23rd, tell me what weekend I can come to Montana to get a lesson from you guys, name the day, the price I want to be schooled. </div></div>

Frank

I will welcome the opportunity to shoot with you in the future, although I suspect not in your time frame that you are demanding at this point. After reading this thread as it has evolved, I have filtered out the useless noise, those that have contributed nothing what so ever, other than - well, I will just leave it at that... but including some of your points.

For the record, I stated my disclaimer in my first post "To Each Their Own", or something to the effect of "your millage may vary from my experience in this area", which apparently fell on deaf ears... But the fact remains people that matter have been observing this thread, addressing/questioning these valid questions on both sides of the isle.

After further observing all that fine shooting equipment you have at your disposal, I will assume you have nothing less than the finest case to protect your rifle during transport - Correct?

My point, under YOUR previous example, that is, if I am hearing you correctly, you should be able to relocate from an approximate latitude of 30 degrees north, deploy to a new location of roughly 46 degrees north, & your rifle will not suffer any zero POI shift what so ever, is that correct - am I understanding you correctly??

This means you are truly world wide deployable... all of us I would hope, should be our ultimate goal in life!! If this is the case, I should be able to pick you up from the airport, drive you to any location in Montana, & you will spank any target from 1000 to 1500 yards that I should desire, ranging in elevations from 3000 to 10,000 feet ASL. Again under one of you previous comments -Back in the day - Snipers did not adjust for air temp, station pressure or any of this voodoo. So lets SWAG it & see the final results on targets...

Cant wait to see how that works out!!

I am leaving in a few hours to do some shooting, yes at ELR distances... Will check in with you guys next week when I return with some news - re: Potential dates, time & cost.

After reading this thread - I thought to myself, why not try to do some real work, that will benefit the community in some way because of the controversary that exists in this area.

I am proposing a Symposium on this subject - talked to ASA yesterday, Derrick Bartlett, he would certainly entertain, & is considering endorsing such a project for next year. Presently waiting on word from one of my contacts a Benning - I did hear back from one of the other Sniper Schools yesterday and they are very receptive to the concept.

Further waiting for one of my DOD contacts that was there last year when we made the mile shot to get back with me on the possibility of such a venture. This is my attempt to filter out some of that noise also!

My proposal will include some of the proceeds from this venture to be donated to such programs as American Snipers.org, or the Adopt a Sniper Program.

Hopefully I will have more news next week!

The harder we work, the luckier we get... Lets see if we can do some actual good, where this may count for something in the long run! What do you think?

Best Regards, Aug ><>

 

[Augustis]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

PS
I think some of you guys have way to much time on your hands, Time that would be better served in the way of trigger time - instead of Miller time...

My 2 cents for what that may be worth!!

Aug ><>

 

[mram10]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I am really glad I asked the question. Even though we have gotten off topic numerous times, I have learned a ton from you gentlemen. If only I could have you guys on speed dial

 

[MinorDamage]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

...I think I am going to go down a fifth of Spin D...

Josh

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Augustis,

Great you want to re-debate this all over again, consider this part one of a two part response.

First, off, let's understand there is <span style="font-weight: bold">"Perfect"</span> and then there is <span style="font-weight: bold">"Practical" </span> we shouldn't confuse the issue by ignoring when we say what can happen when everything, is perfect. Because things seldom are...

Perfect Conditions -- the phantom no wind day.
Perfect Fundamentals - the shooter executing the firing task without a single flaw.
Perfect System - Scope and bore aligned to within a thousandths of an inch.
Perfect Zero - No shooter induced errors
Perfect Bullet with no variation in Muzzle Velocity
Perfect Range - Confirm via Laser and GPS to within 5 meters

When do all these things line up. As well, let's consider the Special Operations soldier and what they are required to do. What percentage of their day, week, month's training should be dedicated to ELR Training ? Where are the facilities located ? Shooting as far as my experience goes, is a perishable skill. And the last time I checked there were a whole other set of tasks necessary for these soldiers to learn, let alone practice to proficiency.

So what is perfect versus what is practical ?

Tell me, can you identify one Taliban Insurgent versus another at 2000 yards? So you can say that - "that man" is my target, then are you going to ask him to stop moving for you. Identifying your target is a key component, especially if you are going to consider this for LE. Which bearded man in that group is "the guy" ?

You can practice and be within the top 1% of your field and I applaud that. You have a singular focus and you do that exceptionally well. Others don't have that luxury.

Heck during classes we have guys called out to Return to their unit for other reasons. They can't commit them to 7 days consistently, how many days to get them up to speed and then how many more to maintain that level ?

But Hey, no worries, flip it around, call me out to hit a target at 1500 on demand after flying, during a snow storm with one hand tied behind my back while singing Bad Romance from Lady Gaga -- got it and not afraid to do it for you. On video with an audience. But please don't confuse perfect with practical, especially where I am concerned.

I talk in a practical sense, and many highly regarded special operations soldiers do too. The Australians consider the man who can correct for the second shot follow up within the honeymoon period to be a valuable asset. A measure of an effective shooter, but cold without the benefit of experience in a location, meaning dropped off from a bird asked to engage on demand. A first round hit is not always a practical request. Especially after you have humped up to 10,000 ft, over 6 days with 80lbs on your back eating 1 meal a day. So that second round is just as important as the first.

But I get it, I hurt your feelings and some of the others... my bad and I want to say I have no issue with any of you. I am under no illusions I am influencing what you are doing in any way. That is not my intentions. All I am doing is pointing out to people when caveated with Perfect you have to be able to understand what is really practical.

I have more but wanted to put this down before i forget... my brain is like that. Next part will address me and my rifle.

 

[Augustis]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Frank - In reality - I believe we (You & I) are closer to being on the same page than ANYONE might believe. In the sense you are describing is, & has made perfect sense (at leased to me) from the beginning - believe it or not?

I DO commend you & your efforts, you do good things everyday to ensure someone else's kid may come home from the current theater of operations, through your individual efforts... I am not discounting that fact what so ever, as a matter of fact, I have conveyed this fact to people that have called me regarding this thread!

We do not specialize in the same areas of marksmanship development, in reality, do we??

Dont really want to debate Frank, like you, I am sure we can both identify more useful things to do with our valuable time that could make a potential difference to someone, somewhere, someday in the world.

I even agree I have developed, lets say for lack of a better term, a "unique skill set" as it has been described to me, that is, or would be only useful to highly specialized operators that have attended functions at my "ranch' , limited in value to only a few individual applications. True Enough!!

To be honest I am sorry I even became involved in this thread beyond my initial first post - which I would respectfully request you please re-read to potentially redetermine what part(s) of it do, or would not have served to potentially address some of the chatter contained in this thread?

While I am leery to make this comment -You appear to have answered the question for yourself regarding "on demand" engagements... where potential math functions may prove to be an asset to account for Met. & Env. factors in an operational env.

Am I wasting my time, probably - Dean tried to develop such a means or method once, worth a second look, maybe... At the end of my days, at leased I will know I tried to make some kind of contribution to the community in some way. I can not begin to describe projects I am committed to presently that I can only hope in some way, may make a difference to someone, someday, like you get to in a routine manner everyday for the masses.

With that said, may I be excused to go shooting now, I am old & tired & have bigger things on my plate at the present time... as I am sure you do too.

Lets try to get together for some shooting at some point, even if the Symposium should not pan out. If this event should come to pass, I more than suspect the findings will be restricted content - as it should be...

Best Regards, Aug ><>

PS. I still have that image of you with the Glock in my mind - I can not believe you would let someone out of that room alive with that picture, you had a perfectly good weapon in your hand Bro ;O)

 

[Møønlight]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpY7LLF5S2s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCWz9U0MtoI&feature=related

 

[Mr Flannel]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I talk in a practical sense, and many highly regarded special operations soldiers do too. <span style="font-weight: bold"> The Australians consider the man who can correct for the second shot follow up within the honeymoon period to be a valuable asset</span>. A measure of an effective shooter, but cold without the benefit of experience in a location, meaning dropped off from a bird asked to engage on demand. A first round hit is not always a practical request. Especially after you have humped up to 10,000 ft, over 6 days with 80lbs on your back eating 1 meal a day. So that second round is just as important as the first. </div></div>

Too bloody right we do.

We also don't mind the occasional septic shooting whiz showing up down here to drink our excellent beer and talk to our excellent women. Just remember the earth is upside down here.

 

[Low Sioux]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Aug,

The problem with a symposium is that there is no hard data to discuss. Everything posted is this long discussion is purely anecdotal. Now if anyone is in a position to correct that problem its is you.

I would suggest that you compile a database, or even a spreadsheet log book, of all the ELR shooting that takes place at your ranch. And here is what I want to know:

With respect to each caliber fired at known distances what was the percentage of first round hits? second round? total hits in five shots? do this correcting for all your variables then do it using your best educated guess and correct from your (likely) miss. How long did it take to range, measure atmospherics, enter data and actually take the shot? What is the statistical difference in the hits? And then there is the wind and terrain; at what wind speed and directions were hits likely? at what point did hits drop off radically? and many other questions that can only be answered by sifting through carefully collected data.

now repeat the same at random ranged targets- set up one on a hillside across a canyon at a similar distance. My first round hit percentage is far higher on my "usual" 1050 yard target I have shot hundreds of times vs a random ranged target across a canyon and I would be willing to bet yours is too.

Now repeat #2 but this time shoot of the hood of the truck and not prone off a bipod.

At the end of day hopefully you can answer the real world question here: Did I just spend ten minutes working up a firing solution, accounting for every possible variable, that is no better statistically in terms of first round(or second round) hits than a quick angle and wind measurement and an educated guess?

Yes it would be a lot of work. Yes, you would need to ensure that all rifles used had properly leveled scopes and used levels, and set up the proper controls, and since you cant account for the human portion of the equation LL is harping on you will need lots of shooters and thousands of rounds to make it statistically significant. But at the end of the day you have something that DoD may find useful, and the rest of us would find quite interesting.

This is just a suggestion, and there are many here that that can help you design and refine a database far better than what I have suggested off the top of my head, but I hope you get the idea. Hell knowing our govt. they might even pay you to do the study. Take it for what its worth, and let me know when you get the contract, and I will let you know where to send the commission check.

 

[keithtb1]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I tend to agree with Greg on this one. My shooting partner and I spend a lot of time at a 1000 yds and beyond to a mile. Were lucky enough to have steel from 100 out to 1 mile in 100 yard increments. We make adjustments for bullet drop, wind etc. But have never "Knowingly" adjusted for CE. After all data is calculated we just shoot and make adjustments.
When making adjustments, part of our adjustments may have inadvertently compensated for CE. But we never added that in as a "KNOWN" factor. The following is a 5 shot group into our mile target. First round was high right just over plate and next 4 were as you see them. Rifle was a Tac 50 with night force scope.

 

[Graham]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...let's understand there is <span style="font-weight: bold">"Perfect"</span> and then there is <span style="font-weight: bold">"Practical" </span>...

You can practice and be within the top 1% of your field and I applaud that. You have a singular focus and you do that exceptionally well. Others don't have that luxury...

Next part will address me and my rifle. </div></div>Maybe shoot a target, jump the rifle with full kit, take a hard landing, then shoot the same target. How many 'game' guns can do that? I say: let's find out.

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

The military artillery compensates for the earth's spin. So it can and is being done. Software produces charts and those charts are checked and changes made. The hits are observed and compensated further still. I'm sure you could try and compensate for earth's spin for a rifle round, but it wouldn't make much difference. Artillery are shooting many km's out. A rifle, well, rarely shoots past 1k meters. But have at it if that's what you want to do!

 

[gugubica]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

The crazy thing about this thread is that nobody is really disagrees.

Nobody contends that CE does not exist. Bryan even takes the possition that it is so minor that everything else needs to be tackled first. Read the last parragraph on page 167 of "Applied Ballistics..." (if you don't have the book, buy it).

I think the big debate is practical vs. thoerecical.

In the real world, for most shooters, is it worth worriing about? Not for me, but I have a LONG way to go before everything else is perfect!

 

[Tactical]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Wow read it all. My head hurts but here is what I got Not my thoughts but what has been beaten in here:
1. Spin Drift exists
2. Spin drift gets lost in mix because no one can currently estimate all the winds in the ELR Equation, so if someone could find a way to estimate winds better it/SD is something you could calculate for.
3. Shooter error plays a bigger part
4. Spindrift starts to be a problem after 1000 yards
5. Most engagements are far less than 1000 yards
6. Better ways to engage targets past 1000 yards than a rifle
7. Obama lead military is lacking with ability to call in better ways than a rifle these days so a rifle will often have to do more than it should.( well I learned that one first hand not from this thread. Artty and Air Strikes are not as easy to call in as a few years ago)
8. ELR is changing and equipment is getting better.

Now someone asked if David Tubb calculates for spin drift? Well yes he does. He built the calculations into his reticle which drove me nutts to look at the hold over reticle, with the angled dots. I kept lining up the reticle straight up and down, out of habit. LOL

 

[Lindy]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I kept lining up the reticle straight up and down, out of habit. LOL</div></div>

So will most people - <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">especially under stress</span></span> - which is one of the problems with that technique.

David Tubb doesn't shoot on a two-way range.

 

[Tactical]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I kept lining up the reticle straight up and down, out of habit. LOL</div></div>

So will most people - <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">especially under stress</span></span> - which is one of the problems with that technique.

Exactly what I told David.

The David shoots on a one way range thing. Well so do most everyone here, teachers or otherwise

 

[Guest]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I kept lining up the reticle straight up and down, out of habit. LOL</div></div>

So will most people - <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">especially under stress</span></span> - which is one of the problems with that technique.

Exactly what I told David.

The David shoots on a one way range thing. Well so do most everyone here, teachers or otherwise </div></div>

So we are now saying throw away the level, an eyeball everything?

I was taught everything was technique, until it was instilled?

 

[Tactical]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

14e2, here lies the problem. We go through life lining up our sites on M14s,M16s,Pistols and every other weapon system. Now introduce a system where the the reticle is canted and its a recipe for disaster. You will line the reticle straight up and down like you have done for many thousands of rounds with other systems. Its muscle/brain memory.

The idea of having to look at a level for every shot is not exactly the tactical dream system.

People tend to stand straight up even when on a hill side so lining up sites on them is fast and works better than taking eye off a moving target to see if your level. Works well on one way range but not so well on two way range, as Lindy pointed out.

My other point about most dont work on two way range had to do with you dont have to work on a two way range to add to tactical shooting but you do have to think like your on a two way range.

In short I dont need a level for comps or two way range. In comps I line up on target butts and in world its on the target.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

In addition, usually the level is on the support side of the rifle so it can be seen with your off-scope eye, which is fine if you're shooting from your strong side. If, however, you need to shoot from the support side to take advantage of cover or for another reason, now you can't see the level.

Canted reticles to compensate for spindrift is an idea invented by a competiton shooter - and that's where the idea belongs.

Someone who decides to compensate for spindrift or coriolis ought to learn to do that by including the compensation in their wind hold.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Resurrecting this thread, being directed here form another one...

Frank, I must say I'm with Bryan on this one.

First, yes of course shooter is the key, no questions. But: there are deterministic and non-deterministic factors affecting the exact trajectory. I fail to understand why would <span style="text-decoration: underline">anyone</span> object to accounting for <span style="text-decoration: underline">all</span> (practically!) possible deterministic factors, coding them into their favorite ballistic calculator, and - having them accounted for - continue training to be a better shooter? IMHO this will increase - or at least not damage - his first hit chances. Yes shooter error plays a bigger part - but is it a reason to ignore the smaller "parts"? Why then are we chasing fraction-of-MOA rifles, match ammo, etc. - surely many shooters can't benefit from that precision anyway?

So back to Coriolis - why is it even a point of debate? Why not just add the formulas to the software and move on? It's a one-time thing (and done by somebody else anyway

) - and not something you have to work on, like consistent position behind the rifle, trigger techniques, etc.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mouse07410</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Resurrecting this thread, being directed here form another one...

Frank, I must say I'm with Bryan on this one.

First, yes of course shooter is the key, no questions. But: there are deterministic and non-deterministic factors affecting the exact trajectory. I fail to understand why would <span style="text-decoration: underline">anyone</span> object to accounting for <span style="text-decoration: underline">all</span> (practically!) possible deterministic factors, coding them into their favorite ballistic calculator, and - having them accounted for - continue training to be a better shooter? IMHO this will increase - or at least not damage - his first hit chances. Yes shooter error plays a bigger part - but is it a reason to ignore the smaller "parts"? Why then are we chasing fraction-of-MOA rifles, match ammo, etc. - surely many shooters can't benefit from that precision anyway?

So back to Coriolis - why is it even a point of debate? Why not just add the formulas to the software and move on? It's a one-time thing (and done by somebody else anyway

) - and not something you have to work on, like consistent position behind the rifle, trigger techniques, etc.</div></div>

Please spare me this...

I have no issue with someone who programs these into their ballistic calculator and accounts for it... however that accounting should be based on the shooter's knowledge of themselves.

Look at ExBal, they have "shooter drift" where you actually shoot at distance and measure the "drift' from center which then adds a figure into the programs solution and give you data based off actual data shot by the actual shooter.

My point of contention is a "flat rate" value that is put into a program that is not based on things like barrel twist or actual data shot at distance by the rifle used. Barrel twist rate is a factor, if the program never asks you your twist, whether 1/10 or 1/12 is it really giving you actual data -- data that people preach and take to the bank, or is it giving you an approximation of what it thinks based on computer model that is figured in a vacuum without any consideration of the shooter.

When things are compounded daily, where .5 drift turns into 1.5 because the shooter adds the extra minute themselves, this is where I have a problem.

Not everyone shoots with a computer, and some will add in the amount of "drift" to their their 1000 yards (example only) solution until they hit, and then say they use 1.5 MOA Spindrift at 1000, and they see it. Which of course they do... but is it spin or shooter ?

I have no issue with using technology... but there is a reason the USMC removed both these "accountable forces" from their version of the ballistic program because, like me they consider it a distraction to actual shooting. I am not making this up and can show you screen shots of both programs, one with, for civilians and one without for the military.

people have been hitting targets, first round, second round for years without it... so do whatever floats your boat I don't care, but I bet I can hit just as often without.

 

[SnkBit]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Just make sure all of your shots are taken in the East/West orientation and then the Coriolis affect is a non issue. Crap, then you'll have to worry about the loss/gain in velocity due to the Coriolis. What's a guy to do?

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no issue with someone who programs these into their ballistic calculator and accounts for it... however that accounting should be based on the shooter's knowledge of themselves.</div></div>
My calculator tells me (should tell - or I'll dump it and write my own from scratch) where the bullet would impact if the actual muzzle velocity was precise rather than averaged, and a perfect robot was aiming and holding the rifle.

Now I come - ideally not introducing any bias, but in practice/reality - I hold the rifle a certain way that may offset the impact at Y yd differently from "zero" range (though I hope this is what a good training eradicates). More importantly - I may err ranging the target, and finally - I may misjudge the wind. But all this is outside the calculator! Though if I am <span style="text-decoration: underline">consistent</span> in pulling e.g. 1 MOA left & up - I think it's my job (and my instructor's) to figure out what I'm doing wrong and straighten me up, bringing the "shooter drift" to zero.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Look at ExBal, they have "shooter drift" where you actually shoot at distance and measure the "drift' from center which then adds a figure into the programs solution and give you data based off actual data shot by the actual shooter.</div></div>
Interesting. I wonder though why this "consistent" shooter drift isn't taken care of by zeroing the rifle (and the training). Could you amplify on this please?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My point of contention is a "flat rate" value that is put into a program that is not based on things like barrel twist or actual data shot at distance by the rifle used. Barrel twist rate is a factor, if the program never asks you your twist, whether 1/10 or 1/12 is it really giving you actual data -- data that people preach and take to the bank, or is it giving you an approximation of what it thinks based on computer model that is figured in a vacuum without any consideration of the shooter.</div></div>
I fully agree on the "flat rate" programs. If a program doesn't want to know my rifle twist - I don't want that program, period. I would take it to the bank - of the river that is, and let it go.

But I'm uneasy considering the <span style="text-decoration: underline">shooter</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline">in</span> the program... Because IMHO the program is the summary of consistency and predictability - while the shooter more often than not isn't...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When things are compounded daily, where .5 drift turns into 1.5 because the shooter adds the extra minute themselves, this is where I have a problem.</div></div>
I hear you. The shooter must know (and improve) what he's doing, and nothing can substitute for the skills - no argument here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not everyone shoots with a computer,...</div></div>
Understood. But they use some pre-computed dope - unless it's all empirical and based on measuring their actual shots at all the distances. So our discussion for those would turn into "what does your program take into account to compute your range card".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...and some will add in the amount of "drift" to their their 1000 yards (example only) solution until they hit, and then say they use 1.5 MOA Spindrift at 1000, and they see it. Which of course they do... but is it spin or shooter ?</div></div>
Yep, I hear you!

Which is one of the reasons I'm here - to learn where I'm "drifting" and take care of that problem.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no issue with using technology... but there is a reason the USMC removed both these "accountable forces" from their version of the ballistic program because, like me they consider it a distraction to actual shooting. I am not making this up and can show you screen shots of both programs, one with, for civilians and one without for the military.</div></div>
As I'm learning from you - of course I take your word on USMC simplification of the calculator, no need for the screenshots, thank you. But I don't understand why it's a <span style="text-decoration: underline">distraction</span> - the calculator just gives you a number (either directly or when you printed the dope)!

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

If you can't tell by the multitude of threads on here, 90% of the shooters, perhaps more, are not interested in improving their skill, in the traditional sense. They instead focus on short cuts to accuracy, taking small doses of knowledge and coupling it with gizmos or gadgets to use in place of experience gain through practice -- whether it be a blind reliance on ballistic computers and not understanding their use or limitations, or their need to find something other than themselves to blame for missing the target is both rampent and profitable.

Errors can come from more than just you the shooter, the rifle has built in errors, the bullets have built in variations, the scopes we use have build in errors, and we havent' even gotten to us or the environment we are shooting in. Any combination of these errors, compounded add up to more than what is modeled. You can agree with me or not, I personally don't care, but what is experienced in a fixture is never what is seen by an actual shooter, and this is an important factor, because every single shooter is different. This is the reason I debate this, because when caveated with, "all things being equal, including MV, " we know, all things are never, ever, equal, so to say, 1 MOA left will help you hit your target, we know this to not be true for everyone. In order for the science to work it has to work for everyone, it does not because of the variables. Instead people are playing the odds, and hoping they fall between the averages.

People tell me they are accounting for this, and they usually call it 3% because it can be accounted for... well okay, say that is true, we are thinking about this 3% and not the 75% that is all shooter. Well in my opinion, I can forgo the 3% and work on the 75% because a 3% increase in accuracy there will have more of an effect than 100% gain in the 3%, which may or not be also effected by you.

As well are you sure you ballistic program is not using a Flat Rate solution ? Which program is it ? All but 1 I know use a flat rate solution ?

I have pointed to in the past, and it is really getting tiring, but changing "my" hand from the tip of my finger to the pad of my finger resulted in a change of .5 MOA @ 300 yards. We saw no change in POI at 100, but it clearly has a measurable effect on me at 300, image it at 1200... that is shooter drift. And we are so far from perfect to expect us to make every shot perfect every time we pull the trigger.

ExBal was the first program and you have to ask yourself why would someone include shooter drift that is based off of actually shooting ? To me it is easy but escapes many in this debate.

Why don't all programs allow you to input your actual dope to process a solution, especially at distance, is it because it can't be done, or does it requires too much from the shooter ?

Again, if you feel adding in SD or CE into your firing solution works for you, go ahead, knock yourself out. I choose not to use it, and still hit my target plenty... I have explained myself until I feel it is useless to explain myself anymore. I have the utmost respect for Brian Litz, I think he is doing a great job crunching the numbers, and only ask he make his caveats bolder and brighter because people take it out of context and don't understand how to manage the little things.

Maybe I am saying it wrong, but I host a match that recently had 92 shooters and one event required those shooters to hit a 1 MOA target from 400 to 100 yards with 4 shots in a row at each range and only 3 people can do it, or should I say, did it. So I find it a distraction to talk about other factors. When, my experience not only tells me, but shows me in living color that under field conditions excellent shooters can manage roughly 2 MOA about 75% of the time, I find it a distraction to talk about the area inside that that 2 MOA.

So, I say to those who question both my logic and reason, it's a check box, so check it, it's your choice, so chose it, I have no problem with you doing it. I am tired of debating how much of the earth's atmosphere is dragged with it and how much rotation we actually experience effecting the bullet.

You're ballistic calculator is yours to command, so command it how you please. If you hit your target on the first round you can chalk it up to compensating for that which you could, if you miss you can blame it on the moon for all I care. Just be sure you can properly follow it up, because that right there is a clue. Especially if you see it.

 

[BOLTRIPPER]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

is bi-pod hop a result of too much caffine ?

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can't tell by the multitude of threads on here, 90% of the shooters, perhaps more, are not interested in improving their skill, in the traditional sense. They instead focus on short cuts to accuracy, taking small doses of knowledge and coupling it with gizmos or gadgets to use in place of experience gained through practice........
In order for the science to work it has to work for everyone, it does not because of the variables. Instead people are playing the odds, and hoping they fall between the averages.......</div></div>
We are on the same page here. One reason I'm on this site is to improve my skills in the traditional sense. I'll take any help from any gauge or gadget I can get reasonably easy - but will make sure I can function without it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As well are you sure you ballistic program is not using a Flat Rate solution ? Which program is it ? All but 1 I know use a flat rate solution ?</div></div>
Currently I'm using JBM online (which utilizes rifling twist), ready to buy FTE (or Bullet Flight) when my iPod shows up - and <span style="text-decoration: underline">slowly</span> working on my own 6-DOF program (which I'm not keen to rush because there's day job and several ways to have fun after it, so not spending much time on software development). If I notice that I outgrew JBM - I'll spend more time on my code, for now it's not a priority.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have pointed to in the past, and it is really getting tiring, but changing "my" hand from the tip of my finger to the pad of my finger resulted in a change of .5 MOA @ 300 yards. We saw no change in POI at 100, but it clearly has a measurable effect on me at 300, image it at 1200... that is shooter drift. And we are so far from perfect to expect us to make every shot perfect every time we pull the trigger.</div></div>
Thank you! A great example of how small a detail can have a pronounced effect. I'll make sure I pay attention when I practice.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ExBal was the first program and you have to ask yourself why would someone include shooter drift that is based off of actually shooting ? To me it is easy but escapes many in this debate.

Why don't all programs allow you to input your actual dope to process a solution, especially at distance, is it because it can't be done, or does it requires too much from the shooter ?</div></div>
For the program - adding this should be fairly easy... I personally think - not many shooters (a) have bias consistent enough to be usable, and (b) know their bias for all the distances they expect the program to print the dope for. Limitations of my experience prevent me from speculating more...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe I am saying it wrong, but I host a match that recently had 92 shooters and one event required those shooters to hit a 1 MOA target from 400 to 100 yards with 4 shots in a row at each range and only 3 people can do it, or should I say, did it. So I find it a distraction to talk about other factors. When, my experience not only tells me, but shows me in living color that under field conditions excellent shooters can manage roughly 2 MOA about 75% of the time, I find it a distraction to talk about the area inside that that 2 MOA.</div></div>
You have a point here!

Thank you for clarifying the points!

 

[goober]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

My A B C theory

I have always considered the fastest way to get from one point to another is to go from A to B .

If I start at C to get to A it's just that little more further away than starting at B to get to A - Why would you even consider starting at C even if it's only slightly further. Who cares if there is human error ,ballistics error and vodoo start as close to the peg as you can and stop being stubborn.
I add the correction as a matter of course on ballistics FTE but also realize at under maybe a 1000 yards it isnt going to throw you to far out if you dont but I allow it anyway

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My A B C theory

I have always considered the fastest way to get from one point to another is to go from A to B .

If I start at C to get to A it's just that little more further away than starting at B to get to A - Why would you even consider starting at C even if it's only slightly further. Who cares if there is human error ,ballistics error and vodoo start as close to the peg as you can and stop being stubborn.
I add the correction as a matter of course on ballistics FTE but also realize at under maybe a 1000 yards it isnt going to throw you to far out if you dont but I allow it anyway</div></div>

What do you care what I do or not do ?

If I choose not to click the box to turn on either one it's no skin off your nose and other than here, I don't say anything about it either way. I'm not going to agree with you that there are benefits to doing it nor do I think anyone who does will believe there are benefits to not. To me it is a wash either way... but I am also not going to say its effects are equal to everyone, because I know they are not.

I assure you, I have been called out on many occasions and I am closer to the peg than most, that fact I have proven... in practice, not theory. It wasn't taught to me that way, and I graduated Sniper School without it, so I see no reason to start using it now. If I want to fling something beyond 1500, then and only then will I even consider turning it on, but only after weighing the conditions. Especially when, in 90% of the situations I shoot there is more than a 2MPH wind fluctuation, especially when it is that and above I am not wasting my time with it on... why would I, if I can't dope the wind at any given moment to within 1MPH what's the point it erases it all anyway.

They day i experience that magical, mythical NO WIND condition, I will video me using it... until then do what you want, but don;t think you'll pressure me to do any different, I know my success rate.

 

[175G]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I dont get it. If we are on a a ship playing artillery it is a consideration. I am a crappy-ass shooter that's a given and at RO at the 900 small left target held NOTHING for wind and hit everytime but for the right target I had to hold 1.4 mills. At 1250 I held 4mils in 25mph full value to hit 12 times I don't even know how the wind was changing down range and at elevation. My point here is will anyone EVER be in a zero wind condition at +1000 for this argument to even make a difference? Seems moot

 

[mouse07410]

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I want to fling something beyond 1500, then and only then will I even consider turning it on, but only after weighing the conditions. Especially when, in 90% of the situations I shoot there is more than a 2MPH wind fluctuation, especially when it is that and above I am not wasting my time with it on... why would I, if I can't dope the wind at any given moment to within 1MPH what's the point it erases it all anyway.</div></div>
That's the lesson I'm taking from this.