At What Distance...

Mystic Precision said:
Precious few rifles are accurate enough to see that within the grouping of the rifle.

Even fewer shooters can dope conditions to that level.

How much drift does 2MPH make at that distance?

Get out there and shoot and you'll understand what I am getting at.

Jerry
Click to expand...

I "get out and shoot" plenty. Less than some, more than most. I never said that coriolis was a major factor in doping conditions, but the fact is that it exists. Very few rifles are accurate enough for coriolis to be noticeable, and wind effect certainly eclipses it, but it does exist, none-the-less. It's not unpredictable and constantly variable, like the wind, but rather a simple law of physics, much like elevation compensation for gravity, and can be predicted easily. Why not compensate for it if it is a known value? That just takes one more "unknown" off a shooter's list when doping a shot...
 
Jordan Smith said:
I "get out and shoot" plenty. Less than some, more than most. I never said that coriolis was a major factor in doping conditions, but the fact is that it exists. Very few rifles are accurate enough for coriolis to be noticeable, and wind effect certainly eclipses it, but it does exist, none-the-less. It's not unpredictable and constantly variable, like the wind, but rather a simple law of physics, much like elevation compensation for gravity, and can be predicted easily. Why not compensate for it if it is a known value? That just takes one more "unknown" off a shooter's list when doping a shot...
Click to expand...

We all agree it exists. d:h:


The reason we do not compensate for it is because its not worth the effort for the gain..... of 3" @ 1000. (and I bet thats max with a slower bullet)


To 100% compensate for it you need to think of how close are you to the north pole or equator, whats your exact barring ........ ya know what screw it...
What about the moon? If it can suck in a ocean tide it must effect your bullet right ????
 
Do people really think that adding 1 quarter minute click at 1000m to "compensate" for it is really going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things?
 
Jordan Smith said:
. Why not compensate for it if it is a known value? That just takes one more "unknown" off a shooter's list when doping a shot...
Click to expand...

There is no point compensating for something that is already buried in the noise of actual shooting

ie - you can't compensate for something where the system error is larger then what you want to compensate for.

To compensate for "one click" as was so well put, you have to KNOW that the bullet will land one click away.

BUT the rifle and shooter can't deliver a bullet within a 2 click radius (4 click spread - 1/2 min) so which way do you click? 1/2 min accuracy is superb under field conditions. It is likely double this for most shooters.

This also assumes your scope works precisely enough to 'see' the click. The VAST majority of scopes don't have this level of resolution.

Full meal deal competition rigs shooting under match conditions can and will put in 1 click and see results on paper. The gear is that precise and the shooters/rifles that accurate.

BUT in the field, with no wind flags, varying terrain, less then ideal shooting positions and gear - it is merely an excercise for the Techies....

Know what your variables are - that is good planning.

Focus on those that will actually affect your result - that is just being smart.

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom