April 08, 2001 - April 14, 2001

Ya - can you see one of those anacondas coughing up a ghillie fur ball after a good sniper team lunch :)

Ken
ken hunter <hunterkr@riflemen.net>
Nokesville, Va, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 01:17:49 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.233.164.10)

"Pheronal state"? Will penicilin cure that?
 

Bolt <reeldoctor@mindspring.com>
NC, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 01:46:06 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.50.55.252)

How much extra weight does the can add to the M/AR? I have a 20" barrel and would think the CofG would be adversly affected.

I can see the utility in a CQB sit but how about longer range accuracy?

Since dealing with the "distasteful" ones (as Boomhauer says) is part of the deal, is the can the only thing they are interested in or are you required to detail the weapon(s) it will go on also?

Moe
Moe Mensale <mjmensale@aol.com>
Boca Raton, FL, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 02:49:56 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.195.182)

Ghillie furballs - Snipers, They're not just for breakfast anymore!
 
 

peteR <PNGREIFF@AOL.COM>
BIG CITY, BY-GAWD, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 03:12:29 (ZULU) (your host address: 205.188.193.167)

Been up in the shop loading Mouse Gun ammo. One load for my bolt gun and the other to try in my CQB gun. I want to see what the M-4 will do with 69 grain Sierra's and the fast twist barrel. Will report back provided I can get to the range, on the 'morrow.

Supressed .223 and others... Phil Daters M4-96D is state of the art. Have used a number of them and all perform well. NOTE: they must have proper mounts or threads. Have Gemtech do the work!
Last year I watched a show off MELT the internals out of a competitor's can. We were wondering what the silver shit was going down range. Idiot managed to aluminum "solder" the unit to the rifle.
If you're looking at cans and they have aluminum baffels or internals pass on them. May work for SMG's, but not for rifle calibers!

All my subguns have supressors. I love them. The MP-5 uses Gemtech's Raptor. What a honey. Adds 10 ounces or so and does not effect the balance of the weapon the way the SD version does. Nor does it bleed energy effectively making the 9mm a .380 ACP(if you're lucky).

My next acquisition is going to be a can for one of my .308's. Undoubtedly a GemTech product.

If your looking for subsonic 9MM, .223, and .308 try Engel Ballistic Research. NONE better.

Semper Fi,

Wes
Wes Howe <wsaa@proaxis.com>
Blodgett, OR, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 03:56:54 (ZULU) (your host address: 198.145.248.168)

Marius,
You were right, shoulda checked there first.

AR10 Steve

STEVE <skylar.burris@gte.net>
seattle, wa, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 06:06:13 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.36.222.46)

I'm taking Jim Owen's High Power class, and he gave us this numeric sequence: 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6. As he tells it, leave off the first '2', as that gets you from zero to 100 yards. The remaining numbers are come-ups between 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, and 1000 yards.

(To go from 100 to 200, come up 2. To go from 200 to 300, come up another 3. To go from 300 to 400, come up another 3. And so on and so forth through the numeric sequence.)

Sounds too simple, I thought. Way too simple. So, I checked the 30-06 BDC dial on my LR-M3, and dang it all if his numbers don't match that BDC dial, or no more than +/- 0.5 MOA at any given range.

Sorry if y'all knew this. I thought it was a pretty elegant way of remembering.
 

MikeL <mlitscher@wi.rr.com>
Brew City, WI, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 07:26:38 (ZULU) (your host address: 65.25.160.112)

Ref: IMI Match Brass

I was just reading about IMI Match brass and the high pressure signs etc. I've had exactly the same experience. 168 BTHP w/42.1 grains of IMR4895 gives 2,600 fps. Any more and things get sticky. I've also seen the tell-tale ring developing. The sad part is I've got 500 cases will all the work done to include neck turning. Oh well live and learn. I'll shoot these up and move on to Federal brass.

FWIW, I've never had any luck feeding truncated cone .45 bullets in any of my government models. I stick to the 230 FMJRN. Good enough for government work.

I'm going back to bed now.
 

Kevin R. Mussack (Andy's Dad) <kmussack@aol.com>
Clifton Springs, New York, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 13:53:10 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.195.196)

Another ghillie for sale on EBAY.

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1131132566
Bolt <reeldoctor@mindspring.com>
NC, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 14:05:26 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.50.54.121)

I had recently bought a Butler Creek Carbon Fiber Barrel for my 10/22 to test. Here is what I have found out from it. The Carbon fiber barrel coupled with a hogue ruber overmolded stock is too light for long range 22 shooting (50-100 yards) The entire packaged only weighed about 3.5 lbs. The rifle seemed to have a good ballance, there was more weight in the but of the stock then there was tward the barrel so that weight was canceled out by putting the rifle to my shoulder.
The hogue ruber overmolded stock has some flex in the forarm (which can be expected with a synthetic stock, but this fex coupled with the barrel prouduced inaccuracy. The steel is only a thin sleave for the bulk of the barrel covered by a carbon fiber composite. This thin steel alows for the barrel to flex. So when the rifle is put onto sandbags the forarm flexes slightly in turn flexing the barrel. Before I discovered the problem I had noticed that I was only able to obtain roughtly .75" groups at 60 yards. After discovering the problem and compensating for it by putting the rest just infront of the recever I was able to obtain almost 1/3" goups. This problem prevents me from putting a bipod on the rifle (which is one of the things I wanted to do). I am sending this barrel back for a green mountain fluited bull. I already have a marlin 70P (papoose) that is a good close range .22 at a fraction of the cost this one would be. I have heard that others have had problems with there carbon fiber barrels from other producers (Remington etc) I believe that this could be a problem for them also and prevents them from obtaining good groups, but I havnt checked any other carbon fiber barrels so I cant be sure. The way I checked for barrel flex was by holding the recever and the end of the barrel and then pulling to see if the barrel flexed away from the stock.
I will update everyone when I get my green mountain barrel in as to its accuracy and ballance on the hogue stock. I am also going to be getting a titanium firing pin and claw extractor, possibly a liniar compensator like I had heard mentioned on here that disperces all the gasses infront of the muzzle.

take care
Charlie
Charlie <higgins_charles@hotmail.com>
J-Town, AR, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 15:53:08 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.191.254.236)

Two Shoes

Terry <tls8323@cs.com>
USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 18:40:47 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.195.197)

Mark A. Smith <Windinmane@aol.com>
Lake Cormorant, MS, USA - Sunday, April 08, 2001 at 22:55:22 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.204.202)

I have the same trouble spelling, and make matters worse the words I can spell usually get typed wrong. When ever you get the info on those 77's let me know. My Stealth left for winchester last Friday to get the right twist barrel put on it. Winchester has been very straight up and professional as it looks like I got a .22-250 blank that got tossed in the .223 finish pile. So end of problem I hope.
 

Undude -

Slings and mittens arrived Friday. AWWWWWSOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the extra large cuff size is a good fit.
 

Ken - Some times when I post, after entering the password with the initial required information the post will not go through as if the pass word were lost. Has anyone else had this happen? Probably just me but it has happened twice.
 
 

Later

Titan
Titan <hatherly1@home.com>
Michigan, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 00:53:53 (ZULU) (your host address: 24.4.252.150)

Gents,

Had a post on another private E-mail list that indicated the formula used in the Mil-Dot Master is incorrect and solves the problem of sloping shots/come-ups incorrectly. Erring on the low side and getting progressively worse as range increases. Author indicates he can prove it, mathematically.
 

According to Mike Brown, the author, it uses (cos theta)*true range in the formula.

Mike B. indicated the correct formula should be come ups for the true range*(cos theta).

Personally, the Mil-Dot master works for me well enough. Anyone else out there have a comment?

Can any of us shoot the difference? I'm all ears as he indicated the difference could be several MOA at long range.

Mike Brown did say that when his paper was done we'd get a copy to review. I can hardly wait...

Just stirring the pot on a Sunday eve...

Semper Fi,

Wes

P.S. No range time today. Trip to town for parts and spent most of the day under the hood of my Chevy truck...just a minor oops on my part that I had to correct.
Wes Howe <wsaa@proaxis.com>
Blodgett, OR, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 01:16:35 (ZULU) (your host address: 198.145.249.72)

Thanks
JG
JG <winterstick30@spazmail.com>
Moreno Valley, CA, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:06:43 (ZULU) (your host address: 12.72.162.216)

Mike B. indicated the correct formula should be come ups for the true range*(cos theta)."

So, rather than being A*B it is B*A?

You're pulling my leg, right?

CDC' <criscurt@isu.edu>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:11:39 (ZULU) (your host address: 134.50.253.13)

It's time to reorganize the family gun rack..This happens several time s a year as the seasons change. Deer rifles make way for upland guns in December..Now the turkey guns come out, as do the varmint guns for their annual zero checks in preparation for dogs and chucks. The only constants around the place are defensive pieces and my wifes garden gun[an old crackshot .22] over the kitchen door..This shuffling of stuff gives one the incentive to go through the safes and PM everything at least a couple of times a year..
 

outa here
Markwell <markwell@hardynet.com>
Mobile and rehabing in the Alleghenies, WV, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:11:49 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.92.148.33)

Two Shoes
Terry <tls8323@cs.com>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:14:19 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.195.191)

I also have had trouble posting..Sometimes it goes through and sometimes not...
 

outa here again
Markwell <markwell@hardynet.com>
Computer challenged un the Alleghenies, WV, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:26:02 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.92.148.33)

Don't be too hard on Mike B., He probably went to Public school and a Public University. No offense to anyone, but this is the goofy sort of un-math being taught now days. Lets hope no one asks him to mathematically model a spin drift calculation.( and before the incoming gets here, I can't do it either).

Wes - the Mildot master is close enough for me and I have used it up to 50 Deg inclination. I would say it is within a MOA of accuracy depending on your round, and can be fine tuned with a little work. Heck, a 30 deg temp change coupled with a Humiditychange and a little wind really screws up the mix. That is why data based on testing is soooooo important.

I am going to bed.

good night

Titan
Titan <hatherly1@home.com>
Michigan, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:27:39 (ZULU) (your host address: 24.4.252.150)

Mike L – Those figures are in FM 23-8 and TC 23-14. They are called “normal come ups” and work for only specific loads. They will not work on 300WM, or .338 Lapua or Mag, 7mm Mag or any other flat shooter or grenade launcher. They are for the 173/175 world at about 2600 to 2700. It is our count system and it works fairly well. The truth is that the real come up have .5 and .25 moa thrown in but what’s 3 to 5 inches among friends at those ranges?

Well have a test tomorrow with my students, their first in the course. I lucked out and got four shooters. Makes my life easier.

T – Got your e mail and am working up some ideas for you to consider. Do not know your range capabilities but so some may not work.

Rick

Rick <rbowcher@aol.com>
Fayetteville, NC, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:28:27 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.207.58)

CDC wrote:
"
Wes: "According to Mike Brown, the author, it uses (cos theta)*true range in the formula. Mike B. indicated the correct formula should be come ups for the true range*(cos theta)."

So, rather than being A*B it is B*A?

You're pulling my leg, right?

CDC'

Read it again. Say a slope shot at 1000 yards with a slope such that cos theta of 0.8. I'll guarandamtee you that

0.8*(comeups for 1000) is not equal to the comeups for (1000*0.8) yards. Drop is a function of the square (or higher power) of the range.

Try it for any bullet you like. The comeups for 800 yards will be lower than the correct comeup. Result - 6 oclock miss.

BMG Mike - aka Mike Brown
Mad Scientist In Training
Not an Engineer, but Please don't tell my boss!
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:31:59 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.123.14.101)

I would respectfully disagree with the term "wrong" (don't mean to sound like Bill Clinton!) as applied to the Mildot Master's method of calculating corrections for angle shooting.

The angle correction method used in this device is an approximation ONLY, as stated in the Owner's Manual. The "Cosine Method" can never be exact, and errors will increase as range and/or angle become greater.

This device is intended to be used with all calibers, so correcting for come-ups for an individual caliber is not feasible. Instead, the Cosine method was added to the Range scale in order to provide a close approximation. From a practical standpoint, very few situations will arise that call for a combination of extreme angle (greater than 30 degrees) and extreme range (past 500 yards).

I am adding (below) the section from the Owner's Manual that serves as an introduction to this subject. All, please feel free to contact me off-line if you have any comments or questions. I would be particularly interested in hearing form the gentlemen who emailed Wes, so that we can discuss this.

Sorry to burn the bandwidth, but for those of you who haven't read the manual, here goes:

"Range calculations (whether performed by a mildot reticle, a laser rangefinder or other means) are a measure of the line-of-sight distance to the target. Bullet drop figures are always expressed in terms of deviation from a horizontal trajectory."

"It is important to remember that bullet drop figures are not accurate if the shot is uphill or downhill. The effect of up or down slope increases with the angle of deviation from the horizontal and with increasing range."

"The range determination on such shots must be adjusted to enable a hit."

"If shooting uphill or downhill (for example, when hunting in mountainous terrain), the shooter must estimate the angle by which the shot deviates from horizontal, and reduce the estimated range accordingly. This "actual horizontal range" will determine the bullet drop."

"Please note that it does not matter if you are shooting uphill or downhill, the effect on bullet drop is the same. In either case, the actual horizontal range will be less than the estimated (line-of-sight) range, which means that the amount of bullet drop will also be less."

"It is imperative that the shooter realize that the two methods presented here are approximations only."

"While the Mildot Master is extremely accurate in calculating range to target and resultant MOA/Mil corrections (given an accurate target size estimation), these are strictly geometric functions based on line of sight measurements."

"The calculations necessary to exactly correct for shooting at angles other than horizontal are complex and time consuming."

"External factors as diverse as altitude, air temperature, and relative humidity can all affect the results of these approximations. This is because, in each of the two methods, the corrected bullet drop figure is based on a reduced "actual horizontal range" to account for the lessening of gravitational effect on the bullet's trajectory as the firing angle deviates further from the horizontal. The bullet's path through the air, however, is still at the (longer) "line-of-sight" distance, subjecting the bullet to slight additional air resistance not accounted for in these two approximation methods. Due to the effects of the above-mentioned factors on air density, it is impossible to simplify the calculations and incorporate them into these two approximation methods."

"If the shooter elects to use the Mildot Master for calculating corrections for uphill/downhill shots, it must be with the realization that the results are approximations. While close enough for hunting and target-shooting situations, the margin of error increases with range and angle and precludes the use of these methods in critical situations."

Hopes this clarifies things a bit.

Best Regards,

Bruce N. Robinson <bnrobins@flash.net>
Los Lunas, NM, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 02:37:28 (ZULU) (your host address: 209.254.238.32)

Bruce N. Robinson writes, among other things.

"The calculations necessary to exactly correct for shooting at angles other than horizontal are complex and time consuming."

Actually, the correction for drop on a slope shot is deceptively simple. If you know the elevation to put on the sights for a level shot at that range, then cos theta times that elevation puts the slope shot on target. Independent of caliber, bullet BC, or MV.

Your Mil-Dot slide rule does the Cosine multiplication math on range - it is not too great a leap to believe that the math can be done on the elevation.

I acknowledge that "wrong" may be harsh term for a method which produces approximately correct results. But it is demonstrably less accurate than the correction stated above. It may make the difference between a hit and a "Maxwell Smart" shot at long range/steep slope.

I'll offer to trade you a copy of my paper for a Mil-Dot Master (when I finish writing it - in a day or two). ;-)

Is there any way to put a .pdf document on the site here?

Regards

Mike

Mike
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 03:01:08 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.123.14.101)

Two Shoes
Terry <tls8323@cs.com>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 03:09:16 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.12.105.37)

Bruce writes "External factors as diverse as altitude, air temperature, and relative humidity can all affect the results of these approximations. This is because, in each of the two methods, the corrected bullet drop figure is based on a reduced "actual horizontal range" to account for the lessening of gravitational effect on the bullet's trajectory as the firing angle deviates further from the horizontal. The bullet's path through the air, however, is still at the (longer) "line-of-sight" distance, subjecting the bullet to slight additional air resistance not accounted for in these two approximation methods. Due to the effects of the above-mentioned factors on air density, it is impossible to simplify the calculations and
incorporate them into these two approximation methods."

I'm of the opinion that the air density factors (altitude, temperature, and to a much lesser extent, humidity) may not be too complex to put on a slide rule. Pilots have been using a slide rule calculation of density altitude for many years. Relating density altitude to drop may not be quite so straightforward, since it tends to be caliber-specific.

Michaelis (HTI) includes barometric and temperature correction coefficients in his tables. I'm at odds with the way he applies them, but they can be used to correct (at least approximately) for density effects on drop. The coefficients are raised to an exponent (based on altitude, or temp difference from 59F) and used to adjust the drop. These exponential calculations can easily be incorporated into a slide-rule type calculator.

Art Pejsa (Modern Practical Ballistics) has derived some formulas that effectively calculate an altered BC based on the density factors, and formulas that relatively straight-forwardly calculate drop based on MV and (altered) BC. Yes, I'm talking about more calculation at the firing point than is being done presently. They are probably not a 1-step operation on a slide rule.

In any case, the correct procedure is to apply the density corrections to the level shot drop data before applying the cosine theta correction.

Regards

Mike
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 03:21:56 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.123.14.101)

I'm afraid it's not as easy to directly apply a cosine multiplier to elevation adjustments on this device. It would necessitate the addition of a separate sliding member and thereby compromise its simplicity.

You can, however, perform this calculation, if you so desire, with the device in its current incarnation.

Let's say your calculated elevation correction is 12 MOA, and you are shooting at an angle of 30 degrees. Set the Range to 1200 (12 x 100) and read 1025 next to 30 degrees. Your corrected elevation is then 10.25 MOA.

I have doubts that this method will work for all situations, however. As an extreme example, let's look at a 90 degree shot (straight up). If your rifle is sighted in at 300 yds.your bullet path will be high for all shots between about 25 yds. and 300 on a horizontal shot. If you now apply cos theta (cosine of 90 degrees is zero) X elevation, your correction is zero MOA, which means a miss, because the bullet path is crossing the line-of-sight in order to be on target for that 300 yd. horizontal shot.

The calculations ARE complex, according to Louis Schwiebert, who produces the excellent Ballisticards. Lou works closely with contacts at Sierra, and he and I talk often and collaborate on some projects.

I would be very interested in reading your paper. If you would like to try my device out, there is a "virtual" version on my website, courtesy of Karin Christensen.

Bottom line is that correcting for angle shooting is an approximation, especially with a slide rule. If I could make this thing work 100% for all calibers under all conditions for all angles, I'd be a very wealthy man.

The Range and MOA/Mil calculations are exact. Ask the guys at Storm Mountain competitions (or at Leupold Technical Service).

Angle correction is not. Kinda like reading wind!

Best Regards,

Bruce N. Robinson <bnrobins@flash.net>
Los Lunas, NM, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 03:49:35 (ZULU) (your host address: 209.254.238.77)

Rick wrote "
Wes – On the gravity distance question. It will work under most circumstances. The problems come in at longer ranges. What gets left out is the lower strike caused by air resistance. The bullet really is traveling 750 meters even if you only put 550 on the gun. Hence you have an environmental effect of 750. That is where you read the winds and that is where you will get the low strike. The formula is quite complex and a royal pain. Will the Mil Dot Master work for most shots, yes and I proudly own one. Can you shoot the difference at the ranges and angles that it would make a difference, you darn tooten. Would you normally run into those situations, probably not. You would be in SWAG land anyhow.
:-)

Rick, I'm trying to take some of the SWAG out of SWAGland. What is left out of the "cosine range" approximation is the fact that this approximation is a fortuitous coincidence that has taken on a life of its own. The approximation can be shown to be *systematically LOW* at all ranges and all elevations except 0. Low enough to make a practical difference? Not at short range/low slope. Yes, the Mil-Dot Master is accurate enough for those conditions. The problem is that some authors and teachers have taken the method outside of that envelope.

If you are going to use an approximation, it behooves you to know the envelope inside which it holds. I'm beginning to believe that lots of people don't know it's an approximation. RTFM would be good advice to those people, I guess. Or maybe not.

The real problem isn't as complex as you think. Its solution can be demonstrated with a simple graph and elementary trigonometry. The figures in Plaster's book come close to revealing the answer, but he doesn't bother to analyze them. Pejsa does this analysis, taking a slightly different tack than I have, but I think my results are compatible with Pejsa's.

Mike
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 03:57:51 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.123.14.101)

BMG Mike,
Have you read the Archieves and Hot Tips & Cold Shots?

We been through this before, Both Bruce and Daves angle measurement goodies WORK as designed! They aren't designed for calculating nuclear payloads, or splitting genes for examination.

and I HATE (100pt FONT) Chalkboard games on the Roster!!!
just ask Dan...................
 

Its a bad (No)hair, and hayfever day, here in By-Gawd - ANY QUESTIONS?????

God help you if 'Lito is having one too!
 
 

peteR <PNGREIFF@AOL.COM>
BIG CITY, BY-GAWD, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 10:54:25 (ZULU) (your host address: 205.188.196.42)

There's a Mosquito buzzing in your position... you missed a very important comment that Rick made (in his typical, understated style)...
On extream angles, and long ranges... cos*come-ups are affected by the velocity factor...
Example... the 175SMK (BC ~ .510) at 2685 muzzle. At 600yds the remaining velocity is about 1700fps, and at 1200 yds it's about 1075fps.

If you took a shot at a steep angle where the true distance was 1200yds, and the horizontal component was 600yds (60 degrees I think, but no coffee yet)...
... you could not simply do cos60*come-ups, because the drop come-ups for 600 are based on a velocity of 1700, but your bullet is traveling at 1100.
You would need to use come-ups for a bullet that was traveling at 1100 at 600yds.
If you backwards-number crunch, you find... Voila, the BC for a bullet that would fit that profile is around .260.

Hence, for really accurate longrange, steep angle stuff, you have to do... cos*BC first, then run new come-ups, and then run cos*Ncome-ups.
HA!... no longer a 2" x 3" pocket card... not even a palm top... we're talking lap top here :((
Phooie!

Art Pejsa was hot in ballistics... about 20-15 years ago. There's much better stuff around now.

And at these long distances, the biggest enemy is... you got it... W-I-N-D.

Titan...
On bad spelling, and bad typing...
It's like that double negative thingie... as in "Don't never go there!"

If you spell badly, and type badly, stastically, you will have days that are fine...
... aend alsoe ue wil hav mour taht wiil have daz that ar treerabul ;))

No worries mate!

'lito
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 11:30:18 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.106)

A while ago Andy's Tasco sniper scope went bad, so I got him a M3LR and sent the Tasco in for service. It was returned to me without explaination. I assumed it was repaired. Yesterday we went to the range to test it out. It still won't track or repeat. It is a POS! I'm sorry I ever wasted the money. This morning I pulled the Badger rings off and threw it in the trash. If you've got a good one, good for you, but be warned, this was a "good one" once.

Ref: Chucks

Yesterday at Andy's grandparent's place Andy looked out the window and then went for his rifle. Down back, just this side of the hedgrow was a woodchuck. That's one. The season has begun.

Kevin R. Mussack (Andy's Dad) <kmussack@aol.com>
Clifton Springs, New York, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 11:48:52 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.80.33.70)

Bruce, I have perhaps misspoken. Maybe comeups isn't the right term. The cosine correction applies to the total elevation, not the incremental elevation from a close range zero. The equation is correct (other than height of sight) at all angles when it is applied to the total elevation.

Boomhauer, I've no doubt that within the envelope that the MM master is appropriate, that you can't tell the difference between it and my correction. Do you know what that envelope is? Do you know what to put on your sights when you are outside that envelope? How many MOG do you take off? Or do you put them on? (That's Minutes of Guess). I'll not deny the usefulness of a spotter - but a first-shot hit is always better than an observed correction on the second shot.

peteR, I have read Hot Tips and Cold Shots. Gooch's article is the only one I find there. It merely advocates the MM correction method. I have not been all the way through the archive. I'm not talking about nuclear payloads - I'm talking about payloads in the 200 grain ballpark, at ranges beyond 600, where your elevation gets way above 20 MOA, and where it doesn't take much of a slope for the MM to give you a 5% or more error in elevation. MOAs start to get pretty big out there. How much el error are you willing to accept before you call it a miss? Just where does your MM fall apart? And how? If precision shooting is your goal, how many SWAGs are you willing to accept? I'd have thought that chalkboard exercises on some topics would be of interest to this audience. If not, perhaps this is the wrong forum for this discussion.

Titan - I am a product of public education, and without benefit of College diploma. Fortunately, I'm intelligent enough for these deficiencies to be little more than potholes in the highway of life. Fortunately for many of us, public education has not always been in the sorry state that it is in today!

Regards, all. Maybe I can get this paper out today or tomorrow, for your bedtime reading.
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 12:08:31 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.123.14.101)

I saw a lot a few days back about the 155 "Palma" bullets. I went up to the mountain yesterday and tried some of the Lapua Scenar 155 (reportedly .508 B.C.), the load I used was clocking 2900 fps. The software predicted 11.8 MOA up for 675 yards and 13.8 for 725 yards, I initially figured this was a little over optimistic but after firing these bullets in the actual test I was very impressed. The 155 Lapua Scenar appears to fly much flatter on the trajectory that the 175 Sierra I was comparing (175 Sierra @ 2650fps). (Try running the ballisics yourself for a check)

It was pretty windy, gusts to 18 or 20 mph with sustained in the 10 mph range, the Lapua showed 1 to 2 MOA less wind over the 175 also.

The B.C. on the Sierra 175 and the Lapua 155 are very close and the little 155 starts out 250 fps faster.

I'm still going to shoot them over the chrony at 100 yards for a B. C. calculation of my own but initially it appears the .508 reported is in the ball park.
 

Dave "Doc" King <David_L_King@Yahoo.Com>
Damascus, MD, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 13:31:35 (ZULU) (your host address: 131.158.166.157)

Deja Vu all over again, huh Pete?

CDC' <criscurt@isu.edu>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 13:38:38 (ZULU) (your host address: 134.50.253.13)

In an attempt to understand how the B.C. could be equal to higher on the Lapua 155 I compared some of the bullets characteristics.

The bearing surfaces were roughly equal but the Lapua appeared to be longer than the Sierra

The Lapua 155s were consistent in length while the Sierra 175s varied by about .015, the Lapua 155 SCENAR was still .035 LONGER than the longest Sierra 175 MK.
Dave "Doc" King <David_L_King@Yahoo.Com>
Damascus, MD, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 13:47:01 (ZULU) (your host address: 131.158.166.157)

Thank you for the article from American Gunsmith. Much appreciated!

Duman <steve_duey@hp.com>
Denver, CO, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 14:12:02 (ZULU) (your host address: 15.254.49.2)

I guess what I wanted to say is that I do a lot of long range shooting whenever I can and I have found that, "The longer the range the less the angle". I guess unless your shooting from on top of a ledge down into a valley you really don't have that much of an angle to worry about do you??

If I am in a tower shooting a 300yds then the angle is steep but if I am in the same tower and shooting at 800yds the angles is much less isn't it??? or am I missing something??

I also find that under field conditions I won't know the exact angle anyway and I use the SWAG method for that along with my wind call and my dials for that days conditions. I have found long range shooting is not and exact science by any means. We can both have identical guns and loads, put in the same data and probably will hit in a differnt spot, shooting at the same target. Not because we guessed or figured wrong but because of "Outside" factors that we can't control and change constantly.

Bruce never said his Mil Dot Master was perfect but I will. I think its the perfect tool for me and a lot of other guys who are a hell of lot better at this than I am. No, its not exact but it gets me to where I need to be and thats good enough for me. By the way I use it for 308s, 260s and 6.5x284s and it works for them all so what more can I ask???

This is not ment as a flame in anyway Mike, nor is it ment to discourage you. I am just stating that sometimes we get to into things like, spin drift, that have very little effect on the overall picture compared to other things like wind and range estimation. Its like asking someone what time it is and they tell you how to build a watch.(HA) Just my opinion and you know what they say about those!!!

Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 14:28:41 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.41.18.3)

'Lito - do i still qualify for the Statistical correct days if i never studied statistics?
 

Out,

Titan
Titan <hatherly1@home.com>
Michigan, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 15:42:52 (ZULU) (your host address: 24.4.252.150)

Titan
Titan <hatherly1@home.com>
Michigan, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 16:00:09 (ZULU) (your host address: 24.4.252.150)

"'Lito - do I still qualify for the Statistical correct days if I never studied statistics?"

Onle if youe spewl gud lik I are do ;))

'lito
 
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 16:13:55 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.13)

I think I see now what you are talking about. Applying the cosine to elevation changes to a scope that is aligned exactly with the bore (a "zero-yard" zero, so to speak) would eliminate the scenario I spoke of in my previous post.

I have not run any numbers yet, and have to go into the city for a couple of meetings, but this evening I will sit down and give it a go.

I think that the gist of your argument could be described as follows:

Two components affect drop: gravity (constant over a horizontal path) and air resistance (affected by BC and velocity, which decreases over distance).

An elevation correction takes into account both factors, so if you dial up 25 MOA for 800 yards, you have taken into account both gravity and the air resistance for that particular cartridge.

Are you saying that applying the cosine to the 25 MOA accounts for the decreased effect of gravity and leaves the effect of air resistance unchanged? Whereas applying the cosine to the range does not take into account the difference between line-of-sight range and resultant differences in air resistance?

If so, I think you have something there. I am even more interested in reading your paper.

I am not sure how much you and I will agree on the practical impact (no pun intended) of the differences between the two mehods, but we won't know until we discuss it, will we?

Don't get the impression that this forum is resistant to discussion. A lot of us (myself included) react to new ideas (especially math-related) like Dracula to sunlight. When I first approached Gooch with the Mildot Master, his reaction was, "Oh, hell, another crackpot idea".

As to education: I was in charge of Electrical and Electronic Systems in the Quality and Product Engineering Department of an automotive manufacturer for over seven years. I have no Engineering degree. I have no college degree at all. What I did have was knowledge of the systems gained from 10 years of working on them. I managed just fine, and was amazed at how many PhD's couldn't find their asses with both hands.

Get that paper done and let's all have a look.

Best Regards,

Bruce N. Robinson <bnrobins@flash.net>
Los Lunas, NM, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 16:15:08 (ZULU) (your host address: 209.254.243.179)

Mike BMG, you might want to step out of it and wipe your boot.LOL

Seriously the Mildot Master has worked for me and many others for years now. You are much more likely to make an angle estimation or target size error than the device being off. Unless you factor in spin drift and the ambient erection of the squid. Much to do about nothing. But you obviously have a head about your shoulders so stick around.

Undude back to slings.
MikeMiller <Tactical@tacticalintervention.com>
Calif, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 17:22:52 (ZULU) (your host address: 205.188.196.33)

Now of course this is all in theory and may not work out that way in the real world but I do have some 155s and if I get a break in the weather I will go out and try them at 1000yds. I don't have any 175s but I shoot my 168s right at 2800fps and I will compare these two.

I have some 175VLD Bergers but I don't know how they would compare to the 175MKs. I may try them too just to see what they do in my 1-12 twist. Then compare them to the other two.
Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 19:23:35 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.41.18.3)

I've sent draft copies of my paper to those engaged beforehand, and to Marius. Maybe it will be better written than some of my posts here. If I've missed anyone who cares, contact me off-Roster if you really must have a draft copy. Maybe it will find a place here to become public.

Bruce Robinson wrote:

"Two components affect drop: gravity (constant over a horizontal path) and air resistance (affected by BC and velocity, which decreases over distance).

Let me correct a misconception here - and this may be the biggest reason for some of the confusion. Drop depends on time, and gravity. Period. Gravity always works downward, but can be resolved into orthogonal components at any convenient angle. That means "works as though two right-angle forces" combine to produce "Down".

The BC, MV, density, etc directly influence the time of flight to the target. But no matter what angle that target is at, if the time of flight is the same, the drop is the same. What is different is the direction that drop has with respect to the line of sight.

There's an "if" in the above paragraph that does not strictly hold, but for practical purposes it does. That's the constant time of flight to a target at range R. The time of flight is altered by the component of drop (gravity) that can be resolved in the line of sight. This component either speeds up or retards the projectile's progress to the target. For TOF in the 1 second range, we are talking about at most 32fps cumulative velocity, 16 fps average, times the sine of the el. angle. That will change the TOF by at most a few milliseconds. A few milliseconds more or less in a second will not change the drop by much - a few tenths of a percent at most.
- - - - -
"An elevation correction takes into account both factors, so if you dial up 25 MOA for 800 yards, you have taken into
account both gravity and the air resistance for that particular cartridge.
- - - - -
Here's that conceptual error again - forget air resistance!

"Are you saying that applying the cosine to the 25 MOA accounts for the decreased effect of gravity and leaves the effect
of air resistance unchanged? Whereas applying the cosine to the range does not take into account the difference between
line-of-sight range and resultant differences in air resistance?

Well, sort of. Since the air resistance doesn't influence the drop, its effect is unchanged ;-) If the time is the same, the drop is the same, and the time will be the same within a very small percentage less than 1% difference in a 1-second TOF.

The cosine-range method finds the drop at approximately

TOF proportional to (Cos^2 X * R^2), rather than the drop at TOF proportional to (R^2) * cos X

My paper gives a better derivation, and shows the cosine-proportional discrepancy between the two methods - hopefully clearly.

- - - - - -

Titan - I share your distaste for the state of public education in this country. No (lasting) offense taken! As long as I have been around shooters - and that's a lot of years now - I have learned that you can't be thin-skinned and hang with this bunch.

As to A*B not equal to B*A - that was poor parenthesizing - either on my part, or on Wes's. When I re reread Wes's post (I didn't stutter) I saw the confused statement. It may have been confused in my posts on the other forum - I'll re-read those, also.
- - - - - -
I'm going to let this set for a while while my (unwilling) reviewers do their thing.

Later

Mike
 
 

BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 19:41:15 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.18.199.140)

May I borrow your carpet for a few minutes? ;-)

Seriously, the errors you speak of can be minimized by training and/or better equipment. The error that I'm addressing is systematic. No amount of training or equipment can eliminate the error introduced by wrong math. Math that is flawed in concept, not wrong in execution. Math that degrades with range and slope, just at the point where you need all the precision you can get.

Would you like to be able to do headshots at 1k? I'm not offering that, but I would observe that the only way that will happen will be to eliminate every source of error possible till those errors that remain are smaller than a head at 1k. I offer up one source of error for elimination.

I'm quite sure that the MilDot Master slope doper is a good and valuable tool. Under certain conditions. If you are always going to be shooting where these conditions hold, then you really don't need the improvement offered by my method, and I can stop wasting your time.

Do you know what those conditions are? I think I do, and how to compensate for them. If you already shoot as good as you will ever need to, then I'll quit bugging you and go find someone else's carpet.

If you do need that improvement, you can still use your MilDot Master to apply conceptually correct math to the situation. You'll just have to use it a bit differently.

Mike

BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 20:27:23 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.18.199.198)

Do any of you have exact Mil Reticle measurements that give more detail than the FM´s. There has to be a way to Mil smaller stuff than 10 Mil intervals. What size are the hash marks, etc. ?

t

torsten <7.62@lasercon.de>
germany - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 20:29:11 (ZULU) (your host address: 193.159.89.196)

Wind + spindrift + the corolis effect + angle of dangle + not getting to range enough + factory rifle + factory ammo + a full moon = having to take a "swag" anyway, which I am getting really used to!

Where is that smart boolit I lost? Bolt out!
Bolt <reeldoctor@mindspring.com>
NC, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 21:09:51 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.50.54.117)

Got the draft and will look it over tonight, PROMISE. Please Send a copy to Dan (CDC)& 'Lito too. Theys number crunchers to the max.
 

Dan, :-)
 

"Doc", WOW!
Thanks for the data once again WE grow stronger. Pat M. will give us the wind drift stuff on them if things remain constant in SoDak.
 

"T"
Try Gooch and Master Rick on the M-19's, I thinks its in the archieves two years ago, but senility is taking its toll today.
 

Sir Wes, Little brown envelope arrived today LOOKS GOOD! More later.
 

Chao! [PS- Hayfever down, hair up from the AM :-)]
 

peteR <PNGREIFF@AOL.COM>
BIG CITY, BY-GAWD, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 21:41:51 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.12.102.39)

You also left out the anti-gravity effects due to the high rotational speed of a charged object.
 

MikeL <mlitscher@wi.rr.com>
Bravo Sierra, WI, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 21:45:45 (ZULU) (your host address: 65.25.160.112)

The other option is to shoot down into one of the 360 degree ranges. This would place the shooter and observers less than 100 yards from the bottle. I'm concerned that fragments from the cylinder may still pose a hazard at that range. Anyone with experiance in this area?
 

Cory Trapp <Cory_Trapp@email.msn.com>
Paulden, Az, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 21:56:47 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.86.140.51)

Compressed gas cyllinders are explosions looking for a place to happen. They have been known to fly for long distances if the neck fails, taking out brick walls etc in the process. Check out the scuba diving safety publications for history of such events.

I think I'd try to rig a collar around the neck with 3 chain/cable anchors going down to something well-attached to earth. That would minimize the chance of the tank becoming an unguided missile.

Mike
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 22:04:22 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.18.199.124)

I've never tried the Sierra 155 Palma bullets so I have no load info on that bullet. The B.C. on the 155 Sierra is stated as .450 in the Sierra manual, the 175 Sierra is listed as .496 at 308 Win velocity. I never saw a reason to switch to a lower B.C. bullet.

BUT the Lapua 155 really caught my eye with that .508 (no stated velocity criteria) so I gave them a try. I tried VARGET but didn't get good velocity before things got a little sticky. The test I shot over the weekend was using FED 210M, new unfired LAPUA brass, Reloader 15 (max listed load and a little extra for my fat chamber) and the Lapua 155 Scenar. I'm going to try some additional powders when my next shipment of these 155s arrive.
 

Sinclair International has them in stock, or at least they did this morning.
 

Pat

Are you talking about the 155 Sierra or the Lapua?

Dave "Doc" King <David_L_King@Yahoo.Com>
Damascus, MD, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 22:27:12 (ZULU) (your host address: 12.78.126.146)

I got your paper and will give it a good read. But while we are at it take a look at what angle would make a significant difference at real world ranges and see where in the heck you would make that shot from. The only items that seem to be a potential for angle shooting are sky scrappers and that my friend can be solved by changing hides. You shoot to the top floor from another top floor. You shoot to the 72nd floor from another buildings 72nd floor. Take the elevator for the stalk. PPolice distances tend to be less than 200 yards and it will take a huge angle to make a difference. That difference is measured close enough with the MDM (MilDot Master)

In the field the distance is greater but the angles tend have less impact (30 degree at 50 yards is not much at 1000 yards, the amount of degree will fall off at range). Now consider factors that you may not have in the math is everything category. Wind up drafts and swirls are far more common and they cause up lifts of the round. Mirage causes the target to appear in a different place than it actually is. Amb. Temp has an everyday effect on the bullets. Elevation effects the flight. Ammo temp will effect performance. Hell I could name another two dozen or so.

The bottom line is I have used the Mildot Master in the field and find it to work very well. How mucgh time have you logged with it?

Bruce Robinson had his clothes on when he came up with the MDM and many have been able to use it very well ever since. The MDM is the best damm ranging item on the market!

I think I will go measure the fall angle of my next turd and check the BC.

Undude
MikeMiller <Tactical@tacticalintervention.com>
Calif, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 22:53:24 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.12.105.39)

Hey there, and good day to you sir.

I personally don't have any problems with your product, and there aren't too many other's around here that do either, from what I understand. When I first heard about it, it was here, being touted by one heck of a lot of the regulars here. I do not have one yet, but my financial situation is of no concern of yours. The point that I am making here, is that for your product to be in use by the USMC, and the patrons here, is a statement in itself, and defense is unnecessary.

Sorry, but the "shoulda, woulda, coulda theories," always follow what someone else (you) already did.

Continue on,

Bill Harding,

Thank you for the article from the American Gunsmith. The vice that I am building is almost finished, and I am incorporating some of "your" ideas, as well as a few of my own. You will have to get the "brews" from Bravo, but I will sure supply you with the "Jack Daniels". (I don't like beer)... waiting for incoming on that one, eh.

I will contact you off the roster, regarding a few other issues.

Out.
 

Sean <nailer@mackbc.com>
Mackenzie, B.C., Canada - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 23:46:13 (ZULU) (your host address: 204.244.197.58)

There are things that are part of the science of external ballistics that some find fascinating, and some find boring... and that's Ok.
Some of it will only come into effect under very controlled conditions, like the dreaded "Spin Drift".

I think it's important to have at least a cursory understanding, if for no other reason, that you don't sound like a dummy, in mixed company (the eggheads, ya' know;).

But, in reality, most of these effects are smaller that the major variables that we have to deal with, like wind, and accurate range estimation... and these are large enough, that the little guys gat lost in the mess.

When you settle in with your riffle, and see the wind blowin' in two different directions... and hard... you realize that you are dealin
' with 10 or 15 feet of hold off, 6" of spin drift all of a sudden, looks really small.
Do these little errors of "Spin drift" and cos*whatever effect whether you get a "Clank" or a "Miss"... I don't think so!

I have the mildot master... and it rocks. I can still hear those Clanks ;)

But it's fun (when it's raining, like now, cats and dogs... did someone say CATS ;))

'lito
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
Kevin's snow is gone... now it's MONSOON season, in the North East, USA - Monday, April 09, 2001 at 23:51:39 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.59)

Don't muck with the O2 cylinders! Bad ju ju! They can take out an 8" re-enforced concrete block wall and you have no idea where they will head when they take off. Kinda like a balloon that you let the air out of but about a million times more powerful. Wish I could think of the name of the safety education movie that I saw years ago and I would give you the poop on it.

Just assume that if there were 15 or 20 bad guys in front of it when it went off, they would look like mushy, bloody, yucky bowling pins when they finally hit dirt!

Hazmat and safety nut Bolt, out!
 

Bolt <reeldoctor@mindspring.com>
NC, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 01:36:17 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.49.119.87)

Lito – And now you see why I understate, to dam hard to state it fully, I leave that up to you guys that can I only shoot. :-)

T – The height of the bars is 5 mils and half the height is of course 2.5 mils. E holds for the width of the bars on the vertical scale. That is the best I can do for you man.

Bolt – Where in the hell is my SWAG anyway?

Bruce – You should of heard what I told Gooch when he mentioned your little card to me! :-)

Lito – Did you say cats and dogs again?

OK Mike you have taken a mauling from a bunch of us for your idea and you stayed with it. I have to respect that as many would have left in a huff. Also understand that many of us do this as a living and have done it for real. Is there a failure point with the standard base gravity formulas, yes. Will I still ring his chime at 600 to 800 yep! Will I have SWAGed it, YEP, NO ONE CAN READ WINDS TO PERFECTION. That in itself is SWAG land like it or not. :-)

Hold hard guys and keep Mike honest, he may be the one that comes up with the right way to do this crap after all!

Rick

Rick <rbowcher@aol.com>
Fayetteville, NC, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 01:43:46 (ZULU) (your host address: 205.188.193.182)

Cory: I've seen a cylinder go before, it can be as advertised: an unguided missile. Went through a steel welding table, cinderblock wall, across a (luckily unpopulated) parkinglot and through a sheetmetal wall. I've also seen them cut with det cord, it was "interesting".

Sean: I was in your shoes once, hated beer. Then I came to the amazing discovery that I DID NOT hate beer, I hated CHEAP beer! When I graduated, I swore that I'd had my last black label, pearl, schaefer, pabst, and the ever popular generic, (white can with "BEER" in black block letters!). To date, I've kept that promise. There's several thousands of different brands and recipies out there commercially, which means you gotta TRY some. Join one of those "around the world" beer clubs. Some are real sleepers (Akira from Japan), some are NASTY (no insult intended here Marius) like Mamba. But you'll find one that's prime. In my case, it was in a pub in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Got my keg of Varget today, gotta go check the mail for the other thing ;-)

Patron Mike: you got lucky last night. I found "the box". You'll have something in the mail ASAP, but you might want to forward me your address. Danged palmtop went dead a month or so ago, and I lost all kinds of contact info for everyone. Ah well, less for the FBI to get.
Boomhauer <Bravo762@yahoo.com>
Arlen, Texas, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 01:46:29 (ZULU) (your host address: 209.180.85.109)

LLoyd Mcpherson <lmcpher104@aol.com>
Terre Haute, In, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 01:52:00 (ZULU) (your host address: 205.188.196.36)

Don't mess w/ compressed tanks... it's asking for trouble, IMHO....
 

-L
 
 
 
 

Leslie <lnbright@naxs.net>
TN-VA, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 01:53:49 (ZULU) (your host address: 216.98.84.146)

You can find them on eBay sometimes, for around $40... they fit the 40mm AO objectives.

'lito
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
Kevin's snow is gone... now it's MONSOON season, in the North East, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:03:42 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.59)

Pat:

It's way too wet on your side of the state.. It rained about 2" in 5 hours at Dad's, coupled with the snow melt, it was gooey. Shot bow this weekend instead of rifle, can shoot bow inside.

PeteR:

I'm still trying to figure out the average 'breeze' calculations in South Dakota. If it would just blow one way at a time, it might not be so bad. Some days, I just turn the whole scope perpendicular to the barrel, and still 1/2 click to the left.

'lito:

What's your take on boattail vs flat base bullets? Is the drag rate reduced enough to make up for the loss of surface contact? I heard that Nosler Partitions, having a lead core and somewhat of a boat tail, dimple at the exposed lead when fired which creates a better seal and if used with bullet weights and lengths with higher BC's, would be premium longer range bullets.

.260 Rem:

I am starting to think the 6.5 mm bullet is too small a bore for the .308 case. It is a great medium round,I just don't think this round will meet the potential it should be reaching, I will admit that we have not chambered many 260's in the past 2 years, but the 140's in 7-08's are continually performing exceptionally better than the 6.5's. Maybe I've got to see it downrange. I would take a 6mm Remington over the .243(6-08) for the same reason. No flame 260 dudes!! just mining for answers!!

later

JR <jr_rcsd@hotmail.com>
rapid city, sd, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:04:02 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.34.14.24)

I've been reading through the archives, (which EVERYONE should do!) and what I was thinking of was in there. The item, and archive reference is:

From: jrf 
Date: 3. Jul 96 11:26
Tenebraex produces a Sunshade (Anti-reflection/ Anti-Glint) Filters
 

Sounds like a really nice product. I'd love to hear from anyone who has practicle, in the field experience with the ARD. Thanks for any insight!

Wolfgang <duncan_wolfgang7@yahoo.com>
Cleveland, Ohio, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:18:34 (ZULU) (your host address: 199.183.75.99)

I forgot to edit, so negate:

'I would take a 6mm Remington over the .243(6-08) for the same reason'

it was a different train of thought
 

JR <jr_rcsd@hotmail.com>
sd, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:25:24 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.34.14.24)

Tenabraex Corp makes them I believe.
"F" stop adapters are(were) from Leupold, or a good camera store (Lemay -Any ideas?)

Last time I played that game was drilling a 9mm hole in the center of a screw in metal cap on a Taaaaa, Taaaaas, TS-24x fixed for 10M airgun. Thats targeting a 1mm x-ring at 24X from standing shooting guyz.
I even have a pix of what it does to you..........hee-hee
 

Chao!
 

peteR <PNGREIFF@AOL.COM>
Big City, By-Gawd, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:28:18 (ZULU) (your host address: 205.188.196.59)

I know this is off the subject of what this website is designed for, but it is extremely important none the less.

The following website was forwarded to me by a shooting buddy in reference to the EP-3 crew being held in China. The site is for a petition in support of Rep. Tom Tancredo & Rep. Duncan Hunter's bill to revoke Permanent Normalized Trade Relations (PNTR)with China, HR 1467.

I urge each of you to "sign" this petition to show your support for our forward deployed service members.

Sgt Armin H. Wahl
USMC

Semper Fi
 

http://www.grassfire.net/4.asp?pid=801692&rid=234934
 
 

Armin Wahl <sgtwahl@yahoo.com>
Oxford, MS, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:32:46 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.89.160.30)

The seal issue is non existant. The size of the gas molecules are so small, that whether you have a boat-tail, or a flat base, the bullet/barrel junction lookes like the Grand Canon (times 1,000,000) to them, and the same amount will get through (if any DOES get through).
We did an interesting thing years ago... cut back a 30-06 barrel to 2" in front of the bullet nose, and fired a round into cotton batting.

The bullet had a big bulge in the middle of the body... the force on the back of the bullet (about 5000 pounds... REAL POUNDS, not psi), plus the inertia of the front of the body, causes the bullet body to swell, and press the sides against the barrel, so I don't think the gas leaks can be significant.

... and I would take the 6mm Rem over the .243 for the same reasons as you would ;))

'lito
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:55:17 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.59)

BMGMike: I found some ways to increase my hit probability that really do work. If you search the archives you'll notice that I have almost completely stopped posting them. Sometimes I slip.
 

CDC' <criscurt@isu.edu>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 02:56:50 (ZULU) (your host address: 134.50.253.13)

Wolfgang...
The Tenabraex things are not what you were talking about.
Tenabraex makes two kinds of reflection supression... the cheapies that are marketed through Lupita, that are about 1/4" thick (optically poor), and the ones that Tenabraex sells themselves... about 1" thick, with bigger holes in the honeycomb... these are optically very good, but are very expensive.
These Tenabraex screens will do nothing for mirage at all, and the cheap ones from Lupita will degrade the image.

'lito
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 03:16:05 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.115)

For those interested...I watched Mike in Tx shoot some 168 Amax's at 1000 and they are worth a serious try.

2 shoes...where ya at man?, the weather's tailor made right now.

Cheers, brand.
brand <brandx375@yahoo.com>
TX, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 03:50:10 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.193.186.57)

I know, don't rub it in.........I just put the finishing touches on "The Beast".

Looks like a real muther.........17#'s of it!!!!!((:

I'm planning on coming this weekend, lock up the chiddren, and the sheepies.

Mr. Mike, will have some tall tales to show, as well as tell....I'm sure.
Probably in the lab right now, workin' on cosines, and such........(;

Take care, see you soon.

For those who hit me offline on the IMI, there's an article in this months issue of "Precision Shooting".
Decent info.

Two Shoes
Terry <tls8323@cs.com>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 04:20:46 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.194.186)

What if the sides of the barrel were smaller than the bullet diameter?? Such as our barrels. And radiused at the intersection betweeen land and groove. The bullet would try to expand, but since the tight bore and smooth rifling junction (no sharp corners), would seal at the bearing surface of the body. Wouldn't more bearing surface be preferable?
 

JR <jr_rcsd@hotmail.com>
rapid city, sd, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 04:22:06 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.34.14.24)

I understand and respect that some of you guys are pros. That you can reliably pop a target - first shot - at long range X is admirable. Can you do it at X+100? X+50? If not, what are you doing to improve it? In my opinion, one of the qualities that makes one a pro is a constant quest for better performance. That's the way that progress happens.

I don't mean to belittle anyone on this board. I'm but an armchair sniper, and I can't count thousands of rounds of long range shooting. I get to shoot at long range about 3 times a year, and that only recently. I'm too damn old to hump the boonies or crawl in the mud. I've got plastic eyes that make iron sights almost impossible. On a good day, I'll get MOA groups at 200 - my local range capability. Nothing to write home about. On the other hand, there's not too much wrong with my brain. Yet! That's my story and I'm stickin to it!

My intent with this idea is not to eliminate SWAG (impossible!) - it is to reduce it. I have no idea how to reduce or eliminate wind reading errors. I have some insight as to elimination or reduction of ranging errors, and slope estimation errors.

I claim that the described method takes some of the SWAG out of elevation correction. I think that air density corrections can be made less of a swag, and integrated with the slope corrections. Believe it or not, bullets do obey the laws of physics - whether or not you can predict it. If you can predict something that the other guy can't it gives you an advantage, and there's no such thing as an unfair advantage!

"Hold hard guys and keep Mike honest, he may be the one that comes up with the right way to do this crap after all!"

Rick, Hold hard and keep everyone honest! Otherwise, I'm gonna feel like you guys are picking on me. ;-) I'll help build a better mousetrap, when I can, and I'll dam sure encourage others who are pushing limits in areas beyond my skill or experience.

I don't think there's any magic cure for long range accuracy. There are probably a bunch of yet to be discovered - or accepted - things that will nibble away at the limits, until the limit of accuracy has been pushed as far as possible. SWAG is always going to be there, but the more science that can work into the picture, the more accurate the average shooters are going to be. That's good, if they are on our side!

I ain't gonna run on this one. The topic may die from lack of interest - but some will become enlightened through the discussions. That's progress!

Mike (the armchair sniper)
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 05:40:19 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.123.14.101)

"As was pointed out it is hard to apply to MD master due to individuality of ballistics."

Whoever told you this was blowin smoke up your butt! You can get rectal cancer from hanging with people like that! Just what do you have to do when you find the MM "corrected range"? You look up the ballistics for your round and you crank them into the inches to minutes converter.

That's every bit as much "individual ballistics" as looking up the drop for the true range.

MM is adaptable to the "new" method - I'll try to stop calling it mine -with not much deviation from the present process.

Mike - the armchair sniper
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 06:01:36 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.123.14.101)

I believe that I have sold one of my devices to Brand.

I also believe that I was the one who stated that the direct application of the cosine correction to come-ups was impractical on the Mildot Master due to its design being universal and non-caliber-specific (see my post of 09 April).

I always try to keep these exchanges of ideas gentlemanly and productive. I think that I have amply demonstrated my interest in your ideas and my willingness to examine them with an open mind.

If your recent post regarding "blowing smoke up your butt" and "rectal cancer" refers to the above-cited post, I'd appreciate it if you'd retract those statements and return to a civil discussion of these matters.

For some reason, I cannot open the document that you sent me. I spoke to Ken Hunter today and he suggested that you send it to him and he will put it into a format compatible with the Duty Roster. All readers will then be given the chance to evaluate and critique your work.

FWIW, I will try to get my findings (and opinions) on the practical aspects of this subject into the Roster tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Bruce N. Robinson <bnrobins@flash.net>
Los Lunas, NM, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 07:24:16 (ZULU) (your host address: 209.254.243.7)

It is interesting to note that the best 1,000 yard group I ever shot with a .308 I was using Berger 155 VLDs.....

Where did this 175 grain thing come from anyway?

I can testify that 168 grain bullets don't cut it.

It looks like I've got lots more to learn about shooting up and down hill.

out
Kevin R. Mussack (Andy's Dad) <kmussack@aol.com>
Clifton Springs, New York, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 08:45:54 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.12.104.29)

It is Tenabraex (SP? Danger Will Robinson, more Expresso needed!).
Not the honeycombs, sumfin else even betterer. They have been out for a while now.............
Three different critters here, the f-stoppers, the polarizers, and the ARD's. I dun kunfused yew agin. :-) This is more fun than picking on AL O.

Kevin(AndysDad),
175's were designed to stay supersonic at longer ranges and still give a velocity of over 2600 fps from M-40A-series or M-24-series rifles.
 

Chao!
 

peteR <PNGREIFF@AOL.COM>
Big City, By-Gawd, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 11:00:31 (ZULU) (your host address: 152.163.201.204)

Would someone be kind enough to distill the argument on slope shooting for me?

Can I measure the slant range and the angle then compensate using my Mil-Dot Master and shoot the data?

My objective is hitting the target. The science involved is interesting but the dialogs here can be a bit confusing.

Thanks,
Kevin R. Mussack (Andy's Dad) <kmussack@aol.com>
Clifton Springs, New York, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 11:51:39 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.80.33.70)

Doc King thanks for the heads-up on the Dakota drop in trigger guard and floorplate for the M700, I ordered one yesterday. It's half the price of the Badger.

Question for the gunsmiths on a heavy recoil lug for the M700, does it make any difference in a 308 ?
TonyY <ayackowski@pershing.com>
Woodbridge, NJ, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 12:37:24 (ZULU) (your host address: 32.97.88.102)

You have pricked my curiousity now about the Tenabraex. 1st, where on the web can I find more information about this product. 2nd, what is the cost of the 1" honeycomb version? 3rd, how bad is the one produced by Lupita as oppose to Tenabraex 1" version?

Lito, as you know, I have a Lupita XIII LR M3 scope. You also know that I can not put a sunshade on it. What would you recommend that is affordable but satisfatory for this model? I have the Lupita honey comb model of the Tenabraex. You are right about optic quality using the Lupita version.
 

peteR,

Where can I find more information on the f-stoppers, the polarizers, and the ARD's?
 

To All,

Just wondering if it is ok to talk about tactics on the site without inciting someone here? All the participant here are knowledgeable with the tool of the trade but what about its implementation? If not this then what about tactics? Just wondering...and please, I know if you want to learn about this then use your leather personal carrier to take you to a reputable school :)

Thanks All...

Darren...
Semper Fi and lets bring our people back from China!!!
 

Darren <ddong@usmc.net>
San Fran, CA, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 12:48:13 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.211.20.29)

So the bottom line is yes/no as in 6) and 7). If the 'old' way has worked for you in the past and you're happy and don't WANT to change then don't. If it's worked in the past yet you want to try to be better then try 'new' method. As in my earlier posting, the accuracy improvement using the 'new' method cuts the approximate solution error to half what the 'old' method gives you. Does this matter? Your choice and your decision. I do not have a MD master (sorry Bruce) so I cannot elaborate on it's utility for using the 'new' method. I'm a mech Engr so this math is very basic...to me. I also like to improve what I can so I prefer the 'new' method...and why not since I spent a fair bit of time 'deriving' it, albeit I may not have been the first guy in history to do so. Mike took som flak for trying to HELP you guys, as I did last year when it first came up...before you even tried to compare data there was some rumbling. So grab your flintlock and head to the 1000 yard line... ;-) brand.
brand <brandx375@yahoo.com>
Tx, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 13:16:06 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.193.186.188)

My intent and meaning is that the 'new' method gives better data than the 'old' method when compared to the 'actual' solution
 

brand <brandx375@yahoo.com>
Tx, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 13:23:53 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.193.186.188)

I loaded some 155s last night with 46.5 and 47grs of Varget and if we get a break in the weather I will try to get out and shoot some at 1000yds to see how they do. I also have some of the 155AMAXs but they are a lot longer and am not sure where to start with them for OAL. If I load them to touch the rifling they would never come close to fitting the mag. I may just try some at mag length and see how they do also.

The book says 2900fps is max velocity and I can see the restricting factor will be case cap. because at 47grs it is a compressed load. I talked to my shooting buddy and he says you can get 3000fps out of them with a good barrel.

Kevin..
I have not shot the 155s much but the ones I did shoot out to 600yds shot very well, I had a group at 400yds that was 1.8" for 5 shots. I have to say though that the 168s have served me well to 1000yds. I don't know how fast your pushing your 168s but at close to 2800fps they will group under MOA nearly all the time if I do my part.

Mike..
Like Bruce, I had trouble opening the e.mail you sent. I probably wouldn't understand it anyway I wasn't joking when I said I was math challenged.:):) I know what your saying and I admire you for sticking to your guns but I think it may be a lot like the spin drift theory. There are to many other outside factors that over ride your's thereby canceling it out, so to speak. As someone stated, spin drift does have a 6" drift on the bullet but when the wind has a 5 foot drift at the same range why worry about it.

I could be wrong if the effect it is having now is more than I think. But if it isn't, than the errors of wind and elevation and range estimation cancel it out, wouldn't that be correct??? If not keep hammering away and try to get it through my thick skull but you will have to do it with out all this cosin stuff, maybe draw me some pictures(HA).
Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 13:52:03 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.41.18.3)

For Tenabraex, ARD's, and Killflash (all the same folks)... go here:

http://www.camouflage.com/

The "Good" (very good) Killflash is actually nearly 2" thick, and very good... it's available for the MK4 Lupitas, and the big M22 Steiner bins... two versions for the MK4, one for about $40, and one for about $100 (will work with anti laser filters).

The bad one (very baaaad), for the M3-LR is sold under contract, by Lupita, and is about 1/4" thick... but the holes are real small, and that causes the optical problems... it's called "edge effect", or "Aperture Defraction" in the optical world.
The big one has very large holes in the honeycomb to avoid the "Edge effect", but then has to go to 2" thickness in order to work, and stop reflections.

I have three of the Leupold ones collecting dust.

But the good news is (so I hear???), Lupita is going to offer to change the front ring on the M3, and M1 "LR"s for a threaded one, and then you can use lens shades, and maybe the military Killflash.

Call Lupita, and ask for Garth Kendig (tell him Paul Coburn sent you ;), and ask him what the skinny is on that change.

PeteR...
I checked out the Tenabraex site, and they aren't showing any "Aperture" rings, which doesn't surprise me, as that's not in their world of interest.
Polarizers? What polarizers? they ain't got no steenkin' polarizers either! ;)

JR...
The "more bearing surface" thing has been debated for a while.
Though I can't prove it, and there are a lot of very good "Tangent" design bullets that shoot very well, if I look back over the years (not counting my black powder years in the War Between the States ;), I have to say that I have would up shooting Hornady "Secant" designs in more of my guns, after trying out all the usual suspects... so I'm a believer in the bearing thing, at least as it is done by the Hornady guys.

'lito
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
Is the sun ever gonna shine in this pinko state?... in the, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 14:30:11 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.60)

I must agree though that the 7mm-08 is one hell of a round but is not in the same league as the 260s at past 600yds. To make it a good long range round you need to use the 168s and then your right back up to the 308s and the 260s still out perform them. Just my thoughts, now ducking for cover!!!:):)

Tony..
Will do, It may be a while before I get the cronograph results on the loads but I will try to get them as soon as we get a break in the weather. Its been cloudy, rainy and windy for the last 3 weeks. I need some sunshine!!!!!!!!

Kevin..
Yes you can. I used to eyeball the angle than take .8 or .9 or what ever times the range, depending on the angle, and it would usually come out pretty close. With the MM you figure the angle and look it up and it will tell you the yards to dial for instead of figuring it out in your head or on a calculator. Faster and more convenient with all the data you need in one little unit.

Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 14:43:08 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.41.18.3)

All: If this is a better approximation, it would be foolish to dismiss it as more useless book larnin', cuz book larnin' ain't never scalded no hawgs.
 
 
 
 
 

CDC' <criscurt@isu.edu>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 15:11:10 (ZULU) (your host address: 134.50.253.13)

If the LApua 139 6.5mm Scenars are truely .612 BC then they deserve a try in my 6.5-06. Any one else try these?
TonyY <ayackowski@pershing.com>
Woodbridge, NJ, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 15:41:52 (ZULU) (your host address: 32.97.88.102)

Guys... don't get too carried away with comparing Lapua, Berger, Sierra, etc by published BC numbers.
The BCs are NOT established by a standard proceedure, so Sierra's .560 may not be compreable to someone else's .560.
Some, like Sierra test their bullets, and run their own program. Some other companies use cross-section profiles, and estimate the BCs, or run tests, but don't use a standard program... your best bet, is to load them at the same velocity, and shoot them against each other.

'lito
 

Pablito <condor@mags.net>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 16:02:26 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.249.180.60)

Then you state that its 34MOA a long way from 31 MOA that it should be and would be about 32" low or a near miss.

In my way of doing it I take the cosine of .9 times the "YARDAGE" NOT the drop in inches at that yardage. Then I come up with 900yards and I look at my data and it tells me to dial in 31.2 MOA for my shot on a 25.8 degree slope at 1000yds. That is just what you say I am suppose to come up with. Now where am I wrong or don't I understand what your saying??? If so please give me some more examples of yours with diffent ranges and the MOA you would come up with to shoot at that range. Thank you!!!!
Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 16:27:44 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.41.18.3)

According to the method I'm advocating, and advocated by BrandX before me, the corrected drop for this shot is 355.5 inches, calculated as you describe. That's 34 MOA, more or less.

The conventional method, as implemented on Mil-Dot Master, takes the .9 times the range, enters the ballistic tables at that range, and looks up (or interpolates) the 900 yard drop (about 294 inches; I don't have that table in front of me as I write this), which comes out to something in the area of 31.2 MOA (294/(1.047 * 9 hundred)) worth of drop.

" Then you state that its 34MOA a long way from 31 MOA that it should be and would be about 32" low or a near miss."

This part is backwards. I didn't mean to imply that 31 MOA was the correct elevation. It should be 34 MOA and you are only going to put 31 MOA on your rifle according to the MM method. My sentence structure there needs some improving. Maybe in lots of other places, too!

Mike
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 17:01:20 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.18.199.140)

I didn't shoot any 168s but I did shoot 175 in comparisons. When I had the dope for the 155 Lapuas I loaded in several 175s and shot misses at low and out the wind side. This was at over 600 and also over 700 yards.

Again, I'm convinced the real world BCs for these 155 bullets is correct as compared to the real world BC listed for Sierra 175s. The 175s track as predicted by the trajectory software I use and the 155 Lapua bullets also tracked as predicted by this same software. If there were a problem they shouldn't both track as predicted.

Run 2650 fps, BC .496, weight 175 against 2900 fps, BC .508 weight 155.
 
 
 
 
 

Dave "Doc" King <David_L_King@Yahoo.Com>
Damascus, MD, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 17:05:58 (ZULU) (your host address: 131.158.166.157)

Shooting down at 30 degrees. (450 yards above target)
Measured range to target is 900 yards. (hypotenuse)
(Cos30)(900)= 779 yards.(base leg)
Dial in elevation data for 780 yard.
Dial in windage data for 900 yards??

yes?
Kevin R. Mussack (Andy's Dad) <kmussack@aol.com>
Clifton Springs, New York, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 17:26:54 (ZULU) (your host address: 64.80.33.70)

Bruce, I regret the crude remark that I made that you rightly took offense to. Will do my best to avoid such in the future.

I'll explain my position in less-crude terms. The issue was the remark that the corrections were ballistics-dependent. BrandX wrote "As was pointed out it is hard to apply to MD master due to individuality of ballistics." To which I made the vulgar reply.

Conventionally, the corrected range, calculated by MM, is used to enter the individual ballistics table for the round/rifle being fired, and a drop determined for that corrected range. That, sir, is as individual as anything that is needed in the other method. The difference is the application of the drop data.

What I'm proposing is that the drop lookup happen for the true range, determined by target size and MOA size, as indicated by the index on the range scale. That range is used to find the drop. That drop is entered (as a range) under the range index. The corrected drop is now read off of the appropriate angle index. True range is put back under the index, and corrected drop used to enter the inches to MOA converter window. It sounds cumbersome - but from lots of years of sliderule use, I can tell you that with a little practice it will run almost as fast as the conventional method.

Mike
BMG Mike <bmgman@swbell.net>
Austin, TX, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 17:29:58 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.18.199.140)

I use a 24" and get 2735 with Berger 168's, haven't tried the 175's yet, still have about 1200 rds of 168 left.

Berger states a .520 BC with their 168 VLD's so I used this in my computer along with my 2735 fps chrono'd average for 100+ 5 shot groups.

Using your 2900 fps and .508 BC with a G7 Drag coefficient I made a comparison to the 168's and found the 155's should have 32" less drop at 1000 yds and 3 MOA less wind deflection in a 15mph full wind at 1000. Using the .496 and 2650 for 175's it indicated about 53" less drop and 5.5 MOA less wind deflection in the same conditions. Were your results similar? Just curious...

PS: No slope calc's were made.
 

TonyY <ayackowski@pershing.com>
Woodbridge, NJ, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 18:19:10 (ZULU) (your host address: 32.97.88.102)

Can you guys get together and post the paper, as it is, so everyone can see it? Several of the (shooting) engineers here would like to see it. I understand the idea, and would like to follow the discussion in more detail. Besides, I'd like to check some numbers (we've got more 'puter horsepower than NASA);-)
 

Duman <steve_duey@hp.com>
Denver, CO, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 18:41:07 (ZULU) (your host address: 15.254.49.2)

Yes, thats the old way.

What these guys are saying is to multiply your (cos 30)(comups for900)
instead of the yardage.

It sound like it may be a better approximation.
iiii's <mikelsam@cox-internet.com>
Siloam Springs, Ar, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 19:06:31 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.180.111.53)

What I find interesting is that in the 3 years that I have used the MM and before that, I figured with a calculator, I would usually hit what I was aiming at or damn close and if I missed it was usually wind that got me. Granted I am not shooting big angles here either because out here in the plains we don't have a lot of high hills to shoot off of.

Where I used it most was in Wyoming shooting across canyons down into draws. I found that in the same shooting position I would engage 4 targets from say 550 to 980 yards and depending on where the target was I could have maybe a 30 degree down hill shot at the 550 yard target and then have around a 15 degree or less shot for one further out.

I think you can see what I am getting at. I don't really know what the exact angle is and I can be off and easy 10 degrees maybe more. I think what has happened with me an others on here is that through the years of shooting we have come to learn where to hold or what to use and damn if we don't get pretty damn close a lot of times.

I know your trying to say that what you have is better or more accurate but in the REAL WORLD that we shoot in we probably don't have the EXACT angle or humidity or elevation and there for our calculations would be flawed anyway.

What the MM gives us is a ball park to play in and the rest as, Rick says, is just experience and SWAG based on that experience. If I was always shooting low on my angle targets I would jump on your band wagon but I have shot over them as much as under if I miss so I don't know what the answer is other than PRACTICE, PRACTICE,PRACTICE. Just my thoughts on this and now I will jump off my soap box.
Pat <mrbullet@hotmail.com>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 19:58:37 (ZULU) (your host address: 207.41.18.3)

Thanks. We all get a bit testy at times. You responded as a gentleman and I appreciate it. End.

NOW!!

I finally got up with Lou and we went over your basic premise. He told me that this was the method he used in his angle calculations for his Ballisticards, based on hours of conversations with Sierra ballisticians and a prof at MIT. This was after he groaned and cursed a bit, since angle correction has been a thorn in his side for years. PLEASE, don't anybody here contact him with any more angle questions! He feels that this issue can be put to bed right now, and I agree.

There are tactical advantages to the "Quick Fix" method (more later), but the method that Lou and Sierra use, and that you are advocating here, is undeniably more accurate.

I would make one suggestion about your last post. Makes it less "cumbersome."

Let's take a steep angle example, a 500 yard shot at 45 degrees. Using Black Hills data for their 175 gr. .308 with a 100 yd. zero, we have a come-up of 11.7 MOA (61.25"). Multiplying by .707 (cos 45) gives us a drop of 43.3", our corrected drop for that angle. At 500 yds., that translates to 8.3 MOA, our new come-up for 45 degrees.

EASIER:

11.7 MOA times cos 45 equals 8.3 MOA.

I think (and Lou agrees) that you can simply take the come-up for a range, use the Range scale, (11.7 MOA = 1170 yds., set to "Target Range" index), and read corrected come-up at the angle (830 yds. = 8.3 MOA), without bouncing back and forth. This simple method is what I proposed on 09 April, but I guess I didn't make it clear.

You should have come-ups on the back of your Mildot Master, anyway, not inches of drop.

Please try your examples with this method on the Mildot Master on my website (click on my name) and let me know if this is consistent with your findings.

I would point out two things again:

This method is easily used with the Mildot Master.

The two methods described in the manual are "quick fix" methods designated for use at shorter ranges (500 or less) and shallow agles (15 degrees or less). The reason that the Quick fix is so widely used is because of the prevalence of BDC-equipped scopes, and the manual points out that you can range, then look at the corrected range without moving the slide, and turn the BDC to the corrected range and be done with it. (I know, Pablito, they're dials, not BDC's). The "quick fix" method is acceptably accurate within the limits described above.

I will gladly include additional information that addresses the come-up correction method in future revisions of the manual, for those users considering long-range, steeper angle shooting. While I doubt that many of you are going to to encounter any 30 degree 1000 yard shots, it couldn't hurt.

Brand,

Those are the scales I used. I just think the Mildot Master is quicker. Please try it out at the website and see if you don't agree.

To All:

I'm done with this (unless someone wants to continue off-line). It's been a pleasure, we've all learned something, and all who participated have my thanks. Within a month, I hope that we can direct any slope correction questions "To The Archives!"

Best Regards,
 
 
 

Bruce N. Robinson <bnrobins@flash.net>
Los Lunas, NM, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 20:14:34 (ZULU) (your host address: 209.254.243.22)

Tall tales?

Man I'm crushed.
Mike in Texas <mcdonald@hcn.hcnews.com>
Granbury, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 20:39:27 (ZULU) (your host address: 208.232.237.136)

Narrowed the choices to Leupold VariX II 3-9 and the 6X42mm, both tactical scopes. Is the MilDot really that useful over 500 yards for range estimation? Have used the crosshair opening for years with reasonable results. Pros & cons of anti relection device over lens shade. Is it a real issue? Really like the variable for wider field of view when necessary and higher magnification for intelligence/target ID.
WR Moore <wrmoore2001@yahoo.com>
VA, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 21:15:36 (ZULU) (your host address: 158.106.50.3)

Onward and upward to new heights of shooting wisdom!
 

Remember the NC state championship 1000 yard match at Hawk's Ridge is the weekend of April 21.

http://www.nc1000ydshooters.com/
 

For a philosophical question, is there any practical, non-hunting, tactical use for a 7 mag or 300 mag Sendero? Think on that one as I have some selling/trading issues at hand. I still have the chones for the 6.5x284 and there are no elk or elephants in NC to hunt.
 

If a 175 grain, 30 cal boolit is the match boolit of choice for the 308, why is it not also the choice for a 300 mag?
 

Any need to carry binos on the stalk comp at Storm? Trying to pair down the weight.
 

Anyone have a snake proof face mask for the stalk?
 

A whooped Bolt, out!
 
 

Bolt <reeldoctor@mindspring.com>
NC, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 22:00:01 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.50.55.125)

Jim Wise
Jim Wise <jim5656@hotmail.com>
frostproof, Fl, USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 23:22:02 (ZULU) (your host address: 63.25.115.120)

I like the Mil-Dot Master. A lot. If you don't have one, carry your slope cards. Or memorize your angle compensation factors (.7, .8, .9, etc.).

I kind of agree with you, Mike, in that you should be able to take all variables out of the "One shot - one kill" philosophy. But rifles, ammo, and human beings being what they are in April 2001, you can't get everything into a small package (yet).

If you had the space and the vehicle to get it around full-time in, the package would be awesome. How big is it going to be, and how much are you as a hobbyist willing to pay for it (in both sweat and dollars)? Prime example: the 120mm rifle on the M1A2 tank can fire sabots (depleted uranium "darts"), High explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells, and a few other different types of ammo at a moving target (while your own tank is moving) and expect a FIRST ROUND HIT, IN THE DARK, while hauling in excess of 75 miles per hour over rough terrain. Your first movement is to select your ammo type. Your computer then corrects for movement on three axes, barrel droop, rifling wear, wind, temperature, humidity, drift, etc., etc.

Would that be great on a rifle? You bet. Hasn't been built yet, though. Think of it: select from 155, 168, 175, 190, etc. HPBT/tracer/AP/APIT. Squeeze trigger. Hit.

Visit the Lilja home page in the Hot Links section, and you'll read of big game kills at 600, 700, 1,000, and 1100 yards.

Precision Shooting's book, "Precision Shooting at 1,000 Yards" has some awesome long-range articles from fellas who have gone beyond the slide rule stage and shot at range. On 31 May, 2000, Kreg Slack fired three 300 grain Sierra Match Kings from a .338 Lapua Magnum to kill a prairie dog at 3,125 (witnessed) yards. His previous record was 2,632 yards with a .308 Ackley Improved (308 Win with adjusted shoulder) in a Winchester Model 70. Bullet drop approaches 900 feet at 3,000 yards.

Load it and shoot, then argue math. Or give Bruce Robinson a check.

Sinister Dave <mliwanag@nc.rr.com>
USA - Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 23:37:54 (ZULU) (your host address: 66.26.22.240)

The M70 trigger is easy. Pull the action out of the stock, and you will see a threaded screw through the trigger. There are three small 1/4" nuts on the screw.
The one against the trigger... that's the over travel screw. Adjust that one first.
The other two nuts are locked against each other, and hold the spring tension. Loosen these two, and spin the nuts towards th