"to use the the other "more correct/accurate" models amounts to just buffing a turd, the critter will be dead in all cases."
In the example on A.R. Tactical the "more correct/accurate" model shows that there is over 2MOA (OVER 19 INCHES) of VERTICAL ERROR when using the ACI.
This is for a shot at 40 degrees and only 800 yards, very common in mountainous terrain.
Mr. King that is not "buffing a turd", that is what we call a CLEAN MISS!
You would cleanly MISS an Elk at that range and inclination with a 308. [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]
Cobber-- The pros use a Vectronix PLRF or a Vector 21B with the Angle Indicator feature built into the software. The Marines with low budgets use a mechanical angle indicator with a pivot point, but will soon be getting 21B units.
You're correct but this is a fairly extreme example you offer but still inside Mr Barrett's stated 1500 yard offering.
800 yards at a 40 degree angle, note that I stated "moderate" angles although I offered the Dave King "super exageration" of 90 as out of the question, maybe I should have stated 39 degrees. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
We must all learn to walk before we can run and my belief is that Warren Barrett is in the walk stage of the game wanting to break directly into a run, no disrespect meant. I see no need to befuddle the issue with the extremes of conditions although he states 1500 yards at one point(?). You have already offered that there are other "more correct" methods and I submit that for the vast majority of cases the use of any of the three (3) common methods will be sufficient so perhaps Mr Barrett could use what perhaps 99% of other folks are using with some degree success and when his attempts exceed his method(s) he'll continue the quest. If he were to shoot at an inclined and previously stated 1500 yards I'd believe he'd have a second opportunity to get it correct, "the spotter round method would come into play I believe". (At 1500 yards (personal experience) even small angles come to be a problem which is what you addressed.) There will be enough other issues for him to be concerned with, temperature, winds, geographic elevation, etc. I suspect that once he returns we will see another series of these posts and more "who'da thunk" questions.
Mr. King--"There will be enough other issues for him to be concerned with, temperature, winds, geographic elevation, etc. I suspect that once he returns we will see another series of these posts and more "who'da thunk" questions."
I agree with you that there will be more questions.....So here is one....
With all of the error sources you listed in the above paragragh (temperature, winds, geographic elevation, etc.) why would you advise someone to learn how to do it wrong, and build even more error into their shooting?
Your above comments seem to be the best case for doing it right the first time.
Living in BC and hunting in very "bumpy" terrain, I would like to offer this suggestion to Warren. In the mountains, all the tech in the world is not going to account for the wind you will face.
At the ranges you propose (up to 1500yds), you are going to need spotter shoots. When you get to your hunting area, take some time and plink on the near by mountains. I think you will quickly find that wind in rarely ever constant in direction or velocity.
At some point, you will decide how far is too far with the gear and rests you will be using. Ranging without very good equipment is going to be tough too.
In this terrain, all the gadgets in the world will not ensure a one shot one hit at ranges much past 500yds in anything besides dead calm. Then you have to deal with the thermals.
There really isn't a correct or incorrect as I see it. There's an easy and difficult and depending on the accuracy required one selects the method. Hence my "buffing a turd" comment previously. If the target zone is large and forgiving (all that's required is a hit in the target zone to accomplish the desired objective) the effort require/expended should not exceed that necessary for the task at hand.
You had previously stated the "real guys" use this "correct" method and not the "other" method. Being the type person I am, had I been Mr Barrett I'd of headed off into the "correct method" as stated by you and ended up with a conditionally correct (and more precise) but not broad view of the option(s). I believe Mr Barrett had already read your offering before he got to mine (read in posted order) and what I was offering was what I considered he should use for his requested application (a target of large dimensions in a moderate distance & angle application (discount his second post of 1500 yards)).
This is a "hot" topic with several camps, the "okay, it'll work" and the "perfectionists" being at the ends of the spectrum. I see these things, options/methods, as tools that I pick and choose as perceived conditions warrant. 3.14 works for PI() and so does 3.14159265 (which I know/recall from memory (wasted brain cells mostly)).
The short answer to your question would probably be, "he had too many options so I though I'd push him a little bit toward the "incorrect" but easier and probably sufficient method". Could be my bad but I often head down the dead-end road of questionable/bad examples.
OK gentlemen, your recommendations are appreciated. Although, simple is more convenient, I don`t mind doing the math for precision work situations when time is available.
Could someone lead me in the right direction to find the correction factors for shot angles broken down into 5 degree incriments or less?
This is one varable that I`d like to eliminate if possible with some others already mentioned, this is the only one in question.
Thanks for all of the replies, Warren.