Adjusting Ballistic Program For True Sightron Scope Click Value

Discussion in 'Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics' started by CA48, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. CA48

    CA48 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    573
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    I'm using Bullet Flight and the scope is a Sightron SIII 6-24X50 .25 MOA adjustments.

    Now I marked 48 in on a board and centered my reticule on the top mark which was a 3" sticky target 100 yards away and began spinning the turrets up until my reticule centered on the bottom target 48" down. I then spun the turret back down to make sure it centered back up on the top target, then repeated this 3 times to make sure I had repeatable results.

    It took 44MOA or 176 clicks to scan the 48". So 48/176=.2727" per click.

    Although it tracks well, .25 MOA is .2617"

    The way BF has Click value pre set in the options is one click is .250 MOA
    To calibrate for my scope I would enter .260 MOA for one click right?

    Is .2727" per click .260MOA per click. I had a simple calculation earlier that is where I got the .260MOA but I cant remember now how i came up with that value so I cant check it?

    I guess what I'm asking is .260 what I need to enter in the click value box to calibrate my program?

    Also while I was doing my test I forgot to check my windage turret to see what the actual click value was. For now I'm going to assume it is the same as my elevation turret until I get back out there and actually test it. Does anyone know if this is a good assumption?

    Also if anyone else has tested to see what their actual click value was for thier SIII's feel free to share it.
     
  2. sharpshooterbr

    sharpshooterbr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Yes, .2727" is equal to .2605 MOA. So you would enter .26 MOA per click in your ballistic calculator.
     

  3. CA48

    CA48 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    573
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Thanks for the conformation, I can breath now!

    Can you tell me how you got that, I know its simple but I can't
    do it again for some reason.
     
  4. CA48

    CA48 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    573
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Well I thought I could breathe, I put .260 as my click value
    and it did not change anything at all. My elevation come up
    for 1760 yards with my EDGE didn't even change.

    Elevation as .250 & .260 was 60.1 MOA or 1107.5"
     
  5. sharpshooterbr

    sharpshooterbr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Not sure why your drop calculation didn't change. By changing from .25 Moa clicks to .26 Moa clicks, the come-up should have changed from 60.1 Moa to 57.8 moa.
     
  6. sharpshooterbr

    sharpshooterbr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    For the first conversion from inches to moa, you need to find the ratio of inches to moa. 1 moa = 1.047". So, 1 moa divided by 1.047" gives you a percentage of 95.51% (.9551). Now you can use this value to convert inches to moa. So in your situation, your click value in inches was .2727. So, take .2727" x .9551 = .2605 moa.

    For the second calculation, you find the ratio again. .25 moa/.26 moa = .9615. Your ballistic calculator showed a come-up of 60.1 moa for a .25 moa click value. So with a .26 moa click value, you would take 60.1 moa x .9615 = 57.79 moa. Hope that's clear as mud!
     
  7. CA48

    CA48 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    573
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Thanks for showing me the conversion, that's sure not how I did it:rolleyes: ,but
    now I know how.

    Ive been playing around and changed the click value to .3 then to 1.0 and
    still no change at a mile. At first I thought it was something I was doing but
    I'm starting to wonder if its the program.
     
  8. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,264
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Can you just use 1.091 IPHY?
    IPHY instead of MOA?
     
  9. CA48

    CA48 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    573
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    No, the layout for the input is:

    One click is _____ MOA or Mil

    And it has 2 of these inputs, one
    for your elevation turret and the other
    for windage.
     
  10. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,264
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Ok
    I should have suggested just what you have: .2727 IPHY -per click

    Even the most basic ballistic software allows IPHY, as this is pretty much what it all boils down to(in the USA). This isn't needed with true MOA scopes, but there are relatively few out there.
    What are you using for software?
     
  11. CA48

    CA48 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    573
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the only options are
    MOA or Mil.

    I'm using Bullet Flight Military version.

    I emailed Knight Armament yesterday so mabye they
    will know what's wrong.
     
  12. bigngreen

    bigngreen Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,840
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    I tried to find some kind of manual for Bulletflight but nada! Some programs have you change the value but then you select the output somewhere else to use a custom value. I would post another thread specifically looking for how to adjust the output in BF.
    I've test some SIII's on a test rig for scopes and their values have been so close to true MOA it's not funny, if I remember the last one was 1.050 of movement at 100 yards instead of 1.047.
     
  13. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,264
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    No the 'bullet impact relative to LOS' in MOA is just that(actual MOA), which is calculated as 60.1. Your click value has nothing to do with this.
    What should have changed was his CLICKS accounting for 60.1moa.

    In other words, if he were not adjusting, but holding over, the solution is 60.1, and not 57.8 regardless of how his scope adjusts.
     
  14. sharpshooterbr

    sharpshooterbr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Your absolutely right Mike. It was late that night, and I guess I wasn't thinking straight. Thanks for correcting that for me. Garrett