Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Anti can't scope level recomendations
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LouBoyd" data-source="post: 801821" data-attributes="member: 9253"><p>For those who read my post I was not trying to provide scope corrections for practical shooting. The previous post to mine was arguing that most shooters don't need to worry about cant. But this is the LongRangeHunting site Admitedly you don't need precise cant measuremnts if to shoot deer at 400 yards. </p><p></p><p>My post was an attempt to show in what situations you need to corrct for cant. If you choose to measure the cant angle of your rifle and know the ballistics of the bullet from your rifle then the calculations from the JBM site or from Brian's book and ballistics program are the "correct" math. </p><p></p><p>My post was mainly to point out that the environment is important to how well a human can can estimate cant angle. The math was to show that error for small angles inreases rougly linearly with the cant angle for small angles and fairly accurately increases with the square of the time of flight and that the bullet or distance don't change that. It was not my intent that anyone should use the equation I posted other than to recognize when they need a level. That still depends on the magnitude of error one is willing to accept from uncorrected cant. </p><p></p><p>So to say my math is incorrect is true if you're trying to use it as a calcaulation for leaving the rifle canted and still hitting the target accurately but why would anyone do that? </p><p></p><p>Accurately calculating the magnitude of cant can be an entertinaing exercize but it's useless for practical shooting. You have to know the cant angle accurately to do accurate calcualtions. If you know the cant angle just rotate the rifle to eliminate it instead.</p><p>A bubble level with it's tube mounted mutually perpendicular to both the rifle bore and the gravity vector when the rifle is "upright" makes that very easy with no calculations. The presicion of a small bubble level, even a cheap one, indcates the zero cant condition better than human can estimate it unless there are other precise and accurate visual clues within their immediate field of view. That's rarely true in any terrain. Maybe at a a well constructed target range.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LouBoyd, post: 801821, member: 9253"] For those who read my post I was not trying to provide scope corrections for practical shooting. The previous post to mine was arguing that most shooters don't need to worry about cant. But this is the LongRangeHunting site Admitedly you don't need precise cant measuremnts if to shoot deer at 400 yards. My post was an attempt to show in what situations you need to corrct for cant. If you choose to measure the cant angle of your rifle and know the ballistics of the bullet from your rifle then the calculations from the JBM site or from Brian's book and ballistics program are the "correct" math. My post was mainly to point out that the environment is important to how well a human can can estimate cant angle. The math was to show that error for small angles inreases rougly linearly with the cant angle for small angles and fairly accurately increases with the square of the time of flight and that the bullet or distance don't change that. It was not my intent that anyone should use the equation I posted other than to recognize when they need a level. That still depends on the magnitude of error one is willing to accept from uncorrected cant. So to say my math is incorrect is true if you're trying to use it as a calcaulation for leaving the rifle canted and still hitting the target accurately but why would anyone do that? Accurately calculating the magnitude of cant can be an entertinaing exercize but it's useless for practical shooting. You have to know the cant angle accurately to do accurate calcualtions. If you know the cant angle just rotate the rifle to eliminate it instead. A bubble level with it's tube mounted mutually perpendicular to both the rifle bore and the gravity vector when the rifle is "upright" makes that very easy with no calculations. The presicion of a small bubble level, even a cheap one, indcates the zero cant condition better than human can estimate it unless there are other precise and accurate visual clues within their immediate field of view. That's rarely true in any terrain. Maybe at a a well constructed target range. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Anti can't scope level recomendations
Top