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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Ballistic mystery, would like your thoughts.....
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="Gustavo" data-source="post: 159982" data-attributes="member: 6"><p>Kirby,</p><p> </p><p>First of all I'm not arguing over your procedures or anything related to your equipment or else. Just trying to understand your original post.</p><p> </p><p>Given that :</p><p> </p><p>1) I meant to have drop in linear units, since MOA values are "coarser" and tend to change "slowly" for a given range. In other words, a linear measurement is easier to work with if we are trying to make comparisons or error analysis due to a better granularity. What I tried to say is to have computed figures in linear units. Of course, a conversion from MOA to any linear unit is feasible...</p><p> </p><p>2) Of course, the difference of SMOA vs TMOA will only yield larger disagreements as range increases.</p><p> </p><p>3) My comment on having the total dispersion value is in order to a have a framework from where to work out the errors then to compare them to predicted values. Having reliable values is a huge work and out of the scope of this thread, but since you are working at extreme ranges IMHO it's necessary to have that framework. Any testing of a system should include a known dispersion probability.</p><p> </p><p>4) I still don't get the value of modifying the LOS/LOF relationship by changing the ZR. The curve is still the same, and as you pointed out at closer ranges the situation gets worse.</p><p> </p><p>5) As you wrote, could be very useful to have more data at closer ranges, since what is happening is somehow contrary to common sense, at least from a prediction point of view.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gustavo, post: 159982, member: 6"] Kirby, First of all I'm not arguing over your procedures or anything related to your equipment or else. Just trying to understand your original post. Given that : 1) I meant to have drop in linear units, since MOA values are "coarser" and tend to change "slowly" for a given range. In other words, a linear measurement is easier to work with if we are trying to make comparisons or error analysis due to a better granularity. What I tried to say is to have computed figures in linear units. Of course, a conversion from MOA to any linear unit is feasible... 2) Of course, the difference of SMOA vs TMOA will only yield larger disagreements as range increases. 3) My comment on having the total dispersion value is in order to a have a framework from where to work out the errors then to compare them to predicted values. Having reliable values is a huge work and out of the scope of this thread, but since you are working at extreme ranges IMHO it's necessary to have that framework. Any testing of a system should include a known dispersion probability. 4) I still don't get the value of modifying the LOS/LOF relationship by changing the ZR. The curve is still the same, and as you pointed out at closer ranges the situation gets worse. 5) As you wrote, could be very useful to have more data at closer ranges, since what is happening is somehow contrary to common sense, at least from a prediction point of view. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Ballistic mystery, would like your thoughts.....
Top