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
Equipment Discussions
Bushnell Compact 800 LRF
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="Ken Howell" data-source="post: 42448" data-attributes="member: 23"><p>"On theoretical versus practical data. I am not too concerned about whether my laser can accurately measure 600 yards to within a yard of a hard measurement...."</p><p></p><p>Dave, you surprise me! Please give us all credit for a little more common sense (and technical sense) than this little put-down implies. Of course a one-yard error at 600 yards would be minor to insignificant. Please don't assume, or imply to others, that my concern is so foolish as insisting on the precision of a surveyor's chain in the range ESTIMATION delivered by a laser device. In practical field use, I can accept the inevitable error of an estimating device, so long as (a) it's modest and (b) I know what it is, in both magnitude and direction. (And whether it's consistent, which isn't always the case with estimation methods.)</p><p></p><p>I hope you know that the farther the bullet goes, therefore the more sharply it curves downward at any range beyond your zero point, the more important it is to know the distance as accurately as you can practically determine it.</p><p></p><p>I hope you know that the farther out you "read" a distance from behind your rifle, the less precise that reading can be. This is one of the hardest facts of range "finding" or estimating as distinct from direct measurement.</p><p></p><p>Accuracy down to give or take a yard isn't what worries me, either, so I have to reject this straw-man suggestion in your post. But I do indeed worry when the farther out I check, the greater becomes the error in the range estimation — within ten yards of the actual distance, say. Run some long-range trajectories on the computer, tell the software to give you a readout for every ten, twenty-five, or even fifty yards, and you may be surprised to see how far long-range bullets drop between, say, 500 and 525 yards or even between 500 and 510 yards. This difference in drop, aggravated by field conditions and the human element, can be significant for truly accurate long-range shooting.</p><p></p><p>Consistency in one instrument or between two or among several is useless if they're off by ten yards at 500 yards. That'd be like mistaking a meter stick for a yard stick and its centimeters for inches and giving a fellow carpenter "inch" measurements for cutting barn rafters. I don't believe in measuring barn rafters with a micrometer, but I'd still rather have a good steel rule in inches instead of relying on pacing them off for length. (And when I cruised timber in the Fifties, my cumulative paced-off distances between plots proved accurate within somewhat less than half a chain — 33 feet — over a mile or so. I think the error was something like ten links — about 6½ feet.)</p><p></p><p>Error, large or small or minute, is unavoidable in all human measurements. The point is to establish the magnitude and direction of the error (and reduce it if possible) so you'll know what to expect and how to deal with it in practice.</p><p></p><p>Comparing similar instruments is no substitute for comparing the instruments' estimates with direct measurement of a known distance. The more similarly they're made, the more likely they are to agree pretty closely with each other, irrespective of whether they're a yard off or twenty yards off at 600 yards. This is basic to the concept of measurement or estimation instruments.</p><p></p><p>I fully agree with Josh Billings that "It is better not to know so much than to know so many things that ain't so." I would hope that anyone who appreciates or expects any degree of accuracy in any endeavor would also agree.</p><p></p><p>Assumptions are the ultimate deception.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ken Howell, post: 42448, member: 23"] "On theoretical versus practical data. I am not too concerned about whether my laser can accurately measure 600 yards to within a yard of a hard measurement...." Dave, you surprise me! Please give us all credit for a little more common sense (and technical sense) than this little put-down implies. Of course a one-yard error at 600 yards would be minor to insignificant. Please don't assume, or imply to others, that my concern is so foolish as insisting on the precision of a surveyor's chain in the range ESTIMATION delivered by a laser device. In practical field use, I can accept the inevitable error of an estimating device, so long as (a) it's modest and (b) I know what it is, in both magnitude and direction. (And whether it's consistent, which isn't always the case with estimation methods.) I hope you know that the farther the bullet goes, therefore the more sharply it curves downward at any range beyond your zero point, the more important it is to know the distance as accurately as you can practically determine it. I hope you know that the farther out you "read" a distance from behind your rifle, the less precise that reading can be. This is one of the hardest facts of range "finding" or estimating as distinct from direct measurement. Accuracy down to give or take a yard isn't what worries me, either, so I have to reject this straw-man suggestion in your post. But I do indeed worry when the farther out I check, the greater becomes the error in the range estimation — within ten yards of the actual distance, say. Run some long-range trajectories on the computer, tell the software to give you a readout for every ten, twenty-five, or even fifty yards, and you may be surprised to see how far long-range bullets drop between, say, 500 and 525 yards or even between 500 and 510 yards. This difference in drop, aggravated by field conditions and the human element, can be significant for truly accurate long-range shooting. Consistency in one instrument or between two or among several is useless if they're off by ten yards at 500 yards. That'd be like mistaking a meter stick for a yard stick and its centimeters for inches and giving a fellow carpenter "inch" measurements for cutting barn rafters. I don't believe in measuring barn rafters with a micrometer, but I'd still rather have a good steel rule in inches instead of relying on pacing them off for length. (And when I cruised timber in the Fifties, my cumulative paced-off distances between plots proved accurate within somewhat less than half a chain — 33 feet — over a mile or so. I think the error was something like ten links — about 6½ feet.) Error, large or small or minute, is unavoidable in all human measurements. The point is to establish the magnitude and direction of the error (and reduce it if possible) so you'll know what to expect and how to deal with it in practice. Comparing similar instruments is no substitute for comparing the instruments' estimates with direct measurement of a known distance. The more similarly they're made, the more likely they are to agree pretty closely with each other, irrespective of whether they're a yard off or twenty yards off at 600 yards. This is basic to the concept of measurement or estimation instruments. I fully agree with Josh Billings that "It is better not to know so much than to know so many things that ain't so." I would hope that anyone who appreciates or expects any degree of accuracy in any endeavor would also agree. Assumptions are the ultimate deception. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Equipment Discussions
Bushnell Compact 800 LRF
Top