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
Hit percentage analysis
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="MMERSS" data-source="post: 1076171" data-attributes="member: 63748"><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">Bryan,</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">Thanks for posting the article. Uncertainty analysis should be at the top of the list for tools of use especially when time, resources, and first round hit probability are all too often associated with hunting decisions.</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">One note of observation, the article didn't indicate the atmospheric parameters for the analysis. Running analysis with most likely to common hunting conditions and using same uncertainty as the article the percentage difference between 1 MOA and .5 MOA at 700 yards were more in tune of 10% difference. Analysis between .5 MOA and .1 MOA were in line with the article. The article as is could tend one to believe there is little difference between a 1 MOA and a .5 MOA producing gun/ammo/shooter combination when in most likely situations I don't believe this to be the case.</span></span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">Thanks much for a great WEZ product. An investment with the program has been worth every penny.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">[ATTACH]47224[/ATTACH]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">[ATTACH]47225[/ATTACH]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">[ATTACH]47226[/ATTACH]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><span style="font-size: 10px">[ATTACH]47227[/ATTACH]</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MMERSS, post: 1076171, member: 63748"] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Bryan,[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Thanks for posting the article. Uncertainty analysis should be at the top of the list for tools of use especially when time, resources, and first round hit probability are all too often associated with hunting decisions.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]One note of observation, the article didn’t indicate the atmospheric parameters for the analysis. Running analysis with most likely to common hunting conditions and using same uncertainty as the article the percentage difference between 1 MOA and .5 MOA at 700 yards were more in tune of 10% difference. Analysis between .5 MOA and .1 MOA were in line with the article. The article as is could tend one to believe there is little difference between a 1 MOA and a .5 MOA producing gun/ammo/shooter combination when in most likely situations I don’t believe this to be the case.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Thanks much for a great WEZ product. An investment with the program has been worth every penny.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][ATTACH]47224.vB[/ATTACH][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][ATTACH]47225.vB[/ATTACH][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][ATTACH]47226.vB[/ATTACH][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][ATTACH]47227.vB[/ATTACH][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hit percentage analysis
Top