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
How accurate are angle cosine indicators?
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="Brent" data-source="post: 17430" data-attributes="member: 99"><p><strong>When some wanting to make 1st round hits, won't shoot because of high winds, we are able to do so using the sighter first, method</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>It works everytime...</strong></p><p></p><p>We might be able to just as well but, we are just willing to admit that conditions do change between shots, 3-5-10-15-30 seconds, it makes no difference, they do change and you must be able to read wind to see it, even after a sighter shot. Unless you can read the wind, and take steps to do so, there's no way you'd detect a change in the first place. Even if you can, there's no guarantee you'll get it right every time, but you WILL greatly increase your chances. Burying your head in the sand and ignoring facts is no excuse when you're shooting at big game at near 1000 yards, much less 2000 yards or more. I've yet to see a single picture of an animal killed at extreme long range showing the shot placement in its kill zone, much less pix of numerous such kills. You'd think someone would have had a camera at least a few times in 20 some years...</p><p>I am not doubting that kills have been made, just that the claimed precision is smoke and mirrors.</p><p></p><p>Phils quote seems to fit well here, so I'll use it:</p><p></p><p><strong>I know I'm gonna get a ton of argument on this, but, you know the saying, "I'm from Missouri, show me!"</strong> </p><p></p><p></p><p>* * *</p><p></p><p></p><p>Jeff, </p><p></p><p>I don't think DC has compared the results from using the cosine method vs. the angle method his program predicts? I think he'd of seen the difference in the predicted MOA required if he had, because they aren't near the same thing. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Both are said to be right, but both do not agree. This is the issue here. WHY one IS right, and the other is NOT is what Jeff is looking to be explained etc, both cannot be right is the point.</p><p></p><p>Hopefully this can be explored more fully until it makes sense. I don't really understand what DC was really trying to communicate, kind of left me confused. Sorry DC, in the end, you may be right though and the angle calculation in the ballistic programs might be the correct one to use. But still, why? <img src="http://images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brent, post: 17430, member: 99"] [B]When some wanting to make 1st round hits, won't shoot because of high winds, we are able to do so using the sighter first, method It works everytime...[/B] We might be able to just as well but, we are just willing to admit that conditions do change between shots, 3-5-10-15-30 seconds, it makes no difference, they do change and you must be able to read wind to see it, even after a sighter shot. Unless you can read the wind, and take steps to do so, there's no way you'd detect a change in the first place. Even if you can, there's no guarantee you'll get it right every time, but you WILL greatly increase your chances. Burying your head in the sand and ignoring facts is no excuse when you're shooting at big game at near 1000 yards, much less 2000 yards or more. I've yet to see a single picture of an animal killed at extreme long range showing the shot placement in its kill zone, much less pix of numerous such kills. You'd think someone would have had a camera at least a few times in 20 some years... I am not doubting that kills have been made, just that the claimed precision is smoke and mirrors. Phils quote seems to fit well here, so I'll use it: [B]I know I'm gonna get a ton of argument on this, but, you know the saying, "I'm from Missouri, show me!"[/B] * * * Jeff, I don't think DC has compared the results from using the cosine method vs. the angle method his program predicts? I think he'd of seen the difference in the predicted MOA required if he had, because they aren't near the same thing. Both are said to be right, but both do not agree. This is the issue here. WHY one IS right, and the other is NOT is what Jeff is looking to be explained etc, both cannot be right is the point. Hopefully this can be explored more fully until it makes sense. I don't really understand what DC was really trying to communicate, kind of left me confused. Sorry DC, in the end, you may be right though and the angle calculation in the ballistic programs might be the correct one to use. But still, why? [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
How accurate are angle cosine indicators?
Top