Let's NOT argue about BC's

[Mikecr]

I read somewhere that sometimes scopes dont really move like they are supposed to

This is sometimes true of cheaper scopes(<$1k), and many scopes don't move like you THINK they do. MOA is often a generalization, while many scopes actually adjust in inches per hundred yards(IPHY), or milliradians(MRADs).



I'll throw POWDER TEMP, and temperature POI shifts unrelated to external ballistics into this pot.

 

[groper]

Kind of like you telling me to 'fudge' my velocity to make my trajectory look like it fits........even if it is 220FPS.



Sorry TopShot, from here, I will leave your thread alone. I will quietly take my leave and wait for my rig to be completed. Groper, feel free to flame away!!!

M

Thats misleading... Quote me where i told you to fudge velocity 220fps??? The long and short of what I said was -dont be afraid to make small changes to your velocity as chronographs have error...

Carry on...

 

[Topshot]

OK here is an update although some overlap.

I have been following the thread "Let's argue about BC's " and oh my head hurts!

Anyway I was thinking about all of the other things that might make a bullet appear to follow a trajectory, different from that predicted by ballistic software.

So I thought I would come up with a top 10 list and I hope that the smart Long Range Hunters here can add to it to come up with a definitive list on how to make a good rifle shoot bad.

1. The Shooter.
2. Scope calibration error
3. Chronographed velocity wrong.
4. Parallax.
5. wind.
6. Mirage.
7. Atmospheric readings wrong.
8. Cant.
9. Distance measurement error
10. Variations in rifle hold, rear bag placement, recoil control, cheek weld etc between different field shooting positions.

11. Change in velocity due to powder temp.
12. Failure to obtain precise zero.
13. Using G1 B.C.'s at extreme velocity and distance. (with boat tal pills.)
14. Errors in ballistic software.
15. Scope height error.
16. Click value of scope different to what manufacturer states.

 

[Michael Eichele]

Thats misleading... Quote me where i told you to fudge velocity 220fps??? The long and short of what I said was -dont be afraid to make small changes to your velocity as chronographs have error...

Carry on...

Taken from post #90 in another thread

So lets say after youve checked everything, you needed say exactly 70 clicks to get your groups center of the x at a target verified exactly 1000yds away in a no wind situation - wind throws your impacts vertical due to the magnus effect. Very light wind ok, wait for another day if the wind is strong. Keep adjusting the velocity in the calculator until it tells you 70clicks using Litz`s BC and the environmentals of the day. Your trajectory should now fit all the time, anywhere you shoot.

You are right Groper, my comment was a little misleading, so was yours. My appology. I would be more than happy to meet you in the middle. Agian, my appology.

moving on.......

 

[nheninge]

Scope clicks and fudging with velocity et al. are all factors that can be accounted for. One should be prepared but success has many variables. The human factor probably has more to do with a good long range kill.

What about...

good ole misreading the wind
buckfever
shooting in weather so cold that your hydration pack freezes
tired at the end of a long 5 day hunt
freezing your *&%$$ off,
actually spotting an animal
putting on a poor stalk
Athletic readiness (breathing too hard to hold steady scope)
Truck breaks down on the way to the hunt (true story)
I can go on forever.............

Theory and conjecture about bc's are fine but mother nature is a pregnant female dog !!!

Let's NOT argue about bc's unless you belly up to a bench. This is long range hunting not 6mm BR

 

[Mikecr]

Agree, actual hunting is completely different than target shooting -at animals, from a bench..

 

[rscott5028]

The human factor probably has more to do with a good long range kill.

Not probably.... more like, absolutely. That's why it's #1 on Topshot's list.

Agree, actual hunting is completely different than target shooting -at animals, from a bench..

Excellent points.

But, serious long range hunters owe a lot of our success to the benchrest and F-Class crowd.

 

[Mikecr]

serious long range hunters owe a lot of our success to the benchrest and F-Class crowd.

And your definition of long range HUNTER?

I for one, owe NOTHING to benchrest competition. Nor does any other HUNTER (IMO).
It is our need to hit our mark with one shot(our necessity), that has led to math used today in external ballistics. Otherwise, sighters negate the need, and this thread would not be.
It is our needs that led to all things field CARRIED including our rifles(which are not F-Class naval guns).
Because we kill at distance, we shoot more than 6PPC and flat base bullets. Our barrels are longer than ~22", and of low enough profile to balance, carry and shoot well enough, without a bench and rest and rear bags and and flags and martini(shaken not stirred).

Our success often amounts more than just showing up & shooting. It's the scouting, spotting, stalking, positioning, and improvisions, that allow us to take game spotted way off -at more than just set ranges and set conditions (known up front).

BR shooting has it's many challenges, we have ours, and that's the way it is and should be.
You can accept that NASCAR is not BAJA,, or stretch to make fantasy connections which are really counterproductive to both.

 

[rscott5028]

Mikecr,

I'm sorry. I did not mean to upset you.

And your definition of long range HUNTER?

Pick any definition you want.

I for one, owe NOTHING to benchrest competition. Nor does any other HUNTER

If you contend that the performance, predictability, and accuracy of modern hunting rifles and optics has not benefitted from benchrest and F-class, then you are either mistaken or in denial.

It is our need to hit our mark with one shot(our necessity), that has led to math used today in external ballistics.

I was simply making taking issue with Nhehinge's previous post that said we shouldn't discuss such things as BC in these forums [Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics]?

Originally Posted by nhehinge
Let's NOT argue about bc's unless you belly up to a bench. This is long range hunting not 6mm BR

You can accept that NASCAR is not BAJA,, or stretch to make fantasy connections which are really counterproductive to both.

You are correct. NASCAR and BAJA are very different from each other. And, we owe many fine qualities of production street cars to those sports.

And, I do beleive that hunting is very different from target practice. And, it's about a lot more than just squeezing the trigger.

Thanks,
Richard

 

[Mikecr]

Not upset Richard, I just don't follow how "performance, predictability, and accuracy" in our HUNTING systems owe anything to benchrest.
It's just my opinion that the perfect hunting system is nearly opposite current benchrest systems.
I think that if you spend more time group shooting from a bench, than cold bore load development off a bipod, you're likely slipping from best hunting performance.

ANYONE in this forum could write a few checks for turn-key-ragged-hole-5shot-grouping-in-pink-30br fashion. And they wouldn't have to know diddly about anything in shooting or reloading to do so. Is this the pinnacle BR has brought to hunters? Afterall, you could spend a lifetime of money and hard work falling short of this with hunting rifles.
But wait a minute,,, this isn't what hunters do... Our objective is to kill whatever we aim at!
POW-----------> WHOP---> THUD

 

[BryanLitz]

I think the point is the technology as it relates to precision gets put under a more scrutinizing microscope in BR shooting, and things get refined and figured out in ways that less precision types of shooting wouldn't notice.

Granted, lots of the stuff that gets 'figured out' in BR is only relevant there, and means nothing in LRH. But there are some things that help everyone.

One example is the awareness of the importance of jacket run-out to the ability of a rifle to group well. Walt Berger used to turn jackets on a jewelers lathe before J-4's were available. The standard of <0.0003" TIR for J-4 jackets is a product/discovery of BR shooters demanding higher levels of precision, and making it real. The rest of us benefit because now we also have bullets made on jackets with <0.0003" TIR, including hunting bullets.

Another one off the top of my head is the harmonic dampening and heat sinking qualities of heavy 'bull' barrels. Be honest, which crowd do you think started using heavy barrels first, hunters or BR/Target shooters?

Technology diffuses between all the disciplines and is good for all of us.

-Bryan

 

[rscott5028]

Mikecr,

I didn't intend to hijack this thread.

So, I started a new one here...
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/do-hunters-owe-anyhing-benchrest-f-class-68769/

thanks,
Richard

 

[rscott5028]

Bryan,

We were just BS'ing and there you go citing actual facts.

So to bring it back to Topshot's original topic of this thread...

Anyway I was thinking about all of the other things that might make a bullet appear to follow a trajectory, different from that predicted by ballistic software.

I say shooters (not all or even most), but many hunters, are not real methodical and make a lot of poor assumptions. Often times, it doesn't matter because MOA is good enough. Or, because many of us are responsible enough to practice at distances that give us the confidence to execute that cold bore kill shot even if we don't know or care why we did it all wrong.

Thanks
Richard

 

[nheninge]

I'm not saying BC's aren't important, but dang can this website beat a dead horse, and not just till it's dead, but until it is earthworm food by the time the dust settles. Probably not uncommon among websites.

What I am saying is that so many members wantonly fret on pious details that in "hunting" probably do not make a difference. Ballistic programs, no matter how good (sorry all) should be validated, then...user beware. Who cares if you have to adjust MV/BC to achieve "nirvanic orgasm" if the curve fits your real field data. Predict that path, then see if it fits the real world. Different station pressures, angle of incline, unknown distance (yes rangefinders fail) etc.

I love competition, but there aren't many competitions that make you climb 2000 feet of elevation, puke and rally, then shoot at exactly 1000 yards, and then pack the basterd you unfortunately hit (that ran all the way to the bottom) back up again in the dark back to a cold camp in a blinding snowstorm. Sound like fun? So how much does competition mean now? Armchair quarterbacks are NOT just for the NFL.