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
Level level level
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="bill123" data-source="post: 1045966" data-attributes="member: 69116"><p>Bruce, </p><p></p><p>I actually agree with everything that you have said but there is a source of error that you aren't taking into consideration. That is the shooter's ability to hold the reticle on the POA. If canting the rifle gives a shooter a more solid hold, then canting can more than offset a POI shift introduced by the cant. Remember I'm only talking about canting the rifle about 1/4" from reticle to bore. If I read your post correctly, the device that you are using won't guarantee better than 1/8" error. If you zero at 100 yards, with a ¼" cant then you have about ¼ moa of error. I zero at 200 yards so my cant only introduces a ¼" error for every 200 yards. </p><p></p><p>Take the 100 yard zero as an example, shooting at 1000 yards. From 100yds to 1000yds the error is multiplied 9 times (9/4"). That's only a 2.25" offset at 1000 yards. Shooting a Federal 175gr SMK at sea level, a ¼ mph wind will blow the bullet off 2.4". There are just too many errors in the system to make a ¼" cant significant. </p><p></p><p>Lets assume that all of your data is perfect (atmospherics, aeronautical jump, spin drift, coriolis, variation in powder temperature, handloading variations, variation between turret & reticle). In order to repeatedly hit you POA at 1000 yards, you would still have to correctly judge the wind to within ¼ mph. </p><p></p><p>I'd rather gain a steadier hold and accept a ¼ moa offset that I can calculate. Of course my entire point goes out the window if you don't get a steadier hold by canting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bill123, post: 1045966, member: 69116"] Bruce, I actually agree with everything that you have said but there is a source of error that you aren't taking into consideration. That is the shooter's ability to hold the reticle on the POA. If canting the rifle gives a shooter a more solid hold, then canting can more than offset a POI shift introduced by the cant. Remember I'm only talking about canting the rifle about 1/4" from reticle to bore. If I read your post correctly, the device that you are using won't guarantee better than 1/8” error. If you zero at 100 yards, with a ¼” cant then you have about ¼ moa of error. I zero at 200 yards so my cant only introduces a ¼” error for every 200 yards. Take the 100 yard zero as an example, shooting at 1000 yards. From 100yds to 1000yds the error is multiplied 9 times (9/4”). That’s only a 2.25” offset at 1000 yards. Shooting a Federal 175gr SMK at sea level, a ¼ mph wind will blow the bullet off 2.4”. There are just too many errors in the system to make a ¼” cant significant. Lets assume that all of your data is perfect (atmospherics, aeronautical jump, spin drift, coriolis, variation in powder temperature, handloading variations, variation between turret & reticle). In order to repeatedly hit you POA at 1000 yards, you would still have to correctly judge the wind to within ¼ mph. I’d rather gain a steadier hold and accept a ¼ moa offset that I can calculate. Of course my entire point goes out the window if you don’t get a steadier hold by canting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Level level level
Top