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
Swarovski EL Range binoculars - first field tests
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="NZ Longranger" data-source="post: 605765" data-attributes="member: 14"><p>Kilmer,</p><p>You certainly sound like you have the info, but I can't quite make what you're saying work with my own field tests and calculations. You may be correct that it just takes the cosign of the LOS distance, but if this was the case, it should be miles out once you start getting steep and out a bit. </p><p>I just ran some calcs for one of the examples I actually tested in the field, and that was for the 7mm Fatmax pushing a 180gn Hybrid at 3300 fps. When I actually ranged a little alpine bush at 800 yards above me on a 30 degree angle, the El's gave me a corrected range of 745 yards. </p><p>Now when I compare my calculated drop from my 100 yard zero for 800 yards and 30 degrees for this, I get 88.2". Then do a level drop calc and you get 747 yards for the same drop. So for this example, the EL's were only 2 yards out. If they just did a cosine of the LOS distance, that would be 800 x .866 = 693 yards which is a drop of 72.5", so an error of about 55 yards and about 16". In all the examples I ran in the field, they were never more than 3 yards out. </p><p>I presumed they have some sort of ballistic calculator in them that picked and average trajectory curve and then worked out a TBR on this. That is the way Richard Kramer described it to me, as best I could understand. If you do some calcs running some comparisons of what sort of maximum angles at what sort of ranges you are likely to actually strike while out hunting even in the steepest mountains, you'll see an average curve actually puts you within a few inches all the way to 1000 yards. My point is you don't actually need to be able to input the various trajectory curves etc to get close enough out to 1000 yards, an average curve will do. You don't need velocities, BC's etc. You are only applying a TBR correction to your the level range come ups which already have all that for your particular cartridge incorporated.</p><p>Hopefully you follow what I mean? </p><p>Anyway, there is no way I could be getting the results I've been getting in the field if the EL's only applied the cosign to the LOS range. Unless my set have some basic offset built into them that just happens to have worked for the examples I tried in the field, but I find that very unlikely as I tried everything from 400 yards and 45 degrees out to 999 yards and 25 degrees, and they were within a few yards every time for the flat shooting 7mm's I was carrying at the time.</p><p>So please tell me how this is happening???</p><p>Greg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NZ Longranger, post: 605765, member: 14"] Kilmer, You certainly sound like you have the info, but I can't quite make what you're saying work with my own field tests and calculations. You may be correct that it just takes the cosign of the LOS distance, but if this was the case, it should be miles out once you start getting steep and out a bit. I just ran some calcs for one of the examples I actually tested in the field, and that was for the 7mm Fatmax pushing a 180gn Hybrid at 3300 fps. When I actually ranged a little alpine bush at 800 yards above me on a 30 degree angle, the El's gave me a corrected range of 745 yards. Now when I compare my calculated drop from my 100 yard zero for 800 yards and 30 degrees for this, I get 88.2". Then do a level drop calc and you get 747 yards for the same drop. So for this example, the EL's were only 2 yards out. If they just did a cosine of the LOS distance, that would be 800 x .866 = 693 yards which is a drop of 72.5", so an error of about 55 yards and about 16". In all the examples I ran in the field, they were never more than 3 yards out. I presumed they have some sort of ballistic calculator in them that picked and average trajectory curve and then worked out a TBR on this. That is the way Richard Kramer described it to me, as best I could understand. If you do some calcs running some comparisons of what sort of maximum angles at what sort of ranges you are likely to actually strike while out hunting even in the steepest mountains, you'll see an average curve actually puts you within a few inches all the way to 1000 yards. My point is you don't actually need to be able to input the various trajectory curves etc to get close enough out to 1000 yards, an average curve will do. You don't need velocities, BC's etc. You are only applying a TBR correction to your the level range come ups which already have all that for your particular cartridge incorporated. Hopefully you follow what I mean? Anyway, there is no way I could be getting the results I've been getting in the field if the EL's only applied the cosign to the LOS range. Unless my set have some basic offset built into them that just happens to have worked for the examples I tried in the field, but I find that very unlikely as I tried everything from 400 yards and 45 degrees out to 999 yards and 25 degrees, and they were within a few yards every time for the flat shooting 7mm's I was carrying at the time. So please tell me how this is happening??? Greg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Swarovski EL Range binoculars - first field tests
Top