POI at 200 yards higher that zero at 100 yards is really possible. Factors that can contribute to this are; height of scope relative bore, scope rail's (the more the MOA the higher the possibility) and your projectile velocity.
100 yd zero hitting high at 200 yd
- Thread starter Archer357
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
D
Deleted member 115360
Guest
This thread has shattered my illusions about the base knowledge of this group.
D
Deleted member 115360
Guest
I'm trying to think of how I can break this down in a way that everyone can understand it.
Imagine a rifle in a vice. No scope. It is locked in a vice that allows it to hit the center of your target perfectly at 100y. It crosses that height once at somewhere near 31 yards and then again at the 100y mark. There is a point at about 70ish yards where the bullet hits max ord, the highest point of its flight, and then falls until it intersects with your target at 100y. Once it hits that highest point at 70ish yards, it will never again be that high. It will fall from there on a predictable trajectory until it makes contact with an object.
That's it boys, there is no magic. There is no climbing. I cannot make it any simpler
Imagine a rifle in a vice. No scope. It is locked in a vice that allows it to hit the center of your target perfectly at 100y. It crosses that height once at somewhere near 31 yards and then again at the 100y mark. There is a point at about 70ish yards where the bullet hits max ord, the highest point of its flight, and then falls until it intersects with your target at 100y. Once it hits that highest point at 70ish yards, it will never again be that high. It will fall from there on a predictable trajectory until it makes contact with an object.
That's it boys, there is no magic. There is no climbing. I cannot make it any simpler
Go play with the Berger ballistics calculator you'll see what
Hecouldgoalltheway is trying to show you.
Hecouldgoalltheway is trying to show you.
rammac
Well-Known Member
Nobody said that there was any magic but some people just have to be contrary.
D
Deleted member 115360
Guest
I lied, I thought of another way to explain it.
Same rifle, same vice. You put a 4' level on your barrel and level it. Pull the trigger.
The bullet will be lower than your barrel at every point from 1" from the barrel until it impacts the earth. It will be dropping constantly from the instant it leaves the barrel
Same rifle, same vice. You put a 4' level on your barrel and level it. Pull the trigger.
The bullet will be lower than your barrel at every point from 1" from the barrel until it impacts the earth. It will be dropping constantly from the instant it leaves the barrel
When you dial up for 600 yards (with 100y zero) your bullet has three paths. 1st path: is relative to the bore 2nd path: is relative to line of sight and 3rd path: relative to the plane of the earth (which for our purposes is flat). In his scenario the bullet drops away from the line of the bore due to gravity. The bullet travels (climbs) above the line of sight and climbs above the plane of the earth (assuming not shooting down hill) before it descends to impacts the target. So the bullet climbs or drops relative to whichever reference you use. So it's not that simple because you have three different planes you can reference. To insist that there is only one reference point is to dumb it down. Members of this forum should be mentally adept enough to understand the different dynamics discussed. Now I would not go out in the world to try to educate this point but here it should be given that we can all appreciate the subtleties of a multi dynamic physics discussion. So in your example how does the bullet not climb if there is a high point after the muzzle? Because the bullet elevated (climbed) above the plane of the earth to its highest point before beginning to drop back to earth.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 115360
Guest
Re-read the comments. You are wrong. Many people here do not understand. There are comments in the last 2 pages that make that obvious. I would have agreed with you until today.
Your explanation of the physics is of course spot on, but it isn't something everyone here grasps.
D
Deleted member 115360
Guest
I can only imagine that your critique of my explanation is due to the fact that I didn't spell out that the rifle in the vice would be canted at a slight skyward angle to achieve the 100y intersection.
Maybe it should have. Even I May have assumed people would understand more than they do.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the word "climb" is the hang up. A bullet never rises above the line of the bore. The line of sight is angled in relation to the bore such that the line of sight intersects the trajectory of the bullet flight path. It can be of such of an angle that it intersects the trajectory twice once close and once at some farther distance. It can also be of such angle that it only touches the trajectory at its apex. Using the word "climb" seems to be the problem. I have seen this argued for 50+ years. Even though we all understand the concept sometimes our communications skills hold us back. Mine included I can only explain it as "I" understand it I can not always explain it so "you" understand it.
Your explanation was fine and very discreetly describes one of three different dynamics. The path relative to bore, which you are correct about and the path relative to the plane of the Earth and relative to the line of sight. That the bullet drops away from one and initially climbs relative to the other two should be a subtlety that members of a long range shooting forum should be sophisticated enough to grasp. I understand that you do not believe that everyone on here can grasp the concept of three different and simultaneous dynamics.
rammac
Well-Known Member
So, ignoring your rudeness, what's your problem with my post?
D
Deleted member 115360
Guest
You started by saying that bullets climb after I just explained in depth why that terminology is wrong. Bullets fall. Bullets only fall. If you fire a bullet at any angle less than exactly 90°, they are only falling. The only way a bullet would ever actually climb would be when pointed up at exactly 90°, then the argument could be made that they are climbing until they reach max ord, and then they fall. Your post is arguing for argument's sake. It is an important distinction since this thread of full of posts where people who have no idea how bullets fly explain with enthusiasm things that are absolutely incorrect.
The op made this post and is having a problem, and all of this has made it unnecessarily complicated. Bullets fall. That's all they do. If you point your rifle barrel at an 89° angle or a 1° angle and pull the trigger, your bullet falls from it's original angle, 100% of the time on the planet earth. You can try to muddy the water with all of the planes and get as deep into physics as you want to, but bullets fall, and that's all they do.
When everyone understands that, we can move on to the rest of it. Read the rest of the comments here, there are people who think that a 100y zero will again cross that plane at 300y, or that depending on muzzle velocity and scope height, a 100y zero can logically push you to a higher poi at 200y. Your post about line of sight and bore angle and bla bla bla starts by saying that bullets climb. They don't, they fall. They always fall. There is no climbing.
So if we all have to agree with you before we are allowed to move on this is going to be the worlds longes post! This should be interesting...
