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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Canting - the right answer
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="JBM" data-source="post: 109723" data-attributes="member: 1969"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p>JBM, I still can't see how you're getting such small (0.5MOA) lateral deviation.</p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>See post below -- it's the different reference frame.</p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>I've sketched things out for myself to check my reasoning (and having looked at Tiro's link; I think I'm singing off the same song sheet as him! -Tiro correct me if I'm wrong!)</p><p></p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>I'm not quite sure what you're sketching. Your first couple of sketches make it seem like you're using a triangle with a 10 degree angle to calculate the windage. This isn't really physical. Think about what happens when we cant a firearm. You rotate about the centerline of the scope/sights. For a clockwise cant, this causes the the barrel to swing to the right -- higher azimuth angle and lower elevation angle. I use two pens, one parallel to the ground, the other under it, at an angle upward to simulate the barrel. The amount of added azimuth is small, no where near 10 degrees -- hence the rotation formulas I originally derived.</p><p></p><p>The issue and I think major point of contention here is that my differences in elevation and azimuth are relative to the target -- NOT the line of sight. There is a major difference here -- take a look at the pdf I posted and you'll see what I mean.</p><p></p><p>Like I said, I'll have to think about it in the LOS coordinate frame and see what kind of formulas I can come up with.</p><p></p><p>JBM</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JBM, post: 109723, member: 1969"] [ QUOTE ] JBM, I still can’t see how you’re getting such small (0.5MOA) lateral deviation. [/ QUOTE ] See post below -- it's the different reference frame. [ QUOTE ] I’ve sketched things out for myself to check my reasoning (and having looked at Tiro’s link; I think I’m singing off the same song sheet as him! -Tiro correct me if I'm wrong!) [/ QUOTE ] I'm not quite sure what you're sketching. Your first couple of sketches make it seem like you're using a triangle with a 10 degree angle to calculate the windage. This isn't really physical. Think about what happens when we cant a firearm. You rotate about the centerline of the scope/sights. For a clockwise cant, this causes the the barrel to swing to the right -- higher azimuth angle and lower elevation angle. I use two pens, one parallel to the ground, the other under it, at an angle upward to simulate the barrel. The amount of added azimuth is small, no where near 10 degrees -- hence the rotation formulas I originally derived. The issue and I think major point of contention here is that my differences in elevation and azimuth are relative to the target -- NOT the line of sight. There is a major difference here -- take a look at the pdf I posted and you'll see what I mean. Like I said, I'll have to think about it in the LOS coordinate frame and see what kind of formulas I can come up with. JBM [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Canting - the right answer
Top