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="Gustavo" data-source="post: 109795" data-attributes="member: 6"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p>Gustavo and TiroFijo</p><p>Now then, if you are really bored and have time on your hands you can further eliminate certain other simplifying assumptions and the calculation will be exponentially more difficult. On of your assumptions is that at zero cant the scope/ line of sight is centered over the bore/ line of departure. There are many applications where the scope is offset to one side of the bore. I have such a gun.</p><p></p><p>Just some thoughts to keep the neurons firing. </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>Yes, a good suggestion to keep the brain on the move.</p><p></p><p>However, I do not much appreciate the idea of having to deal with models, that while correct in terms of the detailed data they incorporate, tend to increase complexity without any real gain.</p><p></p><p>So far, I still believe that the math under the development here presented with Jeroen and TiroFijo is sound and correct above all.</p><p></p><p>However, the nice part here, is to have so many posters on board in order to discuss issues further.</p><p></p><p>Tiro, was in my opinion, very clear and concise on the explanation and the math reasoning behind the math.</p><p></p><p>Please DO NOT UNDERSTAND this as being stubborn! just that I still believe in the result obtained and the contrast with some field results and other software, like PCB and QuickTarget</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gustavo, post: 109795, member: 6"] [ QUOTE ] Gustavo and TiroFijo Now then, if you are really bored and have time on your hands you can further eliminate certain other simplifying assumptions and the calculation will be exponentially more difficult. On of your assumptions is that at zero cant the scope/ line of sight is centered over the bore/ line of departure. There are many applications where the scope is offset to one side of the bore. I have such a gun. Just some thoughts to keep the neurons firing. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, a good suggestion to keep the brain on the move. However, I do not much appreciate the idea of having to deal with models, that while correct in terms of the detailed data they incorporate, tend to increase complexity without any real gain. So far, I still believe that the math under the development here presented with Jeroen and TiroFijo is sound and correct above all. However, the nice part here, is to have so many posters on board in order to discuss issues further. Tiro, was in my opinion, very clear and concise on the explanation and the math reasoning behind the math. Please DO NOT UNDERSTAND this as being stubborn! just that I still believe in the result obtained and the contrast with some field results and other software, like PCB and QuickTarget [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Canting - the right answer
Top