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="Brown Dog" data-source="post: 110550" data-attributes="member: 1622"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> Are you defining the Tangent Elevation as the angle between the bore and the line of sight? If so I agree. </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p>I am! ...Well maybe /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif...if by 'Line of Sight' you mean the straight line between the firing point and target.</p><p></p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> you are, in effect, re-zeroing to the new target range </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] I understand exactly what you say about the definition of zeroing; perhaps my language is untidy; what I'm intending as the meaning is "the net effect is that the round hits the intended target; just as it would have if you had zeroed at this range"</p><p></p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> Because that is what causes the cant error. You're rotating the firearm around the line of sight. It's the angle relative to the line of sight that causes the error. </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p> <strong>Aha!! I have the cause of our differing views:</strong> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> <em><strong>Your calculations assume that, despite the cant, the holdover has been applied perfectly vertically.</strong> </em> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> <em><strong>Mine assume that the holdover has been applied with the same error as the cant angle. </strong> </em> </p><p></p><p></p><p>/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif</p><p></p><p></p><p>.....obviously, I'm the one that's right /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brown Dog, post: 110550, member: 1622"] [ QUOTE ] Are you defining the Tangent Elevation as the angle between the bore and the line of sight? If so I agree. [/ QUOTE ] I am! ...Well maybe [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]...if by 'Line of Sight' you mean the straight line between the firing point and target. [ QUOTE ] you are, in effect, re-zeroing to the new target range [/ QUOTE ] I understand exactly what you say about the definition of zeroing; perhaps my language is untidy; what I'm intending as the meaning is "the net effect is that the round hits the intended target; just as it would have if you had zeroed at this range" [ QUOTE ] Because that is what causes the cant error. You're rotating the firearm around the line of sight. It's the angle relative to the line of sight that causes the error. [/ QUOTE ] [b]Aha!! I have the cause of our differing views:[/b] [i][b]Your calculations assume that, despite the cant, the holdover has been applied perfectly vertically.[/b] [/i] [i][b]Mine assume that the holdover has been applied with the same error as the cant angle. [/b] [/i] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] .....obviously, I'm the one that's right [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Canting - the right answer
Top