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: 110637" data-attributes="member: 1622"><p>JBM,</p><p></p><p>Don't know if you spotted this in one of my posts preceding your most recent:</p><p></p><p> [ QUOTE ]</p><p> <strong>Aha!! I have the cause of our differing views: </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Your calculations assume that, despite the cant, the holdover has been applied perfectly vertically. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Mine assume that the holdover has been applied with the same error as the cant angle. </strong></p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p></p><p>Diagrammatically the 2 'schools of thought' are shown below. </p><p></p><p>Yours on the left ……….despite the cant, the holdover has been applied perfectly vertically. ….if this were the case then I agree that the Az and El errors would relate only to the canting of the zero range TE. (! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif!)</p><p></p><p>Mine (or should I say, the conventional !) on the right. In this instance, I hope you would agree that the Az and El errors would relate to the canting of the target range TE</p><p><img src="http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b162/thebrowndog/Slide1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>When considering the 'conventional view' it may be worth considering how the canted scope looks to the firer (it provides a false vertical reference against which to apply holdover):</p><p><img src="http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b162/thebrowndog/secondslide.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is more likely in the real-world? …..we could argue it until the cows come home /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif.</p><p></p><p>…..but in terms of a 'common sense' check: </p><p></p><p>I will be convinced when 1000yd competitors start zeroing at 100yds and then applying 'perfectly vertical' holdover in order to reduce their cant errors by a factor of 10. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brown Dog, post: 110637, member: 1622"] JBM, Don’t know if you spotted this in one of my posts preceding your most recent: [ QUOTE ] [b]Aha!! I have the cause of our differing views: Your calculations assume that, despite the cant, the holdover has been applied perfectly vertically. Mine assume that the holdover has been applied with the same error as the cant angle. [/b] [/ QUOTE ] Diagrammatically the 2 ‘schools of thought’ are shown below. Yours on the left ……….despite the cant, the holdover has been applied perfectly vertically. ….if this were the case then I agree that the Az and El errors would relate only to the canting of the zero range TE. (! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]!) Mine (or should I say, the conventional !) on the right. In this instance, I hope you would agree that the Az and El errors would relate to the canting of the target range TE [img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b162/thebrowndog/Slide1.jpg[/img] When considering the ‘conventional view’ it may be worth considering how the canted scope looks to the firer (it provides a false vertical reference against which to apply holdover): [img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b162/thebrowndog/secondslide.jpg[/img] Which is more likely in the real-world? …..we could argue it until the cows come home [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. …..but in terms of a ‘common sense’ check: I will be convinced when 1000yd competitors start zeroing at 100yds and then applying 'perfectly vertical' holdover in order to reduce their cant errors by a factor of 10. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Canting - the right answer
Top