9
985
Guest
Popeye,
No offense taken. Hope you make it out one day.
No offense taken. Hope you make it out one day.
Dialing vs. Holdover For Long Range Hunting
- Thread starter ADMIN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
Gents,
A "competition" between dialing shooters and hold shooters is still a SKILL test, not an objective scope test.
To do an objective scope test we would need ONE rifle with ONE scope in a Lead Sled. We then "shoot a square" by dialing and then on another target by holding. Three shots per target. Good turrets means dialing should result in the same results as good holds with each hold of a Christmas tree reticle set exactly on target before the trigger is gently pulled. (Just as dialing should get your main crosshair to your desired target.)
ABSOLUTELY NO "DIAL OVER-DIAL BACK" FOR SO-CALLED BACKLASH MITIGATION. Just dial the necessary clicks and stop and shoot.
THEN we might have a scientific comparison as opposed to a skill comparison.
Eric B.
A "competition" between dialing shooters and hold shooters is still a SKILL test, not an objective scope test.
To do an objective scope test we would need ONE rifle with ONE scope in a Lead Sled. We then "shoot a square" by dialing and then on another target by holding. Three shots per target. Good turrets means dialing should result in the same results as good holds with each hold of a Christmas tree reticle set exactly on target before the trigger is gently pulled. (Just as dialing should get your main crosshair to your desired target.)
ABSOLUTELY NO "DIAL OVER-DIAL BACK" FOR SO-CALLED BACKLASH MITIGATION. Just dial the necessary clicks and stop and shoot.
THEN we might have a scientific comparison as opposed to a skill comparison.
Eric B.
That is kind of stupid. Everyone dials past and comes ack. Obviously you are biased
9
985
Guest
Eric..............
acourvil
Well-Known Member
I think we have circled back to post #4 . . . .
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
I am going to write to a few respected firearms writers who can conduct objective tests and see if one of them would take up this "Dial v.s. Hold" test using a "Lead Sled" type rifle hold to eliminate any skill variables.
I'm very curious as to exactly how this test would be done and what the results will be.
If I get even one taker I'll post it here.
Eric B.
I'm very curious as to exactly how this test would be done and what the results will be.
If I get even one taker I'll post it here.
Eric B.
9
985
Guest
Litehiker,
Here's some riflescope trivia for you.
Hensoldt Optronics;
Moritz Hensoldt, born in 1821, is the founder of the Hensoldt line. In 1852, he established a small optical company in Sonneberg, Thuringia, which relocated to Wetzlar, Hesse, in 1865. Since then Hensoldt has been a vital part of the centre of optics and precision mechanics in Wetzlar.
Hensoldt AG, known for its innovative targeting optics for rifles, was acquired by the Carl Zeiss Foundation in 1928. The company kept its focus on optical and optronic devices including riflescopes, spotting scopes and binoculars. In 2006, the Zeiss Group divided the Hensoldt AG into a line for civil applications, Carl Zeiss Sports Optics and a line for military applications, Hensoldt Systemtechnik. Later the military line was renamed Carl Zeiss Optronics Wetzlar as a part of the Carl Zeiss Optronics in Oberkochen, Baden-Württemberg.
Hensoldt has a heritage that has lasted over one-hundred years. All of your questions can be answered there. In fact, you could attempt to open a discussion with their former lead scientist, "Dr. Walter Peche", or maybe try Schmidt & Bender's former Astrophysicist, "Ms. Hesse". Those are the people that are capable of delivering to you a scientific answer. Can you handle the truth and real science? Or are you out of Schlitz...
Here's some riflescope trivia for you.
Hensoldt Optronics;
Moritz Hensoldt, born in 1821, is the founder of the Hensoldt line. In 1852, he established a small optical company in Sonneberg, Thuringia, which relocated to Wetzlar, Hesse, in 1865. Since then Hensoldt has been a vital part of the centre of optics and precision mechanics in Wetzlar.
Hensoldt AG, known for its innovative targeting optics for rifles, was acquired by the Carl Zeiss Foundation in 1928. The company kept its focus on optical and optronic devices including riflescopes, spotting scopes and binoculars. In 2006, the Zeiss Group divided the Hensoldt AG into a line for civil applications, Carl Zeiss Sports Optics and a line for military applications, Hensoldt Systemtechnik. Later the military line was renamed Carl Zeiss Optronics Wetzlar as a part of the Carl Zeiss Optronics in Oberkochen, Baden-Württemberg.
Hensoldt has a heritage that has lasted over one-hundred years. All of your questions can be answered there. In fact, you could attempt to open a discussion with their former lead scientist, "Dr. Walter Peche", or maybe try Schmidt & Bender's former Astrophysicist, "Ms. Hesse". Those are the people that are capable of delivering to you a scientific answer. Can you handle the truth and real science? Or are you out of Schlitz...
9
985
Guest
There is Much more to Ballistic Software than the equations, which BTW IF you knew how outdated they are you'd gasp. No matter how accurate you think the software is, (everything Except "X-Ring") is fundamentally flawed. If the software worked properly in the first place, why would you have to fudge it to get it to work? "Truing the Trajectory" is a non scientific, BS term. What James is doing is cheating the drag curve, and that only works in one DA. The hardware / software doesn't jive. The processor of a handheld unit will Not / Cannot process the "Coriolis" routine; except for "X-Ring". I hope that that answers your question.
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
1. WHAT is "X Ring"???
2. Why is it better than Applied Ballistics software?
3. How do we VERIFY that "X Ring" is better than AB soiftware?
Eric B.
2. Why is it better than Applied Ballistics software?
3. How do we VERIFY that "X Ring" is better than AB soiftware?
Eric B.
9
985
Guest
Oh wow... Well... X-Ring is the civilianized version of AIM-E and as such is Non ITAR.
BOTH are Incredibly accurate out to Very Extreme distances and require No fudging. (Cheating the drag curve) I am a serious Hazelton Fan and supporter. It's not very often that you run across a guy with two PHD's in physics from MIT, (Astrophysicist), and who was also a research professor at MIT.
BOTH are Incredibly accurate out to Very Extreme distances and require No fudging. (Cheating the drag curve) I am a serious Hazelton Fan and supporter. It's not very often that you run across a guy with two PHD's in physics from MIT, (Astrophysicist), and who was also a research professor at MIT.
9
985
Guest
I agree. He is not only the Top ballistician that I have Ever been acquainted with, but give him most of the credit for what I know. Hazelton is a gift to anyone that demands truth and scientific legitimacy, much of which is absent in the shooting world.
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
Amazing!
So Bryan Litz is not a serious ballistician and his Applied Ballistics software requires constant "fudging"??
Hmmmm....
Eric B.
So Bryan Litz is not a serious ballistician and his Applied Ballistics software requires constant "fudging"??
Hmmmm....
Eric B.
