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
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Holding over compared to dialing in MOA
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="Brent" data-source="post: 18146" data-attributes="member: 99"><p>Ward,</p><p></p><p>Right on Brotha! <img src="http://images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>Pretty simple what I'm looking for tho. </p><p>1 minus the cosine for each angle gives the correction factor to replace each corrosponding cosine number with. </p><p></p><p>Here's a list - Replace cosine with bold type correction number.</p><p></p><p>Angle - <strong>Correction factor</strong> - Cosine</p><p></p><p>5 - <strong>.004</strong> - .996</p><p>10 - <strong>.015</strong> - .985</p><p>15 - <strong>.034</strong> - .966</p><p>20 - <strong>.060</strong> - .940</p><p>25 - <strong>.094</strong> - .906</p><p>30 - <strong>.134</strong> - .866</p><p>35 - <strong>.181</strong> - .819</p><p>40 - <strong>.234</strong> - .766</p><p>45 - <strong>.293</strong> - .707</p><p>50 - <strong>.357</strong> - .643</p><p>55 - <strong>.426</strong> - .574</p><p>60 - <strong>.500</strong> - .500</p><p>65 - <strong>.577</strong> - .423</p><p>70 - <strong>.658</strong> - .342</p><p>75 - <strong>.741</strong> - .259</p><p>80 - <strong>.826</strong> - .174</p><p>85 - <strong>.913</strong> - .087</p><p></p><p>We talked about this before, but I can't remember the details of the design. A couple alternatives to consider that "may" or "may not" be possible, as well as increasing the versatility of the unit. </p><p></p><p>The weight you use in the drum, if it could be relocated 180 deg in the drum by the user, you could print the Correction factor numbers on one half, and the Cosine numbers on the other half and simply reverse change the weight location to be able to use either set of numbers on the left side of the scope. </p><p></p><p>If you can't change the weight location for some reason, printing both sets of numbers as described, you could still install the ACI on the right side of the scope and rotate and rezero the cover 180 degrees. One set of numbers would have to be printed inverted so to speak if you did it this way though.</p><p></p><p>Maybe the drum can be installed backward on the spindle, in which case one set of numbers would be inverted and could work on either side, with either set of numbers facing you. With the weight on bottom, both sets of numbers on each side would need to face up correctly, that's what I mean by inverted is all... printed opposite of each other on the paper or label on the drum.</p><p></p><p>What are the possibilities of reversing the drum on the spindle, and the labeling of both sides?</p><p></p><p>My wife don't let me have girlfriends. <img src="http://images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p>Guns are fine, girls are a flat, NO GO! <img src="http://images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>Michael,</p><p>Personally, I hate dealing in clicks unless it's dark out. I multiply my MOA by 4 if I really need the click number. </p><p></p><p>The click formula there is simplified at 1000 yards, but and requires the extra math step at any other range, as just moving the decimal don't work anymore.</p><p></p><p>1100 yards for example - </p><p></p><p>((250"/11.00)/1.047)*4 = (250"/11.00)/.26175. So you save a step here, "if" you're after click values.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brent, post: 18146, member: 99"] Ward, Right on Brotha! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pretty simple what I'm looking for tho. 1 minus the cosine for each angle gives the correction factor to replace each corrosponding cosine number with. Here's a list - Replace cosine with bold type correction number. Angle - [B]Correction factor[/B] - Cosine 5 - [B].004[/B] - .996 10 - [B].015[/B] - .985 15 - [B].034[/B] - .966 20 - [B].060[/B] - .940 25 - [B].094[/B] - .906 30 - [B].134[/B] - .866 35 - [B].181[/B] - .819 40 - [B].234[/B] - .766 45 - [B].293[/B] - .707 50 - [B].357[/B] - .643 55 - [B].426[/B] - .574 60 - [B].500[/B] - .500 65 - [B].577[/B] - .423 70 - [B].658[/B] - .342 75 - [B].741[/B] - .259 80 - [B].826[/B] - .174 85 - [B].913[/B] - .087 We talked about this before, but I can't remember the details of the design. A couple alternatives to consider that "may" or "may not" be possible, as well as increasing the versatility of the unit. The weight you use in the drum, if it could be relocated 180 deg in the drum by the user, you could print the Correction factor numbers on one half, and the Cosine numbers on the other half and simply reverse change the weight location to be able to use either set of numbers on the left side of the scope. If you can't change the weight location for some reason, printing both sets of numbers as described, you could still install the ACI on the right side of the scope and rotate and rezero the cover 180 degrees. One set of numbers would have to be printed inverted so to speak if you did it this way though. Maybe the drum can be installed backward on the spindle, in which case one set of numbers would be inverted and could work on either side, with either set of numbers facing you. With the weight on bottom, both sets of numbers on each side would need to face up correctly, that's what I mean by inverted is all... printed opposite of each other on the paper or label on the drum. What are the possibilities of reversing the drum on the spindle, and the labeling of both sides? My wife don't let me have girlfriends. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Guns are fine, girls are a flat, NO GO! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Michael, Personally, I hate dealing in clicks unless it's dark out. I multiply my MOA by 4 if I really need the click number. The click formula there is simplified at 1000 yards, but and requires the extra math step at any other range, as just moving the decimal don't work anymore. 1100 yards for example - ((250"/11.00)/1.047)*4 = (250"/11.00)/.26175. So you save a step here, "if" you're after click values. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Holding over compared to dialing in MOA
Top