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
Lateral Danger Space
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="milanuk" data-source="post: 35706" data-attributes="member: 376"><p>The short version as I see it (by no means the right or only way) is that the 'better bullet' (I really wish you would stop the bizarre extreme examples: 52gr .223 vs 175gr .308, .243 vs 7mm Lazzeroni, etc. Try staying w/i the same caliber/cartridge and simply varying the bullet selection for a more reasonable comparison) does give the shooter somewhat more margin for error in calculating the wind speed. The catch is that the wind speed is not something you normally can get an *exact* fix on, as it varies btwn the firing point and the target depending on the lay of the land, etc. so that the wind can literally be going not only different speeds at different points (and heights) along the trajectory, but completely different directions.</p><p></p><p>*That*, to me, is where the 'better' bullet earns its keep; it allows more of a fudge factor for all the stuff out there that you *can't* see, *can't* quantify, and *can't* calculate down to some decimal value. Even if you could, then the question comes up as to the validity of the readings: When was the last time any of the instruments (rangefinder, thermometer, barometer, inclinometer, etc.) ever been checked against a calibrations standard? Never? So how do you 'know' what any of the values *really* are? That might be exactly what you've been trying to say, but no offense, you manage to say it in the most convoluted manner I've seen in recent history. Any chance you are an engineer or scientist or something similar by trade? <img src="http://images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>Even shorter version: you are making this a <em>lot</em> harder than you need to for connecting on a shot at distance. Just go out and practice, man.</p><p></p><p>Monte</p><p></p><p>[ 09-08-2004: Message edited by: milanuk ]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="milanuk, post: 35706, member: 376"] The short version as I see it (by no means the right or only way) is that the 'better bullet' (I really wish you would stop the bizarre extreme examples: 52gr .223 vs 175gr .308, .243 vs 7mm Lazzeroni, etc. Try staying w/i the same caliber/cartridge and simply varying the bullet selection for a more reasonable comparison) does give the shooter somewhat more margin for error in calculating the wind speed. The catch is that the wind speed is not something you normally can get an *exact* fix on, as it varies btwn the firing point and the target depending on the lay of the land, etc. so that the wind can literally be going not only different speeds at different points (and heights) along the trajectory, but completely different directions. *That*, to me, is where the 'better' bullet earns its keep; it allows more of a fudge factor for all the stuff out there that you *can't* see, *can't* quantify, and *can't* calculate down to some decimal value. Even if you could, then the question comes up as to the validity of the readings: When was the last time any of the instruments (rangefinder, thermometer, barometer, inclinometer, etc.) ever been checked against a calibrations standard? Never? So how do you 'know' what any of the values *really* are? That might be exactly what you've been trying to say, but no offense, you manage to say it in the most convoluted manner I've seen in recent history. Any chance you are an engineer or scientist or something similar by trade? [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Even shorter version: you are making this a [I]lot[/I] harder than you need to for connecting on a shot at distance. Just go out and practice, man. Monte [ 09-08-2004: Message edited by: milanuk ] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Lateral Danger Space
Top