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
Need help understanding why my ballistics calculator is doing this!!
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="Bart B" data-source="post: 568402" data-attributes="member: 5302"><p>You're not quite correct.</p><p></p><p>In competitive bullseye shooting, they still are the same. And there's a 4.72% difference, not a 4.5%</p><p></p><p>It's the hunting sports where it's sometimes changed. Some folks in that group of shooters never could get the two figured out and separated. Same thing for what was the standard term for focusing a rifle scope on the target so its front objective lens would focus the target image exactly on the reticule. Most folks couldn't understand what focusing for target range meant 'cause their concerns were almost always about parallax. So some scope companies started calling that adjustment the "parallax adjustment" not even commenting that the only way to adjust parallax was to move ones eye from off the scope's optical axis back to right on it. Nor even that when the aiming eye's exactly on the scope's optical axis, there's no parallax regardless of what range the scope's focused at. </p><p></p><p>I wonder if folks using scopes with ajustments graduated in mils know that there's four world standards on how much of an angle one mil's worth and which one their scope uses.</p><p></p><p>The above aside, what scope makers offer both standards?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bart B, post: 568402, member: 5302"] You're not quite correct. In competitive bullseye shooting, they still are the same. And there's a 4.72% difference, not a 4.5% It's the hunting sports where it's sometimes changed. Some folks in that group of shooters never could get the two figured out and separated. Same thing for what was the standard term for focusing a rifle scope on the target so its front objective lens would focus the target image exactly on the reticule. Most folks couldn't understand what focusing for target range meant 'cause their concerns were almost always about parallax. So some scope companies started calling that adjustment the "parallax adjustment" not even commenting that the only way to adjust parallax was to move ones eye from off the scope's optical axis back to right on it. Nor even that when the aiming eye's exactly on the scope's optical axis, there's no parallax regardless of what range the scope's focused at. I wonder if folks using scopes with ajustments graduated in mils know that there's four world standards on how much of an angle one mil's worth and which one their scope uses. The above aside, what scope makers offer both standards? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Need help understanding why my ballistics calculator is doing this!!
Top