• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

100 yd zero hitting high at 200 yd

dluehrs said:
So if we all have to agree with you before we are allowed to move on this is going to be the worlds longes post! This should be interesting...
Click to expand...
I don't care who you agree with, a fact is a fact. So you just made a post to continue to argue for argument's sake. If you can provide an argument showing us how a bullet climbs from its original trajectory, I'm all ears, but you can't, and you either know that, and made your post to continue the useless banter, or you yourself have some ridiculous notion of how bullets fly. I'm really not concerned with which one it is. I didn't invent ballistics, nor do I own any patents on gravity or how the earth's atmosphere effects objects in flight, but there are scientific facts that guide these discussions, and without establishing them, there is no reason to go further. I feel bad for the op who has had his post bombarded by people who either don't know what they are talking about, want to make fun of him, or just want to argue. None of it is helpful.
 
The funny thing about this is, there is a diagram of this with a rifle and lines from the bore, the earth, and the line of site from the optic with the line from the bore being curved to represent the bullets trajectory in the gun safety books my kids all had from the DNR. I will find this and if we get to page 20 I will post it. It is a VERY easy to understand diagram and clearly illustrates one explanation for what is going on with the OP.
 
It's not going to explain what's going on with the OP. He has a problem with the scope or the mount. If you'll play with the Berger
ballistics calculator it might help you understand there is no way his bullet trajectory can be on at 100 yards and be 2" high at 200 yards. We don't have the technology yet to send a bullet fast enough to do that.
 
Hecouldgoalltheway said:
You started by saying that bullets climb after I just explained in depth why that terminology is wrong. Bullets fall. Bullets only fall. If you fire a bullet at any angle less than exactly 90°, they are only falling. The only way a bullet would ever actually climb would be when pointed up at exactly 90°, then the argument could be made that they are climbing until they reach max ord, and then they fall. Your post is arguing for argument's sake. It is an important distinction since this thread of full of posts where people who have no idea how bullets fly explain with enthusiasm things that are absolutely incorrect.

The op made this post and is having a problem, and all of this has made it unnecessarily complicated. Bullets fall. That's all they do. If you point your rifle barrel at an 89° angle or a 1° angle and pull the trigger, your bullet falls from it's original angle, 100% of the time on the planet earth. You can try to muddy the water with all of the planes and get as deep into physics as you want to, but bullets fall, and that's all they do.

When everyone understands that, we can move on to the rest of it. Read the rest of the comments here, there are people who think that a 100y zero will again cross that plane at 300y, or that depending on muzzle velocity and scope height, a 100y zero can logically push you to a higher poi at 200y. Your post about line of sight and bore angle and bla bla bla starts by saying that bullets climb. They don't, they fall. They always fall. There is no climbing.
Click to expand...

Actually you seem to be the one with a problem, you are so intent on getting everybody to say what you want them to say and how you want them to say it that you aren't listening to what they have said.

We have all agreed with you in that no bullet moves above the line of the bore, all bullets drop immediately upon exiting the muzzle. I don't know why you seem to keep ignoring that we all have agreed with you on that fact.

But what you seem to be clueless about is that in order to get a bullet to strike where we want it to, the rifle's barrel is not perfectly horizontal, it's elevated to some degree above level, the muzzle is higher than the back of the receiver. That upward angle launches the bullet above the sightline. The bullet, because it's launched at an upward angle will obviously travel upward relative to the ground and the line of sight while at the same time it will drop down from the line of the bore. You are the one confusing the conversation because you keep saying that bullets don't rise, that's true, relative to the bore, but they do rise relative to the line of sight which is what the OP is having a problem with, his point of impact along the line of sight. I included a picture assuming that it would help make things clear but with your ****y attitude you muddied up the water and pretty much confused things.

The OP needs to look at that drawing and pay attention to how the boreline, line of sight, and trajectory curve relate to each other and then he should understand how it's possible to zero the scope on the upward part of the trajectory curve which will then cause the problem he's seeing.
 
1mechanic said:
It's not going to explain what's going on with the OP. He has a problem with the scope or the mount. If you'll play with the Berger
ballistics calculator it might help you understand there is no way his bullet trajectory can be on at 100 yards and be 2" high at 200 yards. We don't have the technology yet to send a bullet fast enough to do that.
Click to expand...
More ignorance. Yes, there are people that just don't know what they think they do.
 
rammac said:
Actually you seem to be the one with a problem, you are so intent on getting everybody to say what you want them to say and how you want them to say it that you aren't listening to what they have said.

We have all agreed with you in that no bullet moves above the line of the bore, all bullets drop immediately upon exiting the muzzle. I don't know why you seem to keep ignoring that we all have agreed with you on that fact.

But what you seem to be clueless about is that in order to get a bullet to strike where we want it to, the rifle's barrel is not perfectly horizontal, it's elevated to some degree above level, the muzzle is higher than the back of the receiver. That upward angle launches the bullet above the sightline. The bullet, because it's launched at an upward angle will obviously travel upward relative to the ground and the line of sight while at the same time it will drop down from the line of the bore. You are the one confusing the conversation because you keep saying that bullets don't rise, that's true, relative to the bore, but they do rise relative to the line of sight which is what the OP is having a problem with, his point of impact along the line of sight. I included a picture assuming that it would help make things clear but with your ****y attitude you muddied up the water and pretty much confused things.

The OP needs to look at that drawing and pay attention to how the boreline, line of sight, and trajectory curve relate to each other and then he should understand how it's possible to zero the scope on the upward part of the trajectory curve which will then cause the problem he's seeing.
Click to expand...
You either didn't read what I wrote or purposely ignored it, but either way, you blatantly mistated what I said. You also didn't read the other comments that I was responding to, or again you don't want to let the facts get between you and your pointless self righteous statement. I stopped reading pretty early into your post.

To question my understanding of ballistics while making several factually incorrect statements in the same post just leaves you with egg all over your face.

Please stop tagging me, I'm done here.
 
From Hornady's site about External Ballistics

1615344416650.png


From the Primary Arms website
1615344726629.png
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

D
100 yd or 200 yd zero for hunting?
2
Replies
14
Views
5K
Blacktail2
B
J
100 yd zero?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Jon A
J
M
100 YD Zero at 5 degree incline
Replies
6
Views
1K
BergerBoy
B
T
270 Win 100 yd zero
Replies
11
Views
28K
silvertip-co
S
D
100/200 yd. Range Design
Replies
5
Views
1K
dennyo
D

Recent Posts

Top