dfanonymous
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,267
No I stand by my first post. This was an example of zero effecting the "numbers" to someone else.Unless I am missing something drastic, your example shows that the zero range isn't the issue. My rifle is right at 2 moa high at 100. If I zero at 100, (drop my zero 2 moa), I would now need 11.25 moa to hit 600 so still roughly 2 moa more predicted and we are back to making extreme cuts to velocity or bc inputs to force it line up.
However, you're not going to got me with the ballistic talk. Whatever you're doing isn't working. Just zero at 100y like a normal human being and you won't be on here explaining how it doesn't make sense.
If you want to use a 200y zero, zero at 100y and dial 200y. The keep that setting in the field if you need to use PBR.
The problem is I my self have to assume that you are zero'd at 255y. The fact is, you might say you are and believe you are, but that might not being the case. If you have 2 moa above center at 100y, why not just use an offset setting?
With these questions, it always the basics that trigger garbage in garbage out. If it's "just a tracking issue" or "just humidity" then why hasn't scooby and the gang been able to replicate it?
Even with the ballistic data shown, you still don't get it. The picture with the data using the 100y zero closely matched your real world results.
BC has little to no effect at 600y.
Velocity does…if you're saying it's magnetospeed and labradar'd then you shouldn't have to true anything that much.
Tracking isn't a huge issue at 600y unless you're you're like over a 3% error.
Being a ****** marksmen is always an issue, in which case I bring you back to zero.
#1 We don't know what he's really verifying with his Kestrel, nor how the information is being loaded into software
#2 Everybody confuses air density parameters
#3 You demonstrate your own confusion, while thinking that pressure has anything to do with temperature
#4 You contribute further to #2 with DA (a calculated prediction rather than actual measure)
OP, if you can answer questions in post #6, there is a chance the solution will arise as a simple matter.
You're post is useful and I learned so much about the errors of my ways…thank you.
However, I'm not there with the OP plus I have to be critical of the information because something is obviously wrong. Hence why we are all gathered today.
The chart was a way to show visual representation of how the atmospherics could have been incorrect. All of it is an estimate. Unless there's a datalog or a picture of the kestrel at the time of shooting…..this is a mute conversation…
Last edited: