What went wrong? Opinions needed.

[WildRose]

Before I attempt another explanation, let me throw out 2 disclaimers. #1. I am not a teacher and therefore do not have the giftings of bringing to light the mysteries of shooting. #2. I am endowed with very limited communication skills. With these 2 disclaimers I will cinch up my belt and attempt another round of explanations.
From what Songdogger told us, he shot out to 500 yards to verify point of aim versus point of impact. That being said, it is not his shooting ability off of lead sleds, bipods, etc. You won't miss a 24" target at 450 yards when you have already been practicing shooting at 500 yards.
The observed problem is that Songdogger shot 8 times and all of them were high. The only thing in the thread that I did not see was what his aiming point was in relation to where the bullets were impacting.
In the old days, rangefinders ranged a target and returned your data in a line of sight format. From this reading, it was entered into a ballistic program along with the incline ange to arrive at a shooting solution.
With Songdoggers balistic program already in use through his binoculars, his shooting solution already compensated for the incline angle, wind, barometric pressure and all the other things that go into a solution for a first round hit.
With fear and trepidation, let me enter into a realm that is difficult to understand and more difficult to explain. For you mathmaticians out there, please bear with me. If I were to draw a triangle on a piece of paper and at the top of the apex I drew a horizontal line that was parallel with the base of the triangle and then measured the distance between the 2 horizontal lines with a piece of string it is going to be shorter than the slope of the triangle. If I were looking through ballistically corrected binoculars, the shooting solution of 450 yards is shorter than the actual distance to the apex. This is important only from the stand point that the bullet is actually traveling further than the 450 yards shown in the shooting solution, but it also means that the environment has a longer affect on the bullet than what one might expect.
On flat ground, a head wind generally means that the wind is traveling parallel with the ground. In the case of shooting down hill, we are not dealing with a headwind in the sense that it is moving in a horizontal position. In this particular scenario, the wind is traveling upslope generating a lifting affect.
Because of the unique form of a bullet, when it is fired from a rifle, the projectile travels in a parabolic curve. Ugh...this is difficult. The rifle is shot from 13" above ground level with the full force of 10 mph wind on the underside of the bullet, generating an unknown lift. This was proven by missing 7 of the eight shots that were too high to impact a 24" target. I suspect that the shot that actually connected with the target was shot with the crosshairs of the scope below the belly line of the animal trying to compensate for the lifting force of the wind on the bullet while in flight.
So, how do you factor in a wind force that is lifting your bullet upwards as it speeds to the target? I don't have any ballistic program that will give me a solution. So I have devised a method, although it is not anywhere perfect, to try to compensate for the uplift on a bullet that is shot downhill with with an unknown uplifting force.
This seems to work, but the logic is full of holes. My ballistic program is designed to compensate for horizontal drifting because of wind. Because of the bullet trajectory while traveling down hill I have settled on using a full value wind deflection and deduct that from my shooting solution in MOA increments. In the case of Songdoggers experience, his ballistic program indicates 4.5 MOA for 450 yards.

If you are shooting downhill into an upsloping wind the effect is the same as if you are shooting into a headwind on flat ground.

In both cases the wind is traveling perpendicular to the ground.

An upslope wind only causes a rise in your round when you are shooting across it, say from one ridge to another.

 

[WildRose]

This may be irrelevant, but technically the 1 degree up slope wind is 1 degree vs a flat line/horizontal line. The trajectory of the bullet on a 450 yd shot will start out angled up, crest and then start angling down. So the wind/rise angle vs the bullets path will vary over the course of the shot. I still have a hard time seeing how this could account for that much rise.

It simply cannot.

 

[Korhil78]

What irked me is all the hypotheticals and lift, angle of inclination/ declination, bags needs ete. The guy didn't zero his rifle shooting from normal field positions. Then he didn't shoulder his rifle correctly while prone. Of course thing were going to go wrong. I told the OP he needed to reset/ recheck his zero. I'm not even upset with the OP for asking. Heck I can respect that. What bothers me is all the far out hypotheticals and "solutions" to the problem. The OP didn't correctly seat the rifle in the pocket of his shoulder. If he doesn't know how to do that then he needs to learn from someone that does. Without that all the other suggests probably won't help much. No problem Canhunter35. Like you said this is a forum so we can't always perceive or articulate well what needs to be said.

I don't see how a shooting bag under the buttstock of the rifle CANT help you shoulder the rifle better and steady your rifle better thus making you more solid? Irks me too.

 

[Lionheart]

My bad, all, I stirred things up with the barrage of arrogant yobuck quotes. There's no greater freedom than not caring what others think of you. But, I lost it when he attacked fitzm2's alternative view, who put a lot effort into it.

To clarify, not defend - I've killed 16 elk, 2 moose, over 50 whitetail, and dozens of antelope, mountain lions, and black bear, most taken with a stock Remington 700. Before this year, only two were shot beyond 150 yards. I simply preferred still hunting and stalking to glassing and lobbing. The two longer shots were elk at 420 and 450 yards, "chip shots" is the term I believe, using simple holdover values. Last year, after I retired, I gained long term access to some high desert elk property in NM where longer shots are common, so I invested in what most here would call a "mid-range" starter kit. The scope only has 53 1/4 MOA clicks or just over 600 yards. And, yes, I did take a two-day long-range shooting class. I've become friends with the owner and have free access to his knowledge and range 5 days a week, only 1 1/2 hours from my cabin.

Before anyone rushes to post, the problem wasn't the shooting instructor, it was his student. It wasn't the equipment, we know that. One last time, it was poor shooting form and lack of field practice. I'm lucky to have the resources to work that out.

And, yobuck, it wasn't the spotter. Redirect your sarcasm at me, there's plenty more material above. Geez, I swear you were gonna suggest tracer fire. I'll end this thread the way I started it - "bring it". It's outlived it's usefulness, I'm done monitoring it, so blow away.

To all others, thanks for the character, the leadership, and especially the patient advice. I respect what you do and how you do it. I'd single a few out, but that'd probably put a target on your back!

I'll be lurking other threads, but for now, Song Dogger out.

Just let me know if you need a firewood toter at your elk camp...

 

[WildRose]

Not needed

 

[WildRose]

I don't see how a shooting bag under the buttstock of the rifle CANT help you shoulder the rifle better and steady your rifle better thus making you more solid? Irks me too.

We all have to learn as we go along and I'm pretty sure this is going to be one of the more educational events he ever has in the field.

 

[WildRose]

My bad, all, I stirred things up with the barrage of arrogant yobuck quotes. There's no greater freedom than not caring what others think of you. But, I lost it when he attacked fitzm2's alternative view, who put a lot effort into it.

To clarify, not defend - I've killed 16 elk, 2 moose, over 50 whitetail, and dozens of antelope, mountain lions, and black bear, most taken with a stock Remington 700. Before this year, only two were shot beyond 150 yards. I simply preferred still hunting and stalking to glassing and lobbing. The two longer shots were elk at 420 and 450 yards, "chip shots" is the term I believe, using simple holdover values. Last year, after I retired, I gained long term access to some high desert elk property in NM where longer shots are common, so I invested in what most here would call a "mid-range" starter kit. The scope only has 53 1/4 MOA clicks or just over 600 yards. And, yes, I did take a two-day long-range shooting class. I've become friends with the owner and have free access to his knowledge and range 5 days a week, only 1 1/2 hours from my cabin.

Before anyone rushes to post, the problem wasn't the shooting instructor, it was his student. It wasn't the equipment, we know that. One last time, it was poor shooting form and lack of field practice. I'm lucky to have the resources to work that out.

And, yobuck, it wasn't the spotter. Redirect your sarcasm at me, there's plenty more material above. Geez, I swear you were gonna suggest tracer fire. I'll end this thread the way I started it - "bring it". It's outlived it's usefulness, I'm done monitoring it, so blow away.

To all others, thanks for the character, the leadership, and especially the patient advice. I respect what you do and how you do it. I'd single a few out, but that'd probably put a target on your back!

I'll be lurking other threads, but for now, Song Dogger out.

Forget the snide remarks from the peanut gallery.

Before anyone rushes to post, the problem wasn't the shooting instructor, it was his student. It wasn't the equipment, we know that. One last time, it was poor shooting form and lack of field practice. I'm lucky to have the resources to work that out.

You're welcome in my camp anytime, it takes a big man to make the above statement.

 

[xsn10s]

I don't see how a shooting bag under the buttstock of the rifle CANT help you shoulder the rifle better and steady your rifle better thus making you more solid? Irks me too.

If the person doesn't correct the problem with their technique (shouldering the rifle) then adding the bag won't help. It could add to the problem by having the person concentrate on bag position rather than concentrating on shouldering the rifle solidly in the shoulder.

 

[xsn10s]

"Before anyone rushes to post, the problem wasn't the shooting instructor, it was his student."

And not to harp on this point but the firearms instructor should of covered and corrected any issues with shouldering a rifle. It's such a basic part of shooting technique that so many other techniques rely on. Cheek weld, eye position, recoil recovery, even trigger control can all rely on shouldering the rifle. So if this wasn't covered in a rifle class I really don't know what to say.

 

[Vortex!]

You could just not say anything because he clearly has it figured out now and as far as he's concerned this thread is done!

 

[xsn10s]

I could but I was quoted so I'll reply.

 

[Vortex!]

 

[TX Badger]

Aside from a couple side tracks into overly aggressive rants this had been one of the better threads I've read. It just goes to show that there's usually more to be learned from failure than success. Bang, flop, and a picture wouldn't have taught anyone anything. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Vortex!]

You're right. There is plenty to be learned by reading this thread.

Aside from a couple side tracks into overly aggressive rants this had been one of the better threads I've read. It just goes to show that there's usually more to be learned from failure than success. Bang, flop, and a picture wouldn't have taught anyone anything. Thanks for sharing.