Jump to content
UKV - The Place for Precision Rifle Enthusiasts

brown dog

Global Moderator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About brown dog

  • Rank
    edit profile: member title

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    West Wilts
  • Interests
    Edit profile: Profile info

Recent Profile Visitors

6,211 profile views
  1. brown dog


    A wanted ad is fine πŸ‘πŸ˜Š
  2. Idle moment, and this has caught my interest, without the 'reset' at each 100m step before shooting the next, this eg would be missing by 1.4metres at 1000m (This example does the 'weaponised math' extrapolation from a 100m zero coupled with a 300m data point ... with no resets as each distance is shot in turn - it's the resets at each distance that give the system the illusion of being accurate)
  3. ... but equally, you could have told him to apply the same come up for his 308 as for your 308 or 6.5 tables, because it will be 'in the parish' - that's all this 'gravity dope' table is doing.
  4. Not about experience, Dave, to my eye it's just a sort of trick that's been pseudo-scienced up. ..I'm still not clear whether you're amazed because you're getting 1 to 1000 having only shot at 100 and 300, Or whether you're shooting every distance and correcting to reality on every 100m step before you shoot the next? And I'm also not getting why you don't just write one of your actual drop charts down? πŸ€”πŸ˜ŠπŸ˜Š
  5. All that might make a bit more sense with the sheet instructions! 'Gives a value to gravity' - my arse; it's doing a standard trajectory approximation and taking the error out on each iteration.
  6. Sorry - hard to explain well, typing on a phone! πŸ˜‚πŸ˜Š Maybe this'll be clearer: Can the sheet get you 'on' at 600, without shooting every 100m step from 1 to 6? Or Does it tell only tell you the next 100m step after you've shot the one before? (Ie Shoot 100 then calculate SWAG for 200 Set 200 SWAG. Shoot 200, adjust error out of SWAG, record actual setting. Do maths on actual setting to calculate SWAG for 300. Set 300 SWAG. Shoot 300, adjust error out of SWAG, record actual setting. Do maths on actual setting to calculate SWAG for 400. And so on)
  7. So, rather than do any maths, you could achieve the same affect by carrying one random 308ish drop chart; putting your 6.5 rifle 'on' at a given range, say 400m, and, to get to 500m, just applying the the elevation delta the 308 chart gives for that 400 to 500 step.... it'll be in the parish +/- 0.2 mil
  8. It's a bit of a maths parlour trick isn't it? Isn't it just postulating a standard trajectory and giving it as a series of step distance changes? The parlour trick being variance appears small between the standard trajectory and your round because you 'reset' the maths at each step distance, so the discrepancy between the standard traj and your traj doesn't accumulate in a compound way, it keeps being reset to no error and restarting. So the error keeps looking small. Ie the difference in drop from 300m to 400m ain't that marked In subtension terms, between a 308 and .223 ...so if I say a 308 that's 'on' at 300, needs an extra 0.8mil elevation to get to 400 - and to just apply that same value to the 0.223 ... we find out the .223 was only different over that step distance by about 0.1 mil If we then shoot the 0.1 error out and put the .223 back 'on' at 400; I could then tell you to apply the 308 change from 400 to 500 for the next step.... and because I've 'reset' the .223, the error will again look small. And so on for each step. I read some pish that the bloke who 'invented' it has 'doped gravity' ... pish.. it's a standard trajectory with the cumulative variance of a different trajectory minimised by a reset to zero at each step distance
  9. brown dog

    .22 carbines

    It looks seriously long and 'un-carbine' in UK configuration - I think the design has the barrel too far forward to work with anything longer than a pistol-length barrel. (Plus, when it fell out of the fugly tree, I think it must have hit every branch on the way down! πŸ˜‚ If that was an ergonomic sacrifice, I'd respect that, but it also looks 'un-ergonomic', like a newborn giraffe, to my eye - I think the designer must have single-issue-obsessed about bore axis height to the exclusion of every other consideration😳 ) 😊
  10. brown dog

    .22 carbines

    PS - how do they do with subs?

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy