brown dog

The traser infantry watch linked earlier is a good go as well - I got one of those (or a predecessor vesion) when I sold my first GMT (aaaagh! If only I'd known what values would do! 😭). And another when the first one broke: Broke the lug on one; hand just fell off on another!

😂😂

Definitely in the right direction, but all GTLS watches seem to have as much stuff as possible on the dial, which - to me- detracts from legibility. Weird lug arrangement on it too.

The old explorer 2 (as yours,before they changed to Next-style thick lugs) is a lovely watch - I've owned GMTs and a Sub, but my I was always tempted by the exp 2! That said, whilst I have the distance vision of an eagle, as I've gone even more longsighted , I found I could no longer see Rolex hands at night - too thin and Rolex lume not bril.

Some lovely watches being shown, but most are 'tool' rather than 'field' to my way of thinking (?) To me, a field watch is definitely a tool watch, but the simplest distillation. Mid size. Utilitarian and legible.

What an amazingly generous friend! 😂

A little like the endless hunt for the perfect green coat, I'm forever hunting for the perfect field watch. Wondering who amongst us shares this affliction and what solutions have been found. (My definition of 'field watch' would be: Legible (uncluttered dial, clearly visible hands and hour markers). Absolutely must be waterproof to 100m. Easily readable at night. Definitely <40mm and preferably <38mm. And, at a price point where you can wear it without mollycoddling.) As a start point - CWC aren't waterproof, so they're out and I'm yet to see a GTLS watch of any brand that doesn't have an insanely cluttered dial. Recently tried this, thinking it was the Edmund Hillary 1016 reincarnated, but it was too bling shiny, and lume was decidedly 'meh' - and it didn't feel like value for money. Most recently, this, which is 95%. Who else is on this endless quest?!

I'm at the other end of the spectrum, I dread reloading with a passion - a necessary evil. When I started, it was about price and accuracy. My early stalking ammo involved rebulleting er, 'reallocated' green dot ammo with 150gr NBTs. Later, when precision rifle became a passion, Lapua 308 match ammo was prohibitively expensive, and I focussed on duplicating it. For calibres like 6.5x47, it became the only viable option. People who are lucky enough to enjoy reloading are blessed, just as those who enjoy things like tying flies.

Iconic. Well done!😊

Holy crap. That's the pinnacle! Is that yours?

Struck me as appropriately Bond.

Buckshee?! (Or am I being naive?! 🤔😂) Yes please!

Still not over it!😂

😂

Just had a chance to look inside the stock; thought it may be of interest. It's from a 'Well MB01'

Al, I don't see a moderator pile-on. I see you and Ronin having a 'thing' and me passing comment on the childish binary absolutism of some internet discussions/arguments .. ...Such as the boorish gain-saying pedantry, passive aggression and mild ad hominems (the latter two being rather more a feature of your posts) in this thread. The way it's played out is, frankly, beneath both of you. It's just lockdown. Give up caffeine and drink more gin. Both of you. 😊

That's all I have to say about this thread. All of you should buy each other a drink after lockdown.

Just took a punt on this s/h. Rather stunned at how familiar it feels - and very solid. (The bipod is a real one)

👍😊

I haven't done those for years - only did those when the ASAT bloke asked me if I could create a mk2 card for him that had multiple winds and (precessional) drift on them... and became fascinated by the solution - as did a couple of others on here who went on to come up with even cleverer things. ASAT bloke was a marmite chap, but for all that, he knew his external ballistics. Funnily enough, discussing theory of inclined fire is how I sussed that he actually understood what he was talking about. (Cheeky bugger said the same thing to me 😂) Inclined Fire theory is a bit of an 'understanding' litmus test .

That's simply incorrect 😊 To understand what's happening, you'll need to think of gravity as an acceleration (which it is!), and the vectors at play. ...if it's in the air for 2 secs, it's being accelerated by gravity for 2 secs. [Noting meles's point, which is correct but doesn't help in explaining the concepts!😂] The horizontal distance it crosses is irrelevant. (Think about it, by that reasoning, something let go from a hand wouldn't drop, because it covers 0 horizontal distance!) The pencil illustration isn't a clouding, it's an illustration of the vectors at play. I'm sure the intent was to enlighten, mine too, but with the correct info 😊 If that's not to your taste, read up on it - I see Applied Ballistics touted as the best read; certainly everything I've seen of Bryan Litz's has been spot on, so worth a look, I would think 😊

Yup. I gave the maths of it earlier 😊

Depends how big the tgt is 😂😊😊 Intended this as ballistic truths 😊

Sorry, I was bored 😊 The explanations in fb post made me spill my tea. (Jack: 'Show again'! But, as before - sorry - I was just bored! 😊)

Q3: Effect of moving from prone to kneeling. Some fag-packet maths. Prone to tripod raises firer by 50cm-ish. Prone fire angle was 30deg at 800m which is approx 533mils. Kneeling changes that by a subtension of 50cm at 800m - or 0.6 of a mil So, prone angle to target is 533mils and kneeling is 533.6 mils That is: the prone angle to target is 30 degrees and moving to kneeling changes that to 30.01 degrees. To say the least, a 0.01 degree change to the angle of fire is not empirically observable at 800m