Making accurate drop chart - who to trust?

[oaken]

So you are trying to use mildots to range targets with a low mag scope because you don't have a rangefinder? Can't be bothered to look back to see what scope you are using but you ain't half making life hard for yourself!

For tiffs next shoot, buddy up with someone who has a high mag scope, a rangefinder and esentially is dialling in moa.

Otherwise you are going to blow a gasket! ;-)

[dRb]

Try using your 50 yard (or are you working in meters?) as your zero and you will significantly reduce most of the errors that are wildly exaggerated by using a 15yd zero.

Part of yesterdays progress was moving to a 60m zero

[dRb]

+1 on Oaken's recommendation for a realistic zero (say 50y)-I gave figures for a 100y zero,just to indicate that the drop at distance even so ,is very considerable-at one point you mentioned 2-300 yards/metres,and 'instinctive' holdover-well,good luck,but a hold over of more than 3 feet is getting a challenge,goodness knows(well,a good program would tell us) what it is at 300-but I don't think simple holdover would be very feasible.Good fun ,maybe,and it's certainly been done with clicks or mil dots/scope markings.Don't use a petit pois tin can,get a big one! ( subs,of course,are even worse.....and accuracy will be long gone...).Enjoy the curve!

Gbal

Not 'instinctive' holdover. Holdover from a chart, calculated to march the tested trajectory at the field values I have for validation, as per the whole point of the thread

 

The instinctive bit is to use holdover on the ret rather than dialing on turrets, but by 150m+ I'm out of reticle points.

[dRb]

So you are trying to use mildots to range targets with a low mag scope because you don't have a rangefinder? Can't be bothered to look back to see what scope you are using but you ain't half making life hard for yourself!

For tiffs next shoot, buddy up with someone who has a high mag scope, a rangefinder and esentially is dialling in moa.

Otherwise you are going to blow a gasket! ;-)

Here in lies the challenge...

 

Master your universe etc

[dRb]

Duplicate reply

[dRb]

Duplicate reply

[gbal]

Here in lies the challenge...

Master your universe etc

Well,ok.Here's something to look forward too-getting elevations sorted out is relatively easy and straightforward,since gravity is a constant.Thee are relatively easy ways to do it and some have ben suggested.

The real challenge learning to read wind,not of course at muzzle,but variably all the way out....and that can't be measured (as distance can be with a laser).

 

I am sorry I slightly misquoted your 'instinctively'-but it's all learned anyhow,so it's not the right word-the real issue is to ,learn the best ways,and you are getting some pretty good advice,from several members,-eg modest scope/low mag/close zero etc,, will not give good distance decisions-and mil dot distancing will only work if you know the size of the target etc etc.

Can't see why you don't take the given 22 rf drops,or ones adjusted for your prefered zero,and click in using them,or mil dots on the reticule that coincide.for either known distance targets or lasered ones.Then you can play with wind,or it with you!

And there is still the 308 to go-could buy a decent rangefinder (or scope) if you factor in the ammo costs there....'doing it my way'!

 

Even Hercules cleaning the Stygian stables went with the flow,otherwise the universe wins....

There is still plenty challenge left when you've got drops sorted,so minimise the pain....

Gbal

[dRb]

Well,ok.Here's something to look forward too-getting elevations sorted out is relatively easy and straightforward,since gravity is a constant.Thee are relatively easy ways to do it and some have ben suggested.

The real challenge learning to read wind,not of course at muzzle,but variably all the way out....and that can't be measured (as distance can be with a laser).

 

I am sorry I slightly misquoted your 'instinctively'-but it's all learned anyhow,so it's not the right word-the real issue is to ,learn the best ways,and you are getting some pretty good advice,from several members,-eg modest scope/low mag/close zero etc,, will not give good distance decisions-and mil dot distancing will only work if you know the size of the target etc etc.

Can't see why you don't take the given 22 rf drops,or ones adjusted for your prefered zero,and click in using them,or mil dots on the reticule that coincide.for either known distance targets or lasered ones.Then you can play with wind,or it with you!

And there is still the 308 to go-could buy a decent rangefinder (or scope) if you factor in the ammo costs there....'doing it my way'!

 

Even Hercules cleaning the Stygian stables went with the flow,otherwise the universe wins....

There is still plenty challenge left when you've got drops sorted,so minimise the pain....

Gbal

 

If you look back at the start of all of this my questions and pondering were in relation to not being able to get my theoretical firing solutions to match what I was seeing in the field. I wanted to sort this out so that I could get on to shooting at steels at varying ranges and start practicing the whole shebang - the key thing being the reading of wind as you point out.

 

Looking back through you'd also see that I've taken on board a lot of the points, e.g. as per my reply to Oaken, I've moved out to a 60m zero. The data I've been trying to validate the charts from has been measured with a 30m tape on flat ground, so is probably better set than it would have been with a cheap lrf anyway, so the mag of the scope and the use of mildots on other ranges is a side point entirely.

 

The exact thing I want to do is what you describe - take a range (by the best means available to me at the time), look at my charts, dial the drop, read the wind value, dial the windage, take the shot. Exactly the thing. However, as per the title of the thread I wasn't getting the output form my software that I was seeing on the paper.

 

One of the key things that has come from this so far is that the clicks on my scope don;t appear to be what they claim to be, and this may well be the crux of the entire matter.

 

With regards to ranging; at this stage I have this scope and it's mildots, or a best guess based on squinting a bit. Given that choice I pretty much HAVE to use mildots, and why not rise to the challenge and see how close I can get to making it work anyway?

 

I don't care how I range things, but I can only use what I have to hand, and you never know one day my lrf may be out of power or playing up, and having some basic manual skills may be exactly what I need

[dRb]

Just as Gareth says. Buy a bloody range finder. You know where there's one going cheap....

 

Nice pitch

[oaken]

Fair play to you Ross. I went through a similar process and learned a great deal. I think we all have to some degree.

It does, however, bring home the fact that without some fairly decent kit, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to long range gongs. I'm not saying it is an arms race by any means, but there is a level below which that disadvantage becomes pronounced.

[dRb]

Fair play to you Ross. I went through a similar process and learned a great deal. I think we all have to some degree.

It does, however, bring home the fact that without some fairly decent kit, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to long range gongs. I'm not saying it is an arms race by any means, but there is a level below which that disadvantage becomes pronounced.

It certainly is!

 

My attitude generally is to be as good as I can given what I am using at the time.

 

I do have a thing for basics though - I used to commute 14 odd miles each way to work and back on a fixed wheel track bike in London. I still use the same bike here, although the downhill gradients round here soon told me via my knees that I needed a freewheel!

[dRb]

Ok, last part of this thread...

 

So today I shot 50 rounds @ 25 yards to get data to confirm actual click value on my scope.

 

I shot boxes, crosses, and vertical lines using my best efforts to shoot well, and single aim points plus/minus clicks as required.

 

Pic attached of the data, and a rather interesting result when taking the mean of the adjusted " per click @ 100 yards...

 

In summary, the main issue I've had getting my Chairgun etc to dope correctly in the field, is that my turrets marked up as 1/8" @ 100yards, are actually 1/5.625" @ 100yrds??

 

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Ok, last part of this thread...

 

So today I shot 50 rounds @ 25 yards to get data to confirm actual click value on my scope.

 

I shot boxes, crosses, and vertical lines using my best efforts to shoot well, and single aim points plus/minus clicks as required.

 

Pic attached of the data, and a rather interesting result when taking the mean of the adjusted " per click @ 100 yards...

 

In summary, the main issue I've had getting my Chairgun etc to dope correctly in the field, is that my turrets marked up as 1/8" @ 100yards, are actually 1/5.625" @ 100yrds??

 

 

Ok, now you have that, enter it as your click values, and you might be a bit closer on your chair gun app or isnipe etc.

or, get a decent scope

[MJR]

1/5.625" ?

[dRb]

Ok, now you have that, enter it as your click values, and you might be a bit closer on your chair gun app or isnipe etc.

or, get a decent scope

Basically that is it.

 

Will be interested to hear what the manufacturer has to say about it too...haha

[dRb]

1/5.625" ?

Not a common click value is it?

 

The thing that surprised me was that both the windage and elevation both came out to .177" per click @ 100yrds.

 

Obviously sounds too neat - did I test over the wrong range? Nope - measured it as accurately as I could to 25 yards.

 

Shooting wonky? Nope, fired fouling groups of 5 shots (one hole group, pretty much round/clover shaped too).

 

Any other supporting evidence? Well, as per earlier in the thread I worked out 88 clicks for 14.something inches based on mil holdover to dope, and got a result of .16+ for that single set example.

 

Very odd, but it explains why I could not get scope adjustments to match software, when mils holdover was working out well.

[Shuggy]

So basically you have a scope whose adjustments are not honest. I would go with the advice that you had earlier in the thread: forget trying to calculate MOA or linear measurements. Just make up a range card based on the number of clicks.

 

Or buy an FFP Mil/Mil scope that tracks well and never look back!

[dRb]

So basically you have a scope whose adjustments are not honest. I would go with the advice that you had earlier in the thread: forget trying to calculate MOA or linear measurements. Just make up a range card based on the number of clicks.

 

Or buy an FFP Mil/Mil scope that tracks well and never look back!

Yep, pretty much both of the above!

 

Now I have a click value, I can get back to where I wanted to be of using software, and then excel to make the numbers all work.

[oaken]

.........my turrets marked up as 1/8" @ 100yards, are actually 1/5.625" @ 100yrds??

 

 

Just had a look at the iSnipe ap.

You can set the click value to whatever you like!

[brown dog]

1/5.625" ?

 

Yup. What the hell is that? I can't do imperial at the best of times; but a mixed fraction and decimal fraction utterly defeats me!

[MJR]

Come on Pike, its the new metrinch system. Stupid boy....

[gbal]

Come on Pike, its the new metrinch system. Stupid boy....

 

.........a hundred shillings,and three clicks in a Guinea-using Mr Mainwaring's abacus.

Gbal

 

Yup. What the hell is that? I can't do imperial at the best of times; but a mixed fraction and decimal fraction utterly defeats me!

..such a cocktail should be called a 'vulgar fraction',but that descriptor is already taken.

[The_Dogge]

8/45 "/click, yes not a very intuitive value.

 

You can enter any value of MoA/click in Strelok too. Software should work fine now you know that, but you might want to relabel your turrets to avoid confusion.

I think turret labels are the best way to keep drop data anyway, it frees you from the concept of a zero entirely, you are always zeroed for the range it says on the turret!