dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 People may already ve well aware of this idea, but I was pleased when I made it work, and it may help someone! When making drop charts for dialing firing solutions, it is common to kniw how many 'clicks' you need to move. Using 2 columns I've added in a value for tge number of large markers on the turret (in my case every 8 clicks is marked as a unit for 1" @ 100yrds), and then how many remaining clicks to dial. E.g. 82 clicks is 8 units plus 2 clicks. The idea being to wind faster and with a lower chance of wonky maths messing this up! The units are done using the '=INT' function (rounds down to nearest whole number), and then tge remainder using the '=mod' function (calculates the ramainder). So '=INT(clicks/number of clicks per mark on turret)' gives me the '8' from the above example, and '=MOD(clicks,number of clicks per mark on turret)' gives the remaining '2' clicks. As I said may be old news, or not how other people think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I really can't type on my iPhone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaken Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 KISS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 KISS Love the fact that you see that as simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 KISS Even at 6x, that target must be pretty big in the scope image! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcampbellsmith Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I could fault many things I did at RRC, but this sheet did what it was supposed to do. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12296998/Reticles/RRC%20-%20260%20Rem%20140%20AMax%20drop%20chart%20-%20March.pdf Regards JCS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaken Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 It couldn't be more simple. In this picture the elevation is dialled for 1000yds. Distances have been field tested, fed into ballistics app, then transferred to elevation turret. So, establish distance to target then dial your distance! Only variable apart from windage is a small compensation for atmospheric conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Even more KISS? No chance of getting 'lost in the turns'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 It couldn't be more simple. In this picture the elevation is dialled for 1000yds. Distances have been field tested, fed into ballistics app, then transferred to elevation turret. So, establish distance to target then dial your distance! Only variable apart from windage is a small compensation for atmospheric conditions. I know, I know. I was joking about the scaling and printing and sticking etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 People may already ve well aware of this idea, but I was pleased when I made it work, and it may help someone! When making drop charts for dialing firing solutions, it is common to kniw how many 'clicks' you need to move. Using 2 columns I've added in a value for tge number of large markers on the turret (in my case every 8 clicks is marked as a unit for 1" @ 100yrds), and then how many remaining clicks to dial. E.g. 82 clicks is 8 units plus 2 clicks. The idea being to wind faster and with a lower chance of wonky maths messing this up! The units are done using the '=INT' function (rounds down to nearest whole number), and then tge remainder using the '=mod' function (calculates the ramainder). So '=INT(clicks/number of clicks per mark on turret)' gives me the '8' from the above example, and '=MOD(clicks,number of clicks per mark on turret)' gives the remaining '2' clicks. As I said may be old news, or not how other people think! If you're on an MOA scope, I'm not sure how you're making that work without an intermediate step. On a 0.25MOA click scope you're working in base 4, not base 10, so 82 clicks is 20.5MOA. On a 1/8 MOA scope base 8, 10.25 MOA - presumably your program is giving you an output in MOA, you first need to multiply that output by 4 or 8 to get 'number of clicks'; and then apply the process you've given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 If you're on an MOA scope, I'm not sure how you're making that work without an intermediate step. On a 0.25MOA click scope you're working in base 4, not base 10, so 82 clicks is 20.5MOA. On a 1/8 MOA scope base 8, 10.25 MOA - presumably your program is giving you an output in MOA, you first need to multiply that output by 4 or 8 to get 'number of clicks'; and then apply the process you've given Yes - sorry, I was assuming the chart was already giving you clicks as per your click value. As per previous thread, this means several steps in my case! There's nothing special about it, aside from '5,3' is quicker than 43clicks. Crank on 5 big units, then add 3 clicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 '5,3' is quicker than 43clicks. Crank on 5 big units, then add 3 clicks. 100% agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Even more KISS? No chance of getting 'lost in the turns'. Nice! What scope is that, and how big are the clicks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 That's a single turn Schmidt and Bender PMII with 13 mils in a single turn. They are silly money, but well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Sorry, forgot to say: clicks are 0.1 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Sorry, forgot to say: clicks are 0.1 mil.The only sensible option - was simply being nice to the 19th century MOA nutters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I agree. I'm a bit like one of those ex-smokers who becomes an anti-smoking zealot. I can't quite believe that I spent all those years struggling with SFP MOA scopes, with non-matching mil dot reticles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dRb Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I agree. I'm a bit like one of those ex-smokers who becomes an anti-smoking zealot. I can't quite believe that I spent all those years struggling with SFP MOA scopes, with non-matching mil dot reticles! I am 100% in agreement. Given the first chance, I'll be mil/mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I agree. I'm a bit like one of those ex-smokers who becomes an anti-smoking zealot. I can't quite believe that I spent all those years struggling with SFP MOA scopes, with non-matching mil dot reticles! Is there not a case for either mil or moa,and that the real PITA is when the two are mixed wrt reticule in one,and turrets in the other? Some not unsmart money might well be on a dropchart like JCS's ( see post here) and a laser rangfinder....and moa reticule/turrets. Perhaps the mil is a fortunate unit for the mil(itary)in standardised and largely metric european NATO member states ..(easy ,BD-don't get fract(ion)ous: the Imperial days are gone!).....just my 2cents worth! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA, whatever floats your boat really, as long as the scope is FFP. Personally I find mils easier to use, e.g. 4.5 mils is a bit easier to memorise than 15 and a 1/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJR Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Minutes of anarchy are fine if you are shooting at fixed distances and known targets. A lot of target shooters use MOA to very good effect and many argue that they offer a finer adjustment - I can't comment on that as i'm not a long range guru and can't shoot better than 1/8moa anyway. Other than that they are just an unnecessary complication compared to mils/ffp and metric distances where everything tallies nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Mils will work for any type of linear distance. Metres, yards, miles, cubits, furlongs, leagues; it matters not! A mil is a mil, whatever the distance. Personally I have my ballistic software calibrated in yards, because that's what British ranges use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Minutes of anarchy are fine if you are shooting at fixed distances and known targets. A lot of target shooters use MOA to very good effect and many argue that they offer a finer adjustment - I can't comment on that as i'm not a long range guru and can't shoot better than 1/8moa anyway. Other than that they are just an unnecessary complication compared to mils/ffp and metric distances where everything tallies nicely. You are correct about target shooters.Can you explain,rather than just assert,why a laser and drop chart can't be used efficiently at any distance-I laser the target..it's 765 yards,my chart says at 765 my moa up from zero is 14.5,and windage is moa right is 7.5 .I put these onto scope and fire.I do not care if the next target is 358 lasered yards or 920,chart gives the appropriate moa adjustments,easily done.The size of the target is irrelevant,in getting the shot off.Not sure I can see why that isn't quite neat.Now how does FFP/mil etc do it,especially for targets whose size is not known.And when they are known,is at as accurate as a laser in determining distance? Is it easier,faster, or in any way superior,to any degree that actually matters for most applications?( a ranging error of a few % can mean a miss,for precision diistance shooters)Gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Gable, you are absolutely correct. 'Lase and dial' will work just fine with an SFP MOA scope. The advantage of an FFP is that as long as the reticle matches the turrets, you can use the reticle at any magnification. For example, last weekend I was shooting at 200 and 600 yards. My rifle had just come back from being threaded by Neil Mckillop, so I was uncertain about the zero. First shot, I saw the splash low and right. I measured it with my reticle as 1 mil low and 0.3 right. I dialled the correction and was spot on with the second shot. Moving back to 600, the heat haze was fairly bad so I turned down the magnification to about 15 power. My first shot was 0.5 mils left. I didn't even have to bother checking the magnification to know that I needed to dial 0.5 right. Getting more fancy, mil/mil or moa/moa FFP scopes can also be used for hold overs, hold unders and leads, but that's all a bit out of my league really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 You are correct about target shooters. Can you explain,rather than just assert,why a laser and drop chart can't be used efficiently at any distance-I laser the target..it's 765 yards,my chart says at 765 my moa up from zero is 14.5,and windage is moa right is 7.5 .I put these onto scope and fire. I do not care if the next target is 358 lasered yards or 920,chart gives the appropriate moa adjustments,easily done. The size of the target is irrelevant,in getting the shot off. Not sure I can see why that isn't quite neat. Now how does FFP/mil etc do it,especially for targets whose size is not known.And when they are known,is at as accurate as a laser in determining distance? Is it easier,faster, or in any way superior,to any degree that actually matters for most applications?( a ranging error of a few % can mean a miss,for precision diistance shooters) Gbal With a FFP mil scope, you can directly measure the position of your fall of shot in milrads and directly apply it as a milrad correction on your turret as clicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.