|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755 |
so if you are shooting at 1000yds and it calls for 53.8 inches of elevation, that is equivalent to 5.38 inches of elevation at 100yds correct? No....with an assumed 100 yard zero, it's 53.8" high at 100 yards to be on at 1K. No aalf, that's not correct, if you read his question. If the dope is 53.8 inches of elevation for 1,000 yards, that's 53.8 at 1,000 not at 100. Dialing for that elevation does put you 5.38" high at 100, as bryguy was suggesting. The scope dials an angular measurement; converted to inches that is multiplied by distance. I'm assuming you know this but misunderstood the question. I'm responding because your answer appears to have confused the OP. I'm also assuming he pulled that 53.8" number out of the air though, because I'm not sure what he'd be shooting that only needs 53.8" at 1,000. Maybe that's what threw you off, because the number was unrealistic?
Last edited by Yondering; 10/18/16.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,721
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,721 |
Jordan and aalfs points were/are drop that dumb chit conversion click inch crap and dial/think in moa or mils. Who cares about pie are square and 1.00482357 and all that jazz. Get load info enter into your program dial to given number for the distance and shoot. Make adjustments as needed....in moa or mil.
But aalf really does need to get his chit together. He only shoots out to 4700 yards when the cows are out of the way
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,123
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,123 |
No aalf, that's not correct, if you read his question. If the dope is 53.8 inches of elevation for 1,000 yards, that's 53.8 at 1,000 not at 100. Dialing for that elevation does put you 5.38" high at 100.
I'm assuming you know this but misunderstood the question. I'm responding because your answer appears to have confused the OP.
I'm also assuming he pulled that 53.8" number out of the air though, because I'm not sure what he'd be shooting that only needs 53.8" at 1,000. Maybe that's what threw you off, because the number was unrealistic? I was confused by the question myself concerning the 53.8" figure, but I was thinking more along the lines of what the hell takes that many inches (MOA) to get to 1K?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 51
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 51 |
But the scopes I have are inch adjustments....and inches and MOA are not a direct correlation though correct? Yes, inches/100yd and MOA are directly linearly correlated. At 100yd, 1 MOA equals approximately 1.047". If your turret adjustments are 1/4" @ 100yd per click then your scope adjustments are (1/1.047)/4 MOA per click which is ≈0.239 MOA per click. Think fast- 28.65 MOA correction, what do you set the scope to?  It sort of depends upon how you get the 28.65 MOA elevation correction. If it is coming from a mobile device doing the ballistics calculation in the field, just use that device to do the division to convert from MOA to clicks. If it is coming from interpolation of a ballistics table, just include another column for clicks and do the interpolation in terms of clicks instead of MOA - I do this with all my ballistics tables. I don't print a range card consisting of the raw table output by the ballistics program - I transfer that data to a custom formatted spreadsheet which also calculates and includes a SF corrected clicks column for the elevation and windage corrections and I print that spreadsheet as my range card. Some ballistics calculators allow you to specify your scope click units [ Applied Ballistics Mobile and Strelock Pro Mobile come to mind] and include the elevation and windage in clicks as part of their firing solutions. This problem is no different than having to correct for your scope tracking factor [ SF] as determined by a tall-target test. Some ballistics programs incorporate the SF into their firing solutions. This SF correction can also be exploited to automagically perform the desired conversion between MOA and clicks like the one you posed above. The click-to-MOA conversion factor above can be incorporated as a multiplier factor [ 0.955 in the case above] to any actual SF as determined by a tall-target test and specifying this adjusted SF to the ballistics calculation program and that the scope in this case has a turret adjustment of 1/4 [ 0.25] MOA per click. Then the clicks correction determined by the ballistics calculator would correctly match the MOA correction it calculates. I think he was asking if IPH and MOA were equivalent. Yes it could be that's what he meant - I answered the question he actually asked  .
Last edited by CosmicCoder; 10/18/16.
CC
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565 |
Basically:
@100 yds 1" = 1 moa or 3.6" = 1 mil
@500 yds 5" = 1 moa or 18" = 1 mil
@1000 yds 10.5" = 1 moa or 36" = 1 mil
I will let you all fill in the blanks. Too much typing for me.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,755 |
No aalf, that's not correct, if you read his question. If the dope is 53.8 inches of elevation for 1,000 yards, that's 53.8 at 1,000 not at 100. Dialing for that elevation does put you 5.38" high at 100.
I'm assuming you know this but misunderstood the question. I'm responding because your answer appears to have confused the OP.
I'm also assuming he pulled that 53.8" number out of the air though, because I'm not sure what he'd be shooting that only needs 53.8" at 1,000. Maybe that's what threw you off, because the number was unrealistic? I was confused by the question myself concerning the 53.8" figure, but I was thinking more along the lines of what the hell takes that many inches (MOA) to get to 1K? Agreed. So, clarification for the OP with a more realistic number - if the dope is 300" at 1K, dialing for that is equivalent to 30" at 100 yards. The scope adjustment is an angular measurement (mils, moa, or whatever), so the actual holdover in inches does multiply with distance.
Last edited by Yondering; 10/18/16.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475 |
I'm quite familiar with correction factors and ballistic software I was being facetious to prove a point- skip the lengthy math conversions and start with the simplified version, buy a scope that adjusts and tracks correctly in MOA or mils. A tall target test and the use of the correlated adjustment correction factor is a smart move with a reliable scope, but it's a waste of time with a scope that may pass the test today, and tomorrow have you chucking it off a cliff...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 330
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 330 |
so IF you are shooting at 1000yds and it calls for 53.8 inches of elevation, that is equivalent to 5.38 inches of elevation at 100yds correct? Correct
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 330
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 330 |
I am just asking that the multiplier of the turret is equivalent to the range compared to 100 yds....I.E. @200 yds, one inch of adjustment for 100 yds will be 2 at 200, 3@300, 4@400 so on an so forth out to 1k.....so 1 inch of adjustment at 100 yds is 10 inches of adjustment at 1000 yds....is that correct? Correct. This question has NOTHING to do with a bullet's trajectory. Take your scope off your rifle, attach it to a sturdy tripod and establish a point of aim (POA) reference. Observe, and measure, POA change at 100 yards. Then observe/measure the same POA change at 1000 yards. Assuming the scope adjustments are linear, the POA change at the target will be 10x, just like you state.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 330
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 330 |
Basically:
@100 yds 1" = 1 moa or 3.6" = 1 mil
@500 yds 5" = 1 moa or 18" = 1 mil
@1000 yds 10.5" = 1 moa or 36" = 1 mil
I will let you all fill in the blanks. Too much typing for me..... Seriously??? I will let you tell the campfire what is wrong with your post. Too little typing (2 words) for me...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565 |
Uhh, other than maybe I should have stated 5.25" = 1 moa @ 500 yds. I am not seeing it.
Why don't you tell us.......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988 |
For a few hundred bucks, I'd suggest you pick up a SWFA SS 10x to learn on. I started getting into LR shooting about 15 years ago when Leups, B&L 4200, Burris FFII w/BP, Monarch w/BDC, Conquest w/RZ600, etc, were all I had to work with. The only reliable scopes I knew about at the time were $1500+, which was outside of my university student budget. The Nikons I've played with have either immediately or eventually let me down in the mechanical department. It's extremely frustrating when you're trying to learn the physics of ballistics, wind, scope mechanics, etc, when you don't know if you're missing because of the scope, or because you've made a mistake. We are extremely fortunate these days- scope manufacturers are catching onto the fact that we want scopes that work, not just scopes with clear glass, so we've got several mechanically-reliable options in most every price range. I don't have a problem spending money on good glass(that doesn't necessarily mean most expensive to me) and can afford it, so its no big worry to me honestly. How are the SWFA variables comparing to the fixed powers? Ill probably get thru our deer season with what I have and rework the scopes over the winter. The variables are great, too, and will easily get you to 1000 if you're using good bullets at reasonable speed. If budget isn't a limitation, then also consider the Bushnell LRHS and DMR/ERS, Nightforce NXS, and Vortex Razor Gen II. There are also other good options, but the price goes way up. Size and weight vary among the options, so you'll have to take all that into consideration for your specific rifles and uses, but all of those options have proven to be mechanically robust. Will these scopes require and 20MOA (or greater) base to reach 1K or do they have enough internal adjustment for these ranges? Bob
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,565 |
Not sure how anyone is supposed to answer that with no mention of chambering or bullet, velocity, etc.
They do have a lot of internal adjustment. I still use a 20 moa base....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,827
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,827 |
Not sure how anyone is supposed to answer that with no mention of chambering or bullet, velocity, etc.
They do have a lot of internal adjustment. I still use a 20 moa base.... I would use a 20moa base for the simple reason I want the reticle near the center at the range I plan to shot.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475 |
For a few hundred bucks, I'd suggest you pick up a SWFA SS 10x to learn on. I started getting into LR shooting about 15 years ago when Leups, B&L 4200, Burris FFII w/BP, Monarch w/BDC, Conquest w/RZ600, etc, were all I had to work with. The only reliable scopes I knew about at the time were $1500+, which was outside of my university student budget. The Nikons I've played with have either immediately or eventually let me down in the mechanical department. It's extremely frustrating when you're trying to learn the physics of ballistics, wind, scope mechanics, etc, when you don't know if you're missing because of the scope, or because you've made a mistake. We are extremely fortunate these days- scope manufacturers are catching onto the fact that we want scopes that work, not just scopes with clear glass, so we've got several mechanically-reliable options in most every price range. I don't have a problem spending money on good glass(that doesn't necessarily mean most expensive to me) and can afford it, so its no big worry to me honestly. How are the SWFA variables comparing to the fixed powers? Ill probably get thru our deer season with what I have and rework the scopes over the winter. The variables are great, too, and will easily get you to 1000 if you're using good bullets at reasonable speed. If budget isn't a limitation, then also consider the Bushnell LRHS and DMR/ERS, Nightforce NXS, and Vortex Razor Gen II. There are also other good options, but the price goes way up. Size and weight vary among the options, so you'll have to take all that into consideration for your specific rifles and uses, but all of those options have proven to be mechanically robust. Will these scopes require and 20MOA (or greater) base to reach 1K or do they have enough internal adjustment for these ranges? Bob Bob, Some have greater adjustment range than others, but they all have enough to get a regular .308 Win with 155 Scenar at 2820 fps to 1000 in SAC. I certainly prefer to use a canted rail to get more usable adjustment out of that range, but in most cases it won't be necessary out to 1k.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988 |
Thanks Jordan and others. I'm just beginning the build of my designated "long range" rifle- a 26 Nosler and I'm in the planning stages and acquiring stages at the moment.
I've got the barrel, action, and a 4.5 x 14 Leupold that I plan on having a CDS made up for my load when I have a chance to chrono it after assembly. The scope issue has me a bit concerned so I'm double checking my assumptions by reading as much as I can on this and other forums for the moment.
Still need to decide on a decent stock, but I have a real hankering for building myself a nice wood stock out of one of the English walnut blanks I've picked up over the years.
At the moment, my long range limitation has been around 600-650 yards but I would like to stretch that out just a little bit. So far, my .338 WM, .300 H&H Improved, and .270 have been the choices, but the new rifle will hopefully be my "everything" rifle once built and I will start thinning down the herd a little. ( I know, blasphemy).
I know enough about turret twisting to be dangerous (to game) but a little more practice will take care of that.
Bob
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 51
Campfire Greenhorn
|
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 51 |
I'm quite familiar with correction factors and ballistic software I was being facetious to prove a point- skip the lengthy math conversions and start with the simplified version, buy a scope that adjusts and tracks correctly in MOA or mils. A tall target test and the use of the correlated adjustment correction factor is a smart move with a reliable scope, but it's a waste of time with a scope that may pass the test today, and tomorrow have you chucking it off a cliff... Yeah I realized you were jesting . I was just taking the opportunity to let the OP know that non-standard click adjustments can be folded into the SF so that the clicks calculated by a ballistics calculator will correctly match his scope's clicks. I totally agree with you about making sure that you have a good quality scope with accurate and repeatable tracking [ especially accurate return to zero] is paramount if you are going to dial turrets for long range shooting. It will certainly save a lot of frustration.
CC
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,244
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,244 |
Thanks Jordan and others. I'm just beginning the build of my designated "long range" rifle- a 26 Nosler and I'm in the planning stages and acquiring stages at the moment.
I've got the barrel, action, and a 4.5 x 14 Leupold that I plan on having a CDS made up for my load when I have a chance to chrono it after assembly. The scope issue has me a bit concerned so I'm double checking my assumptions by reading as much as I can on this and other forums for the moment.
Still need to decide on a decent stock, but I have a real hankering for building myself a nice wood stock out of one of the English walnut blanks I've picked up over the years.
At the moment, my long range limitation has been around 600-650 yards but I would like to stretch that out just a little bit. So far, my .338 WM, .300 H&H Improved, and .270 have been the choices, but the new rifle will hopefully be my "everything" rifle once built and I will start thinning down the herd a little. ( I know, blasphemy).
I know enough about turret twisting to be dangerous (to game) but a little more practice will take care of that.
Bob ONLY because I love you Bob. Going Reupold 4.5-14x is a huge concession on all levels,with no brightside to the equation,in zero retention,tracking,repeats or friendliness. That of course is being rather charitable to boot. Hint. Had yet another fail miserably,not long ago. 4.5-14X Reupold Neither Warm Or FuzzyThis with a rifle that'll easily shoot high .2's/low .3's. ![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/924/wXZqom.jpg) ![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/923/ASubC0.jpg) Anywhoo...CDS is a sad joke,as it is akin to buying an expensive clock that doesn't keep time and then having a "Custom" face put on it,so it REALLY doesn't(CAN'T) keep time. CDS does nothing to innards and is simply lipstick for outtards. Them facts is bitter pills for many. BDC's are a cruel joke and happiness can only be arranged with a clockface that is in synch with it's innards. Stay MOA or MIL and forget the fluff. Hint. You need a 10X MQ on a Winny 52,to get your mind right and to connect dots. Physics applied to same,will crossover to all other chamberings/boolits and if you ain't careful,you might even add some Wind Skeelz. ![[Linked Image]](http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1280x1024q90/924/ZTmuPv.jpg) Everything Below Zero Is USELESS550yd+ '54 AttackYou never cited a proposed projectile,twist rate,COAL latitude,throat geometry or receiver for the pending build,but hopefully all jive. The 10X windshield alone,will grant opportunity that the 4.5-14X simply cannot,especially when talking atmospherics(wind). SFP is a goodly hurdle there,BDC's do no favors and Reupold has no reticle that begins to come close to the MQ. If only for starters and yet again. Hint.(grin) This Is Funny TooLong story short,it's tough way to do bidness by purposely painting yourself in the corner,at the start. Slow your roll,look at the big picture and let facts work for you. Snag a 10x MQ,mount it on a 52,gun it for a day after a phone call to me and if you ain't dazzled...I'll buy it from you and toss you a $20 cookie for tryin'. While I've MOA/MOA Fixed Fhuqkers too,as well as MOA/MIL's,the MQ steals the show and don't exceed 10X. You've been led to water.................. (Addendum: 6x MQ is THE answer) You retain the etched 10 Mils of ele and 5 Mils of wind,gain brightness,a leetle extry erector travel and a schit load of Utility. I'm happy with 6X wayyyyyyyyy past the 1000yd line..................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 7,988 |
Larry, I've been having the same thought process since I started this process and I may have to turn this scope into a range tester for now until I decide what direction to go. I have a little time as the barrel/action will go out for marrying in the next few weeks. For just plain range shooting like you're doing, the 10X would be fine, but for hunting in the wide open and forests of Eastern Oregon I need the versatility of a variable glass. You don't use the 10X hunting those little blacktails in the brush, do you?  The 4.5 x 14 fits my needs if not the reliability, so what do you recommend in that range that would trip my trigger. I've been looking at some of the listings in the $1K range and around like the Nightforce and a few others, but have to do some research. Have to find a better range for the 52's and 40X to stretch their legs. Then some better glass if necessary. All our coast range spots are growing over and the few left are getting more crowded every day. Wish I had the access to shooting spots you have... Anyhow, PM me your Phone # and we'll talk, It's been awhile.... besides, I'm just a couple years from retiring and need someone to steer me to some decent fishing up there.... Bob
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 490
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 490 |
So are you guys running the side focus models or just the plain jane ones? wanna go ahead and order em today and roll on with it.
|
|
|
|
|
132 members (44mc, 7887mm08, 007FJ, 7mm_Loco, 10gaugemag, 35, 12 invisible),
1,475
guests, and
791
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,599
Posts18,454,570
Members73,908
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
