Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles distance of bullet path vs lasered distance to target

Wow! And I thought bullets took some time to get to the targets when I used to shoot pistol silhouette! That must seem like you could shoot and go have lunch before the bullet hit the target.
mathman- even with the rainbow trajectory of the OP's parameters I wouldn't be surprised if the total flight distance is not a lot greater than the straight line distance. No calculations involved, just SWAG.

And I am certain that if it really mattered one iota Dr. Mann, Hatcher, Whelen or some other super dude would have published a formula for such.

Mathman......

Heh, heh....I'm working with an "outside source"....."OS"...and after some starts and some stops.....got an answer.

The OS answer/solution.....has me..... I guess I am skeptical. Therefore, I also won't reveal what the OS says. At least not right now.

I don't want to taint or prejudice any future efforts by anyone.

And their method, which was presented in detail.....got lost when my computer blinked. I never got it printed out. Now I seem to be unable to make contact with my "outside source".....but I really really do want to print/record their effort.

We'll see.....and I do appreciate the interest and comments. It helps me think!!!!

FjLee in Denver, CO

Mine too lately, surely it would be easier to calculate in metric. Hah!

Would it be something like adding the midrange height, the drop after the midrange height, the correction distance needed for the wind from max windage at both ends calculated on arced tapers?

Unnamed OS, hah. Let’s just change field goals from 50 yards to 61.5 yards due to arc. How’s about we change the 22 ft 1 inch 3 point shot to 24.6 ft due to arc of the bball. Change the distance of the pitch from the mound due arc. Worthless.
Beginning to think Larry Root.

I think you could come close by imagining a straight line between the muzzle and the target. Then drop another line that goes from the highest point along the flight path to intersect the muzzle-target line at a right angle.

That would give two right triangles and by adding the hypotenuse of the two right triangles you could approximate the flight distance.

At the range you’re dealing with, those triangles are going to be very tiny slivers. So tiny as to be inconsequential.

Estimating with a circle with end points at 0, 600yds and the 3rd pt as (342,2.9) [the numbers from the above post] the arc length is 600.04 yds. or 600yds + 1.44"

Yep you be a grumpy azz hole. Throw out a I am better than you and yes I will call em like I see them. I called it a minuscule matter not worthy. And according to the last post it isn’t. Whether he is correct or not I am still not surprised as to how unimportant it really is.

You've approximated the curve with two chords. What I did was use a ballistics calculator to give me the heights at 25 yard increments calculated 24 chord lengths to sum. The lengthening added to the 600 yard straight line distance does seem very small.

I'm the guy who posted the original question. I think I omitted one parameter.

I don't know if "standard atmospheric conditions" assumes zero wind velocity.

Therefore my possible omission is that my stated problem assumes zero wind velocity.

Therefore, no "come ups" or windage "hold offs" involved in my query.

Folks, "Thank you" for the interesting responses.

I hope there are more.

FjLee Denver,CO

I assumed zero wind drift for my approximation. That way the trajectory would lie in a plane and I could easily calculate the lengths of the approximating chords.

Not worthy of my time, don’t give a damn about arbitrating the question. I had to fire up my laptop anyways so I ran the number in ballistic explorer and Infinity, graphed it out by the yard, I could see it didn’t mean squat. You and the OP both refused to say what your numbers were and all I said was I wouldn’t be surprised, why because I could see it in the graph.

As soon as I get to the other computer I'll put up what I found. It is very small.

That would have been a nice earlier addition to the conversation.

Yep. That was my intent and just trying to keep it simple for my brain. 24 data points would be more precise like shooting more shots in a group, huh? 😁

How’s about we call a truce 😁

Sounds good to me!

My estimate turns out to be a whole 1.5" extra on the 600 yards.

👍