"Progress" [?] report:<P>Been having enough fun playing around with QuickTARGET and other software to make this idea worth something even if it goes no further.<P>Granted, all this stuff is computer estimates so far, and field results will certainly be somewhat different, as far as precise, hard numbers are concerned. But the concept certainly shows promise for this aged prairie-dog shooter-misser. (Grade-A misser!)<P>First, I played around with hit zones of the same set height at all ranges (two inches high, four inches high). Then I wondered about the practicality and effects of using a variable-height hit zone -- (a) two inches above the line of sight (LoS) to four inches below LoS for the first range (8x or 12x Scope A) -- (b) four inches above LoS to six inches below it for the second range (24x Scope B) -- (c) six inches above LoS to eight inches below it for the third range (36x Scope C). The 8x (Leupold), 12x (Redfield), and 24x (Sightron) are loose scopes that I already have on hand. The 36x Weaver is what I'm looking at for Scope C. (Anybody wanna trade a quality fixed 12x for a new-in-the-box Leupold M8-8x?)<P>COMPUTER SEZ<BR>-- Zero 8x or 12x Scope A at 257 yards. Trajectory two inches high at 153 yards, four inches low at 330 yards<BR>-- Zero 24x Scope B at 395 yards. Trajectory four inches high at 330 yards, six inches low at 460 yards<BR>-- Zero 36x Scope C at 518 yards. Trajectory six inches high at 460 yards, eight inches low at 575 yards<P>Shots beyond 575 yards would simply require more than eight inches of hold-over with Scope C -- still worlds better than the 37 or more inches of hold-over or scope adjustment with Scope A zeroed at 257 yards! Also, holding into the wind would remain as usual-traditional with all three scopes. So what else isn't new?<P>The usually unacknowledged error in this kind of trajectory calculation is that while the theoretical trajectory is pretty much what the hard numbers say it is, the actual trajectory of each individual round is going to be somewhat different -- and these differences are correspondingly larger as the range increases. (I know YOU know that -- just letting you know I know that!) ;o<P>"mirage as a factor" � keep hearing this and been wondering why it's never bothered me. Then comes the dawn! (eventually) � I've been shooting in steady and worse breezes, with mirage being wafted off out of the way. Nice to see those *&^%$#@! winds good for something besides putting dust down your collar and stealing your hat.<P>"review of Talbot mount" � <A HREF="http://www.snipersparadise.com" TARGET=_blank>www.snipersparadise.com</A> under New Products<BR>(Sorry � under Product Reviews)<P>"3-inch target" � don't see why this would be any more of a problem with my plan than it already is, in spades, with any single scope, any zero, any range, any shooter.<P>"variables recommended" � had enough trouble with 'em to be dang near terminally leery of 'em.<P>All the other comments? Time and trials will tell. Then I'll tell � whatever the results prove to be (which of course I expect to be SOME different, somehow). Why should this plan be perfect on the drawing board?<p>[This message has been edited by Ken Howell (edited April 26, 2001).]
