|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1 |
You just can’t make this stuff up.
I’m still giggling.
Thank you.
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9 |
Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.
You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.
As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.
You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.
It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.
ILya
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,355
Campfire Regular
|
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,355 |
Well then, so how about that Leica ER 5 5-25x56? lol
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 315
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 315 |
Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.
You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.
As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.
You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.
It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.
ILya I've literally seen the same bulls**t deer antler post and at least 4 forums multiple times. Granted the village idiot did advocate for using a rifle scope as a spotting scope, to there is that. I'm personally not a fan of 25 power scopes, I kill [bleep] past 1k with a 3.5x18.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9 |
Well then, so how about that Leica ER 5 5-25x56? lol It is a nice low light scope, but I do not see it offered a whole lot. I do see the 3-15x56 around. As is most common with scopes of this type, I use higher power to make sense of the conditions, but do most of my longer range shooting in the 12x to 15x range. For low light, 3-15x56 will work really well. ILya
Last edited by koshkin; 04/30/18.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6 |
Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.
You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.
As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.
You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.
It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.
ILya In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong. I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results !
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,011 Likes: 11
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,011 Likes: 11 |
Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.
You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.
As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.
You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.
It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.
ILya In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong. I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results ! Higher rings does not change trajectory it just points th3 barrel more upward and make mid range higher which in turn cause bullet impact farther down range than with lower rings. It does not give the appearance of flatter trajectory.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9 |
Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.
You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.
As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.
You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.
It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.
ILya In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong. I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results !I think you just proved your village idiot moniker. Go to an online ballistic calculator, add some sight-in height and get the same result. I do not need to spend four hour at the range and waste a bunch of ammo for this since I actually understand how this works. All you are doing is tilting the barrel axis with respect to the optical axis of the scope a little more. I suspect that Barnes people understand it just fine. This kinda like arguing about arithmetic with my four year old son. ILya
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,045 Likes: 9 |
Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.
You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.
As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.
You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.
It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.
ILya In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong. I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results ! Higher rings does not change trajectory it just points th3 barrel more upward and make mid range higher which in turn cause bullet impact farther down range than with lower rings. It does not give the appearance of flatter trajectory. Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 315
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 315 |
Tilting the rifle up a little, does not change the trajectory. You can have the same exact effect by changing the sight in height if you are so inclined. Close range ballistics is a fairly well explored subject.
You shouldn't need JBM Ballistics calculator to understand that.
As for the rest of it, you endlessly repeating the same line does not make it accurate. Which is probably why I called you a village idiot way back then.
You always double down on the same idiotic argument in the nicest and most benign manner possible. And then you repeat it. Again and again.
It is not possible to have a coherent discussion by re-stating fallacies and not understanding fundamental of the subject being discussed.
ILya In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong. I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results ! Higher rings does not change trajectory it just points th3 barrel more upward and make mid range higher which in turn cause bullet impact farther down range than with lower rings. It does not give the appearance of flatter trajectory. Exactly. What, you mean it doesn't make your bullet faster or change your ballistic coefficient? Life's tough when you're dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1 |
For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot.
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6 |
In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong.
I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results! Higher rings does not change trajectory it just points th3 barrel more upward and make mid range higher which in turn cause bullet impact farther down range than with lower rings. It does not give the appearance of flatter trajectory. [/quote] Did you determine that from shooting or using JBM? Or are you guessing? I discovered from shooting, just like the tech did at Barnes, the mid-range is closer to the line of sight with the higher rings both before and after the sighted in range.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6 |
I think you just proved your village idiot moniker. Go to an online ballistic calculator, add some sight-in height and get the same result. I do not need to spend four hour at the range and waste a bunch of ammo for this since I actually understand how this works. All you are doing is tilting the barrel axis with respect to the optical axis of the scope a little more. I suspect that Barnes people understand it just fine.
This kinda like arguing about arithmetic with my four year old son.
ILya
Since, you are a professional, why did you take this thread on a wild goose chase instead of starting another thread to try to convince those who would listen how foolish I am? I sighted the rifle in at 200 yards and fired at 100 yards and 300 yards with a set of rings that were about 1/2 taller than the other rings. Then I did the same thing with the lower rings. With the higher rings the 100 yard and the 300 yard impact were closer to the line of sight than with the lower rings. Try it on JBM and post your results for all to see how foolish I am; or how foolish you are.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,011 Likes: 11
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,011 Likes: 11 |
In other words you are not going to confirm what you are posting with a little objective truth. You are the one not willing to check with JBM. For all of your followers why don't you spend the time at the range with one rifle with two very different height rings to proof whose the village idiot. You could even write a magazine article proving Barnes and me wrong.
I spent four hours at the range testing before I posted the results. It was a couple years later when Barnes posted their results in their newsletter; which matched my results! Higher rings does not change trajectory it just points th3 barrel more upward and make mid range higher which in turn cause bullet impact farther down range than with lower rings. It does not give the appearance of flatter trajectory. Did you determine that from shooting or using JBM? Or are you guessing? I discovered from shooting, just like the tech did at Barnes, the mid-range is closer to the line of sight with the higher rings both before and after the sighted in range.[/quote] Either way it is the same. You’ve got what you wrote in the quote box as if I wrote it and my quote below with your post.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6 |
You changed two of the parameters. I sighted at 200 yards you used 100 yards. Also you added "in the field". I posted nothing about "in the field". Do you thing again sighted in at 200 yards without adding "in the field." You will notice what I posted earlier is a fact.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,011 Likes: 11
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 31,011 Likes: 11 |
You changed two of the parameters. I sighted at 200 yards you used 100 yards. Also you added "in the field". I posted nothing about "in the field". Do you thing again sighted in at 200 yards without adding "in the field." You will notice what I posted earlier is a fact. Sighting where ever you want it isn’t going to hinge the trajectory , your claim is BS. Here 200 yard zero http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgihttp://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi
Last edited by jwp475; 05/01/18.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6 |
Ringman-Give it a rest already. In other words, stop digging when you are in a hole. This is so simple that it is almost hilarious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 32,130 Likes: 1 |
1.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero ![[Linked Image]](https://s19.postimg.cc/g98ci1w0j/1_F911373-90_F1-4523-_A0_E1-24_E8_A6_DE4_F4_D.jpg) 2.0” above bore; 200yrd. Zero ![[Linked Image]](https://s19.postimg.cc/fsrq9e7xv/ABB0_CFDA-_EA38-455_D-94_B2-6264_D40_F730_C.jpg) 2.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero ![[Linked Image]](https://s19.postimg.cc/giailrg77/0_D75_ADEE-906_C-4320-939_F-_A25_D2_F7_EAB07.jpg) 4.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero ![[Linked Image]](https://s19.postimg.cc/8ghoq2xr7/4_E66800_E-_FEC2-42_D1-_A8_B1-6_EC35140_ACE3.jpg) 13.5” above bore; 200yrd. Zero ![[Linked Image]](https://s19.postimg.cc/wdzcp0or7/9_A7_EBF4_D-9_FD1-47_A8-_A3_AD-_F3_F2_ED482_B9_B.jpg)
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,966 Likes: 6 |
Ringman-Give it a rest already. In other words, stop digging when you are in a hole. This is so simple that it is almost hilarious. I just put the numbers in for 1.5" and 2" scope height. The 2" scope height shows the trajectory is .2" closer to the line of sight. Check your work.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
647 members (12344mag, 10gaugemag, 1badf350, 1100mag, 160user, 02bfishn, 69 invisible),
14,796
guests, and
988
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,216
Posts18,543,718
Members74,060
| |
Most Online21,066
May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|
