Up Down?
Dangle angle? Arguing with reality?
Old guy and good equipment: a G.A. Precision rifle, Schmidt & Bender scope,
MGM target and a good laser rangefinder. PHOTOS: Heidi Smith
Back in the January 2012 issue of GUNS Magazine, there was a massive work of computations and charts and the accompanying widgets to in theory compile the data required to send a bullet down range at angles. Or, in layman’s terms, it was a buncha’ figures so you can shoot up and down and hit stuff.
I truly believe some people do the techie gig in the interest of seeing how hard they can make shooting or—better put—how to generate something so complicated it covers the fact once in awhile you simply miss the target. And if you never miss, it is because you never shoot.
Point number one, if you’re doing all the charts and cosine stuff you’re on the right track to make shooting complicated and you might just drive yourself a little nuts.
Second point, if this is about add-on parts for the rifle to improve personal field or life-saving skills A.K.A. as in combat, the time to apply these skills—if you actually learned them—is simply often not there. I have seen many people who had high-zoot equipment without the knowledge and personal skills to match. I would like to have $5 for each time I have seen a scope marked with an arrow to raise the bullet impact (when it was required) but the shooter turned the adjustment knob the wrong direction adding to the problem instead of solving it.
The great thing is none of the stuff in or on the charts, dials and widgets are any better than a simplified hold up or down if you haven’t practiced it in the field. All most of us need to decide is which system of skills we will have time to apply and will practice (like the old adage “this one is for shootin’ and this one is for fun”).
Most of the gadget and widget stuff’s practicality is arguable out to 700 yards—and even to that distance practice is required. Beyond 700 yards the light saber stuff may start to earn a seat at the table, but again not without lots of practice up down short or far.
Yeah and I know “the world’s record shot was…” Blah, blah, and it was good shooting, but it wasn’t a first-round hit.
Angle Dangle
While we’re going up down and so forth we might as well address the clown show syndrome. I recently got a picture of a guy tied by a rope hung over the side of a sheer 90-degree rock face lying head down against the rock with his bipod deployed. Will this steep angle reverse-lynching firing position need to be addressed by purchasing a “thing” for cosine spin Coriolis effects?
Will you need to load ammunition differently to address the increased speed of the projectile in the shooting straight down at 90-degree angle or will the bullet get there faster because gravity is pulling it? So the serious minded already know the angle dangle technique needs only to be addressed in that it is silly, dangerous and tactically stupid. Then again if you have never been in the military or a cop or in a fight other than getting out of the sheets in your bed, tactics or sanity aren’t important, I guess.
Find them and hit them in this world. Unless it is a bedded down deer, a shot better happen pretty quick.
Find a real target and they will not be there long. You might not have time to do the dial thing.
Reality?
I love people who argue with reality. Since we are here on data mode, with flow charts and computers, we might as well go along. I had a guy shooting a .30-06 at 200 yards. He was using 168-grain projectiles and had the gun zeroed for 100 yards.
When he fired at 200 yards the projectile struck a nominal 4″ low (all of this is pretty much correct). The problem, or the reality was the projectile struck a nominal 4″ low which he argued can’t be correct because his computer generated chart showed the projectile would only drop 2″ because it is a .30-06, shoots, flat, etc.
I agreed with him, “I know what your computer said it would do, what I am asking you is what did it really do on the target?” The student was stunned the reality of his charts and the following projectile impacts he fired were not the same—and he failed to believe it—like really failed to believe this could happen to him. After about 20 minutes of being patient, really patient, it came too this: “Trust me, look at the holes. You dialed no dope up in the scope; the bullets hit 4″ low… get over it and dial 2 MOA up the scope.
He grudgingly did, and he hit the target center.
Reality check: Because it is on a computer, a chart, a dial or widget, doesn’t make it correct and it doesn’t mean you’ll have time to do it in real life.
Sign up for the Personal Defense newsletter here:
