Jack_L said:

100% agreed, just illustrating that from a pretty stable position, with environmental information likely already figured out, less than 25% of high level shooters can hit a 1.5 MOA target at 400 yards 10 times in a row. This is a simple practical application example.
I posted this and have a separate post opening up Benchrest / F-Class average performance and group sizes at 100 yards, but it's been taking more time that I initially thought to find good references. World records and match winners aren't really the info that best applies to this. I can say that my observation of PRS and NRL Hunter zeroing day targets, less than 1/2 of all competitors I have observed will put the first shot within 1/2" of the aiming point. Lots of variables within that, but I don't think that there are a lot of people out there that would bet $1,000 on getting a first round impact on a 1/2" target at 100 yards over multiple days. Whatever the percentage of takers, I believe that the success rate of even 1 MOA targets dips significantly with each 100 yard increase, just from the unknown wind effect.

A 0.1 MRAD error in wind is right around 0.35 MOA. Inside the gun number range, wind that shifts from 10:30 to 11:30 alone on a 6MPH gun will be almost 0.1 MRAD difference. A 3 MPH wind error will be right around 0.1 MRAD difference. The further away from the target we are, without down-range wind speed and direction data, the higher the probability of an error in speed and direction. This is all also assuming that range to target is correct.

Due to the above, I believe that focusing on gun/ammo/shooter performance at 100 yards will give a better indication of performance than anything further, and that longer ranges for working/evaluating wind and other practical skills compared to that 100 yard gun/ammo/shooter baseline performance will paint a better picture. I do not think that 1 or 0.5 MOA target cold-bore shots at anything past about 100 yards is in the same kind of performance evaluation as front-squatting 440 on demand.

Click to expand...

Samuel Whittemore said:

Based AF!!!

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

atomic41 said:

He "learned this in SERE school"! Holy crap this guy is legit. We need to get his thoughts on the ballistics surrounding Charlie Kirk's assassination.


Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

The D said:

Had an even better view this morning

View attachment 8783481

And just had a little storm roll through
View attachment 8783482

Click to expand...

nagantguy said:

Arrest made in connection to deadly Pacific Palisades Fire, sources say

A news conference is expected to give details Wednesday on an arrest in connection to the deadly Pacific Palisades fire that killed 12 people in Los Angeles.

www.foxnews.com

I think they found the person that caused so much “warming “ it was a mostly peaceful but fiery fire .

Is Arson/ domestic terrorism the same as climate change ?

Click to expand...

diggler1833 said:

I always wore a metric ton of bug spray, and then just hunted into the wind (although never purposefully for coyotes). If you don't have the open land that allows for that though, then it is a worthless idea.

Click to expand...

doubloon said:

Bazinga ... send me to the burn unit.

Yes, strategic and moral/ethical are not always in lock step.

e.g. Vietnam, Korea

Click to expand...

Jack_L said:

100% agreed, just illustrating that from a pretty stable position, with environmental information likely already figured out, less than 25% of high level shooters can hit a 1.5 MOA target at 400 yards 10 times in a row. This is a simple practical application example.
I posted this and have a separate post opening up Benchrest / F-Class average performance and group sizes at 100 yards, but it's been taking more time that I initially thought to find good references. World records and match winners aren't really the info that best applies to this. I can say that my observation of PRS and NRL Hunter zeroing day targets, less than 1/2 of all competitors I have observed will put the first shot within 1/2" of the aiming point. Lots of variables within that, but I don't think that there are a lot of people out there that would bet $1,000 on getting a first round impact on a 1/2" target at 100 yards over multiple days. Whatever the percentage of takers, I believe that the success rate of even 1 MOA targets dips significantly with each 100 yard increase, just from the unknown wind effect.

A 0.1 MRAD error in wind is right around 0.35 MOA. Inside the gun number range, wind that shifts from 10:30 to 11:30 alone on a 6MPH gun will be almost 0.1 MRAD difference. A 3 MPH wind error will be right around 0.1 MRAD difference. The further away from the target we are, without down-range wind speed and direction data, the higher the probability of an error in speed and direction. This is all also assuming that range to target is correct.

Due to the above, I believe that focusing on gun/ammo/shooter performance at 100 yards will give a better indication of performance than anything further, and that longer ranges for working/evaluating wind and other practical skills compared to that 100 yard gun/ammo/shooter baseline performance will paint a better picture. I do not think that 1 or 0.5 MOA target cold-bore shots at anything past about 100 yards is in the same kind of performance evaluation as front-squatting 440 on demand.

Click to expand...

babyguppy said:

you can't make this shit up.

An entitled passenger triggered chaos on a plane when she blocked the aisle and refused to move while others were trying to disembar​

​

The flight attendant, trying to de-escalate the conflict, suggested the woman step aside and wait for her daughter to make her way to the front.​

​

'Why they can't let her come pass?' she snapped back, as passengers jumped in once again, trying to explain that she came from the back of the plane, and it would make no sense for her daughter to cut through as well.​

Mom ignites chaos on plane as she refuses to let passengers disembark

An entitled woman has sparked fury by holding up an entire flight, claiming she was waiting for her daughter to meet her at the front of the line to get off the plane first.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Click to expand...

doubloon said:

You keep using that word.

Click to expand...

sirhrmechanic said:

Because lobbyists “are” us. And it’s a First Amendment Right to speak to and to petition the gummint as an individual or on behalf of people.

I don’t have time to go to Washington every two weeks to tell my representatives what’s on my mind.

But I can join organizations that will do it for me. Representing personal and professional interests. And when millions are in those organizations, they speak with some clout!

The problem arises when the lobbying is massively funded for issues that go against the wishes of the American people. Or go against their best interests in the pursuit of profits. Or represent an ideology that is counter to American Constitutional Republic laws (especially when it misleads its “members” with one message and its executives push another (AARP, Unions, AMA — all massively socialist and woke).

Though remember… when it comes to big business… with those profits come jobs, factories, tax revenue and economic strength as well as return for shareholders, who are also “the people.” But then it also can come with “let us pay slave wages, dump waste in rivers and it’s ok if those gas tanks explode or we get a few flipper kids for our miracle drug.”

I’m not against lobbying. It is one of the miracles of our system. I am against lobbying when it is huge money being used as a weapon against the best interests or the wishes of the vast majority of Americans. And when it buys votes. And when it is being hidden (ie all that USAID money and Green New Deal money and Covid Relief money was channeling back into one party’s coffers… and that one party was determined to fundamentally change America… by destroying it.

And this is not to say that tiny minority opinion should not be represented by lobbying. Heck, it should Especially be represented by lobbying in a republic. But when huge activist $$$ is making tiny minority opinion look like grassroots mass approval (astroturfing) it should be made clear to the American People and to our Representatives what it really is. So they can ignore it or shut it down as fraud.

That’s how transparency works. Or should work.

Sirhr

Click to expand...

Bigfatcock said:

I’m still buying physical gold. That was my one big wrong call this year. When it hit $2,500 per ounce I figured it would cut back to $2,000 and hold around that area. I had brief confirmation of that on the day Trump was sworn in and it dropped to $2,250 per ounce. I started buying again when it hit $2,700 per ounce.

My move now is to switch to fractionals because they’ll be easier to liquidate if need be in the future at most places.

My prediction is for gold to be somewhere between $6,000-$10,000 per ounce in the next decade.

If it drops back to $2,500 then I’ll just baghold and enjoy the new found purchasing power of the Dollar.

Click to expand...