You might as well use the whole forum. It’s free. And there are many of use who by a courts standards ( which isn’t much of a standard) could easily be seen as SME. All with varying degrees of knowledge, experience and so forth.
I think the importance of all this is a sounding board and not developing anything in a vacuum.
Still, this may be a decent proving ground.
I definitely didn't mean the comment as a knock against your ideas and approach.
I mean, there’s better ways than looking through the bore.
I guess it depends on your comfort zone and methods.
We need to get something out of the way early on in this thread. . . . .
Just make sure its so fool proof the FDC, can't screw it up,...
Just make sure its so fool proof the FDC, can't screw it up,... I like that!!!!
well you have alluded to boresighting and collimators. If I had to guess, you would want to to use laser, sensors that talks with AI to get an alignment relative to the bore.
I’m sure you’ve seen the MBD kits and solution boards for the Abrams tanks? Kinda primitive in function, but saves live rounds down range
The system would determine the line of bore based on the SAMMI dimension of the chamber. The camber insert, through AI and ML, would learn how far it is off-center and compensate for the variation, using the true center of the bore. It does not need a laser; the laser method is outdated. It has reached its maturity in the product life cycle; you can't make it any better, greener, redder, bigger, or smaller, not better. Another sensor that attaches to the scope determines the line of sight and knows the diameter of the scope tube, as well as the location of the crosshairs, based on the scope's make and model. At this point, the line of sight and the line of bore are running parallel. The app determines the actual scope height from the line of sight to the line of bore. Give the app your distance to the target, and it can display the intersection of the line of sight on the line of bore by showing a dot on the app's screen on your phone. The attachment to the scope displays your crosshairs, and now you can move them with the turrets to the intersecting point shown on the phone's display as a dot.
Yes, and they use the latest in simulators to train and ballistic sensors to hit.
Let me clarify this: If everything you're mentioning costs $5, then what is the total cost of all the equipment involved in your method? Does that mean your time spent at the range is valued at nothing? Is your gas free? Was your chronograph given to you, and is the energy it uses also free? Let's be honest about the costs.
? is your product going to pay for my electricity, drive me to the range, experience me at the range? Are you going to buy my next chrono?
The point is that everything has a cost, and arguing about what we disagree on is pointless.
It sounds like you are anchoring your origin or first known position at the chamber.
That’s a horrible point.
I hear you, when you fire after boresight, whatever variables are present will be accounted for in your zero. There are going to be variables even in the intersection of the line of sight and the line of bore. Running a simulation with Solidworks (CAD) we found that the lines do not intersect at the distance to the target because of the pixel size on the screen. It was a tiny error, but an error still that has to be noted, even when accounted for in the zero.
Nope, just a deaf old artilleryman, and you are right, don't want to change how folks do what they do, just sayin there is a different way.
I did not know about much of this stuff, Terry. Thanks for sharing!
I'm referring to the entire system marketed by the website you linked to. Your system appears to be an unnecessarily technical, complicated, and expensive method of sighting in a rifle. And for what? I am aware of no competent marksman who can't get zeroed in a few minutes for price of a handful of rounds. And since your system still requires confirmation by shooting a few rounds, what benefit does it bring for the price?
