Ballistic Subject Matter Expert needed

#51
MCHOG said:
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?

Absent a hardware problem, if someone can't get on paper and dialed in within a reasonable amount of time (let's say, whatever amount time it takes to unbox your system, read its manual, set it up, and figure it out), then they probably shouldn't be at the range without someone who knows what they are doing. And if that incompetent shooter can't do it the traditional way, what makes you think they can do it when they add the complications of your system to it?

Getting sighted in just doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone I know or have heard of.
Click to expand...
The goodness is not that it is just a boresight system. It is a predictive system. Any system that predicts has to have a point of departure, and for this system, it is the rifle chamber. Once you have boresight, you can add the factors that affect a trajectory and build a zero.

Thank you for the feedback!
 
#52
If this was priced low enough I’d be interested just for the potential time savings and ability to get a rifle not too far off without ever hitting the range. Especially if you were building rifles for customers it would be nice to get 2 or 3 rifles close before ever hitting the range and then getting the final zero in one range trip all that much quicker. The trick would be that it would have to be fairly inexpensive. With the price of technology decreasing as much as it is, that goal might not be that far fetched. If this was something I could buy for $100, I’d pick one up, but if this was priced at like $800 or more it would not be anywhere near valuable enough to me to be able to justify such an expense. Basically if this was priced in the ballpark of existing analog bore sighting devices, it could be a winner, just not something that I see as a product that would make anyone rich. I’m not suggesting that this is some get rich quick scheme or anything like that, just expressing my opinion. Either way, good luck.
 
#53
Understand. Two price points are available: ZV Lite, priced under $100, and ZV Pro, priced under $300. Analog boresight, whether optical or laser, has nowhere to go in terms of innovation. ZV is digital and resides on the phone, backed up to the cloud. ZV Lite will boresight, record zero, and recall zero for verification, and ZV Pro does this, in addition to building a predictive zero.
 
#54
zeroverfied said:
Understand. Two price points are available: ZV Lite, priced under $100, and ZV Pro, priced under $300. Analog boresight, whether optical or laser, has nowhere to go in terms of innovation. ZV is digital and resides on the phone, backed up to the cloud. ZV Lite will boresight, record zero, and recall zero for verification, and ZV Pro does this, in addition to building a predictive zero.
Click to expand...
I’d definitely be interested in looking closer at those price points. Honestly, I think the ZV lite would do everything I would want and isn’t crazy different in price from an analog bore sighting tool. I truly wish you luck and hope you’re able to make it to market soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#55
zeroverfied said:
My goal is for all military personnel
to have a predicted zero before going to the range.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck!

The average grunt can and will completely screw it up, and they'll be back at the "shoot then adjust" method pretty quick.

This does seem like something more along the lines of artillery. There's just no need for it with the amount of ammo at a soldiers disposal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#56
JCS 4052 said:
If this was priced low enough I’d be interested just for the potential time savings and ability to get a rifle not too far off without ever hitting the range. Especially if you were building rifles for customers it would be nice to get 2 or 3 rifles close before ever hitting the range and then getting the final zero in one range trip all that much quicker. The trick would be that it would have to be fairly inexpensive. With the price of technology decreasing as much as it is, that goal might not be that far fetched. If this was something I could buy for $100, I’d pick one up, but if this was priced at like $800 or more it would not be anywhere near valuable enough to me to be able to justify such an expense. Basically if this was priced in the ballpark of existing analog bore sighting devices, it could be a winner, just not something that I see as a product that would make anyone rich. I’m not suggesting that this is some get rich quick scheme or anything like that, just expressing my opinion. Either way, good luck.
Click to expand...

My local gun shop uses a $50 laser every time they mount a scope. It puts people on paper at 100 every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#57
Matches Malone said:
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.

If someone’s wrong, the forum has a way of course correcting that info. If you have a question, you might as well just ask here.
Click to expand...
You are right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matches Malone
#58
zeroverfied said:
The goodness is not that it is just a boresight system. It is a predictive system. Any system that predicts has to have a point of departure, and for this system, it is the rifle chamber. Once you have boresight, you can add the factors that affect a trajectory and build a zero.

Thank you for the feedback!
Click to expand...

I’ve been shooting my whole life at a fairly high level and have not a clue on earth what you’re talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCHOG and zeroverfied
#61
Ok, understand. When I bore sight, and then shoot, there is a difference, and I adjust my turrets to get to the center of he target, and I am zeroed. At this point, I have accounted for all errors that contributed to my being off after I boresighted. So I am looking for all those errors that caused me to be off.
 
#62
zeroverfied said:
Ok, understand. When I bore sight, and then shoot, there is a difference, and I adjust my turrets to get to the center of he target, and I am zeroed. At this point, I have accounted for all errors that contributed to my being off after I boresighted. So I am looking for all those errors that caused me to be off.
Click to expand...

I feel like I’m talking to a ChatGPT or an Indian scammer. That just sounds like boresighting…
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCHOG
#63
It's a chat-script, aka "AI" bot. Probably harvesting ideas for the owner. The more you give it info, the more it learns. If you say it has GREAT civilian applications and sounds like a great product, potentially could sell for $500 per unit, I'd buy 3 instantly ! You are helping its metrics. Or messing with it.

However reinforce a negative point about it not being compatible with iron sights or pistols. If there was a pistol or handgun version, that would be preferred.
 
#64
Nope, just an Artillery guy with time on his hands. If I can break down all those factors and isolate each one, finding how they affected the round as it goes down range, then I can replace the old one with new ones for a new predicted zero.
 
#65
iceng said:
It's a chat-script, aka "AI" bot. Probably harvesting ideas for the owner. The more you give it info, the more it learns. If you say it has GREAT civilian applications and sounds like a great product, potentially could sell for $500 per unit, I'd buy 3 instantly ! You are helping its metrics. Or messing with it.

However reinforce a negative point about it not being compatible with iron sights or pistols. If there was a pistol or handgun version, that would be preferred.
Click to expand...
Nope, it does have great civilian applications for the right segment of the market. I mentioned earlier that the two versions would be available: one for less than $100, which can perform boresight, record zero, and, if needed, indicate if you are still zerod; and the other, which can predict zero, will cost less than $300.
 
#66
zeroverfied said:
Nope, just an Artillery guy with time on his hands.
Click to expand...
While I applaud your efforts and I hope your end goal happens but, you have to realize many in this responding crowd are set in their ways, and the FNG's don't even know what questions to ask.
I like very basic tried & true methods that can't be screwed up by a GI. If/when you pass that test you've done something. Now if this is something that talks to the sights via the bore and proves to be a one & done trigger/rope pull for even the newest of the FNG's, that mouse trap will sell like hot cakes.
 
#67
Gunfighter14e2 said:
While I applaud your efforts and I hope your end goal happens but, you have to realize many in this responding crowd are set in their ways, and the FNG's don't even know what questions to ask.
I like very basic tried & true methods that can't be screwed up by a GI. If/when you pass that test you've done something. Now if this is something that talks to the sights via the bore and proves to be a one & done trigger/rope pull for even the newest of the FNG's, that mouse trap will sell like hot cakes.
Click to expand...
Understand, thank you. I am going to follow Terry's advice and just continue an old thread on the same subject
 
Last edited:
#69
Sorry, not a bot. 34 years as an Artilleryman, Manual Gunnery, J5 Plans Officer, TF Pladin CIED supporting 10 MD, 82 AB, Bagram 2009-2010, paying honors for all who sacrificed, when the big voice called at Bagram.
 
Last edited:
#70
chevy_man said:
My local gun shop uses a $50 laser every time they mount a scope. It puts people on paper at 100 every time.
Click to expand...
That’s why I’d be ok spending $100 on what’s being proposed here. It’s not a crazy amount more money and would appear to have some increase in functionality, so it would be worth a shot. A $100 price tag puts it in relatively the same price range as a $50 laser, so I think it could be a viable option, especially since I don’t have one of those $50 lasers yet. I think the problem here might be letting perfect be the enemy of good. If the company takes too much time getting this to market they may miss their opportunity to maximize their profits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#71
So the question is basically, "Why doesn't my bullet's exit vector match the centerline of the bore?" ?

Some combination of, but not limited to, the following:
- In-bore tilt of the projectile
- eccentric mass of the projectile
- non-uniform twist of the rifling
- non- uniform cross section of the bore
- bore/O.D. concentricity errors
- recoil effects on the shooter (forces and moments of recoil)
- muzzle exit gas flow
- muzzle exit yaw and yaw rate (kinda the result of other things in the list)
- center of rotation and center of form disparity


The Army has a range that has test equipment that can measure barrel movement (position and angle) during the firing event, and they can estimate aerodynamic responses of the projectile with math that makes my head hurt, but even when you plug all of that math in, it doesn't necessarily accurately predict where the bullet goes. We know what forces and effects can cause those deviations, but on a shot-by-shot basis, nobody really knows exactly why any one shot goes where it goes, other than to say some combination of the factors (and like I said, probably others I didn't list) above. So... good luck getting a direct answer :)

I've seen two lots of the same SKU match bullets shoot the better part of 1MOA different POI. Externally as identical as I was able to measure. Both lots shot well for dispersion, just in different places. No real good answer as to why that happened, just guesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schütze and Terry Cross
#72
Ledzep said:
So the question is basically, "Why doesn't my bullet's exit vector match the centerline of the bore?" ?

Some combination of, but not limited to, the following:
- In-bore tilt of the projectile
- eccentric mass of the projectile
- non-uniform twist of the rifling
- non- uniform cross section of the bore
- bore/O.D. concentricity errors
- recoil effects on the shooter (forces and moments of recoil)
- muzzle exit gas flow
- muzzle exit yaw and yaw rate (kinda the result of other things in the list)
- center of rotation and center of form disparity


The Army has a range that has test equipment that can measure barrel movement (position and angle) during the firing event, and they can estimate aerodynamic responses of the projectile with math that makes my head hurt, but even when you plug all of that math in, it doesn't necessarily accurately predict where the bullet goes. We know what forces and effects can cause those deviations, but on a shot-by-shot basis, nobody really knows exactly why any one shot goes where it goes, other than to say some combination of the factors (and like I said, probably others I didn't list) above. So... good luck getting a direct answer :)

I've seen two lots of the same SKU match bullets shoot the better part of 1MOA different POI. Externally as identical as I was able to measure. Both lots shot well for dispersion, just in different places. No real good answer as to why that happened, just guesses.
Click to expand...
Just had a great discussion with a gunsmith, precision barrel type, convinced me that chamber insert is good, barrel insert is better from the muzzle, last 2 to 4 inches. The prediction is more for the BRM shooter in basic that fires in a 4 cm circle and is zeroed. Given 18 rounds to do. I remember mechanical zero, and on the range, with ZV, they can be shown how to build a predicted zero.
 
#73
zeroverfied said:
Just had a great discussion with a gunsmith, precision barrel type, convinced me that chamber insert is good, barrel insert is better from the muzzle, last 2 to 4 inches. The prediction is more for the BRM shooter in basic that fires in a 4 cm circle and is zeroed. Given 18 rounds to do. I remember mechanical zero, and on the range, with ZV, they can be shown how to build a predicted zero.
Click to expand...
FYI I believe @Ledzep is literally a bullet engineer for Hornady. You should listen to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#75
My thoughts. Consider that ZV, once the Army picks this up (fingers crossed), makes Soldiers more lethal by reducing MOA from 6 to 3.5 and extending their range to a minimum of 500 meters instead of the standard 300 meters used on the qualification ranges. Then, because of working up a predicted zero based on boresight, Soldiers would gain knowledge on ballistics and could apply those skills as they work up their zero prior to going to the range. So, instead of using innovation to compensate for knowledge, like the XM157 scope on new weapon systems, ZV lends itself to training, instruction, and learning ballistics.
 
#76
zeroverfied said:
My thoughts. Consider that ZV, once the Army picks this up (fingers crossed), makes Soldiers more lethal by reducing MOA from 6 to 3.5 and extending their range to a minimum of 500 meters instead of the standard 300 meters used on the qualification ranges. Then, because of working up a predicted zero based on boresight, Soldiers would gain knowledge on ballistics and could apply those skills as they work up their zero prior to going to the range. So, instead of using innovation to compensate for knowledge, like the XM157 scope on new weapon systems, ZV lends itself to training, instruction, and learning ballistics.
Click to expand...
I’m not even sure why I’m bothering to ask, because this is getting laughable but…. How are you going to reduce their “moa” from 6 to 3.5? And where is the data to back that up?

Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#78
Hey Csafisher, let's laugh together. This may take a couple of messages. Here we go.

Shooting Level and Typical MOA at 100 Meters​

Shooter LevelTypical MOAWhat This Means
Trainee (Beginner)6–12 MOANew shooters. Groups are wider and less accurate.
Qualified Soldier4–6 MOACan hit targets well. Groups about 4–6 inches wide.
Sharpshooter2–4 MOAMore accurate. Tighter groups on target.
Expert1–2 MOAVery skilled. Tiny groups, close to bullseye.

👉 At 100 meters, 1 MOA ≈ 1 inch, so 6 MOA = 6-inch group on target.

📝 References:​

  1. TC 3-22.9 – Rifle and Carbine (U.S. Army)
    • U.S. Army Marksmanship Manual
    • Shows grouping drills and targets for different skill levels
    • TC 3-22.9 PDF (Army) – See pages 6-3 to 6-8
  2. MCRP 3-01A – Rifle Marksmanship (U.S. Marine Corps)
    • Explains qualification levels (Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert)
    • Qualification zones are about 4–12 inches, depending on distance and rank
    • MCRP 3-01A PDF (USMC) – See pages 3-4 to 3-8
  3. Silva, S. C. (1995). The Effects of Rifle Marksmanship Training on Shooting Performance
    • Army Research Institute Report
    • Found that better training = smaller MOA and better scores
    • DTIC Report ADA294799
 
#79
Next, Zero-Verify is not for everyone. If you are comfortable with your boresight and zero process, please continue, as there is no reason to change. This process is designed for both new and experienced shooters who are capable of using a phone and sensors. Information about boresight and zero has always been siloed, meaning once you are done, it goes nowhere except to support DOPE. With this new concept, boresight is established, much like looking through the barrel, except that the sensors locate the centerline of the bore and aim at the target, similar to the old method. The line of sight is located by the sensor, much like your eye on a scope, as you move the cross hairs to the target. Now, this new concept is based on math that some people thought they would never use, so this is hard to imagine in the mind at a more mature age, and I get that. So, if you visit my website, you can find pictures that may be helpful.
 
#80
Now, we have a boresight that’s determined by sensors built to the same tolerances as the manufactured ammunition that fits in your chamber. These sensors can detect deviations as small as 0.0003 inches from the bore’s true centerline and automatically apply a correction for that tiny error. The system records that correction and compares it to the next time it's used. Over time, it learns more about the characteristics of your specific chamber. In addition to the chamber-based sensor, the system includes sensors located in both the scope cap and at the end of the barrel, all of which work together. Each component gathers data, learns, and improves its accuracy every time you use it.
 
#83
Recruits in Basic training, through basic rifle marksmanship, are trained in nomenclature, functions, and maintenance of their assigned weapon. Then, move to dry firing and bore sighting; these tasks can be modified to include additional tasks, conditions, and standards with Zero-Verify (ZV). The boresight determined then serves as the anchor point for all data that affects the trajectory of the round. The dry firing is recorded by another system that operates based on the steady hold factors and provides feedback, much like a coach. From this data, you can determine the shooter’s ability and even show the user how he is improving. So, take boresight and add the shooter’s ability and the predicted zero moves closer to the aimpoint.
 
#84
Recruits in Basic training, through basic rifle marksmanship, are trained in nomenclature, functions, and maintenance of their assigned weapon. Then, move to dry firing and bore sighting; these tasks can be modified to include additional tasks, conditions, and standards with Zero-Verify (ZV). The boresight determined then serves as the anchor point for all data that affects the trajectory of the round. The dry firing is recorded by another system that operates based on the steady hold factors and provides feedback, much like a coach. From this data, you can determine the shooter’s ability and even show the user how he is improving. So, take the boresight and add the shooter’s ability; the predicted zero moves closer to the aimpoint. There are certain data points that are given, for example, the make, model of the rifle and scope, caliber, weight, and ballistic coefficient of the projectile, the weather at the basic training location, and muzzle velocity that can be determined and recorded for each weapon based on large like quantities (lots) of ammunition. Using dry firing and bore sight, the predicted zero is established based on the shooter's ability, the weather conditions, the weapon's performance, and the ammunition. As each factor is added, the user can see the predicted zero move closer to the aim point. The user already has a feel on what his group would look like before firing on the range.
 
Last edited:
#88
zeroverfied said:
Now, we have a boresight that’s determined by sensors built to the same tolerances as the manufactured ammunition that fits in your chamber. These sensors can detect deviations as small as 0.0003 inches from the bore’s true centerline and automatically apply a correction for that tiny error. The system records that correction and compares it to the next time it's used. Over time, it learns more about the characteristics of your specific chamber. In addition to the chamber-based sensor, the system includes sensors located in both the scope cap and at the end of the barrel, all of which work together. Each component gathers data, learns, and improves its accuracy every time you use it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever shot a gun before???

Is this just master level rage baiting??
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#89
Maurygold said:
Have you ever shot a gun before???

Is this just master level rage baiting??
Click to expand...
Hey Maurygold, I love ballistics and own two Armalites. One is a SASS, and the other is a heavy-barrel version, both in .308. The purpose of this thread is to discuss and learn. One member suggested that I use the entire forum for questions, which I think is a great approach. But isn't asking me if I ever shot a gun before a form of trolling and discounting what I have written and the patents that I own on marksmanship?
 
Last edited:
#90
zeroverfied said:
Hey Maurygold, I love ballistics and own two Armalites. One is a SASS, and the other is a heavy-barrel version. Both in 308.
Click to expand...

I’m certain you have a tenuous grasp on rifle marksmanship, interior and exterior ballistics and just general operation of a firearm.

None of this make sense from a theoretical or practical standpoint point.

I can only hope you’ve sunk a bunch of your own money into the half cocked design, website and animation so you won’t do something like this again.
 
#91
Maurygold said:
I’m certain you have a tenuous grasp on rifle marksmanship, interior and exterior ballistics and just general operation of a firearm.

None of this make sense from a theoretical or practical standpoint point.

I can only hope you’ve sunk a bunch of your own money into the half cocked design, website and animation so you won’t do something like this again.
Click to expand...
Please explain why it makes no sense. I explain as much as I can, and would appreciate the same.
 
#92
zeroverfied said:
Please explain why it makes no sense. I explain as much as I can, and would appreciate the same.
Click to expand...

This has been an entire thread of people explaining that to you. Your inability to grasp that combined with empty buzzword babble of responses is what makes us think you have no idea how a firearm works.

You should keep investing investing heavily into this though - you probably know more than all of us.
 
#93
zeroverfied said:
Hey Csafisher, let's laugh together. This may take a couple of messages. Here we go.

Shooting Level and Typical MOA at 100 Meters​

Shooter LevelTypical MOAWhat This Means
Trainee (Beginner)6–12 MOANew shooters. Groups are wider and less accurate.
Qualified Soldier4–6 MOACan hit targets well. Groups about 4–6 inches wide.
Sharpshooter2–4 MOAMore accurate. Tighter groups on target.
Expert1–2 MOAVery skilled. Tiny groups, close to bullseye.

👉 At 100 meters, 1 MOA ≈ 1 inch, so 6 MOA = 6-inch group on target.

📝 References:​

  1. TC 3-22.9 – Rifle and Carbine (U.S. Army)
    • U.S. Army Marksmanship Manual
    • Shows grouping drills and targets for different skill levels
    • TC 3-22.9 PDF (Army) – See pages 6-3 to 6-8
  2. MCRP 3-01A – Rifle Marksmanship (U.S. Marine Corps)
    • Explains qualification levels (Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert)
    • Qualification zones are about 4–12 inches, depending on distance and rank
    • MCRP 3-01A PDF (USMC) – See pages 3-4 to 3-8
  3. Silva, S. C. (1995). The Effects of Rifle Marksmanship Training on Shooting Performance
    • Army Research Institute Report
    • Found that better training = smaller MOA and better scores
    • DTIC Report ADA294799
Click to expand...
If that is present day quals its changed a lot from my first day on one of uncles M14 Train Fire courses. A 4 moa shooter was a bolo, and just to get a BSZ required less than a 1.5 moa group with irons. The permanent record course was all popups from 25 to 500 yds, and you had to find it an kill it within a few seconds.

Out of 65 targets total, IIRC it was 28-39 marksman, 40-55 sharpshooter, 56-65 Expert, w/all Bolo's recycled. You were also using all positions from F/H supported, to patrol off hand.
Has uncle got that bad at teaching or is it the quality of warm body's just to fill a slot? Hell, my grandson was but 14 the first time he went to HardRock. He then shot a 2 1/4 moa group at 1K yds, w/my 300wm his very first time at that distance in the wind w/o any help at all, and I am no instructor at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#94
I only know what I know, no more than anyone else. I have gotten feedback from those who think this is a great concept.

To me, one or two sentences does not explain what you mean only your position, and that is the typical response from different members. Show me, "None of this make sense from a theoretical or practical standpoint point." Show me " I can only hope you’ve sunk a bunch of your own money into the half cocked design, website and animation so you won’t do something like this again." Show me " This is more useless than the “not a hot dog” app" .

All this shows is folks who don't agree, and I expected that. I also thought I would get better feedback and their reasoning on why my concept is not that good, not just buzzword babble and chatbot, as shown above.

Show me why, what publication, article, research, or experience demonstrates that this technique in managing trajectory errors is flawed.
 
#95
Gunfighter14e2 said:
If that is present day quals its changed a lot from my first day on one of uncles M14 Train Fire courses. A 4 moa shooter was a bolo, and just to get a BSZ required less than a 1.5 moa group with irons. The permanent record course was all popups from 25 to 500 yds, and you had to find it an kill it within a few seconds.

Out of 65 targets total, IIRC it was 28-39 marksman, 40-55 sharpshooter, 56-65 Expert, w/all Bolo's recycled. You were also using all positions from F/H supported, to patrol off hand.
Has uncle got that bad at teaching or is it the quality of warm body's just to fill a slot? Hell, my grandson was but 14 the first time he went to HardRock. He then shot a 2 1/4 moa group at 1K yds, w/my 300wm his very first time at that distance in the wind w/o any help at all, and I am no instructor at all.
Click to expand...
I think it is both of the reasons you mention and the dispersion of the rifles that are being accepted. Here is an article and ARM-FY20-4 from the Army Reserve Marksman that comment on that

 

Attachments

  • ARM_FY20-4.pdf
    4.6 MB · Views: 2
#97
zeroverfied said:
Click to expand...
Laughing, I'm guessing people are willing to except that as fact,... I'm not. You can have the best gear on this rock but if you,... Don't Teach Marksmanship,... on a level the student can absorb, it matters little the quality of the tool/s. The max range of any weapon is no better than those who were supposedly taught to use it. Shitty teaching = Shitty marksmanship, pure & simple. Sounds to me like someone has been pushing numbers & people thru courses to look good on paper. Remember this is the same military that shoved M16's into GI's hands, with no training before going past the wire, that is documented fact. Plus it (16) never need cleaning, thank fucking LBJ & Robert Mcnamara for that B/S shit.

Its interesting the basic load for a M14 was but 100 rds, while the M16 as 200,(yes we carried much more) that alone is a clue to some. What was the basic load for the 1903 & M1? See a pattern here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#98
iceng said:
sounds like a great product, potentially could sell for $500 per unit, I'd buy 3
Click to expand...

Anyone who has ever developed and brought products to market knows, there is a HUGE difference between folks who will say “If you make it, I’ll buy 3”” and folks actually putting it in their shopping cart and pulling out their wallet. 💴

It shocks me how many “business folks” on the internet find this out the hard way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeroverfied
#99
Holliday said:
Anyone who has ever developed and brought products to market knows, there is a HUGE difference between folks who will say “If you make it, I’ll buy 3”” and folks actually putting it in their shopping cart and pulling out their wallet. 💴

It shocks me how many “business folks” on the internet find this out the hard way.
Click to expand...
I agree, the market is analog and the product is digital, but it's hard to accept change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Need Some Ballistics App Advice
Replies
4
Views
408
Paulyester
P
skyewalker
Precision Rifle Gear Tango Innovations FIRE4000 WMLRF Initial Impressions
Replies
330
Views
21K
Bluedog82
Bluedog82
Garmin
Garmin Tactix 8 Smartwatch
Replies
45
Views
4K
Garmin
Garmin
gr8fuldoug
Optics Revic 10x42 Rangefinder Binocular
Replies
0
Views
438
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Revic 10x42 Rangefinder Binocular
Replies
0
Views
168
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts