Re: Rotation of the Earth?
Frank,
I don't argue your points about tactical considerations and the majority of kills being under 1000 yards. I don't argue the importance of wind uncertainty, and the fact that there is a gradient (higher wind speed aloft than on the ground). I don't argue that engaging moving targets is difficult.
All the above is off topic.
This thread is about coriolis.
Wind gradient is not deterministic, Coriolis is.
Judging the speed and direction of a moving target (not to mention anticipating its changes) is not deterministic, Coriolis is.
On average, most kills are made at ranges where coriolis won't cause a miss. That doesn't change the fact that Coriolis is present, deterministic, and can be accounted for at ELR <span style="font-style: italic">weather or not people are achieving first round kills at that range</span>.
You state facts as if they support a conclusion, but they do not. What does wind, moving targets, and operational doctrine have to do with answering an ELR enthusiasts question about coriolis effects? Nothing.
Your facts add context to the question, but the facts do not support your conclusion that 'people should ignore the finer effects because there are bigger effects'.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Brian, I ask you this, how, can a man of science ignore the events on the ground ? Are you saying my position is wrong to fix the shooter first than add in the appropriate corrections later ? If they can handle it... </div></div>
I think our biggest reason for dispute has to do with our focus. As an instructor, your focused on getting each shooter in your class hitting a higher percentage of targets, as you should be. You're dealing with the least common denominator, and there are many serious fundamental errors that need to be taught before distracting the students with the finer points. The USMC and military in general takes this approach to training, it's how it has to be. I had above average shooting and PT scores in Army basic training. The drill sergeants weren't spending their time with me so I could get max scores, they were spending their time with the whole group to elevate the collective performance of the unit, <span style="font-style: italic">which is the right way to instruct a group</span>.
Using the above as an analogy, it wouldn't make any sense for a drill sergeant to spend time teaching those who excel at running how to further develop their breathing, pace, and speed. In the same way, it wouldn't make sense for you as an instructor, with a class full of students, to spend your time with the one whiz kid teaching him coriolis when 90% of the class is still jerking the trigger and can't estimate range within +/-100% error.
I understand all about where you're coming from as an instructor, but I'll ask (with the others) that if you don't want to spend your time assisting the whiz kids with their advanced questions, please don't discourage or belittle others for providing assistance.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find it hard to believe a winning competition shooter cannot acknowledge the poor fundamentals of MOST casual shooters, which I believe go well beyond the effects you are asking people to account for. </div></div>
I agree that many shooters have weak fundamentals. But what's that have to do with our ELR enthusiasts question about coriolis? We should point out that it's a detail, but then answer the question, not insult him by assuming he's a shmuck who isn't <span style="font-style: italic">good enough</span> to think about the fine points.
Adding context is a good thing, we all need to keep things in perspective and it's important to have a priorities in order. It's another thing to overwhelm the question with context to the point where the original question is forgotten.
I'll apologize for painting you as someone motivated by selling services, that was probably unfair since you work for someone else, and it's part time, etc. However, you're still an instructor, concerned with elevating the collective performance of the group. Like my drill sergeants, you're not the best person to ask for help on advanced subjects. It's not that you can't do it or don't know it, it's just not the best use of your time as an instructor.
As for my motives, I stated that I have a ballistics book for sale. To specifically clarify your following:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Heck I remember when via PM Brian wanted cash money to explain his data prior to his book coming out. Wasn't something like $500 for the guys wanting details on SD for their particular bullet -- Brian ?</div></div>
Yes, I do also have a consulting company that focuses on external ballistics. Then, as now, if someone wants a 6-DOF model built, and certain simulations run to answer specific questions they have, this is a service I can and will provide for a fee.
By developing the SD equation (which is an approximation) and publishing it in my book, I've satisfied many of my potential customers who might otherwise pay for the analysis. Of course publishing the material helps sell books, so ...
As I stated in my first post, I do sell my book (and consulting services) which deal with ballistics. People should consider that when they think about what I say on the subject. Frank, you are a marksmanship instructor and people should consider that when they think about what you say on the subject. Again, it's critical thinking 101.
It's interesting that neither one of us can point a finger at anything the other is saying as being wrong, but we appear to be in conflict. I think the conflict arises from the fact that we're coming from different places. You're the trained tactical shooter turned trainer, I'm the scientist. Again, people should consider that when asking questions. If it's a tactical question like how to range with a mil-dot reticle or engaging moving targets, I would expect readers to regard your reply with more authority than mine. However if the question is about coriolis or spin drift, that's a science question and I would expect my reply to be considered. Of course we can add context to each others information, but let's not hose it so bad that the productive Q&A dialog is lost.
-Bryan