• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rotation of the Earth?

Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Current ROE in Afghanistan for the most part have taken that air strike out of your hands. Now what do you do?</div></div>

Move closer, an set your next over watch in a better location. Time was Arty and T/A was not up 24/7 but the task was still completed. Tools will never stop a properly trained set of boots, as he will just move closer, flank you, or wait for your mistake. Stand off is nice but, it's not the be all, end all.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I'm noone of any consequence, but I feel that shooting-be it 10m air rifle or 1500m big rifle is all a mix of science and art.
For maximum effect, both need to be balanced. It is possible to get wrapped around the axle on minutae that barely manifests as a discrepency downrange, but its also foolish to not eliminate variables wherever practically possible.
If paying attention to CE gets a 8" closer shot at 1500 as BL's example illustrates, that gives a shooter more leeway at blowing the max ord wind guess (not much, but a little). I can also respect that measurement is equated in a vacuum where there is no live shooter. Ballistics pure and simple cannot be argued with, but as long as the weapon is a man portable rig fired manually you have to decide what gets lost in the noise produced by the only unpredictable variable in the equation-the trigger presser (or squeezer, or puller, or slapper, or yanker). In the 1500 example, I know if every other variable (envirinmemtal and mechanical) were eliminated I could still produce more error than 8" just by imperfect application of the trigger squeeze.
Its like stacking tolerances in machining a good rifle-a half a thou here or there may not affect performance, but a half a thou here AND there, AND somewhere else may now be a problem.

As with most endeavors in life, attention to balance will affect the outcome.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While Frank is flapping his wings and declaring what is and isn't possible with a rifle. men in the field are making ELR shots happen.
</div></div>

With regard to your line of reasoning Frank, I do find it odd that on a website called Sniper's Hide, you seem to have taken the position that long range sniping is not a viable skill. Real world evidence <span style="font-style: italic">would </span>seem to point in a different direction. Those I've talked to have echoed your sentiments for the 50 BMG. It is primarily a hard target weapon. But the 300WM and 338LM both have capabilities well past their MER, and are and will continue to be used at ELR because at times that is all that is available. Current ROE in Afghanistan for the most part have taken that air strike out of your hands. Now what do you do?


John</div></div>

As an FYI,

We get to see AARs from the Sniper Cells we work with, I have one here, in fact I believe there is a book being written about this particular deployment because the gentlemen set a record for a single deployment, he was a student on more than one occasions and preferred the Mk13 300WM. His longest shot during this record breaking deployment -- just over 800m, his closest 35m.

I work with a lot of guys using the 338LM and 300wm, trust I am well aware of what they are doing and how they are doing it. I won't compromise that anymore but out of more than 30 sniper shots the average is 400m.

Just prior to 2009, most deploying triggers were happy to use the Mk12 more than the Mk13 if that tells you anything. The randoms hits at distance you hear about are exactly like I said, a beer bet by most, nothing more.

if they see a group of guys 2500m away and don't have Supporting Arms for it, they are certainly not always gonna pick a fight with a bolt action rifle in hopes of hitting 1 guy and stirring up a hornet's nest. Hell half the time you can't identify the target at that distance, and certainly, Intel is more important in some cases than popping rounds off in hopes of getting lucky. I promise you this, if they find out which grid Osama Bin Laden is, it's won't be a single well placed shot from 2000m that solves that problem, but a barrage from several Predators.

Besides where do you think they are practicing to hit a moving target at 2000m, because everyone, including Brian continues to ignore that fact of tactical life.

I understand with the adoption of the 338LM they will be going to a 1500m qualification, but honestly, Sniper school fails 50% with a 1000 yard one, so that should tell you something. Training is key and most dont' have as much as they should and is why the better the unit the further from the military they look to learn.

But that might sound like a sales pitch to some... or maybe I should take a picture of my bedside, because Brian's book is there among a lot of other reference material.

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 ?
 
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
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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></div>

Instead of a point by point breakdown, I'll just copy this line and beg out of your science class. Forget I even made point of suggesting all the best science in the world can't resolve poor fundamentals, well just let everyone continue to dismiss the caveats, thinking that simply dialing an MOA here or there is all they need solve the problem.

Musing, I find it strange that even inside 1000 yards, more targets aren't consistently hit, because it sounds like it only takes a few numbers, which are easily determined and readily available to puts rounds on target.

Cheers, you guys have at it.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Oh, and Brian, just to give you an insight as to where our conflict comes from... using your numbers for Coriolis posted above for the 338LM. I think while the numbers are deterministic as you put it, the difference between shooting North & South and East & West is a 1/3 of an MOA or 1/10th of a Mil at 1000 yards. Essentially the thickness of the crosshairs for most.

I feel that while deterministic you have to ask yourself is it worth it, because I don't know anyone holding 3" at 1000 yards who needs to worry about it. In your particular sport you get sighters, so does it really matter, and in the field, well I think you get where i am coming from.

Also, we are not teaching to line units in most cases, so we are not dealing with lowest common denominators but rather many higher tier groups. So your misrepresenting our focus, as well, it's safe to say, you don't know what level of training we are offering.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Forget I even made point of suggesting all the best science in the world can't resolve poor fundamentals, well just let everyone continue to dismiss the caveats, thinking that simply dialing an MOA here or there is all they need solve the problem. </div></div>

No one's saying we should forget about marksmanship fundamentals. Naturally the 'advanced' stuff comes after the 'basic' stuff.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, and Brian, just to give you an insight as to where our conflict comes from... using your numbers for Coriolis posted above for the 338LM. I think while the numbers are deterministic as you put it, the difference between shooting North & South and East & West is a 1/3 of an MOA or 1/10th of a Mil at 1000 yards. Essentially the thickness of the crosshairs for most.</div></div>

Point taken. But this is the 'Beyond 1000 yards' forum. Good optics will have crosshairs less than 1/2 MOA thick (8" at 1500 yards).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, we are not teaching to line units in most cases, so we are not dealing with lowest common denominators but rather many higher tier groups</div></div>

Do they use levels on their scopes? This is a loaded question because I know some individuals in the 'higher tier' groups and know that they do use levels. Not everything I know about tactical shooting is from SH. If no-one in your class has ever showed up with a scope level, then I agree that no-one in your class should ever worry about coreolis. It's a guessing game of getting your reticle level. But I know for a fact that the 'best-of-the-best' do use levels.

-Bryan
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

LL - OK, now understand your point, thanks to the recent clairification to Mr. Litz!

Personally I do not care who is selling what! Training is training & it is all good IMO! The only thing that matters is that shooters can walk away learning something to improve their craft in this area. I have heard nothing but good feedback regarding the level of training at R/O, so in my mind there are no questions to be asked, or answered in this area. Every journey begins with a first step, usually at the beginning (fundamentals) to eventually get to one's desired destination (advanced). With that said, I agree with what I am hearing.

Mr. Litz - Thank you for your contributions!! Your Book is highly regarded work product IMO!! I have been using the calculations you presented on a scientific calculator because I personally am not good at taking anyone's word as gospel until I prove it to myself... secondly, I do not care for the total dependence of one means to determine SD+CD in the event my PDA should go down - Redundancy is paramount in field shooting!!

I have found the calculations to be spot on at the ranges I typically shoot at, well within the accuracy of my scope rifle combination. If more people would adopt your general idea's presented in your book, & trust it, I believe they might discover better results than SWAG'n it based of my current experience in this area thus far.

For me, if I quit, now today, I am still left with the feeling of accomplishment that to the larger degree I HAVE accomplished the initial goals I started with when I wanted to go beyond the 1000 yard realm - Today, I wonder how far is that limit & what will it take to get there? Next year the goal is working at unconventional distances that have been "reported" successful in the current theater of operations - 2600+ yards. One positive thing I have learned from this journey is 1 mile does not look so damn far anymore on a reasonable sized target ;O)

LL - From the fundamentals that you preach, to the beginning of the advanced levels, where does that leave people who want to learn, or develop the KNOWLEDGE & skill that is required to get to the effective limit of my/their supersonic capability of their rifle & cartridge combination.

In my case, the 50 BMG, because of the down range energy of the payload I can deliver onto a target.

One thing I would like to point out (again) in case anyone missed it the first time, I believe I have pointed out my data *is* field verified to my satisfaction, that is, or has been proven by impacts on targets at unconventional distances... To date - 2200 yards on a human upper torso sized target. Without SD & CD corrections on the sights, my bullet would have impacted roughly 50+ inches right of center mass at the initial elevation setting. The logic of using these calculations is, even if I blow the wind call by a mile an hour or so, this is still a variable that I can, & will continue to account for that places my shot that much closer to center of mass for the first round sent down range.

Not just on my range, in front of people attending our humble workshops, But at Dave Lauck's event - at the Sure Fire range in front of peers - one to confirm the hit - but further to induce, if any additional stress of no home court advantage in front of God & everyone who might care to observe. At this point in my life, I do not care who is watching because I have gained one realization in this area, that I can only do what I can do on any given shot - one shot at a time, one target at a time.

"Shoot Small - Miss Small" I have heard it a hundred times... & I could not agree more! However IMHO Precision Marksmanship, is Precision Marksmanship - It matters not the format really, as the only difference will boil down to the application of fire on a given target media - be it steel, rock, paper, game animal, human, or even a can of stew....

My journey has not been so much about promoting ELR, as much as ELR proving the end result. I am not a scientist, nor am I for the most part a math guy... As a matter of fact I actually had to brush up with a tutor at one time - What I have ultimately figured out is I do not have to understand the math to apply it effectively. I only have to run the simple calculations that I believe refine my sight corrections that allow me, as well as others that have not previously shot at the routine distances we typically run at to effectively apply precision rifle fire on targets at unconventional distances.

What I have observed in my travels, is that marksmen gain an enormous amount of *confidence* from shooting at extended distances, when we back up to more conventional distances, say inside 1000 yards or closer... That is, if you believe precision rifle fire is, or can be a mind game, & success is, or can be built on that developed confidence of the shooter himself?

The rest is the pursuit of perfected motion, developed by the repetition of that perfect motion to develop the fundamentals of good o'l fashion marksmanship ability!

Regards, Aug ><>
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Oh- FWIW - My scope is set with a precision level, in conjunction with another precision level placed in the ejection port of the action at the time my scope is attached to the platform. I employ the US Optics level that is attached to my rail to ensure I am plumb when I prepare to send a shot down range. At $3.00 per round (Hand Loads) do the math...

Aug ><>
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh- FWIW - My scope is set with a precision level</div></div>

At the risk of starting a rabbit trail and diverting from all of the informative and often cerebral discourse this thread has provided on CE... when Broz, MM and myself were shooting the infamous day that has become the centerpiece of this thread(for better or worse), I was setting up for our warmup shot, 1 mile, and I leveled my crosshairs by eye as I always do, then checked against my level. We were shooting on a sidehill and WOW! did that skew my sense of level. It was so bad, I think I commented to MM and Broz. If I hadn't had a level, my shot would have been WAY off to the left, without any help from uh, spin drift, CE, wind or any other black magic/voodoo.
wink.gif


Other than getting a consistent cheek weld and learning to minimize parallax, I believe that a level has been the single largest factor in my improved LR shooting.

John
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Oh Boy - that is the icing on the cake... alright - I believe that a picture IS worth a thousand words & with that gentlemen - I believe that is the last word ;O) I am speechless!!!



Aug ><>
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Oh, it's not over yet...

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yvl_W-XVXD0"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yvl_W-XVXD0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

Now, it's over... LOL
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is LL the only one that refers to the deck as the "tower"? </div></div>

You caught that too.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, it's not over yet...

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yvl_W-XVXD0"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yvl_W-XVXD0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

Now, it's over... LOL </div></div>
I think we have a new Billy Mayes (Oxy clean guy)
.......SmokeRolls
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I forgot my frigg'n popcorn!

Deflecting force; coriolis effect "whatever you choose to call it" is a crock of monkey shit period.

It just seems to me, I would think spending more time worrying about wind variation's or spin drift than accelerating force.

The only time your going to catch me worrying about coriolis acceleration is when I'm mounting Rosie Odonnell while drinking Jack and Coke.

This is what happen's when Hollywood puts out a sniper movie. Every computer commando starts researching this bs. Nobody in here can shoot good enuff to worry about that variant.

You can add it in to your calculation if it pleases you. Bottom line is wind varian's are going to effect your left/righ impact "calculated or not" much more than the deflecting force ever will.

Just my 2¢ FWIW,
MS
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

So the earth doesn't spin, hu?? is it flat too??

"Moonshadow".

Show me your real name.

In the record books.

Or someplace of any notoriety at all.

And then the rest of us can consider your opinion with some authority.

Until then, you're just another 'computer commando'

who thinks it's <span style="font-style: italic">cool</span> to make fun of things they don't understand.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I kept having to correct left but my shooting partner gave me a couple of pointers about getting straight behind the rifle. He is a heck of a good shot. Look out Lee Rasmussen Jake is after your record.
jake50aaaa111.jpg
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the earth doesn't spin, hu?? is it flat too??

"Moonshadow".

Show me your real name.

In the record books.

Or someplace of any notoriety at all.

And then the rest of us can consider your opinion with some authority.

Until then, you're just another 'computer commando'

who thinks it's <span style="font-style: italic">cool</span> to make fun of things they don't understand. </div></div>

BRYAN.

LITZ.

I.

REALLY.

DON'T.

GIVE.

TWO.

SHITZ.

Don't waste your self Bryan. Again, I really don't care. I'm just a military bumb.

MS
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Bryan
Dont sweat it - between your modeling, & our proven results on targets in the field, "The People Who Matter" (Their exact words) are taking notice.

Maybe you can come join us here in Montana someday & see the down range results for yourself, at ranges beyond unconventional distance that only a decade ago nobody would have believed possible?

This is just another Drama Queen attempting to stir the $#it a little further - This thread is done as far as I am concerned.

The bottom line - science of external ballistics has, & always have a place in high performance long range shooting! IF we ever come to a place in our lives where we close our mind to the possibility of potential advancement, or that we are somehow already so smart, we could not possibly learn something new to get to the next level - we run the risk of becoming obsolete - If this should ever become the case, we are already dead, just to dumb to lay down...

Trust me, the people who 'really matter' are paying attention!

PM Inbound

Best Regards, Aug ><>
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

screw this 'coriolis effect' buisness, ill keep saving my $$$ for a rocket ship ticket to the moon, then start a rifle range up there....dont be stealin my idea either....

he he

jimi
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Wearing a tin foil hat when you shoot makes your bullets exempt from the laws of physics.







It's true, I saw it on MythBusters.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

The laws of physic's allow for a great mathematical determination.

I emailed a good friend yesterday about CE. An 18 year head sniper instructor and fellow combat vet said (copied/pasted): <span style="text-decoration: underline">"Really? Since when did Newton's Law become a factor with mother nature still hang'n out? Spend your time focusing on wind value's and range estimation young man. When you have mastered wind "mother nature is still a kick in the nut's", than worry about the rest. Give me a ring sometime, I would like to hear from you. -Bill</span>

I would think one would take this advice from an experienced combat veteran and 18 yr. sniper instructor, long before some kid with a college degree in Ass-troll-physic's, who clearly let go of some common sense in exchange for his studie's, that would be better suited studying wind tide and meteorite's.

I'll stick with holdover, Kentucky windage and my common sense. Clearly, mother nature is the determining factor unless I am belly flat directly on the equator shooting directly north to south with zero WV. And than I will worry about it.

This one's almost good enough for Paul Harvey!

No-pun-intended!
Happy huniting,
MS
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get to see AARs from the Sniper Cells we work with, I have one here, in fact I believe there is a book being written about this particular deployment because the gentlemen set a record for a single deployment, he was a student on more than one occasions and preferred the Mk13 300WM. His longest shot during this record breaking deployment -- just over 800m, his closest 35m.

I work with a lot of guys using the 338LM and 300wm, trust I am well aware of what they are doing and how they are doing it. I won't compromise that anymore but out of more than 30 sniper shots the average is 400m.</div></div>

Here's a quote from another "expert". I would think that this conclusively disqualifies your "buddy" as an expert. They are, according to the "experts", not shooting far enough to care, or know any better. Anybody who has any understanding in this arena will tell you it means almost nothing until 1000 yds. Probably 1500 min.

John
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We get to see AARs from the Sniper Cells we work with, I have one here, in fact I believe there is a book being written about this particular deployment because the gentlemen set a record for a single deployment, he was a student on more than one occasions and preferred the Mk13 300WM. His longest shot during this record breaking deployment -- just over 800m, his closest 35m.

I work with a lot of guys using the 338LM and 300wm, trust I am well aware of what they are doing and how they are doing it. I won't compromise that anymore but out of more than 30 sniper shots the average is 400m.</div></div>

Please this is the real world with real targets, not rocks on the side of a hill.

No matter, we have something I think will change the definition of "deterministic".

Part one is done, two is coming and is quite telling.


Here's a quote from another "expert". I would think that this conclusively disqualifies your "buddy" as an expert. They are, according to the "experts", not shooting far enough to care, or know any better. Anybody who has any understanding in this arena will tell you it means almost nothing until 1000 yds. Probably 1500 min.

John</div></div>
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

I run Shooter for Android on my Samsung Epic 4G, it accounts for coriolis effect.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

ok, not to be a smart ass and by no means saying coriolis doesn't exist but if it were a contributing factor wouldn't the earth move out from under you whenever you jump? and keep a helicopter from hovering in one spot? from what I understand of the earth's gravitational force everything with in its atmosphere is held here by gravity and thus is on the same rotation as the earth and not affected by its rotation because of the fact that gravity is holding it down and not letting anything get out of sync, and if this were not true whenever a jet is flying it would be fighting the earths spin one direction, and going at warp speed the other way, as I said, i'm not trying to be a smart ass and if i'm missing something, please let me know what it is as i'm always game to improve my shooting
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rifleman1981</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok, not to be a smart ass and by no means saying Coriolis doesn't exist but if it were a contributing factor wouldn't the earth move out from under you whenever you jump? and keep a helicopter from hovering in one spot? from what I understand of the earth's gravitational force everything with in its atmosphere is held here by gravity and thus is on the same rotation as the earth and not affected by its rotation because of the fact that gravity is holding it down and not letting anything get out of sync, and if this were not true whenever a jet is flying it would be fighting the earths spin one direction, and going at warp speed the other way, as I said, i'm not trying to be a smart ass and if i'm missing something, please let me know what it is as i'm always game to improve my shooting</div></div>
To make a complex answer simple.
The earth under your feet is traveling at say X miles an hour and with your feet on the ground you are also traveling at X miles an hour. Your jump does not last very long and you land at pretty much the same speed as long as you didn't add or subtract speed by leaning forward or backward.
The earth is traveling slower as you get to the poles.
OK now that we got that out of the way we can see that it is the change in speed that alters the flight.
Second example.
You are in the back of a pickup truck in the bed traveling at 5 miles an hour and jump in the air and land back into the pickup truck bed. You would land in the same spot and not known you were actually moving. Now if you jump from the moving truck to the ground the spot that you started your jump from is now back a little bit (remember we are only going 5 miles and hour) and when you land you will be going 5 miles per hour faster than the ground.
I hope I explained this OK but basically, based on the direction you are shooting North and South not East and West the earth is going at a different speed. The difference in speed is so small that it takes a large distance North to South or South to North and time to create a "moved" point of impact.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Two guys I always listen to are"Bryan Litz and Augustus" Whilst I understand Lowlights position I think there is little excuse for not accounting for all effects that are present and can help cause a potential miss - of course you may still miss because of wind or bad form but the less negatives the better .My ballistics calculator allows for the effects and I use those tools for them -why wouldn't I ??

MoonShadow -have you ever considered you might be mentally retarded
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two guys I always listen to are"Bryan Litz and Augustus" Whilst I understand Lowlights position <span style="text-decoration: underline">I think there is little excuse for not accounting for all effects that are present and can help cause a potential miss</span> - of course you may still miss because of wind or bad form but the less negatives the better .My ballistics calculator allows for the effects and I use those tools for them -why wouldn't I ??

MoonShadow -have you ever considered you might be mentally retarded</div></div>

We'll see, I have it in black and white that for some shooters, "accounting for it" will cause the miss, not assist in preventing it.

Blanket statements don't work... one thing to model in a vacuum, absent the shooter, it's another thing to include the shooter in the theory, and not all shooters, shoot the same, which I will prove changes everything.

Again, refer to the moving target formula, the lead is easily resolved by math, but not everyone uses the same lead. The math is determined without shooter input, but the biggest factor in shooting is the shooter.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Frank,

I get what your saying, I think, that CE pales in comparison to shooter error. But what if you could take shooter error out?

Is your argument that CE does not exist? Or that it's so insignificant that people end up tilting at windmills instead of fixing their marksmanship issues?

People I know and trust have demonstrated to me that if not taken into account, at the ranges they are shooting, they will miss their intended target. I personally cannot read the wind well enough (at 1500 yds +)to understand exactly why my shot lands where it does.

This is not a Frank vs. Augustis, Bryan , etc. thing. I believe like all things that there is something to take from everyone and there is no doubt in my mind, were I to come to RO, you and others could help me make improvements in my marksmanship. But I also don't want to throw out possible factors that must be accounted for, once my shooting does become good enough.

My life is not on the line when I shoot at rocks on the hill, or steel or paper, and God willing, it never will be. But I don't do these things to be bad at them. I like to master things.

So... to you... exists? Doesn't exist?

Honest question. Straight up. No ridicule. No funny pictures. Simple question.

John
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

The shooter factor is what we seek to remove via training. If the shot is affected by the shooter, by definition it is an error. As you pointed out in another thread, a rifle should not have a different POI for another shooter, if it is zeroed for the conditions, it's zeroed, the shooter and their position should not enter into it. If it does, it is a correctable error. The perfect shot should be the equivelent of a machine rest, the shooter is NOT SUPPOSED TO INFLUENCE THE SHOT. If they do, it's an correctable error.

I certainly agree that the effect of spin and Coriolis is not relevant for most practical purposes. A 600 yard shot needs no correction to prevent a miss. The vast majority of actual sniper shots would not benefit from any such corrections. I do not even mention the effects in the 7 day Precision Rifle class here at Gunsite.

I do cover it in the ELR class, and advise making the corrections if the shot is over 1000 yards. The erros now start to accumulate and can result in a miss where a correction would make the hit. As one is normally using a computer to create the solution, why would you possibly NOT want the correction calculated? If the shooter makes a bad shot, the calculated solution is not the problem. If the shooter executes perfectly, the solution is pretty important.

In your example of lead, if the shot is fired with the correct mathematical value applied, it will hit, absent shooter input which changes the actual lead value applied. The math is not wrong, the shooter is.

If you have one shooter holding 1 mil left for wind and another holding 1.5, using identical rifle/cartridge combinations and simultaneous shots both hit, someone is doing something wrong. The fact that both hit does not eliminate the fact that one shooter pulled or pushed the shot and is therefore going to have a problem repeating their "success".

When a ballistic solution is calculated, one must presume the shooter will execute the shot with perfect technique. Of the two major problems, wind and shooter error, we have the most control over the shooter. No one executes perfectly everytime, but fewer errors should be increasing the hit probability.

Since, as Bryan points out, the effect can be calculated with a reasonable degree of precision, why not? If you are a lousy shot, it will have no effect. If you can execute properly most of the time, it will indeed have an effect.
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

Both LowLight and Bryan are accomplished shooters and have had a hand in training many shooters. LowLight through his hands on training courses and Bryan by publishing one of the finer books on external ballistics that exists for those who want a very readable text. The fact that LL and Bryan have different backgrounds and different approaches does not discount their contributions to the shooting community.

I can understand that some people do not think Coriolis effect is a large enough effect, compared to other factors like wind and shooters, to add it in their ballistics calculations. What I can not understand is posters who doubt the existence of Coriolis effect. Trust me generations of physicists have been taught about the Coriolis force, usually in their junior year and again in graduate school. There is no dispute among the community of physicists and engineers regarding the existence, origin, and form of the Coriolis force.

Modeling has a role and can easily incorporate the effects of differing forms of shooters and the variability of wind and variances of weapon system. Modeling that includes as many of the variables that we can identify and quantify allow designers and engineers to understand the capabilities of the shooter and weapon system to complete the task at hand. High-fidelity modeling is an important part of the design of more systems within the military than most realize.

I can see training changing as the effective range of issued sniper rifles increase through adoption of the 300 Win Mag and the 338 competition in the Precison Sniper Rifle. In addition there are programs like OneShot that has been demonstrated and operated by numerous Marine snipers. OneShot dopes the wind between the muzzle and target calculates the trajectory (including CE) and projects a new reticle in the scope for that ballistic solution.

Not trying to add gas to the fire,

wade
 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frank,

I get what your saying, I think, that CE pales in comparison to shooter error. But what if you could take shooter error out?

Is your argument that CE does not exist? Or that it's so insignificant that people end up tilting at windmills instead of fixing their marksmanship issues?


So... to you... exists? Doesn't exist?

Honest question. Straight up. No ridicule. No funny pictures. Simple question.

John</div></div>

<span style="font-style: italic">Absolutely it exists</span>, I never, ever, said differently... however you CANNOT REMOVE THE SHOOTER... so the use of it's existence becomes a question.

It's calculable based on the fact they put a "Barrel" in a fixture and fired it which is not subject to shooter error, nor is it subject to being offset because it is zeroed to a shooter. Like I said, a moving target lead is 100% right until you add the shooter, and then it's potentially wrong.

I have enough data to show, adding it, can cause a shooter to miss a target, because they push, or pull the shot left, and not right. However a MAJORITY of shooters are right handed and pull the shots right, which make dialing left as much as 1 MOA easy to see as being effective. Where a bullet diameter function can not be see, the shooter error makes it visible to some.

You cannot remove the shooter, and in the field under practical conditions you cannot read the wind to within 1 MPH across the entire flight of the bullet to affect the outcome in a positive way.

I never said it didn't exist, but like all you who dismiss the disclaimers, like your MV being identical for every shot, you only focus on one part of my position.

The system is maybe 25% of the problem, the shooter is at least 75% of the problem, correcting for 2.5% of the 25% side is wasted energy when fixing you as a shooter is so much more effective. It's a distraction to good shooting in all but maybe 5% of the shooters out there. I would say, at best 3% of the people have the accuracy potential to take advantage of it. But let's be honest, ELR is probably only 1% of the shooting we see, military or otherwise.

 
Re: Rotation of the Earth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frank,

I get what your saying, I think, that CE pales in comparison to shooter error. But what if you could take shooter error out?

So... to you... exists? Doesn't exist?</div></div>

<span style="font-style: italic">Absolutely it exists</span>, I never, ever, said differently... </div></div>

Thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood your position.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SanPatHogger
White lights flying into and out of a thunderstorm
Replies
30
Views
1K
supercorndogs
supercorndogs
buffalowinter
SOLD SOLD BORS Barrett Optical Ranging System REDUCED to $300
Replies
2
Views
394
buffalowinter
buffalowinter
R
Ukrainian sniper who claims new world record. He’s 58 years old. (WSJ article)
Replies
49
Views
3K
1bonspy
1bonspy
bigjake83
A tale of three Larue's (Large frame review Part 1 - OBR)
Replies
21
Views
1K
bigjake83
bigjake83
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 1
Replies
0
Views
488
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back