another quick question about ballistics
#11
RE: another quick question about ballistics
ORIGINAL: Ridge Runner
Soilarch, the cheekweld thing is what bothers me, the high scope can be advantageous, my RRA EOP varminter has the scope 3.5" above the barrel, you need this heigth on an AR, but that 3.5" amounts to 17.5 inches of drop at 500 yards that I don't have to compensate for.
RR
Soilarch, the cheekweld thing is what bothers me, the high scope can be advantageous, my RRA EOP varminter has the scope 3.5" above the barrel, you need this heigth on an AR, but that 3.5" amounts to 17.5 inches of drop at 500 yards that I don't have to compensate for.
RR
#12
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 283
RE: another quick question about ballistics
go to remington.com and find the remingotn shoot ballistics program. i use it and it seems to be pretty accurate. you can pic and weight bullet and style that they make in that weight. you can type in a sight in yardage and a zero yardage, for example my 7mm mag would nee to be sighted in a little under a half inch low at fifty yrd to be zeroed at 100 yrd. and dead on at fifty will hit dead on again at 150. its a useful program.
#13
RE: another quick question about ballistics
I think James B. hit the nail on the head. Although on paper a rifle in the 30/06 velocity class, with a scope mounted 1.7" above the bore, should be about 3.5" high at 100 yards when sighted in dead on at 25 yards; you might in reality be anywhere from a little low to 8" high at 100 yards. Don't shoot at a deerfurther than100 yards away until you get back to the range to check your 100 yard zero.
#15
RE: another quick question about ballistics
Maybe a stupid question, but why don't you just start over and sight it in where you want it? I'm assuming you don't want the zero of a 300 win mag to be at 25 yards?
It would be way easier to bore sight at 50 or 75 yards, or even just start at 100 for that matter, then zero from there.
It would be way easier to bore sight at 50 or 75 yards, or even just start at 100 for that matter, then zero from there.
#16
RE: another quick question about ballistics
ORIGINAL: Champlain Islander
I always thought you were better off with a low scope mount rather than a high see through. What am I missing here?
I always thought you were better off with a low scope mount rather than a high see through. What am I missing here?
#17
RE: another quick question about ballistics
The only time I have used a 25 yard target for big game application was when I wasn't on the paper at 100 yards. Otherwise, you are right - not muchreason to shoot a pistol ranges. I would much rather be confidently zeroed at 100 yards and figure the 25 yard impact point from a chart, than be zeroed at 25 yards and figure the 100 yard impact point from a chart.
#18
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 100
RE: another quick question about ballistics
You will be shooting high from my experience. Here is a 25 yard calculation with no wind for Hornady 165 grain .300 mag. You can probably get away with dead-on aiming out to 300 yards.
(25 yard zero)
Range - yds. Path - in.
250
100 3.1
2003.4
300 -1.1
(25 yard zero)
Range - yds. Path - in.
250
100 3.1
2003.4
300 -1.1
#20
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: fort mcmurray alberta canada
Posts: 5,667
RE: another quick question about ballistics
If you hit EXACTLY @ 25 yards then your bullet will impact 3 in. high @ 100,4 high @ 200,dead on @ 300