Page 3 of 3
Re: struggling with moa
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:23 am
by rox
Maggot wrote:I remember seeing a basic rule of thumb for .308 which went something like
<snip>
but it goes 11 22 33 44 55 might go 22 33 44 55 66.....when I looked at my actual come ups it was pretty close.
Interesting aide-memoire; haven't seen this one before. I couldn't quite see it coinciding with reference elevations for 7.62 NATO or commercial .308 155gr whether starting 1-1 or 2-2 though, but I found one example based on Federal 168gr ammo:
"The trajectory adjustments necessary are very easy to remember. Assuming a 100-yard zero, your corrections for ranges out to 600 yards are: 2 – 3 – 3 – 4 – 4"
(from
policeone.com - apparently it is simple enough for policemen to understand
it was clear to me, by the way).
The following seems pretty close for 7.62 NATO or 155gr commercial (0 @ 100):
0-1-2-3-4-4-5-5-6-6
or, spelled-out:
Code: Select all
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 (incremental)
0 1 3 6 10 14 19 24 30 36 (absolute)
2.5 5.5 9 13 17.5 23 29 36.5 (reference)
0.5 0.5 1 1 1.5 1 1 -0.5 (error)
All within a minute unless you shoot at 700 yards.
..
Re: struggling with moa
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:33 am
by Maggot
Cheers Bob.
I chatted to a colleague of mine in the firearms dept and an other who works with some friends in that Wales who had both seen the version I put up.
The fact is I dont for the life of me remember where I saw it though. I find the first 1 a pit pointless but I guess its just an infil, its been inscribed in my old notebook for years and helps with folk who still insist in turning up without comeups past 100yards!!
Anyhow, it is what it is, a rule of thumb for the real world.
Re: struggling with moa
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:40 am
by Maggot
TattooedGun wrote:That's a slightly better description. Do me a favour. Go back to your original post and re-read it. See if it makes sense if you assume that you have no idea what you're talking about. You can connect the dots because you have the idea already in your head what you're talking about. As someone who was reading it, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Take offence, if you like, but I wasn't the only one who looked at it and had no idea what you were talking about.
The problem wasn't whether you start at 1 or 2, it was the complete lack of any description to what you were talking about.
Someone who already knows the system might look at it and understand. To someone who is new to the system you're describing it's just incoherent.
Errrrr.....yeah....even....whatevs
Not enough hours in the day poppet
