|
|
02-01-2015, 09:57 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Central Alberta
Posts: 8,315
|
|
When I brought the first of the "challenges" over from CGN, there was some discussion regarding verification (a similar discussion started and died on CGN as well). To summarize, the general feeling was that since the concept is a "challenge", not a "competition" ... that verification was not a issue....and that...fudgers would only be misleading themselves...that most participants would be well known in their own shooting communities and would not cheat ... and if they did, would only be cheating themselves. Given that most of the challenges, generate a fair amount of traffic with lots of " tried it, but failed claims ... the relatively low number of "successful" posts gives me some confidence that those claims are credible.
|
02-01-2015, 10:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: In your personal space.
Posts: 4,789
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudelpointer
You do realize that is inches on the Y axis? How angled is a rifle holding 45" above line of sight at ~300 yards?
|
Yes I do.
|
02-01-2015, 10:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: In your personal space.
Posts: 4,789
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rman
The line of sight remains flat, regardless of the angle on the rifle...
And again, lots have shot this round further, and more accurately, well beyond this distance.
R.
|
The line of sight does remain flat. The inclination of the barrel does not.
|
02-01-2015, 11:00 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergerboy
The line of sight does remain flat. The inclination of the barrel does not.
|
So what is the inclination needed?
|
02-01-2015, 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: In your personal space.
Posts: 4,789
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning
So what is the inclination needed?
|
I did not math it out as I was PM'd by another AO member and they are going to recreate Rmans shot with a similar rifle and will post the findings "Mythbuster" style. Stay tuned and we will see how this plays out.
|
02-01-2015, 11:06 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hythe
Posts: 4,354
|
|
In my mind I'd think the more lead sent down range the better your chances of hitting the target. I'm not saying you didn't do it but I'd have to see it to believe it.
Rman, how many shots were taken and were you aided by a spotter?
|
02-01-2015, 11:22 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergerboy
I did not math it out as I was PM'd by another AO member and they are going to recreate Rmans shot with a similar rifle and will post the findings "Mythbuster" style. Stay tuned and we will see how this plays out.
|
Really? All that talk and nothing to show? 208 inches of drop is 5.78 yards over a distance of 500 yards. tan angle=5.78/500 resulting in an angle of elevation of 0.67 degrees. Less than ONE degree. Supposing there is a separation of 20" between front and rear that would come out to just under 1/4" elevation of the rear sight.
|
02-01-2015, 11:32 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Over That Hill
Posts: 3,872
|
|
Boyz, boyz, boyz.........................
Since there is so much distrust here, there is one very simple way to prove that the people that are participating are posting their actual results.
Pictures of paper targets with holes in them, that could have been done by poking a hole though it with a nail like Bergerboy's and I am not saying that he did, should not be accepted as proof.
The only proof that should be posted, is the actual shooter, doing the shooting live and on Video! Then down loaded for everyone to see first hand. Sound fair???
|
02-01-2015, 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 803
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning
Really? All that talk and nothing to show? 208 inches of drop is 5.78 yards over a distance of 500 yards. tan angle=5.78/500 resulting in an angle of elevation of 0.67 degrees. Less than ONE degree. Supposing there is a separation of 20" between front and rear that would come out to just under 1/4" elevation of the rear sight.
|
I am no math guru, but does the above calculation include the fact that the bullet does not fly straight but at an arc?
|
02-01-2015, 12:34 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Over That Hill
Posts: 3,872
|
|
and the shooters go into run silent, run deep mode...............lol
|
02-01-2015, 01:17 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,296
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 260 Rem
When I brought the first of the "challenges" over from CGN, there was some discussion regarding verification (a similar discussion started and died on CGN as well). To summarize, the general feeling was that since the concept is a "challenge", not a "competition" ... that verification was not a issue....and that...fudgers would only be misleading themselves...that most participants would be well known in their own shooting communities and would not cheat ... and if they did, would only be cheating themselves. Given that most of the challenges, generate a fair amount of traffic with lots of " tried it, but failed claims ... the relatively low number of "successful" posts gives me some confidence that those claims are credible.
|
It’s good you were a teacher in previous portion of your journey.
|
02-01-2015, 01:33 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immigrant
I am no math guru, but does the above calculation include the fact that the bullet does not fly straight but at an arc?
|
Yes.
|
02-01-2015, 01:34 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,922
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmhunter
Boyz, boyz, boyz.........................
Since there is so much distrust here, there is one very simple way to prove that the people that are participating are posting their actual results.
Pictures of paper targets with holes in them, that could have been done by poking a hole though it with a nail like Bergerboy's and I am not saying that he did, should not be accepted as proof.
The only proof that should be posted, is the actual shooter, doing the shooting live and on Video! Then down loaded for everyone to see first hand. Sound fair???
|
Or you could just refer to post #121
|
02-01-2015, 01:51 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Over That Hill
Posts: 3,872
|
|
Ok I just did. With the amount of "No Way, not possible" comments being made, I was thinking that quantitative proof would put the nay sayer's to bed and at ease. Personally I believe Rman's accomplishment and applaud him for it.
I am a man of my word and would not post pictures of something that I didn't do, way too sleazy for my liking and life is way too short!
|
02-01-2015, 05:44 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Back in Lethbridge
Posts: 4,647
|
|
If the trajectory is as displayed, it would require 25 minutes of elevation from line of sight, 25" above a target placed at 100 yards. Very roughly, half a degree of angle.
|
02-01-2015, 08:03 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 420
|
|
Confiscation of Purpose
Confiscate the purpose of a gun and the gun is confiscated.
Regulations that stopped the sport were not challenged.
Modifications were undertaken at the range but they were overseen by Conservationists and not Sport/Competition Shooters.
Burms at 3/5th distances were not constructed.
The expansion of the rifle range should have had electricity installed at 100 and 200 metres. Then there could have been a formal Benchrest sport.
There is ample space for a Cowboy Action complex.
|
02-01-2015, 08:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: In your personal space.
Posts: 4,789
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gifted Intuitive
Confiscate the purpose of a gun and the gun is confiscated.
Regulations that stopped the sport were not challenged.
Modifications were undertaken at the range but they were overseen by Conservationists and not Sport/Competition Shooters.
Burms at 3/5th distances were not constructed.
The expansion of the rifle range should have had electricity installed at 100 and 200 metres. Then there could have been a formal Benchrest sport.
There is ample space for a Cowboy Action complex.
|
Can the berms be improved to facilitate silhouettes?
|
02-01-2015, 11:48 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: East Central Alberta
Posts: 8,315
|
|
Hey, GI ... why not open a thread and vent. Let's keep this one on the rails.
|
02-02-2015, 12:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nelson BC
Posts: 2,042
|
|
It would be helpful if some of these personal spats could happen off podium. If anyone is thinking Rman is BSing then respectfully, why not sort it out privately? Nothing of any factual basis has been offered to dispute his claim.
Rman, I have read the posts, reviewed the graph and math calcs presented and can see nothing posted that disputes your posted results and take you at your word. Congrats - truly an amazing display of marksmanship. I tried the challenge again yesterday and again failed miserably. I could not repeat your feat off the bench.
|
02-02-2015, 12:51 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: S.E. British Columbia
Posts: 4,579
|
|
I have no doubts whatsoever about Rman's results at 500. That was offhand standing, right? A peep sight is a wonderful device for you can always see the target and centre on it perfectly.
That 24" target is just under 5 MOA in extent...like hitting a 5" bull at 100.
A tough shot but not the end of the world on a calm day for a confident, skilled and practiced marksman who can follow though on his hold.
edit: not to imply that I could ever pull this off.
Last edited by twofifty; 02-02-2015 at 01:01 AM.
|
02-02-2015, 12:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsonob1
It would be helpful if some of these personal spats could happen off podium.
|
why
|
02-02-2015, 01:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nelson BC
Posts: 2,042
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marxman
why
|
In general for a variety of reasons (there have been a few threads on this issue of late) but in this case the original post is a shooting challenge that specifies the rules - which Rman has followed exactly as required.
If anyone wants to challenge a contributors truthfulness then frankly, it would be better in respect to the intent of the original thread (getting people to post their challenge results) and the as a courtesy to the poster (no one has provided any facts that dispute his results) that such dispute happen some where else.
|
02-02-2015, 01:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsonob1
In general for a variety of reasons (there have been a few threads on this issue of late) but in this case the original post is a shooting challenge that specifies the rules - which Rman has followed exactly as required.
If anyone wants to challenge a contributors truthfulness then frankly, it would be better in respect to the intent of the original thread (getting people to post their challenge results) and the as a courtesy to the poster (no one has provided any facts that dispute his results) that such dispute happen some where else.
|
allright if you want to be high and mighty but i dont see how its better
|
02-02-2015, 06:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ponoka
Posts: 1,871
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gifted Intuitive
The expansion of the rifle range should have had electricity installed at 100 and 200 metres. Then there could have been a formal Benchrest sport.
There is ample space for a Cowboy Action complex.
|
Short range BR is good idea. Cowboy Action shooters ......... trouble follows.
__________________
Younger horses, faster women, older money, more whiskey!
|
02-02-2015, 09:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nelson BC
Posts: 2,042
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marxman
allright if you want to be high and mighty but i dont see how its better
|
Was not intending to be pompous and I apologize if it come out that way. I am trying to compete in the challenge and would like the thread to stay on track for as long as possible, as I have yet to hit the paper.
|
02-02-2015, 09:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: In your personal space.
Posts: 4,789
|
|
What do you guys think would be the maximum pressure that Rmans old 38-55 could handle? I think in the reloading books they state the maximum is 27500psi. Would you all agree this is fairly accurate or does someone else have better data?
|
02-02-2015, 09:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,869
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsonob1
Was not intending to be pompous and I apologize if it come out that way. I am trying to compete in the challenge and would like the thread to stay on track for as long as possible, as I have yet to hit the paper.
|
did you try the 100 metre or yard challenge i dont think it is good flinch and trigger control wise to spend too much time on targets you can not hold on at all the 100 yard challenge is probably double the apparent area sorry still off track but ive seen many threads where all it takes is a relevant post to put it back on
|
02-02-2015, 10:10 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,847
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergerboy
What do you guys think would be the maximum pressure that Rmans old 38-55 could handle? I think in the reloading books they state the maximum is 27500psi. Would you all agree this is fairly accurate or does someone else have better data?
|
according to a couple of my manuals, the 38-55 runs a little less than a 30-30 in pressure; max 30,000 cup, lee
__________________
220swifty
1. People who list their arguments in bullets points or numerical order generally come off as condescending pecker heads.
2. #1 is true.
|
02-02-2015, 10:19 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 722
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergerboy
I did not math it out as I was PM'd by another AO member and they are going to recreate Rmans shot with a similar rifle and will post the findings "Mythbuster" style. Stay tuned and we will see how this plays out.
|
In order to replicate something, you would first have to have a clue as to how it was done in the first place. As it apparently very obvious that you don't, I eagerly await your results.
A similar rifle? Can't wait to see what that looks like!
Your attempts to discredit what has happened are really getting just silly, are a display of the poorest kind of sportsmanship, and are discouraging others from participating.
R.
|
02-02-2015, 10:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: In your personal space.
Posts: 4,789
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by duceman
according to a couple of my manuals, the 38-55 runs a little less than a 30-30 in pressure; max 30,000 cup, lee
|
When I converted CUP to PSI I came up with 30,000CUP = 27,488PSI
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 PM.
|