Started By
Message

re: A rule of thumb on changing point of impact on fixed sighted guns

Posted on 9/15/14 at 11:56 pm to
Posted by H.M. Murdock
B.A.'s Van
Member since Feb 2013
2113 posts
Posted on 9/15/14 at 11:56 pm to
Zero to do with recoil. See chart I posted, based on weapon zero and flight path of bullet based on velocity and mass.

Perhaps, replace the OP with..."know the trajectory of the round you are firing and more importantly the sight zero as this will cause great changes in poi at every range.
This post was edited on 9/16/14 at 12:09 am
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 7:18 am to
Think about how miniscule the time difference would be between two bullets of different weight from the same gun. This is borderline black panther sasquatch territory. Not surprising considering the op.
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22159 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 9:09 am to
quote:

To clarify more, the slower moving trajectories show higher impact before the 100 yard zero solely because the different velocities are shown at a 100 yard zero.


Correct, this is because of compensation in bullet drop. (Aiming/angled higher)
Posted by TU Rob
Birmingham
Member since Nov 2008
12729 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:25 am to
quote:




That's pretty cool. I'd love to have a 200 yard range set up with big paper banners set up every 10 yards, fire off different rounds from the same gun and observe where they hit the paper and plot a trajectory.

And the heavier bullet theory is correct. My XD40 likes the 180 grain bullets. Hits where I am aiming for at 15 yards. The lighter 155 grain stuff shoots a little off.
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:37 am to
quote:

AlxTgr


Why be a troll on the OB? The rest of the forum offers plenty of opportunities.

I won't discount the chart above, but the Mod 60 vid I posted clearly shows the gun moving upwards before the bullet exits. I think it fair to say there could be a combination of factors.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:39 am to
quote:

Why be a troll on the OB?
You have no idea what this even means. This is a discussion. Just because you don't like what I posted doesn't make it a troll. Your posts and topic are so stupid they border on unintentional trolling.
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22159 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:39 am to
I may have messed up on my physics equations but it's been a little while since I have used them. All numbers are made to be easier in equations and not representative of actual numbers.

I am using a .223 size bullet with approximate speeds and a 16" barrel vs a 6" barrel.

16" rifle will be 4lbs and 6" handgun will be 2lbs.

@ 3000 ft/s @ 16" it takes approx. .00044 seconds at terminal and .00088 at average.
@2750 ft/s @ 16" it takes approx. .00048 seconds at terminal and .00096 at average.
@3000 ft/s @ 6" it takes approx. .00017 seconds at terminal and .00034 at average.
@2750 ft/s @ 6" it takes approx. .00018 seconds at terminal and .00036 at average.

difference between 3000ft/s and 2750ft/s at 16" is 8.7%

difference between 3000ft/s and 2750ft/s at 6" is 5.7%

recoil energy calculations were done with 55gr and 62 gr bullets with 30gr of powder.

55gr 3000ft/s 30gr with 4lb rifle = 7.87 ft/lbs
55gr 3000ft/s 30gr with 2lb handgun = 15.73ft/lbs
62gr 3000ft/s 30gr with 4lb rifle = 8.95 ft/lbs
62gr 3000ft/s 30gr with 2lb handgun = 17.9 ft/lbs

difference in 55gr and 62gr with 4lb = 12.84% (1.08 ft/lbs)
difference in 55gr and 62gr with 2lb = 12.9% (2.17 ft/lbs)

assuming all numbers are correct, recoil is negligible but more pronounced between bullet sizes on a smaller gun. However, the difference in time in the smaller barrel is also miniscule and doesn't change enough to warrant a significant difference in time in barrel for recoil to set in IMO. Please correct if needed.
This post was edited on 9/16/14 at 10:47 am
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:51 am to
quote:

AlxTgr


'You know I'm trolling and you respond anyway.'

Or some such bullshite from your old sig line.

All of my statements in this thread have been reasonable IMO. The op is an observable phenomenon. I haven't beat my fist about recoil though I believe it plays a role, as do many others with gun experience.

But since you are the expert, please share your credentials. How often do you shoot fixed sighted guns? Do you reload? Have you ever filed a front sight to adjust POI? How much does the front sight need to move to change POI at 25 yards out of a handgun?
This post was edited on 9/16/14 at 10:52 am
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:56 am to
quote:

I may misunderstood the op. Might have meant bullet shoots higher (lands on paper higher) at same aiming point not you have to aim higher.


Rule of thumb is for identical sight pictures at sub 100yd targets.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 10:57 am to
quote:

'You know I'm trolling and you respond anyway.'

I thought it was funny, and as you are doing now, idiots will argue with trolls.

quote:

All of my statements in this thread have been reasonable IMO.
And those are up for discussion.

quote:

The op is an observable phenomenon.
I do not believe that.

quote:

But since you are the expert
That has never been stated.

quote:

please share your credentials.
I understand basic physics.

quote:

How often do you shoot fixed sighted guns? Do you reload? Have you ever filed a front sight to adjust POI? How much does the front sight need to move to change POI at 25 yards out of a handgun?




No to all, and you are so mad.
Posted by weagle99
Member since Nov 2011
35893 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:02 am to
quote:

I do not believe that.


All that I needed to read. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:07 am to
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22159 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:08 am to
No. No. No. I did all those calculations. You WILL comment on them.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:18 am to
quote:

However, the difference in time in the smaller barrel is also miniscule and doesn't change enough to warrant a significant difference in time in barrel for recoil to set in I
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22159 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 11:33 am to
Posted by upgrade
Member since Jul 2011
12977 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 12:26 pm to
You did calculations for a .223.
How about a pistol round like a .45 LC.

I've heard that heavier rounds will impact high on targets several times.
I didn't believe it, but in my model 10 .38, it proved true.

I agree with the op.
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22159 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 12:37 pm to
Dammit man.
Posted by Ice Cream Sammich
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2010
10110 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 1:40 pm to
You gave math to my reasoning.

You already proved it wrong once, do the math again and prove them wrong again!
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 1:49 pm to
I will leave an opening for revolvers.
Posted by Hu_Flung_Pu
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
22159 posts
Posted on 9/16/14 at 3:47 pm to
All numbers are made to be easier in equations and not representative of actual numbers.

I am using a 45LC size bullet with approximate speeds and a 2" barrel vs a 3"" barrel from a Judge.

2" handgun will be 2lbs and 3" handgun will be 2.5lbs.

@1032 ft/s @ 2" it takes approx. .00016 seconds at terminal and .00032 at average.
@929 ft/s @ 2" it takes approx. .000179 seconds at terminal and .000358 at average.
@1032 ft/s @ 3" it takes approx. .00024 seconds at terminal and .00048 at average.
@929 ft/s @ 3" it takes approx. .000269 seconds at terminal and .000538 at average.

difference between 1032ft/s and 929ft/s at 2" is 11.2%

difference between 1032ft/s and 929ft/s at 3" is 11.39%

recoil energy calculations were done with 200gr and 250 gr bullets with 41gr of powder.

200gr 1032ft/s 41gr with 2lb 2" Judge = 26.84 ft/lbs
250gr 929ft/s 41gr with 2lb 2" Judge = 30.32 ft/lbs
200gr 1032ft/s 41gr with 2.5lb 3" Judge = 21.47 ft/lbs
250gr 929ft/s 41gr with 2.5lb 3" Judge = 24.25 ft/lbs

difference in 200gr and 250gr with 2lb 2" Judge = 12.17% (3.48 ft/lbs)
difference in 200gr and 250gr with 2.5lb 3" = 12.16% (2.78 ft/lbs)

assuming all numbers are correct, recoil is negligible but more pronounced between bullet sizes on a smaller gun. However, the difference in time in the smaller barrel is also miniscule and doesn't change enough to warrant a significant difference in time in barrel for recoil to set in IMO. Please correct if needed.

Slight interesting on the numbers for the much lighter gun though.
This post was edited on 9/16/14 at 3:48 pm
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram