To: Attention Surplus Disorder
if he's sited in at 600 (which he should be) he'd only have 144 inches of drop (12 feet) at 900 yards. he'd have to be shooting up a mountain to shoot 35 feet high.
46 posted on
08/04/2006 12:40:30 PM PDT by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: absolootezer0
Target could have been below him, or above him.....What the hey, it was a heckuva shot regardless.
48 posted on
08/04/2006 12:41:51 PM PDT by
Rummyfan
To: absolootezer0
Unless the sniper was already on high ground shooting down at the target and they are including the elevation change as part of the measurement.
51 posted on
08/04/2006 12:43:25 PM PDT by
Sergio
(If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he make a sound?)
To: absolootezer0
It doesn't matter if you shoot at an upward angle or a downward angle. The bullet will hit lower than if it was held horizonally.
122 posted on
08/04/2006 6:45:12 PM PDT by
Shooter 2.5
(Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
To: absolootezer0; Shooter 2.5
if he's sited in at 600 (which he should be) he'd only have 144 inches of drop (12 feet) at 900 yards. he'd have to be shooting up a mountain to shoot 35 feet high.
If he is sighted in at 600 yards, the barrel is tilted to shoot at a slightly upwards angle, and the scope is centered above the target to correct for the additional drop.
If he is sighted in for 900 yards, he has simply built in the anticipated 30+ ft drop into his trajectory, i.e. he has compensated for the same drop in advance rather than in situ. So his scope would be centered, although the barrel is raked at a somewhat higher angle.
So he is "shooting 35 ft high" in any case, but is only "aiming 35 ft high" if he was sighted in for a much closer range.
123 posted on
08/04/2006 7:05:56 PM PDT by
NonLinear
(He's dead, Jim)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson