The "dumbing down of America" - shooting uphill or downhill.

[Justin]

The thread title is a little dramatic no doubt, but if only it were a single mistake on a TV show.

So, what's stopping you from doing your own tv show?

 

[BullfrogKen]

The knowledge of rocket science isn't necessary to understand how to take it into account and make the necessary correction.


I'm not interested in physics or rocket science. I'm interested in shooting. You need to know your audience.

The practical fact of the matter is that long range shots at such extreme angles are very rare, and when they happen, there are usually other important challenges like an awkward shooting position and the uncertainty of the wind conditions over such an extreme altitude split; probably with little to no wind indicators near the bullets flight path. The bottom line is that the minor effects of shooting on an incline can usually be ignored with little consequence. They are presented and addressed here for completeness, but they aren't necessary worth sweating over.

Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting

Chapter 4 Uphill/Downhill Shooting; page 60.


When a rocket scientist - which Bryan is - tells me it isn't necessary, I'll go with that.

 

[gamestalker]

I recently purchased a Leupold RX-IV range finder that takes care of the math for me. But up until the new device, I ocasionally had the need to know an approximate compensation for the difference from line of sight. This RF uses the same ballistic program that Nasa and the military uses, and it's just about as accurate as can be. You match the bullets BC and velocity with the revelant program and it delivers line of sight, and the compensated TBR along with the necessary MOA adjustment needed, and hold over or under in feet inches, and meters. It's not at all like the traditional BDC's of the past, in that those only offered an approximate compensation based on LOS, and an average BC and velocity, rather than the actual BC and velocity and angle. It will provide accurate compensations even for archery.

 

[Tom488]

I was just as put off... I mean... not even a MENTION of general relativity, and factoring in the curvature of space-time throughout the flight of the projectile. I mean... what do they think we are? IMBECILES?!

And don't even get me started on the natural radioactive decay of the bullet components. I mean... a neutron here, a neutron there... IT ADDS UP, PEOPLE!

 

[sappyg]

Thing is... I shoot like crap.... level, flat, uphill, downhill... doesn't really matter. Sometimes I get lucky.
Maybe I'm guessing too much. Even so, I'm not gonna whip out a paper and pencil before I try a shot. there is more than a little to be said for experience. That experience tells me to get closer. That's the way of it.

 

[Sky]

+1 Tom488..... also the earths core is starting to spin at a different rate; and we all know that will mess things up!!

 

[Slamfire]

So, this weekend, I shot at a squirrel in a tree, and I missed.

Should I have aimed above, below, or just at him?

 

[prid93]

+1 Tom488..... also the earths core is starting to spin at a different rate; and we all know that will mess things up!!

It's obvious that most people don't see it the way the OP does...but we can still have some level of respect and not ridicule can we not?

I personally don't think the extra math is necessary...I'm struggling through my physics course as it is and would rather not be doing any extra math :banghead:

 

[henschman]

This math is good to know if you're a hobbyist. For shooting under field conditions, it is more important to have a quick rule of thumb that will get you close enough for a hit on the intended target, and even more importantly, to know how to call your shots and watch for feedback from downrange to make a correction for the next shot.

Well, maybe if you're a sniper taking a one-in-a-million shot on a very important person, and have time to plot out the shot and do the math, then it might be good to know how to get the actual perfect elevation adjustment. But that's about the only practical "field" example I could think of... and it's not really very practical or likely.

 

[chrome_austex]

As someone already pointed out, the flat line distance IS the cosine of the angle * actual distance. Yes, their explanation was wrong, but their calculation method does return the precise correct result.

 

[MCMXI]

I'm not interested in physics or rocket science. I'm interested in shooting.

I have a copy of Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, but unlike you, I am interested in the physics of long range shooting ... that's why I bought it. Bryan Litz makes the effort to accurately explain the why unlike the AMU and SIWSUSA.

Edited excerpt from Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting:

Chapter 4: Uphill/Downhill Shooting

It's quite obvious that shooting uphill or downhill should affect the bullet's trajectory, but it's not necessarily clear why. In general, small angles (less than 10 degrees) have a negligible effect. Larger angles , especially at long range, must be measured and accounted for. One way to approximate the effects of uphill and downhill shooting is to multiply the range-to-target by the cosine of the look angle. This is convenient way to approximate the effects of uphill/downhill shooting, but it is not exact."


This is the only point I was trying to make.

When a rocket scientist - which Bryan is - tells me it isn't necessary, I'll go with that.

Bryan Litz states "they aren't necessarily worth sweating over". In other words, he leaves it up to the shooter and the situation to decide what is necessary.

Feel free to lock this thread. Anyone who is interested in the why can buy Bryan Litz's book or read any number of well written articles on sites like http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/index.cfm .

 

[Hoser]

I blame society.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

all i know is it's pretty hard to hit a squirrel when he's in the tree you're directly under and you sighted in at 50 yds horizontal

 

[Water-Man]

I guess I'm one of the dumb ones but I've been shooting at paper, animals or the enemy for sixty years now and when it comes to shooting uphill or downhill, aiming low has worked pretty well for me as a rule.

 

[Justin]

I have a copy of Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, but unlike you, I am interested in the physics of long range shooting ... that's why I bought it. Bryan Litz makes the effort to accurately explain the why unlike the AMU and SIWSUSA.

Guess what?

While you may revel in your love of physics, among the general population you're a statistical outlier. Television shows are produced to appeal to the widest possible audience, and this means that they're not going to be terribly interested by the notion of inserting a physics lesson into a shooting-related tv show meant to appeal to people who find joy in things other than mathematical constructs in a text book.

Of course, you may believe me to be wrong, and in that case, you're certainly more than welcome to go through the process of producing your own show, shopping it around to various networks, and getting it picked up.

 

[jerkface11]

Of course, you may believe me to be wrong, and in that case, you're certainly more than welcome to go through the process of producing your own show, shopping it around to various networks, and getting it picked up.

And if you get a host who's covered in tattoos and has 3 sidekicks they might just go for it.

 

[Justin]

TV hosts are generally defined by their ability to appear larger than life. Hence the outsized personalities and, for shows meant to appeal to Gen-X and Gen-Y, the tattoos.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I have a copy of Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, but unlike you, I am interested in the physics of long range shooting ... that's why I bought it.

- emphasis mine


Unlike almost the entirety of the shooting community, too.


I don't want to perform physics and rocket science to make a hit. In field conditions there's simply not enough time to do higher level math. The approximation is good enough and it'll do.

This is the only point I was trying to make.

While you're all happy over making your point, you're missing the one Bryan made. There are more important variables that will affect the bullet's trajectory to a far greater degree at the distances where it requires computing for an angle. He states it in the book. He went through the exercise for completeness, in a highly technical book. Not a t.v. show. A book. And when he concludes the chapter he tells the reader exactly that.

He doesn't go off into a tangent about how necessary it is to understand the science to make the shot. He knows his audience. That's brilliance.

Any rocket scientist can author a piece of work that only other rocket scientists can understand. It's the mark of a true genius who can distill and explain his work down to the level that the average shooter can understand. I guess you call that dumbing down. I call that knowing your audience, and the difference between book smart and field smart.

 

[Bloodysneeze]

While we're getting specific about errors the 32.2 ft/s^2 you used is also an approximation. You'll need to know your exact altitude above the center of the Earth's gravity to calculate this specifically. And if you want to get VERY specific, the effect of the Earth's gravity changes with altitude so if you were shooting uphill or downhill you'd need to have a gravitational formula to replace the constant in the initial equation.

But of course significant figures takes care of all of that as your method of measurement probably isn't up to handling that many decimal places with precision and accuracy.

 

[awgrizzly]

RANT ON:

...So what's my beef.? Simple, the AMU's definition of "flat ground distance" is wrong. Gravity acts on the bullet over the "straight line distance" but they must assume that we're all too stupid to understand simple vector math...

...The reason why a bullet drops less when shooting uphill or downhill isn't because "it only experiences a gravitational force over the flat ground distance", it's because the component of g perpendicular to the bullet's path is less than g. How hard is that?!!...

RANT OFF:

Not so fast: Straight line distance says nothing about the direction of the line, and flat and horizontal are not necessarily synonymous. You are both neither right or wrong, simply confused. The mention of level (or horizontal) and slope would have been more clear. What's simple about vector math (I've devoted a life career to the 'practical' application of such)?

The g component being less than than g (sic) is an affect not a cause (you ain't really got nuttin' pulling in that direct, that's simply as resolution of g and inertia used for computation). Example: if you have 2 bullets and I have four, one might say we have an average of 3 bullets, but I still have twice as many as you.

Point of fact, what this program was attempting to explain was of significance to snipers and folks wanting to shoot a fly off an elephant's butt at 700 yards on a mountain, and they made that clear. You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if it was perched on the side of a cliff 1500' above you relying upon your range finder. It wouldn't make sense to do that, but somewhere between that and horizontal one must draw a line.

Nice try though

 

[Pete D.]

Math

he reason why a bullet drops less when shooting uphill or downhill isn't because "it only experiences a gravitational force over the flat ground distance", it's because the component of g perpendicular to the bullet's path is less than g. How hard is that?!!

How hard is that? To a person, like yourself and most of the posters in this thread, not hard at all.
To many people - maybe even most people - it might as well be written in Greek or Latin. And it has little or nothing to do with "dumbing down"...that type of knowledge, even the vocabulary (component of g perpendicular......) is so familiar to you that you don't see (evidently) that it has little to do with the lives of many or most others. They do not understand it because it plays no part in their lives and never has.
I got pretty good at math when I started graduate Astronomy - but that was when I retired. For all of my professional life, despite the time I spent studying math in high school and college, I never had to do anything except simple arithmetic. No geometry. No trig. No algebra. No calculus.
Pete

 

[HarcyPervin]

wow, a lot of people are jumping on the "who cares" bandwagon on this one...if you don't care, don't post.
On the other hand, I am no military sniper, and I don't make a habit out taking long shots, but I still find it interesting to see how exact the science is when the top tier shooters are attempting shots (whether in competition or the shots we never hear about taken by the people we'll never know about)
I'd like to believe that our military's top snipers can effectively do calculations like these, and they're not generalizing, especially when lives and missions are on the line. Its great tv for those of us who have an interest in it, and its nice to be able to log on here at work, (yes, i'm still calling it work when i'm on THR) and learn a little more. If nothing else, it makes me respect, even more, the people who actually do care and who are out there putting this much effort into perfecting their craft.
So, way to go, "who care's guy"...you write off the work that others dump their endless effort into, thus making you smarter than him... this bud's for you.

 

[biggameballs]

Who cares.

I missed a monster buck that was right under my stand this year. Must've been the gravity.

 

[Offfhand]

I have a much read and reread copy of "Jim Carmichels Book Of The Rifle" which has the most logical and easily understood description of shooting up and downhill I've ever read. What makes his explaination especially useful is that it gives useful in formation on how to make quick estimates on how to hold for different distances and angles. Definately worth a read, as is the rest of the book

 

[WNTFW]

Sometimes I want to know all the mind numbing details.
Sometimes "Dumbing it Down" is much appreciated.

What time is it?
Well you see in ancient times the angle of the sun . . . . . yada yada yada.
Now let's get into building a watch.

3:20 (AM or PM is not stated as the person answering gives the inquirer a little credit)

I do like to get into the complete answer when I can. I think it is better to know more. Often it begins with the short answer version of a question convincing me the longer deeper version is worth knowing.