Why can't these LIARS just admit that their Method is flawed, and their toy does NOT WORK well??? I will tell you why, they are making money selling this JUNK to guys that have not taken the time to test for themselves. Hell buy one with angles on it, then buy one with Cosine on it, then buy the trick mount so you protect your SCOPE!!! WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP! This complete and dishonest moron 'W' claims that his device will give you 'HITS' at ranges less than 1200 yards and inclines less than 40 degrees......HITS ON WHAT??? A FREAKIN T-REX???

The truth is that the vertical error induced by using the wrong math(ACI Method), will give you over 19 inches of vertical ERROR at 40 degrees and 800 yards! Holding center mass on a Monster Buck with a 308 in this scenario will cause you to shoot 10 inches BELOW the BOTTOM of the BUCKS BELLY!

For a device that is supposed to give you hits at distances less than 1200 yards, I sure hope the guys that have been DUPED into buying this JUNK never try to shoot a deer at 900 yards with over 25 degrees of incline......Lets all say it together now.....AIR BALLLLLLLLLL!

TIME TO CALL THIS LIARS PUNK CARD-----I will BET $10,000 against anyone who says they can shoot a 308 winchester sniper rifle and make repeatable hits on a deer sized TARGET using the ACI (BULLSHIT METHOD) From 900 yards at 35 Degrees incline. We will meet in Salida Colorado for the test, the place to shoot is just 25 minutes away. We have a laser that can and will be synchronized with the rifle scope so the WHOLE WORLD CAN SEE WHERE THE RIFLE IS POINTED WHEN THE SHOT BREAKS.

This is well within the 1200 yards and 40 degrees 'W' claims is functional.... Come on LADIES, the MONEY IS WAITING????????????



"chris matthews
Member
Member # 51
posted 10-29-2003 09:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****** makes a neat little mount for the CSI that attaches to the rail instead of the scope. Keeps any stress from "accidents" off the scope tube and keeps you from buying another set of rings to get the third one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 559 | From: Kansas City, Mo "

GEE!!! The more we LIE....the more gadgets we can SELL!!!....the more money WE MAKE!!!!!



W
Member
Member # 1773
posted 11-18-2003 10:08 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent... Let me see if I can shine some light on what’s really going on when you shoot on an incline or decline.
When you zero your rifle, (lets say that you zero it at 100 yards and you are shooting flat). Because you are shooting “flat”, (meaning not on an incline or decline), you have the full effects or force of Gravity pushing downward on the bullet. So when you zero, you have adjusted the sight height above the bore, so the bullet leaves the barrel, arcs up into the full force of gravity and then drops down onto the bulls-eye.

When you shoot at an incline or decline (Angled Shooting) the effects or force of gravity is less; but you still have the same sight height above the rifles bore.
This means that the bullet is leaving the rifle’s bore, theoretically but not specifically on the same arc. This is why the bullet hits high; and a knowledgeable shooter will correct for the “gravity” distance to target."

HEY MORON! The Force of Gravity is Constant at a given distance from the Earths center, your shot angle does not change it one bit. BTW moron, knowledgable shooters don't use your crap, they use Vector 21B's, computers and their DATA BOOKS.



W
Member
Member # 1773
posted 11-17-2003 08:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Brent... Glad you’re interested in the product. I manufacture the ACI and did manufacture "on special order" Angles indicated for Horus Vision. The cosine version does both as the cosines are in five degree increments. This is the method of choice by all of the military Snipers utilizing it. It has been in use, in Afghanistan, Iraq as well as other places on this Globe of ours for over three years. But knowing the "Angle" supposedly works the best with software when shooting at or beyond 1200 yards and at or above 40 degrees. "

Only an A$$hole would sell something that does NOT WORK to a soldier who could miss and cost men their lives. You ought to have your A$$ KICKED!!! What? Admit the truth??? Admit that our math is WRONG? NO WAY!!! We would never be able to sell these things if shooters new the truth! Need the truth? Don't take my word for it, TEST FOR YOURSELF, or get a third opinion from someone who actually knows like Vaughn or Pesja.

Recommendation number 1 - Since it is all about PRECISION SHOOTING, Never use a method that you know will give you large errors.

Recommendation number 2 - Never take advice from someone who pretends to know, but has never actually done it.

Recommendation number 3 - Never buy gadgets from someone who pretends to know how to make gadgets to mount other gadgets that don't work in the real world.

Last but not least - Use the Right Method that will give you the correct Answer EVERY TIME.
Precise thinking + Precise Math + Precise Shot Execution = Target Precisely DEAD


***********************************************************************

OK, so this guy says it much more eloquently than I did....... He just took a lot longer to say it. I like his data structure.

http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/article1.html

I guess that makes 5 of us on planet earth that have clue...

The right way to calculate an inclination angle shot can be found at this link.

http://artactical.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/701602405/m/859609536

S1- I plan on hunting some T-Rex while I am on leave. Can you send me a link to the site that sells that gadget. When I am hunting T-Rex I don't want to miss.

That does it..... You are officially a



'BAAAAAAAAADDD SSSSSNIPERRRR'

Spook - Make sure you read the new Game Regs, I think the rules have changed since we hunted T-Rex back in the old days.

S1- Check this, I pulled it off another forum. The same "W" guy that wrote on this forum in 2004 that his ACI gadget and multiplying range by cosine worked fine out to 1200 yards with a 308, now admits this exact same method will cause you to miss on a sheep at 700 yards with a 300 Win Mag!

One would have thought he would have just thanked you for the lesson.

Then this Big_Bore guy just gives him a well deserved "S1 style" intellectual spanking. It makes for entertaining reading. Just for review I have copied some of his original posts on this site 'in bold'. Below the asterisks are his recent posts on the other forum and Big_Bore's response.

<W>

Posted Tue February 10 2004 09:05
S1: After reading your post, I found it to be interesting and very in-depth. However, it leads me to ask you where did you learn your methodology? When I go out, I range my target, multiply the cosine number to that distance, look at the data card I made earlier that morning, set-up and send one downrange. Why all the Magilla?

http://www.snipertools.com

______________________

<TiroFijo>

Posted Tue February 10 2004 09:19
W, have you read this article?
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/article1.html

_______________________



S1

Posted Tue February 10 2004 10:23
Howdy W, and welcome to the board. The reason I go through the trouble to do it this way is because it gives me a much better answer. I need more precision when shooting past 300 yards in steep terrain. If you are willing, take an example past 800 yards, and figure a solution with your method, and then with the method I use. You will quickly see that the answers are quite different. The farther out you shoot, the bigger difference you will see between the two methods.

P.S. What is "Magilla?"

Truth and Objectivity are Mutually Inclusive

_________________




Posts: 1716 | Registered: Tue November 18 2003

<W>

Posted Tue February 10 2004 14:15
S1, Thanks for welcoming me in. Well, a "Magilla" (Ma Gilla; W’s Dictionary) is somewhat short for allot of stuff going on. I hear what you are saying, (Loudly) and appreciate your methodology. I also appreciate Sierra’s Infinity software, Mr. McDonald's article as well as using Exbal on the Palm, and have never had a problems hitting at distances beyond 1000 yards and on an angle.



*********************************************************************************************



W
Member


Reged: 10/11/03
Posts: 172
Loc: Chatsworth, CA
Re: $1.99 ACI beats sniper tools $99 ACI [Re: goodgrouper]
#114350 - 06/22/06 11:32 PM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

Good Grouper... Please, send me the ACI. Besides having a strong desire to make things right, it is Very important to me that I see it.

Regarding accuracy and the ACI, there are several ways to utilize it, and one way is more accurate than the other. Here are two examples utilizing .300 wm with a Berger 210 VLD bullet, .64 BC, 2888 fps at 71 degrees and a BP of 28.33.

The Software method, i.e. Night force / Exbal for example is The Most Accurate Method. The reason for this is that the software takes into account the fact that the bullet is still traveling the full distance to target, maintains a similar time of flight, uses the bullets own unique ballistic coefficient, velocity, and deceleration curve, all commingled with the current met data. (.7 Co-Sine inputted into the software for 700 yards = 9 moa of elevation adjustment).

The least most accurate method is called the Rifleman method. It is where you would multiply the Co-Sine number to your distance to target, obtaining the flat line distance... 700 yards X .7 = 490 yards; 8 moa.

This would equate to a miss of 1 moa or 1.047 X 7 =7.5 inches above your target. Hunting Sheep, this is a miss.

If you will bear with me, let’s look at another example. Lets say that you are shooting a .308, with a 175 SMK, .505 BC, 2600 fps. You live down here in LA LA land (Sea Level) and you have zeroed your rifle for this climate. 85 degrees, 29.93 BP, and a velocity of 2600 fps.

Your data card that you made at home, gives you a hold for the 800 yard distance of 26 moa. Now, you travel to Tajikistan, to an elevation of 13000 feet. The temperature there is 38 degrees and the BP is 24.00. The scenario is that you have your cross-hairs placed on the chest of the Largest Sheep in the world, and he is at a distance of 800 yards, and at a COST OF $30,000.00.

The ballistic Reticle that you are using or the data card you made at home in LA LA land says to hold at 26 moa.

But, IF you run the software for your current in the field, meteorological data (temperature, barometric pressure and humidity) your new data card says to hold at 24.25 moa. In addition, the sheep is down a cliff on an angle of 60 degrees. (.5 Co-Sine)

So, since the sheep is at distance, and you have time to eat your lunch, you pull out your pocket pc, launch the Night Force Ballistic Targeting Software and plug in the data.

Your corrected for gravity, altitude and weather delivers a hold of 10.25 moa; a 15.75 moa difference! OR A FLIP’N MISS OF 132 INCHES - ABOVE THE SHEEP!

If I was in this situation, I would want to be using Night force / Exbal Ballistic Targeting Software… And a Solid, Schmidt Bender or Night force Scope that adjusts in moa or mil-rad (cm’s).

GG, you should be pushing as hard as you can to get all hunters, every hunter, EVERYWHERE that Never shoots accurately beyond 300 yards, but because they have been successful their whole life connecting at 200, they possess Egos and attitudes as if every round they ever fired was at 1500 yards, to move up to today’s technology and standards.

And Brother, I am just getting started…

--------------------
http://www.snipertools.com


Edited by W (06/22/06 11:36 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jon A
Member


Reged: 12/28/01
Posts: 444
Loc: Mukilteo, WA
Re: $1.99 ACI beats sniper tools $99 ACI [Re: W]
#114352 - 06/23/06 12:54 AM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

Quote:
The Software method, i.e. Night force / Exbal for example is The Most Accurate Method....The least most accurate method is called the Rifleman method.


Yup, the Rifleman Method on the example I gave above would have had me off by 2 clicks, even at a pretty small angle.

Post Extras: Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator
B1G_BORE
member


Reged: 12/20/05
Posts: 63
Loc: MT
Re: $1.99 ACI beats sniper tools $99 ACI [Re: W]
#114356 - 06/23/06 02:04 AM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

Quote:
210 VLD bullet, .64 BC, 2888 fps at 71 degrees and a BP of 28.33.



The COS(71deg) =~ .33 (to two decimal places). The ACI doesn't give you the angle; it indicates the approximate COS of the angle. It seems odd a program would ask you for the COS of an angle and not the angle. You could always do the ACOS(val) if you had a trig calculator.

Quote:
The Software method, i.e. Night force / Exbal for example is The Most Accurate Method.


Has this been demonstrated more accurate than the McDonald/Almgren approach Sierra uses? The trivial formula is :
Let d = bullet Drop (ie, actual drop if sighted in for 0 yards)
Let p = path Drop (ie, if sighted in at 250 yards, the + or - from zero)
Let a = actual Drop (ie, what is calculated/observed when shooting on an angle)

a = d*(1-COS(alpha)) - p

Empirical results have shown the McDonald/Almgren approach exceptionally predictive. It does suffer from one flaw, namely TOF as it considers up angles identical to down angles (obviously TOF, trajectory will differ at long range). What does Exbal show for shooting down/up 44 degree at a range of 2,433 meters. ( I pick 2,433m because Canadian snipers using a 50 BMG took out a Taliban machine gun nest at that range. That beats GG and Kirby, and a far better trophy)

Quote:
Rifleman method. It is where you would multiply the Co-Sine number to your distance to target, obtaining the flat line distance...

More accurately, the horizontal component.

Quote:
uses the bullets own unique ballistic coefficient, velocity, and deceleration curve, all commingled with the current met data.


Every ballistic software uses that information (that I've ever seen). What differentiates Exbal is you can input the angle (neg or pos) or apparently the COS of the angle.

Quote:
and humidity

The error term when omitting humidity is negligible, far less than the error term when interpolating COS(alpha) for alpha > 25 degrees.

Quote:
the sheep is down a cliff on an angle of 60 degrees.


I'm afraid at angle of 60 deg or greater, the error term of the ACI is too significant. 60 and 63 degrees are indistinguishable with the ACI, the the multiplier changes from .5 (60 deg) to .45 (63 degrees). This is not the fault of the ACI; as I mentioned earlier it's the spatial limitation of mapping COS. Using the 77 degrees mentioned in the first line, 77 and 80 degrees are indistinguishable on the ACI, but the multipliers are .22 and .17 with a relative error of 30%.

Quote:
Your corrected for gravity .... 13000 feet

Does Exbal correct for g at different altitudes?
At 13K feet, the density of the earth below, the latitude (and thus the centripetal acceleration component) have more impact on g than altitude.

Quote:
And a Solid, Schmidt Bender or Night force Scope that adjusts in moa or mil-rad (cm’s).

Why would you need a scope that uses antediluvian MOA and not the angular system of shooting MOA (unless there was a defect in the software so it couldn't make the trivial conversion).

BTW, my three NF scopes seem to click off shooting MOA. My initial tests were inconclusive. Thanks to the help of 7mmRHB I now know to determine this correctly. Do you have any evidence NF using prehistoric MOA and not shooting MOA?

Quote:
they possess Egos and attitudes as if every round they ever fired was at 1500 yards

I propose we keep mind reading/motivation speculation out of our posts and try to flesh out the truth.

Exbal V. NF software.
I wanted to purchase the NF software but I can't get the version number (which Exbal posts on their site). If I purchase the NF labeled product, can I expect the same customer support as purchasing Exbal? Does Exbal ask for the COS of the angle or does it give you the option of entering the actual angle in degrees (including sign + or -)

--------------------
B1G_B0RE
50BMG



**************************************************************************************************

quote:

The least most accurate method is called the Rifleman method. It is where you would multiply the Co-Sine number to your distance to target, obtaining the flat line distance... 700 yards X .7 = 490 yards; 8 moa.

So W's fool proof method from 2004 is now called the "Rifleman Method" and is "The least most accurate method"?

'least most accurate'????????????

I can't decide if that phrase is an oxymoron, or if its author is just a moron?

W now calls the math I gave him two years ago the ....."Software Method"

Thanks Grizzz, W is worth at least one good laugh a year.....GO BIG_BORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S1 - Please read big bore's post repeatedly, then try leaning his way and playing nicely with others. For you, diplomacy is a more rare art than your wind reading skills are for the rest of us.

I am warning you, Len will come and kick you out of our living room!

Regards,

Don

In the size house Len lives in, he would probably have trouble finding the bathroom in his own house, much less finding my living room.

There are more than enough 'Diplomats' on the shooting forums. If one is looking for 'Decorum', or a personally validating 'Social Experience', this is probably not the forum for you. If you are looking for unbiased commentary on what works, and not allergic to short spells of deeper thought, you can probably hang around here for a while and pick up something useful to carry in your 'personal' TOOL BOX.

S1, with your better understanding than me on this subject, is there any reason for me to measure angles for ranges inside of 500 yards? I am shooting a 175 gr SMK at 2880 fps @40F with 300ft ASL. I have not seen a discernable difference in my human error to make it worth while. In our little laboratory here on paper, what is the difference with a 40 degree elevation at 350-500 yards?

Stephen,

Is that 175 a 308, or 7mm?

The reason I ask, is that the flatter the trajectory the less objective vertical difference inclination will induce at a given range.

Actually, both bullets are very similar at 500 yards and 40 degrees of incline. If you have a 100 yard zero on your rifle, your come up for 500 yards and Zero incline would be about 9 MOA. The adjustment I calculate for a 40 degree incline shot, would be to subtract about about 2.9 Moa (round to 3.00) and actually come up only 6 MOA for the shot.


My general rule is that anything on Big Game that is less than 300 yards, and less than 20 degrees of incline, I won't do the calculation. On smaller targets, and greater inclines than 20 degrees, you may have to. Below is the math calcs for 500 yards and 40 degrees.

Borline drop = 65.8 inches or 12.57 MOA

Correction factor for 40 degrees = .234, link to table:

http://artactical.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/701602405/m/859609536

Come up from 100 yard Zero at zero degrees incline 500 yard shot = 9.00 MOA


12.57 x .234 = 2.94 MOA

9.00 - 2.94 = 6.06 MOA Actual come up.

Dial or HOLD 6.00 MOA and shoot.



As you can see, 40 degrees has a significant correction factor, approaching 25 percent you would have to have a very flat shooting rifle, or a very large target to ignore a 40 degree incline even at 300 or 400 yards.

Here is a graph done by Pejsa, Mr. Inertial Guidance, who personally developed the reentry Guidance system for the Space Shuttle. He also flew B29's (30 combat missions) and led a team of guys at Thor that built the first working inertial guidance system for long range missiles, similar stuff on the Titan II ICBM as well. Three Air Medals, Distinguished Flying Cross, and a Presidential Citation.

The graph shows a couple of things. First, that gravity is a constant, and drop from borline on the line of gravity's force vector is the same, even though the trajectory's angle varies. Second, it shows that geometry can provide a decent solution to inclination angle problems. Pejsa uses the correct math ( 1-cosine ) for his correction factor as do all educated folks.

This graph for simplicity's sake, assumes that borline and sightline are the same, he probably should have written borline instead of Line of Sight on the graph to avoid confusion. On the same page as the graph, right above figure 6 are the words, "Suppose that we adopt a method where we sight down the Borline. Line of sight through the bore or the 'Original Vector' without the effect of gravitational force is the obvious intent.

It is no small thing to note that, the Actual Correction is a specific distance PERPENDICULAR to the borline, and on that perpendicular line, the exact distance between the original borline and the actual trajectory.

Once the shooter understands that the force of gravity is a constant at a given altitude, and that bullet drop stays the same at a given range relative to the vector of gravitational force, the rest is just a very simple geometry equation.

Its .308, but thanks. When my printer is back up, I will have to make me some spreadsheets and print them out for reference.