07-13-2011, 09:48 PM
Stan,
Your post has two paragraphs. One is posed as a question -- I responded to it.
The other question is posed as a statement. I did not address the issue posed there partly because it wasn't a question and partly because the point made is a valid point. My apologies if it's the one you wanted commentary on.
Comments:
I don't like imposing trajectory matching as a requirement, but cannot say it would not be imposed on an acquisition.
As for trajectory matching to save money on sights, there are precedents for new loads (e. g. M855A1) mapping more or less into existing trajectory tables. I personally don't like the notion because I believe it to be a false economy compared to what one could get with appropriate ammunition. This is particularly true with optical (vice iron) sights.
There are also precedents for not matching the existing trajectories when new ammunition types (e. g. Mk 262). The difference is in the role the ammunition is to play.
Even so, the differences in trajectory between the M855A1 and the Mk 262 are small enough that a silhouette will still get hit most of the time with a standard center of mass hold all the way out to 300 meters. (I haven't run the trajectories, but it would be better if someone actually tries it with a rifle sighted in at 25 meters using the M855A1. Then shoot both rounds at 100, 200, and 300 meters using a center of mass hold. The bet I would make is that this has been done. I would wager a little less that my claim is valid!)
It is less difficult to dumb down a trajectory than it is to make an existing design do better.
My vote is for an "equal or better" trajectory for our discussions and let the sighting implications sort themselves out.
Your post has two paragraphs. One is posed as a question -- I responded to it.
The other question is posed as a statement. I did not address the issue posed there partly because it wasn't a question and partly because the point made is a valid point. My apologies if it's the one you wanted commentary on.
Comments:
I don't like imposing trajectory matching as a requirement, but cannot say it would not be imposed on an acquisition.
As for trajectory matching to save money on sights, there are precedents for new loads (e. g. M855A1) mapping more or less into existing trajectory tables. I personally don't like the notion because I believe it to be a false economy compared to what one could get with appropriate ammunition. This is particularly true with optical (vice iron) sights.
There are also precedents for not matching the existing trajectories when new ammunition types (e. g. Mk 262). The difference is in the role the ammunition is to play.
Even so, the differences in trajectory between the M855A1 and the Mk 262 are small enough that a silhouette will still get hit most of the time with a standard center of mass hold all the way out to 300 meters. (I haven't run the trajectories, but it would be better if someone actually tries it with a rifle sighted in at 25 meters using the M855A1. Then shoot both rounds at 100, 200, and 300 meters using a center of mass hold. The bet I would make is that this has been done. I would wager a little less that my claim is valid!)
It is less difficult to dumb down a trajectory than it is to make an existing design do better.
My vote is for an "equal or better" trajectory for our discussions and let the sighting implications sort themselves out.