Longest flattest trajectory

[JimNM]

Take your example gun in a vise. No scope, just to keep it simple. Level the barrel to horizontal. Run your distance tests again. There is zero upward angle to the pellet flight. Once the pellet clears the crown of the muzzle, uncle gravity starts pulling it down.

You will find there is no "flat shooting" gun or ammo.

The bore to scope distance and the angle of bore to scope is what is creating the illusion of "flat shooting". Gravity is a bitch. Ain't no magic out there that can beat gravity.

36,700 fps (plus or minus) is the escape velocity of earth. The BC of our diabolo pellets would keep that in the realm of not bloody likely

 

[elh0102]

Imagine a air rifle held in a vice with no scope, imagine that air rifle is fully charged with each pull of the trigger, then imagine you are viewing the pellet’s trajectory from a side view - the pellet will rise and fall according to physics and environmental conditions; it will have a beginning to its apex and an end, at which point the pellet will begin its descent. None of this is determined by the (non existent scope); Ballistics and mathematics yes. Does this make sense or have I lost my mind at 4:30 am?

I think you are exactly correct. But imagine you are watching through the scope, with a specific zero. Now, you raise the rear of the scope for extreme distance, say 60 MOA at 100 yards. The pellet flight has obviously not changed, but you see it differently. Your POA/POI relationship has changed. The two points at which the POA intersects the pellet's trajectory are different. Isn't this the basis for distance-compensating rails and rings?

 

[cavedweller]

I think you are exactly correct. But imagine you are watching through the scope, with a specific zero. Now, you raise the rear of the scope for extreme distance, say 60 MOA at 100 yards. The pellet flight has obviously not changed, but you see it differently. Your POA/POI relationship has changed. The two points at which the POA intersects the pellet's trajectory are different. Isn't this the basis for distance-compensating rails and rings?

I understand your statement, but, no, because angle of incidence or POA is not relative to the predictable trajectory where I'm trying to determine where the beginning of trajectory apex begins and where it ends. In field target this is critical info because this is how you determine holdover at any given distance.

 

[cavedweller]

Take your example gun in a vise. No scope, just to keep it simple. Level the barrel to horizontal. Run your distance tests again. There is zero upward angle to the pellet flight. Once the pellet clears the crown of the muzzle, uncle gravity starts pulling it down.

You will find there is no "flat shooting" gun or ammo.

The bore to scope distance and the angle of bore to scope is what is creating the illusion of "flat shooting". Gravity is a bitch. Ain't no magic out there that can beat gravity.

36,700 fps (plus or minus) is the escape velocity of earth. The BC of our diabolo pellets would keep that in the realm of not bloody likely

Exactly - we all know (we hope) that a pellet rises to it's apex then flies semi flat until our friend gravity overcomes the pellets force and causing the hated decent. Thus at this point, i'm not concerned with the scope except to create a method to aim, because i'm totally focused on learning only how "the pellet behaves in flight at pre-determined distances at a given speed from a given gun.

 

[cavedweller]

Take your example gun in a vise. No scope, just to keep it simple. Level the barrel to horizontal. Run your distance tests again. There is zero upward angle to the pellet flight. Once the pellet clears the crown of the muzzle, uncle gravity starts pulling it down.

You will find there is no "flat shooting" gun or ammo.

The bore to scope distance and the angle of bore to scope is what is creating the illusion of "flat shooting". Gravity is a bitch. Ain't no magic out there that can beat gravity.

36,700 fps (plus or minus) is the escape velocity of earth. The BC of our diabolo pellets would keep that in the realm of not bloody likely

if i understood what you just said that would be "sexy" ha!
however - Q? What’s your longest flattest “verified” shooting gun/pellet combo? Please include the weight and brand of pellet and the speed you’re pushing it at.

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

I get what you’re saying but I’m not buying it because your scopes line of sight has nothing to do with a pellets predictability at a given speed. @Franklink said it best. Besides that the question is about flattest longest trajectory using what pellet at what speed.

Q? What’s your longest flattest “verified” shooting gun/pellet combo? Please include the weight and brand of pellet and the speed you’re pushing it at.

Look at the ballistics numbers and you will see that with speed and better bc come a flatter trajectory. It stretches out the perception of flatness based on scope height. This is verified, and easy to see out to the 75 yards. I've added the category of Absolute Drop in Inches so it is clearer that faster does flatten trajectory. The difference in wind drift is exceptional as well.

Now, if we're only talking about pellets and the parameters based on field target rules, then clarification needs to be made within the original post because no one would want to use the loping trajectory of the ZAN 56 grains at softball pitching speeds.

 

[Bam86]

So based on the OP range card, he is 6 inches low at 10 yards? Wow. How tall are those scope mounts?

 

[cavedweller]

So based on the OP range card, he is 6 inches low at 10 yards? Wow. How tall are those scope mounts?

That is incorrect; refer to the pictures of the splatterburst targets showing POA and POI. I am at most 1" to 1.5" below point of aim which is typical for a 10.34 at 880 fps POI at 10 yards. This is why i actually shoot and measure each and every yard out to beginning of apex then again when apex begins to drop off. If your looking at the dope chart - there are a couple of ways to write things down... some folks write the actual drop in terms of inches or millimeters OR like i did, you can write down the number of "tick or hash" marks it drops by looking through your scope... or you can do both... this is pretty field target specific.

 

[elh0102]

I understand your statement, but, no, because angle of incidence or POA is not relative to the predictable trajectory where I'm trying to determine where the beginning of trajectory apex begins and where it ends. In field target this is critical info because this is how you determine holdover at any given distance.

I'm not sure I follow, but here is an example, which might be relevant. I zeroed a rifle using low mounts and no compensating elevation feature and recorded all the holds at 5 yard increments. Later, I put higher rings on the rifle, and a used about 20 MOA compensation by raising the adjustable rear ring. With the same pellet and tuning, all the hold values changed, although there was obviously no change in the flight of the pellet. If you draw the curved trajectory of a pellet, then draw two straight lines to indicate two different lines of aim, the line of aim intersects the pellet's flight at different points, indicating different hold values.......I think. At least it seems consistent with my experience. I'm not questioning your results, in fact, and I'm not sure that my experience is inconsistent with it.

 

[JimNM]

if i understood what you just said that would be "sexy" ha!
however - Q? What’s your longest flattest “verified” shooting gun/pellet combo? Please include the weight and brand of pellet and the speed you’re pushing it at.

My Point Blank Zero, as I define: POI +/- 1 pellet width from POA. Cross hairs on target from 20-35 yards. Hades .22 at 22-ish FPE.

PBZ is a real thing.

 

[Mycapt65]

Just to screw with you guys. Im pretty sure if you drop a pellet from the end of the barrel exactly as one leaves the barrel they will both hit the ground at the same time. That's if the ground and barrel is perfectly level. That's regardless of BC.

 

[cavedweller]

I'm not sure I follow, but here is an example, which might be relevant. I zeroed a rifle using low mounts and no compensating elevation feature and recorded all the holds at 5 yard increments. Later, I put higher rings on the rifle, and a used about 20 MOA compensation by raising the adjustable rear ring. With the same pellet and tuning, all the hold values changed, although there was obviously no change in the flight of the pellet. If you draw the curved trajectory of a pellet, then draw two straight lines to indicate two different lines of aim, the line of aim intersects the pellet's flight at different points, indicating different hold values.......I think. At least it seems consistent with my experience. I'm not questioning your results, in fact, and I'm not sure that my experience is inconsistent with it.

try shooting your gun starting at 10 yards and every yard there out until you hit the beginning of your apex or "flat / top of your trajectory" then continue out to where your apex starts to drop off, prob somewhere between 15 and 20 yards later. Then again shoot every yard out to whatever distance you choose. in my case, in hunter field target 55 yards is the max distance and 10 yards is the closest. You can graph your trajectory using 1" blocks of measurement... verticle measurement is all thats important for this game. The wind is another matter.

 

[Franklink]

try shooting your gun starting at 10 yards and every yard there out until you hit the "flat or top of your trajectory" the continue out to where your apex drops off prob somewhere between 15 and 20 yards, then again shoot every yard out to whatever distance you choose. in my case, in hunter field target 55 yards is the max distance and 10 yards is the closest. You can graph your trajectory using 1" blocks of measurement... verticle measurement is all thats important for this game. The wind is another matter.

Yes!

Going through the procedure of actually shooting at the relevant distances aides in understanding trajectory more than any online discussion ever will. And doing it in 1 yard increments (at least for non-zero distances) REALLY aides in helping to understand how the pellet rises up to scope zero as distance increases and then falls back below scope zero as distance extends beyond scope zero.

The relevant factor for this discussion being how wide the range of distances is that "zero" on the cross hairs can be used. Ie "flatness."

 

[elh0102]

try shooting your gun starting at 10 yards and every yard there out until you hit the "flat or top of your trajectory" the continue out to where your apex drops off prob somewhere between 15 and 20 yards, then again shoot every yard out to whatever distance you choose. in my case, in hunter field target 55 yards is the max distance and 10 yards is the closest. You can graph your trajectory using 1" blocks of measurement... verticle measurement is all thats important for this game. The wind is another matter.

If I were shooting FT I would zero at the top of the trajectory curve and use all holdover. Holding under has never seemed intuitive to me, although most folks have no problem with it. My shooting these days does not require a high level of precision or range finding. I'm old and lazy, so going to the extent of precision graphing of holds isn't in my future. If can't hit my target I just get a bigger one! But your methodology is absolutely correct.

 

[fuznut]

Imagine a air rifle held in a vice with no scope, imagine that air rifle is fully charged with each pull of the trigger, then imagine you are viewing the pellet’s trajectory from a side view - the pellet will rise and fall according to physics and environmental conditions; it will have a beginning to its apex and an end, at which point the pellet will begin its descent. None of this is determined by the (non existent scope); Ballistics and mathematics yes. Does this make sense or have I lost my mind at 4:30 am?

I believe you are looking for the flatest trajectory at a certain distance or range of distances. Some combo of speed, weight and yes scope height is what your searching for. Dialing to distance would eliminate scope height from mix. And aid in finding your optimal speed and weight for those distances. After doing so you could then begin playing with scope height for what fits you and works best for a fixed scope at those distances. Or just ignore all said by yet another know nothing yammering twit on the internet. Either way best of luck to you!

 

[cavedweller]

I believe you are looking for the flatest trajectory at a certain distance or range of distances. Some combo of speed, weight and yes scope height is what your searching for. Dialing to distance would eliminate scope height from mix. And aid in finding your optimal speed and weight for those distances. After doing so you could then begin playing with scope height for what fits you and works best for a fixed scope at those distances. Or just ignore all said by yet another know nothing yammering twit on the internet. Either way best of luck to you!

I think Franklink has said it best a few times. But the original question is:
What is your longest flattest shooting gun / pellet combo. I was hoping people would volunteer their personal experience in this regards based in actual numbers / performance. In the end everyone provides valuable info, even if it's not what I "think" I'm looking for... little nuggets of wisdom that make me a better shooter.

 

[cavedweller]

Look at the ballistics numbers and you will see that with speed and better bc come a flatter trajectory. It stretches out the perception of flatness based on scope height. This is verified, and easy to see out to the 75 yards. I've added the category of Absolute Drop in Inches so it is clearer that faster does flatten trajectory. The difference in wind drift is exceptional as well.

Now, if we're only talking about pellets and the parameters based on field target rules, then clarification needs to be made within the original post because no one would want to use the loping trajectory of the ZAN 56 grains at softball pitching speeds.
View attachment 357191

View attachment 357192

that is good info!

 

[cavedweller]

Just to screw with you guys. Im pretty sure if you drop a pellet from the end of the barrel exactly as one leaves the barrel they will both hit the ground at the same time. That's if the ground and barrel is perfectly level. That's regardless of BC.

that would depend on angle of attack because the pellet leaving the barrel may be going upwards to unknown heights.

 

[Mycapt65]

that would depend on angle of attack because the pellet leaving the barrel may be going upwards to unknown heights.

"That's if the ground and barrel is perfectly level."

 

[elh0102]

Just to screw with you guys. Im pretty sure if you drop a pellet from the end of the barrel exactly as one leaves the barrel they will both hit the ground at the same time. That's if the ground and barrel is perfectly level. That's regardless of BC.

Let's test. I'll volunteer to catch the one you drop from the muzzle, and another volunteer can catch the one fired downrange, and we'll compare stop watches!
Actually, that is a physics myth. The velocity and increased air resistance of the fired projectile is a controlling variable. Absent that allowance, I'm pretty sure the math could prove you correct! But I took French in order to avoid an advanced math series. Je ne sais pas.