Gun nuts of CFC, I need your advice!

Status
Not open for further replies.
say1988 said:
Just wanted to say, if your reason for wanting to shoot at 500+ feet is the challenge ruling out smaller rifles, would they not present a similar challenge at a somewher shorter range?
Click to expand...

No, not really. The difficulty presented is not equivalent. Smaller rifles are more difficult at longer ranges because the path of a lighter, lower velocity, bullet becomes inconsistent. I am assuming he wants to become better at aiming accurately, farther, rather than just lobbing a .22 calibur round in the right area and hoping it hits it's mark.
 
His point is that it requires similar skill to hit a relatively small target at 100 yards with a .22 as it would be to hit a 5x target at 500 yards with a Springfield, especially under ideal conditions with no wind.

Biathletes shoot .22 rifles at fairly small targets so the ranges don't have to be enormous.
 
Formaldehyde said:
His point is that it requires similar skill to hit a relatively small target at 100 yards with a .22 as it would be to hit a 5x target at 500 yards with a Springfield, especially under ideal conditions with no wind.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. While you can adjust the range so that you can produce a similar degree of variance in the path of the shot, it will still remain harder to hit something farther away with a larger round since your human error will be amplified by greater range.
 
The target's - at least in TR - the same angle across, so the only error which can be amplified is in your wind judgement.
 
I'm assuming you aren't perfect in your "steadyness." You know more than I Flying Pig, but would not any sort of human error(trigger jerk, breathing) be amplified by greater range regardless of caliber/wind/drop/etc?
 
No - say you jerk the trigger, you jerk it by the same angle each time, right? You don't pull it harder at longer range than at short range. The bullseye on your target is always two minutes across (one minute = 1 inch at 100m, 2 inches at 200m, and so on) whether you're shooting at 25 yards or 1000 - therefore, if you were going to score a V-bull at 300, you'll score one at 1000. The only difference is that the wind now has longer to act upon the bullet, so a rise of one 'rating' (we rate it Ground/Medium/Fresh/Strong/Very Strong in ascending order) in wind speed will lead to a greater adjustment to the lateral angle of the bullet and so will have a greater effect at long range.
 
I did not realize that the targets increased in diameter with range. I was under the impression you would be seeing the same area of accuracy regardless of range. That would explain it. Thank you!
 
Trigger jerking is something you need to train out of in a hurry in any case if you are going to target shoot. Remember it's not where the barrel is aimed when you begin to pull the trigger, but where it is aimed as the round leaves the tip of the barrel that determines where it will go downrange.
 
Indeed - we say that you should clench your fist, rather than 'pulling' anything per se. Trigger jerking is often the result of flinching, which will be ironed out with coaching and experience.
 
Or you can give up and go with shotguns! :lol: I was always hopeless with rifles, nearsightedness with astigmatism makes iron sights a nightmare. I can follow motion though and there is a certain amount of grace in the fluid prediction of motion in leading a skeet.
 
Well, I can't really shoot now because my eyesight has gotten so poor. And I can't claim to have ever done a real lot of it. But at one time I was moderately good, and I recall the theory even if I've forgotten the practice.
 
contre said:
As to what I'd lean towards, if I ran across a 1903 in good condition, on familiarity alone I'd be biased towards that. Given a larger selection, the 1903, Lee-Enfield, and on your recommendation Remington 700 and the m14 -- even though it's not bolt-action. I also asked my grandpa about the M1 Garand, the rifle issued to him in the Marines. He swears is the greatest rifle ever made, though I seem to recall it not being as accurate down range. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Having talked to my uncle about this, he told me the 1903 he owns was a "Frankenstein gun" that was put together out of 3 poor condition M1903s which is why he put a scope on it. Given the option, I'm not going to spend 2-3 times what a Remington 700 costs just to ruin a piece of history.

So leaning heavily towards a Remington 700 in a .223 or a .308
 
Cutlass said:
Well, I can't really shoot now because my eyesight has gotten so poor.
Click to expand...

Well, that might explain your inability to understand the graphs that you keep posting here.
 
Cutlass said:
So what's your excuse for being unable to read them?
Click to expand...

The lack of relevant numbers, perhaps? We have the growth rate from 1800-1904, which has nothing to do with the growth rate from 1870-1890; we have the growth rate from 1904-2008, which has nothing to do with the growth rate from 1946-1971; and we have some straight lines and some squiggly drawings that loosely correspond to some other numbers that we can use to make wild-ass guesstimates. Going outside of said charts, we also have a Wikipedia article (which I have not altered) saying that GDP and real wages grew faster during the Gilded Age than during any other period of US history, and we have some debt-and-inflation-fueled economic growth from 1971 onwards that you only want to acknowledge when it helps you draw straight lines on exponential curves, but which you ignore when differentiating between Keynesian economics and Reaganomics.
 
G-Max said:
The lack of relevant numbers, perhaps? We have the growth rate from 1800-1904, which has nothing to do with the growth rate from 1870-1890; we have the growth rate from 1904-2008, which has nothing to do with the growth rate from 1946-1971; and we have some straight lines and some squiggly drawings that loosely correspond to some other numbers that we can use to make wild-ass guesstimates. Going outside of said charts, we also have a Wikipedia article (which I have not altered) saying that GDP and real wages grew faster during the Gilded Age than during any other period of US history, and we have some debt-and-inflation-fueled economic growth from 1971 onwards that you only want to acknowledge when it helps you draw straight lines on exponential curves, but which you ignore when differentiating between Keynesian economics and Reaganomics.
Click to expand...



Now if you knew how to read a graph, then what you would see is that when you broke out the time periods that you are interested in discussing, you would see clearly that per capita wealth creation was greatly higher during the post war period than at any time previous to it.

But the real debt explosion did not start until Keynes was out and Reagan was in. Before 1981 debt never grew faster than per capita income. Only after that did the debt burden grow substantially.

However, this is the wrong thread for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
I Know This Will Probably Get Old and Repetititve - But I Need More Expert Tips for Playing Emperor
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
justanick
J
Lord Lakely
First Impressions: I kind of hate playing Millennia.
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Lonecat Nekophrodite
F
What are the different "types" of games for you, that feel very different and scratch a different itch?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Gumbolt
Gumbolt
pineappledan
  • Poll
[Vote] (7-74) Spain Tweaks... Again
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
axatin
A
P
[C3C] General civ3 strategies - improving my game
Replies
11
Views
2K
alfa156
A
Top Bottom