Oakdale yardage discrepancy

[yuppiejr]

It's not a matter of clicks, it's a question of thrust to weight ratios. A five ounce drone could easily move a one ounce leprechaun before your average bench-rest shooter could break the shot.

[selurcspi]

Groan

It's not a matter of clicks, it's a question of thrust to weight ratios. A five ounce drone could easily move a one ounce leprechaun before your average bench-rest shooter could break the shot.

[yuppiejr]

/thread.

[BBeckwith]

Point, set, match... Yuppiejr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snowgun]

If the gun is a .308 shooting 175 gr. SMK and zeroed at 100 yds, the difference in drop between 200 and 218 yds is 0.4". If zeroed at 200 yds vs. zeroed at 218 yds., the difference at 500 yds. Is 2.5"....


Heinous typos thanks to autocorrect.

This.

Yes, yes, for all you Kentucky wind age, horseshoes and handgrenade shooters, who measure by minute of bad guy, and never shot over 300 yrds, it doesn't matter. But when you are trying to meticulously load and validate at the longest range available for long range or f class use, etc, it really sucks.

I know most of you clowns, so i propose I change your scopes by a click or two when you arn't lookin, see how you feel about that.

Its a simple issue. The range is mislabeled, and it's almost a 10% difference. Is the consensus really "suck it up" over fix the labeling? Yet Oakdale pours millions into concrete?

[xd ED]

Quite sincerely, I'd like to learn of the real world problem that was created by the discrepancy, because I am nowhere near being the shooter as some of those hillbillies who have responded.

[Erud]

If the gun is a .308 shooting 175 gr. SMK and zeroed at 100 yds, the difference in drop between 200 and 218 yds is 0.4". If zeroed at 200 yds vs. zeroed at 218 yds., the difference at 500 yds. Is 2.5"....


Heinous typos thanks to autocorrect.

This.

Yes, yes, for all you Kentucky wind age, horseshoes and handgrenade shooters, who measure by minute of bad guy, and never shot over 300 yrds, it doesn't matter. But when you are trying to meticulously load and validate at the longest range available for long range or f class use, etc, it really sucks.

I know most of you clowns, so i propose I change your scopes by a click or two when you arn't lookin, see how you feel about that.

Its a simple issue. The range is mislabeled, and it's almost a 10% difference. Is the consensus really "suck it up" over fix the labeling? Yet Oakdale pours millions into concrete?

So was this your buddy, or was it you? If he is loading for F-Class, 300 yards is the shortest distance shot in that discipline. So, no matter if he is testing at 200 yards or 220 yards, he is only working with theoretical data until he gets onto a real 300 yard range anyways. The click or two difference that may arise from the extra 20 yards can easily be lost in differences in atmospheric conditions, elevation, and all kinds of other things. Zero's are not a constant thing, that's why people keep log books. I shot 4 300 yard matches this year in 4 different places, and my zeroes looked like this:

4/11/15 - Lodi, WI 55º rear sight -1.25
7/10/15 - Harris, MN 80º rear sight -0.50
8/3/15 - Camp Perry, OH 70º rear sight 0.00
9/12/15 - Duluth, MN 70º 0.00

All 4 matches were shot with the same rifle, same barrel, same load. How would you(r buddy) handle this situation? What you see on target while actually shooting trumps what your ballistic program comes up with based on your theoretical data every time. Also, F-Class matches all have sighters, so if you are 1/2 MOA off, you can dial it in before it counts.

Please explain how any of what you are talking about actually makes any sense.

PS, I am not one of the guys that measure by minute of bad guy and never shoots over 300 yards.

[Holland&Holland]

If the gun is a .308 shooting 175 gr. SMK and zeroed at 100 yds, the difference in drop between 200 and 218 yds is 0.4". If zeroed at 200 yds vs. zeroed at 218 yds., the difference at 500 yds. Is 2.5"....


Heinous typos thanks to autocorrect.

This.

Yes, yes, for all you Kentucky wind age, horseshoes and handgrenade shooters, who measure by minute of bad guy, and never shot over 300 yrds, it doesn't matter. But when you are trying to meticulously load and validate at the longest range available for long range or f class use, etc, it really sucks.

I know most of you clowns, so i propose I change your scopes by a click or two when you arn't lookin, see how you feel about that.

Its a simple issue. The range is mislabeled, and it's almost a 10% difference. Is the consensus really "suck it up" over fix the labeling? Yet Oakdale pours millions into concrete?

So when working on things where precise calibration is required you do not check multiple sources? As has been pointed out it is correct on the web site. Also I believe it is correct on the printed material in the range house. You know they do make ranging equipment now as well. Measure twice and cut once is a good motto to live by.

[Rip Van Winkle]

So why not go to the OGC BOD and ask them to change the sign?

Instead of coming here and trying to convince us "Kentucky wind age, horseshoes and handgrenade shooters" that your "friend" is such a Supertacitacalninjawarrior that he can notice a bullet diameter's worth of elevation change between 200yds and meters?

[Holland&Holland]

Instead of coming here and trying to convince us "Kentucky wind age, horseshoes and handgrenade shooters" that your "friend" is such a Supertacitacalninjawarrior that he can see a bullet diameter elevation change between 200yds and meters?

I would content that his friend can't tell the difference, otherwise how do you explain that it took him 3 years of data that did not make sense before he figured it out?

[Erud]

Also, I'm pretty sure his friend is him.

[Holland&Holland]

Also, I'm pretty sure his friend is him.

Nope, otherwise he would have stated it this way:

I have this "friend".

That's what I do when trying to stay anonymous.

[Erud]

Also, I'm pretty sure his friend is him.

Nope, otherwise he would have stated it this way:

I have this "friend".

That's what I do when trying to stay anonymous.

Good call, that would make it pretty tough to figure out. Are you former CIA or something?

[Holland&Holland]

Also, I'm pretty sure his friend is him.

Nope, otherwise he would have stated it this way:

I have this "friend".

That's what I do when trying to stay anonymous.

Good call, that would make it pretty tough to figure out. Are you former CIA or something?

Not that I am aware of. Do keep this quite though. I may need to ask a question sometime on the embarrassing side and may not want to others on the forum to know it is me.

[JJ]

Not that I am aware of. Do keep this quite though. I may need to ask a question sometime on the embarrassing side and may not want to others on the forum to know it is me.

That's what sockpuppet accounts are for