Is this right? Weird ballistic calculator statement.

[Dave0317]

About 51:30 into this podcast, the guys are discussing zero range vs zero angle.

He claims that with most ballistic calculators, you enter a zero distance and given set of atmosphere conditions. (He uses an example of 1000 yards with cold temps, sea level, to purposely exaggerate the effect) He says that if you then change the atmospherics to something different(higher temp and high elevation), your zero range will still have a correction of 0,0. He claims using zero angle would have been better or given an actual correction. Says that with most calculators, even though the conditions changed it has to give you a 0,0 because the zero range is the baseline it has to go off.

When I try what he says, using Ballistic AE, I get corrections to my dope, even at my zero distance, as long as the atmosphere has changed from the atmosphere I entered at the time of zeroing. For example if I put in a 1000 yard zero, at sea level and cold temps, and then change the atmosphere to get updated data for a different set of conditions, I get about a 3 mil correction even at my zero distance of 1000 yards.

What am I missing? Did he misspeak or is there something I’m missing?

Obviously no one is zeroing at 1000 yards, but I’m always trying to learn more and listening to this just made me really question why they would make that claim when it seems to not be a real issue at all? Any basic calculator should correct data when the atmosphere changes, even for the zero range, right?

 

[bnewt3]

OK, ive watched a few minutes and I think I know where the confusion is.

I just did this in 4DOF myself, wild environmental shift, zero range 1000 to confirm.

With a zero range, you are telling the calculator that the 2 lines(from reticle to target, and bullet trajectory) intersect at precisely XXX yards. in his example, 1000 yards. Not 1001, not 998, not .00001" high, not .2" low. EXACTLY at that range, EXACTLY at the center of the center of the center of the bullseye. Of course we are virtually NEVER that precise because of a number of limitations(thus the disadvantage vs zero angle).

Also, environmentals dont affect that. If you say its zeroed at 1000yds, 10,000ft, 100 degrees, 90% humidity.....OR its zeroed at 1000yds, 20ft, 20 degrees, 13% humidity......zeroed is zeroed, the calculator only knows what you tell it, and you told it its zeroed at 1000. The trajectory is different between those 2 scenarios, therefore what you do to the scope to achieve those zeros is different, but zeroed at 1000 is zeroed at 1000.

Since most of us shoot under 1000, you can think of this exaggerated scenario as an "impact point and backwards" calculation(forwards too if you are going beyond 1000).

They are saying Zero Angle is a "point of origin and forwards calculation", taking all of the data(including something like "it was .2" high at 107 yards"). From this, it determines the angle that HAD to be between the barrel and reticle to make that happen. THEN from that angle, it calculates trajectory from the muzzle out.

The ideology is you are giving the solver MORE PERFECT data to use to calculate trajectory and therefore get better data out.

 

[Speaks]

Seems to be a potentially true technical distinction with no practical change in behavior for someone zeroing at 100. In other words he is saying it to look smart. Just like guys talking about how they factor in the curvature of the earth and its rotation...

 

[bnewt3]

I would certainly like to see IRL comparison of the 2 methods and the difference between calculated and actual POI.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Didn’t watch the video but in what I’ve tested between zero range and “zero angle” it results to something stupidly small. Like you can’t even dial the difference in the ballistics math with 0.25 MOA per click or 0.1 MIL per click scopes to out past 1,000 yards with every gun I checked.

 

[mlevimadden]

Didn’t watch the video but in what I’ve tested between zero range and “zero angle” it results to something stupidly small. Like you can’t even dial the difference in the ballistics math with 0.25 MOA per click or 0.1 MIL per click scopes to out past 1,000 yards with every gun I checked.

This. Zero angle is technically more accurate, but it's so far down in the weeds that I haven't gone through the trouble of setting it up.

The low-hanging fruit of what causes us to miss a target for big game hunting is an improperly assembled rifle system, rifle system that doesn't hold zero, incorrect zero from small sample size, bad wind call, and crappy shooting.

There is probably an application where zero angle matters for some ELR match where guys are shooting 2,000 yards and running kestrels with wind vanes and known target ranges. Using a 100 yard large sample size zero range versus a zero angle won't be the reason you miss a shot on a big game animal.

 

[Jordan Smith]

I wouldn't say that zero angle is any more accurate, but it does depend on fewer variables, which reduces the opportunities for inaccurate solutions due to imperfections in input variables. If the ballistic solver correctly accounts for those additional variables, as does Ballistic AE, the output is the same given that the physical modelling is the same.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I only use zero angle when I'm launching Core Lokts from my whinny.

Seriously, you're not missing animals because you don't use zero angle. You're missing because you suck at shooting.... I swear, companies just try to mess with hunters.