Absolutely! Too many from all different points of view have a me over the resource kind of attitude. If more on each side would focus a bit more on the actual resource, finding a middle ground would be much easier.
I think changing tags to being whitetail or mule deer specific could potentially make regional caps more useful. Wouldn’t necessarily have to be everywhere but I would imagine the vast majority of NR are targeting mule deer.
I have been putting the height above zero I was hitting for sight height this whole time. 🤦♂️😂. What a dork. lol. That puts my numbers within .25 moa of what I’m seeing.
That’s definitely way more in line with what I’m seeing. I’ve always used Hornady ballistics, but I’ll have to give that a go. Thanks for running that!
For the heck of it, I checked all the same data but with a barometric pressure of 24 and 30 at 2100 elevation where I live and it only showed a half inch difference at 300 yards. I’m certainly no expert though so interested in anything you guys can add.
I try a pretty large variety of variables to see if I’m missing anything. In this example, I’m shooting 160 accubond(bc of .531) at an average of 2890 fps with a sight in of 0-.5” high at 100 yards. Everything I check for different variables puts me at around 4” low at 200 and around 12” low at...
I do put in an average barometric pressure for our area. Can’t think of anything I’m missing but very well could be. This is mostly using Hornady ballistics.
I’ve only ever had 2 rifles with moa turrets. The other one has been so consistent since I sighted it in that i haven’t really compared. Groups in the rifle I previously mentioned are good too and it tracks well once I get moa figured out.
Anyone had a rifle/scope setup that’s ballistics never match drop/moa? I have a 7mm with a vx 3 or 4 scope)can’t remember exactly which. I’ve shot 168 Bergers and now 160 accubonds. It’s always hit 1-2 moa higher than ballistics calculators say it should, especially from 300+ yards, with its...