I’m relatively new to this gun stuff. Before the 2000, I didn’t have money for firearms, and after I bought my first round of firearms, I didn’t have money to purchase guns for a long time.

I was forced by good comments to go do math and then visualize it. Thank you, gnuplot.

In the graph above, the first line is purple and represents the Point of Aim through the scope 1.5 inches above the bore.
The second line, green, is a simple constant acceleration of gravity in an ideal environment. I.e. bull crap. It is there so that I can have a verification stage.
The next line is the results from the Hornady ballistic calculator app. The values input are BC of 0.12, muzzle velocity of 1050, diameter of 0.22inches, weight of 40 grains. These are the numbers from the CCI subsonic 22LR ammunition.

From looking at the constant acceleration and the G1 calculations, you can see there is a difference. The bullet is losing velocity in the G1 graph and drops more than 8 inches at around the 67 yard mark. The constant acceleration has that happening at around 72 yards.

Next, I “zeroed” the rifle/scope combination at 25 yards. This requires that there be an initial upward component to the path of the bullet. I did not do the math correctly to modify the initial horizontal velocity based on stealing some of that for the upward motion.

The orange line is again constant acceleration. The curve is tangent at 25 yards. Depending on initial velocity, this might not be a tangent, but instead pass upwards through the PoA curve. The M193 out of an AR15 platform, zeroed at 25 yards, continues upwards for a significant distance.

The yellow dots are the Hornady G1 calculations with an initial upward velocity added.

What does all of this mean? It means I’m a visual person and should have spent the time graphing this stuff, so I could actually see what I’m doing.

Thank you for the feedback.

I’m getting better.

At issue is learning the easy things, but not understanding them.

Before I put the new scope on the rifle, I was hitting my target(s) at random ranges consistently. I put the new scope on the rifle, zeroed it, was, very, happy with the groups I was getting.

For many reasons, I didn’t have an opportunity to press the trigger for a while. My partner wasn’t here to help with the meat processing, the weather was too yucky to flesh the hide. I just didn’t get a chance.

I did glass a number of targets over the week, but no shots taken.

Then the other day, everything aligned, and I was good to go for a shot. I waited until he presented a beautiful side view, sighted in to put a round through his eye… slowly pressed the trigger, bang. And he took off. Clean miss.

Hmm, what did I do wrong? The next day I had another opportunity. Again I waited for a good presentation, lined up to take him through the eye. Pressed the trigger.

That damn critter didn’t even flinch.

Why was I missing at these ranges. It didn’t make any sense to me.

My mind started working the problem.

The answer came to me, bullet drop!

I was wrong.

Over the distances I was shooing, the time of flight was less than 0.08s. Using that old school math, we find that the distance a bullet drops in a given time is 0.5at^2 a=32ft/s^2. Fumble fingering the calculator, that gives me a drop of 1.5 inches.

Shit. That’s more than enough to miss that rodent’s entire head.

Add to all of this that because the rifle is sighted at a known distance, it is only at that distance and one other where the point of aim and the point of impact are at the same level.

At 25 yards, the point of impact will be either 3.5 or 3 inches below the perfectly parallel to bore scope. I say 3.5 or 3 because I do not remember whether the scope is 2 inches above bore or only 1.5.

This means that to have the point of impact intersect the point of aim at 25 yards, I have to point the scope down 3.0-3.5 inches.

But as we move the target closer or further from the muzzle, the amount of drop changes. This makes a difference. There is also that difference in angles. With the scope pointing down to get the rifle bore to point slightly up, there will be a period of time when the bullet is low compared to the point of aim.

After that time, the bullet will be high, compared to the point of aim.

Then we add even more stupid to the equations.

I got the new scope because I wanted the hash marks on the reticle to help me with figuring offsets.

The scope is lower cost, so it is a second focal plane reticle. This means that the distance between hash marks stays the same regardless of the magnification.

When the manual says that a hash is 1 MOA, they mean it is 1 MOA at 9x, not at 4x, where I keep the scope.

This means I need to know the magnification to use the hash marks to measure with.

I’m going to head back to the range and do some actual measuring. Then I’m going to use a ballistic calculator to have a better idea of wtf I’m doing and where that bullet is going to be relative to point of aim.

If things go well, I might even be able to figure all of this out, without blowing up my brain.

Once all of this is figured out, I get to repeat it with the Marlin in 30-30.

I was just cjecking the local news and bumped into this load of BS.

Man Accused of Robbing Murfreesboro Gas Station at Gun Point – Rutherford Source

If you need help identifying the suspect, why effing blurring the face?

And the video in the article seems to be suspiciously edited every time we are about to get a full view of the face. And I bet this is not the only angle available, specially from cameras that are set at face level which I believe is the norm in most chains nowadays.

Why even bother to seek for help if you are too scared to give us details? Because the new norm in News outlets is “not to perpetuate narratives against minorities.” That they are perpetuating the myth that minorities are too fragile to accept one of them is a criminal is probably worse than anything since they are letting a bad guy roam free among them.

Anyway, be on the lookout for a suspicious guy with a blurred face when you go out.

That is a miserable grouping at 20 yards. Somebody in Facebook made the calculation and it comes about 24 MOA; I can get a better pattern with buckshot.

And he was shooting at a static, non-threatening target. Now imagine his grouping if leaded shit was flying at him and was forced to shoot from cover under adrenalin dump…. and there were several bad guys after his ass.

He’d be dead holding an empty weapon.

Lorain police officer under investigation following shooting of dog

A Lorain police officer is under investigation following a shooting July 2 of a dog at the corner of Eighth Street and Oberlin Avenue.

Three and a half-year-old Dixie, a Labrador retriever mix, escaped from the house and the family was trying to retrieve her as the officer was driving past.

Brittany Kaspirek, daughter of dog owner Tammie Kerns, said Dixie had gotten out and the officer called her toward him.

Kaspirek said that while the officer was about 25 feet away, he pulled out his gun and shot the dog once in the leg.

As she began trying to run away, the officer shot the dog three more times on the sidewalk, the woman said.

The dog died on the sidewalk.

There is body cam footage if you can stomach it.

He executed  yellow lab.

There is no justification for that.

Even if the first shot was plausibly justified, the last three were not.

I honestly hope karma makes him eat it in a traffic stop. No, I will not back down for that.

It feels like it has been a long week. I think much of that came from listening for hours of oral arguments. On the better side of things, I believe that I have better code in place to make the task easier next time. I’ve also created tools that do more saves along the way so that I don’t have to redo everything, over and over again.

J. Kb. contacted me to ask, “what was the request about what ammo?” I hope he has an article on 5.7×28 coming up. Having watched a number of YouTube videos about it, I’m curious, but not curious enough to invest in still another caliber.

It looks like there will be some photographs of squirrel processing coming up soon. I want to make sure that I take many photos.

We had a visitor staying with us for a short time. I managed to foist off my Nikon D5500. He had a great time with the lens I let him borrow, but he wasn’t allowed to take that with him. I’m looking forward to seeing what he does with that camera once he picks up a couple of lenses for it.

Having spent today thinking about what I heard in the 7th Circuit Court oral arguments, I think I’ve identified why it was so difficult.

• The two anti-gun judges were actually rude. Easterbrook made disparaging sighs and other sounds while the good guys were presenting.
• The Judges were disrespectful to the Bruen court. They actually laughed at some of the phrasing from Justice Thomas’ opinion
• Judge Wood constantly played dumb, claiming that figuring out what the words of the Second Amendment actually meant was going to be their task, even though the Heller court told them what the words mean.
• Judge Easterbrook was demanding that the good guys argue against the NFA instead of the actual laws. Sort of: If we decide that an AW/LCM ban is unconstitutional, what’s to keep you from arguing that the NFA is unconstitutional?
• The Circuit Court represents more than just the state of Illinois. Yet Easterbrook and Wood kept repeating that machine guns and grenades are banned. Machine guns are banned in Illinois, but not in every state under the 7th Circuit.
• Easterbrook wanted to find some “special” meaning in “in common use today”. He refused to use plain text.

I expected the state to misrepresent the situation. I expected them to make their best arguments, even if they had to make huge reaches. They did not disappoint in that regard. It was just how down right disrespectful Easterbrook and Wood were to the Bruen Court, Murphy and Maag. It was not a good look.

Was the breakdown of the oral arguments worthwhile to you? Is it worth my time to do other oral arguments when they come out?

Other than a Ruger PC9, is there another 9 mm carbine that you like?

This is from a black music festival on the 4th of July.

Unity is dead.

It is impossible to live in a country you hate so much and feel constantly aggrieved by.

The Left wants a race war. There is no avoiding it.

There will be dark time ahead.

B.L.U.F. An examination of how judges act and how to read the tea-leaves. Also, the sorts of ridiculous things that are said and don’t get rebutted.

The head judge is Frank Easterbrook. He has a history of dumping on the Second Amendment at every chance he can. He is the judge who got means-end into the 7th circuit court.

All quotes are from the machine created transcript, with edits by me. I will only be adding the speaker to the quotes.

Here we see that she is off to a great start, banning modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines is exactly like fire codes from the founding era.

We know from Bruen that courts must begin by assessing whether the regulated instrument is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment — Hunger. Nope, it is if the conduct is protected by the plain text. She is twisting words here.

The instruments must be arms. They must be bearable, and they must be in common use for self-defense. The instruments at issue here do not satisfy that standard for at least two reasons. First, large capacity magazines are not arms. They are accessories that are not necessary to the operation of any firearm. — Hunger.

We see the standard twisting from “in common use for lawful purposes” into “in common use for self-defense”, no surprise there.

Of course, the Supreme Court has issued an opinion saying that ammunition and magazines are indeed arms.
Read More