Why don't scopes have a bullet rise compensation for shots inside your zero?

Do I need to MS Paint this shit for you

Couldnt explain it well so Ill give you a pic. Light doesnt have any drop, but a bullet does.

Attached: 20180810_171016.jpg (4128x3096, 2.99M)

And how is the bullet not rising during the part of its trajectory where it's getting further from the ground? It this some kind of ESL malfunction or autism I'm not aware of?

>drowns after "tripping and falling into water"
this is obvious murder right?

Attached: 127497527790.png (111x107, 1K)

>this level of pure autism

No, niggers really are that bad at motor skills and water.

Point the rifle straight upwards - perpendicular to the plane of gravity. When a fired projectile runs out of energy does it not begin to "fall"? Before it "falls" is it not "rising"? Now, point the rifle in a more reasonable direction at a reasonable target. Does the bullet not travel in an arc wherein it has a rise time, a fall time, and a crest?

You dumb fuck, its right there on the paper

Attached: 1500781009349.png (600x617, 323K)

Ask yourself: Who taught you how to swim?

>Ask yourself: Who taught you how to swim?
Even before I knew how to swim I knew how to float

The Russians just aim at your belt so it'll still hit somewhere in your torso.

Attached: violence.png (382x597, 237K)

because you are like 40 feet away just throw a rock at them

You are so dense its unbelievable. Your scope points in a straight line to the target, your rifle is pointed slightly up. This way the bullet arcs over your line of sight initially and impacts at line of sight

>side irons

Thats pretty common doctrine with any military. Or at least it was.
For the M14 it was zero at 250 and 6 o clock hold the middle of the torso or center hold the belt. As long as theyre within that range itll be a torso hit

What terminology would you prefer to use for the time period within which the bullet is traveling in a relative upward direction during its arc of flight? There is clearly a portion of the arc in the drawing that is not a portion of the fall or of the crest. Why does so much anger center around people discussing this portion of the arc of flight?

>arcs over
>goes up
>rises

blacks can't swim. it's not even a meme.

Bullet arc/=/ bullet rise. If you cant distinguish between the two in 13 on google you have no business ever trying to learn anything again methinks

They do with longer ranged shots because of the ballistic arc, but not enough for it to be of any real concern.

>Bullet arc/=/ bullet rise.
Pic related is how measurements are made in physics. A single arc of flight is almost identical to a single instance of a wave. What do you prefer to call the time of flight between the time when the projectile leaves the barrel and the time that the projectile intersects the POA?

Attached: waveform.jpg (960x720, 66K)

Bullets rise because you point the muzzle up to intersect your poa and poi. No one ever said they rise on their own. Regardless they still follow an upward climb until they either reach their zero or the highest point of the arc in their trajectory. Saying bullet rise isn't wrong retards. Saying they rise on their own is.

>on their own
I agree with everything else that you said but I do not understand what you mean by "on their own".

On their own meaning if you shoot them in a straight line parallel to the ground, they somehow go up without and other outside forces acting on them.

That bullets don't possess innate qualities that create the ballistic arc, which is created by the slight angle of your sighting system in relation to the barrel.

But bullets only drop a few inches within 300 yards so why do we need drop compensation for that then if it doesn't matter?

Attached: 8RlJH.gif (294x231, 1.43M)

Well played, good sir.

>the ballistic arc, which is created by the slight angle of your sighting system in relation to the barrel
The arc is created by gravity acting on the direction of fire. Without gravity, the arc would be a straight line. Certain aspects of the arc are due to the various interrelationships of the sighting system and the barrel - but not the arc itself.

Which POA? First or second? The bullet still doesn't "rise" over bore trajectory. The bullet comes out straight and then drops. Your sights are position over bore so when you look down them, it creates a straight line of sight that intersects the drop at two points in it's trajectory. Between the two points the bullet is over point of aim.

Well that's not true at all. That's totally dependent on what caliber your shooting. Many cartridges drop substantially at 300 yards.

Look nigga, all I'm saying is you have compensation for drop when it's only a few inches at a given distance, so why not have compensation for the rise which only equates to a few inches. Just add some more tickmarks above the Chevron on the acs. I want to hit bullseye's 1-500 yards without any guess work involved.

then fucking do it you cunt and stop coming to a mediterranean hummus-tasting contest winner's forum to bitch about how we think your ideas are retarded

Attached: welcometok.jpg (800x581, 323K)

I'm just pitching the idea so some hummus mixing pig fucker takes the idea and runs with it claiming it as their own. I can't make scopes I'm black.

More or less true but also perhaps worth pointing out that while there wouldnt be drop there wouldn't be laser like accuracy either. Wind drift and even spin drift are a thing IIRC.

>I'm just pitching the idea
and we're just pitching back with how dumb you are

Attached: 1527259481433.jpg (900x652, 143K)

And yet there's not one good argument about why it's a bad idea so go fuck yourself newfag.Just people saying just aim center mass hurr Durr you'll hit something. Doesn't work for shooting at golf balls and quarters.

If you shoot at golf balls you don't want what you're talking about. These types of sights are hardly for precision shooting.

>Which POA? First or second?
There is only one POA. There are potentially two POCs (points of coincidence), depending on the type of zero.
>The bullet still doesn't "rise" over bore trajectory.
Of course not. It rises ON the trajectory - potentially over the POA.
>The bullet comes out straight and then drops.
>drops
>immediately
Not immediately with respect to the plane of gravity until it reaches the crest of the arc. This is why drop tables sometimes have positive numbers.
>Your sights are position over bore so when you look down them, it creates a straight line of sight that intersects the drop at two points in it's trajectory.
I almost typoed here because this is where the crux is. The bore axis and the sight axis need to converge in order to create a POC. The projectile will then leave the bore, eventually coinciding with the POA. The time until that happens is the "rise time".
>Between the two points the bullet is over point of aim.
I assume that you mean between the two POCs. There are not always two POCs. Regardless, the projectile rises (under propulsion) to get "over point of aim". Is there a terminology that you people would prefer to use for the portion of the flight path between the time that the projectile leaves the bore and the time that it intersects the POC (and potentially travels above it before falling and potentially intersecting with another POC)?

>there wouldn't be laser like accuracy either. Wind drift and even spin drift are a thing IIRC.
I never stated that there would not be subtending deviation. Neither did anyone else. None of my underlying argument is voided by the inherent inaccuracy of the firing system in question. Though the flight path will have inherent inaccuracy, it will also have a general trend. That is how everyone else in the thread has been approaching the issue.

>Why don't scopes have a bullet rise compensation for shots inside your zero?

Yes use a sub moa scope 1/8 1/16 moa drop and a decent crosshair. I'm sorry to tell you this the tests have come back and you are too dumb for long range precision shooting

I am dumping this here to articulate that likely no one in this thread ever thought that the bottom half of pic related is true. There is a time before a projectile reaches the crest of its ballistic arc. People generally refer to this as rise time. The consideration of this period of the arc is important to understanding the totality of the curve. Anyone that claims that the curve has no rise and that it only has fall is likely considering the path of the projectile with respect to the bore axis. There is never (under ordinary circumstances) a condition whereby the projectile rises above the bore axis. It is usual, however, for there to be a rise generally following the bore axis into the LOS, creating a POC. (Someone used POA ITT and lured me into using it. LOS is typically better to use as it tends to create less confusion.)

Attached: what.really.happens.jpg (591x500, 85K)

No shit you dumb fuck you literally did not read half the debates. All arguments of semantics fucking moron

Youre being an insufferable pedantic faggot. And I didn't say "drops immediately," shit head, you did. You know exactly what I meant. There are 2 zeroes along a POA unless your target is closer than second zero. Don't be a fucking faggot.

yes, but be sure of your reticle position. if its on FFP, draw it on the objective lens, if SFP then draw on eyepiece. Use a permanent marker so the markings dont shift due to oil microfilm on lens

subtle cunt 10/10

>not zeroing your scope at 0 yards

>white
>dad was never around
>can't swim
fuck

>yet there's not one good argument about why it's a bad idea
boy I wish I were this retarded, then I wouldn't have to worry about how goddamn stupid I sound when I talk.
It's useless and inconsistent depending on range and zeroing, you dumbshit teenage nogunz faggot.

Attached: 1533871524824.jpg (460x409, 16K)

I learned how to swim from watching Link do it in the Legend of Zelda

Because youre firing in a ballistic arc.

Why don't you learn to aim?

>No Dad
>Can't swim
Not White.

>There are 2 zeroes along a POA
>along
>a point
There is no "along a point". A point only occurs at one place. There can be 2 POC's in a zero, but even that is not a given.

Correct - and, while it is traveling upwards in that arc, it is rising. I am perfectly willing to listen to suggestions for a different term than "rising" to explain how the bullet is going from a lower location to a higher location but no one seems to be interested in that idea.

Yeah the bullet is always fighting gravity so the zero has the muzzle pointing upwards so that by the time the projectile reaches the target it has fallen enough for POI to meet POA

Technically the bullet would be "rising" in that it is initially moving farther away from the ground before falling back down

Jesus h christ. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, it begins ACCELERATING TOWARDS THE EARTH. This is the actual definition of what is happening. Gravity ACCELERATES the bullet towards the ground. For all the gold star retards in the audience, "accelerate" does not mean go faster, it means to change velocity. From the moment the bullet leaves the barrel that bullet will travel away from a straight line drawn from the barrel. This may mean that the bullet gains altitude, meaning it moves farther away from the earth. It will NEVER rise above a line drawn from the barrel.

>And I didn't say "drops immediately," shit head, you did.
I missed this point. If you do not agree with the premise that the bullet begins dropping immediately in the firing event in question, then it seems you would agree that something else is happening. What do you propose is happening to the bullet in a firing solution after it exits the bore and follows an arc such that it goes to a higher location before assuming the falling portion of the arc?

>mfw
This

Attached: richiebants.jpg (611x326, 37K)

>Jesus h christ. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, it begins ACCELERATING TOWARDS THE EARTH.
I even gave the gross example of pointing the firearm straight upwards. Are you saying that a bullet fired straight upwards immediately begins accelerating towards the Earth? You are only right if you are including negative acceleration.

>Technically the bullet would be "rising" in that it is initially moving farther away from the ground before falling back down
That is all we ever meant by the term "rising". We need a way to describe what that portion of the arc is. Otherwise we can not explain the positive numbers in a drop table.

That's actually pretty sad.

this would have never have happened had there been more money fo dem programs

>It will NEVER rise above a line drawn from the barrel.
Sorry - I missed this. If you mean the bore axis then you are right. The bullet will rise in its arc towards a POC with the LOS.

Is it sadder than drowning because you fell in a pond?

>Are you saying that a bullet fired straight upwards immediately begins accelerating towards the Earth?
That's what happens.

>You are only right if you are including negative acceleration.
Acceleration is directional. So if you're measuring in the upwards direction here, opposite to the direction gravity is pulling, the acceleration will be negative. If you measure downwards, in the direction gravity is pulling, it'll be positive.

That's not sad, that's just pathetic.

>fired straight upwards immediately begins accelerating toward earth?
YES! Do you think the bullet GAINS veloicty after it leaves the barrel?
>negative acceleration
theres no such thing, acceleration is always a poaitive value because acceleration is CHANGE IN VELOCITY. The VECTOR of the acceleration is TOWARDS the source of gravity because gravity is the only force acting on the bullet. NO EXCEPTIONS. A bullet fired straight up with a muzzle velocity of 3,000 feet per second will IMMEDIATELY begin accelerating towards earth, losing velocity gradually until reaching the peak of its balistic trajectory (not arc). It will then be at 0 feet per second at its maximum altitude. Acceleration continues to act on the bullet, its velocity continuing to change in a vector pointed towards earth. Because the bullet's velocity was zero, that acceleration will cause the bullet to gain veloicty and drop towards the earth. AT NO POINT WILL THE PROJECTILE RISE ABOVE A STRAIGHT LINE CAUSED BY THE BARREL.

>the acceleration will be negative.
Sure. The bullet is experiencing negative acceleration - as it rises away from the Earth.

>AT NO POINT WILL THE PROJECTILE RISE ABOVE A STRAIGHT LINE CAUSED BY THE BARREL.
I do not believe anyone in this thread ever postulated that it would. Why are you repeating this?

Negative acceleration does not exist. You can not negatively change velocity. How do you negatively put on a tshirt? How do you negatively read a book?

Because you're being retarded.

>keeps addressing issues that were never raised
>calls other people retarded
You are arguing against points that only you raised.

Because the rest of you fucking idiots are arguing points that literally don't exist. You're gradeschool children on the playground arguing how fast santa's sleigh is.

Math doesn't give a shit what you think.

"Negative acceleration" is just acceleration on a vector opposite an objects current vector. Gravity doesnt slow a bullet down UNLESS it is fired straight up. The acceleration of gravity will change a bullet's vector, pulling it towards earth. The force of gravity is constant, the force of the propllent is not. This is why bullets do not travel in an arc. The trajectory of a bullet is not parrallel.

Surely if any component of it's force is applied against gravity it would actually slow the bullet down? So if the bullet is aimed higher the projectile loses energy moving up against gravity?

autism

Nyet! Assuming gravity and propellent were the only forces acting on a bullet, the velocity would remain constant. Gravity would simply shift the vector of the bullet. This is how orbits work. The vehicle or projectile is accelerated to a velocity wherein the acceleration of gravity forms a vector at 45 degrees to the vector of the propulsion. This causes vehicle to move away from a gravitational body at the same velocity as it moves towards it. The only force that actively slows the bullet is friction with air, as the vector of the force will always be opposite the vector of the bullet. If you fired a bullet on the moon it wouod maintain constant velocity, accelerating towards the surface until impact. You could in theory fire a rifle at the appropriate angle to create a stable orbit and have it zip around the moon forever.

>external ballistics are autism
>durrr, how i shoot far
Faggotry

No, fuck you. You're the fucking faggot. This entire thread is a bunch of faggots with an inkling of grade school physics knowledge arguing over literally nothing because none of you can maintain the proper terminology for two posts in a row, all thanks to one faggot pretending not to understand grade school physics in an abysmal effort to illustrate the simple fact that bullets fired from a properly zeroed rifle have a period of upward displacement relative to the line of aim in their trajectories, which he referred to in the OP as "bullet rise". How about you tilt your head to the side for a minute and let the cum drain out of your brain and realize that, yes, you're not the only one who happens to hold that precious little bit of basic fucking classical mechanics you happened to pick up from the twenty minutes you were awake in elementary school science class, and that, yes, this whole fucking discussion is a waste of your worthless fucking time?

Attached: 1423092840783.jpg (500x746, 52K)

No more of a waste of time than your shitposting, nancyboy. What should we discuss on Jow Forums instead, in your so enlightened opinion? Cops killing niggers? Gun control? Anime? What bolt feels the best up your ass? External ballistics is the most Jow Forums as it is a discussion of the most fundamental mechanics behind firearms. If you dont like it maybe hop on over into another thread.

If you want to discuss external ballistics then be my fucking guest, because it's not what you're doing right now. Right now you're making massive retards of yourself shitting and pissing over something that was already summed up perfectly half a thread ago in a single image.

Your image was shit and you're an idiot the only post in this thread that summed up the retardation was this one

We're the pnly two motherfuckers here who know how accelerarion works. Post coriolis and spin drift.

Nobody is claiming the bullet has lift, you insufferable retard.

Holy fucking shit what an absolute shitshow of a thread.

Attached: 1506541970630.jpg (720x508, 113K)

I didn't post the image; one of you faggots did. Here, I'll post an image. Here's a fucking image for you.

Attached: fucking faggot.png (900x600, 14K)

As the bullet reaches apogee it will start to shift from negatively accelerating to positively accelerating down to earth so the bottom graph is off, but the rest is good.

Attached: 8a8.gif (360x202, 1.58M)

Acceleration is a vector and your childhood educators have failed you.