Canting, shooters, shooting methods, and points of view

Jump to latest Follow Reply
B

bandg

Member
Apr 24, 2016
3,776
66
Arkansas, United States
Cant Error has been a long running topic on this forum and elsewhere. Anyone can read the "Cant Errors" thread on this forum to see the elements "discussed". Some have specific views on the subject (Szottesfeld, Szottesfeld "followers", Field Target shooters, and others) that disagree with the views of many others (most notably, many long range firearms shooters). Many want to "calculate" their way to a solution to this. So far, that doesn't seem to have been entirely convincing (to say the least). Nervoustrigger, scotchmo, several others, and most recently cornpone have engaged this topic and presented their views, often with lots of calculations and diagrams which they rely heavily upon. One of these gentlemen recently stated this-

"As of right this moment, I am going to put my trust in the architect over the IT guy who does not feel a need to explain his math…"

The "architect" referred to in the above quote is Szottesfeld, and the "IT guy" is a forum poster who does not agree with Szottesfeld. Szottesfeld does indeed state he is an architect. And, apparently, he is a Field Target shooter (my opinion, based on his actual statements in his "Ancient Myth" article). Interesting, that connection to Field Target shooting again.

One of the primary thrusts of the Szottesfeld article is that sight height has no effect on cant error. Many people (nervoustrigger, scotchmo, and others) have stated the same in a very generalized fashion. In other words, they are Szottesfeld believers and seem to have the belief that their view (and that of Szottesfeld, based on THEIR method of shooting) applies GENERALLY to everyone else. I don't believe Szottesfeld at all, but specifically I have (and still do, and always will) disagree with nervoustrigger and scotchmo and those who hold that same OVERGENERALIZED point of view exactly because it is a "my way or the highway" point of view. JMO.

Since one of the Szottesfeld believers has noted that he trusts "the architect" (Szottesfeld) over "the IT guy" (a poster on this forum who also doesn't agree with Szottefeld and his "supporters"), I'll provide an alternative view of someone who could possibly be more "trusted" by open minded shooters than maybe even "the architect". Below is a link to a professional shooter (and related bio) who ISN'T a Field Target shooter, who holds many shooting titles (none in Field Target, apparently), and who has a video in the linked article discussing Cant Error, what causes it, WHAT it applies to, and how to avoid it.

Reading the linked article, looking at the shooter's competitive bio, considering the relatively broad shooting background of the shooter, and watching the video for specific statements the shooter makes, might illustrate a less "egocentric" (the Field Target method only) view of "shooting" and the Cant Error question. I don't delude myself into thinking that any minds will be changed with this link. That isn't particularly important. But some knowledge may be gleaned by some individuals who might want to take the time to view this and consider ALL possibilities. I do hope this is helpful to those who want to understand the broader view.

https://kirstenjoyweiss.com/perfect-aim-but-still-miss-this-is-why-pro-shooting-tips-8/

https://kirstenjoyweiss.com/shooting-bio-highlights/




 
Results speak VOLUMES ..... Every single successful FIELD TARGET shooter I know uses a LEVEL that is correctly set up and religiously used !!

You can take UNEDUCATED opinions and group them with the toilet paper we use daily.



Bit strongly worded ... for those offended I'm sorry.



Scott S
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the implication (direction) of your statement so not sure who you might be apologizing to. I don't shoot FIELD TARGET so I don't know. The point is, FIELD TARGET isn't the only "shooting" people do. FIELD TARGET methodology isn't the only accurate METHODOLOGY people might use. Will it work for almost everyone? Seems so, if one WANTS to shoot that WAY (clicking to each target range and back to a zero with a scope that tracks RELIABLY). THAT is the point. The linked article and associated video shows an accomplished SHOOTER'S point of view on the matter that in no way relates SPECIFICALLY to FIELD TARGET. "Toilet paper" seems to me to relate to the need to view EVERYTHING in terms of FIELD TARGET. JMO, of course. And also no offense intended.
 
Upvote 0
Lol ... now we're having fun.

Cant errors are VERY REAL .... flatter the projectiles arch to target less is cant a factor. Airguns are SLOW and there arch to target large, thus we see the effect of cant errors the most and should indeed do what we can to minimize its effect if we care enough to do something about it.

Field target is a representation of Ultimate air gun accuracy in a field environment. If you can't pick up a clue from them will be left to think those AG shooters don't care & we're done.



Nothing personal directed at no one specific .... You do or you don't ?
 
Upvote 0
Motorhead
Click to expand...

"Cant errors are VERY REAL …. flatter the projectiles arch to target less is cant a factor. Airguns are SLOW and there arch to target large, thus we see the effect of cant errors the most and should indeed do what we can to minimize its effect if we care enough to do something about it."



"Airguns are SLOW and there arch to target large, thus "we" see the effect of cant errors the most".

Not buying this AT ALL. Such sure seems to be dependent on RELATIVE RANGE for each, not specifically something defined by FIELD TARGET.



Extreme range firearm shooting is certainly different, but more similar than different, IMO. Windage the most common cause for misses in each? Seems so. Similar ranges for each? NOT AT ALL, but relatively similar in function considering the possible trajectories. Ability to "focus for range" in each and thus know (relatively precisely) the exact range to target for each? NOPE. Arc to target "large" for both? Absolutely, and relative. Cant error very important for accuracy in each? Unquestionably.

My belief is that while there are certainly differences, the similarities are in critical areas such that FIELD TARGET shooters don't have a dramatically different level of understanding than accomplished firearms shooters. IMO, the distance limits that FIELD TARGET uses MAY actually negatively impact the full understanding of such factors. JMO

You bet we're having fun. Often, SOMETHING useful comes out of such discussions. As to your last question there, I guess I don't. Because I don't view FIELD TARGET as the be all/end all. Even for airguns alone. Lots of precision? Seems so. Lots of regimentation? Also seems so. An admirable accomplishment to be competitive in such? Certainly. Something MOST air gun shooters would do? Not sure. "Representative" of HOW most air gun shooters SHOOT? Even less sure. But maybe I'm wrong😃.



An aside I didn't mention in the above. FIELD TARGET shooters MAY (possibly, whatcha think?) have an easier time reading wind across the range of their shots than would long range firearms shooters. And given optics limitations/environmental factors, FIELD TARGET shooters MIGHT have an easier time with a precise aim? (maybe??).
 
Upvote 0
Bandg, there is no need for the continued strawmanning…claims of “egocentric” this, or “overgeneralization” that. The Szottesfold article plainly recognizes there to be a difference in cant error when using an improvised holdover (e.g. aiming with a plain crosshair reticle above the intended POI). Not only that, but Scott and I both acknowledged it again in the recent thread titled “Cant, and it’s [sic] effect”.


The point is, FIELD is TARGET isn't the only "shooting" people do. FIELD TARGET methodology isn't the only accurate METHODOLOGY people might use. Will it work for almost everyone? Seems so, if one WANTS to shoot that WAY (clicking to each target range and back to a zero with a scope that tracks RELIABLY)
Click to expand...


No, it does not confine one to a life of clicking back and forth “with a scope that tracks RELIABLY”. That is one way of doing it. The other way is to use mildots or equivalent reticle markings.

Your repeated attempts to frame these two extremely common methods as a narrow “field target methodology” is profoundly dishonest. All around us are people using mildots or turrets that have never set foot onto a field target course, myself included.
 
Upvote 0
Bandg, there is no need for the continued strawmanning…claims of “egocentric” this, or “overgeneralization” that. The Szottesfold article plainly recognizes there to be a difference in cant error when using an improvised holdover (e.g. aiming with a plain crosshair reticle above the intended POI). Not only that, but Scott and I both acknowledged it again in the recent thread titled “Cant, and it’s [sic] effect”.


The point is, FIELD is TARGET isn't the only "shooting" people do. FIELD TARGET methodology isn't the only accurate METHODOLOGY people might use. Will it work for almost everyone? Seems so, if one WANTS to shoot that WAY (clicking to each target range and back to a zero with a scope that tracks RELIABLY)
Click to expand...


No, it does not confine one to a life of clicking back and forth “with a scope that tracks RELIABLY”. That is one way of doing it. The other way is to use mildots or equivalent reticle markings.

Your repeated attempts to frame these two extremely common methods as a narrow “field target methodology” is profoundly dishonest. All around us are people using mildots or turrets that have never set foot onto a field target course, myself included.
Click to expand...

No, I would say YOUR repeated attempts to frame the "improvised holdover" as something from another planet and not worthy of consideratiion is profoundly dishonest. See, I have an OPINION on the matter as well. Is that "improvised holdover" method used much less THESE DAYS than either "click to" or mil-dots? Absolutely. Can one reliably hit their targets using the "improvised holdover"? You bet, if one KNOWS their gun and "load". Does a higher mounted "sight" magnify cant error if one shoots that way? Again, absolutely. Overgeneralized is exactly that. It is what YOU did when you made the statement that "scope height has no effect on cant error" a long time ago and then doubled down on that and only admitted to the "exception" very recently. Accuracy in a statement is important, or the statement is false. Some understand this, as shown by the long range firearms shooters who had to "push" Szottesfeld begrudgingly into admitting his "exception". Some apparently don't get it.
 
Upvote 0
bandg,

In the video that you linked to, the woman starts off with a false premise pertaining to the problem. Though she never actually stated that other "myth", the false premise alone leads some to jump to a conclusion that scope height affects the magnitude of gun cant errors.

As stated in a different post, "show the math". For a true premise, a mathematical proof of the trigonometry problem should be possible.

https://www.dummies.com/?s=trigonometry+proof

The proof can determine the magnitude of the error for any particular situation (and not just for Field Target). For those unable to do the math, they are better off just concentrating on the solution to avoid the error - mount your scope correctly, sight in the gun correctly, and use a bubble level to keep the sight plane vertical while you shoot.




 
Upvote 0
YOUR repeated attempts to frame the "improvised holdover" as something from another planet and not worthy of consideratiion is profoundly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Another straw man claim from you. I have never said any such thing.

In the context of the “does scope height matter” discussion, I had the temerity to point out that taking a shot without a proper aim point is a bad practice because it objectively is a bad practice where the goal is to hit the point of aim.

You then attempted to justify it, saying something to the effect that we may not have time to take careful aim. That is a complete non-sequitur in a topic where we are discussing how to reduce a source of error. If I don’t have time to aim carefully, I can’t then pretend to be disappointed when I miss. 
 
Upvote 0
bandg,

In the video that you linked to, the woman starts off with a false premise pertaining to the problem. Though she never actually stated that other "myth", the false premise alone leads some to jump to a conclusion that scope height affects the magnitude of gun cant errors.

As stated in a different post, "show the math". For a true premise, a mathematical proof of the trigonometry problem should be possible.

https://www.dummies.com/?s=trigonometry+proof

The proof can determine the magnitude of the error for any particular situation (and not just for Field Target). For those unable to do the math, they are better off just concentrating on the solution to avoid the error - mount your scope correctly, sight in the gun correctly, and use a bubble level to keep the sight plane vertical while you shoot.



Click to expand...

So, in spite of Szottesfeld's begrudging concession to the exception, you still say the exception itself is incorrect? As I've said, circular, back to "show the math". Szottesfeld admitted the exception. You don't shoot numbers. The "woman" as you note (plenty of shooting awards indicating at least "some" experience😔) is correct. She understands. Even nervoustrigger seemed to be stating that the exception exists and was correct as I described. But now you say, not so much?? As I've said, circular. I dismiss your point of view out of hand.
 
Upvote 0
ervoustrigger

YOUR repeated attempts to frame the "improvised holdover" as something from another planet and not worthy of consideratiion is profoundly dishonest.
Click to expand...

"Another straw man claim from you. I have never said any such thing."

And yet, you state "taking a shot without a proper aim point is a bad practice"

Sounds like someone calling 6 a half dozen and claiming "it's different". Again, dismissed out of hand.
 
Upvote 0
...

So, in spite of Szottesfeld's begrudging concession to the exception, you still say the exception itself is incorrect? As I've said, circular, back to "show the math". Szottesfeld admitted the exception. You don't shoot numbers. The "woman" as you note (plenty of shooting awards indicating at least "some" experience
1f614.svg
) is correct. She understands. Even nervoustrigger seemed to be stating that the exception exists and was correct as I described. But now you say, not so much?? As I've said, circular. I dismiss your point of view out of hand.
Click to expand...

"...you still say the exception itself is incorrect..."

No. Your exception will do exactly as you say. However if you start out with equal far zeros, rather than your equal close zeros, the lower scope could have more cant error. A higher scope in itself is not what caused your greater error, it was your particular method of handling shots outside your zero. When you introduce a POA vs POI discrepancy, scope height can matter. That vast majority of shooters strive to keep the POA coincident with the POI, and for them, scope height is not an issue - and the vast majority is who Szottesfeld addressed. What's not too believe?

Are you saying that scope height always affects the magnitude of gun cant errors?


 
Upvote 0
And yet, you state "taking a shot without a proper aim point is a bad practice"
Click to expand...

Because it is a bad practice if you care about minimizing your error. Why engage in the topic of cant error if you don’t care? Why claim the exception “no time to aim carefully” if you do care?

The answer to those questions has become increasingly clear...so you can take up a contrarian position and argue. Even if it means having to falsely assert a disagreement where there is none.
 
Upvote 0
...

So, in spite of Szottesfeld's begrudging concession to the exception, you still say the exception itself is incorrect? As I've said, circular, back to "show the math". Szottesfeld admitted the exception. You don't shoot numbers. The "woman" as you note (plenty of shooting awards indicating at least "some" experience
1f614.svg
) is correct. She understands. Even nervoustrigger seemed to be stating that the exception exists and was correct as I described. But now you say, not so much?? As I've said, circular. I dismiss your point of view out of hand.
Click to expand...

"...you still say the exception itself is incorrect..."

No. Your exception will do exactly as you say. However if you start out with equal far zeros, rather than your equal close zeros, the lower scope could have more cant error. A higher scope in itself is not what caused your greater error, it was your particular method of handling shots outside your zero. Anytime you introduce a POA vs POI discrepancy, scope height will matter. That vast majority of shooters strive to keep the POA coincident with the POI, and for them, scope height is not an issue - and the vast majority is who Szottesfeld addressed. What's not too believe?

Are you saying that scope height always affects the magnitude of gun cant errors?

Click to expand...

No. I'm stating exactly what you note as "your exception". Glad to see you say clearly that it will do "exactly as you say" it will do (and I have always said it would do exactly that). That is how the "improvised" holdover would work-set a zero (hunting, plinking, or whatever) for the chosen common shooting distance and use the "improvised" holdover for further distances. Any given shooter can say it is "bad practice" or whatever term one wants to used. That is an egocentric view IMO but it could be "said". But THAT METHOD is exactly what I am referring to. It was once one of the only methods of shooting one could use for long range shots (before mil-dot or reliable tracking scopes were widely available). Those of us who grew up shooting that way are pretty proficient with that method. Is it as precise as click-to or using a mil-dot? No. Can it work very well? Absolutely. Is it as good or better in some circumstances? Yes, IMO. IF distance estimation might be off or a shot is needed to be taken quickly, it can certainly be faster and can thus possibly be "better". And the better one understands his "system", the better it can work. In fact, such shouldn't be done WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE "SYSTEM". Regardless of what derogatory terms one wants to use to describe it, and regardless of anyone saying "I wouldn't shoot like that", it can work well. And using that method, absolutely positively a higher scope produces a higher amount of lateral movement of POI due to any given amount of cant. The "woman" understands that. She specifically mentioned open sights, red dots, and "whatever" in her video precisely because she did not limit her view to that of the scoped mil-dot or click-to method. Probably because of a wide range of experience using VARIOUS sighting methods. Is this the PREFERRED method for taking any given shot? Probably not. I use it regularly for medium range shooting but not regularly for extreme range shooting. But that is where the OVERGENERALIZED part comes in. Saying such doesn't ever occur (as when one states only that "scope height doesn't affect cant error") is the flip side of the same coin relating to what YOU asked me above. 
 
Upvote 0
Are you saying that scope height always affects the magnitude of gun cant errors?
Click to expand...

No. ...
Click to expand...

Good to know. So now I'm still trying to understand what you disagree with. Another question then:

For the majority of us that keep the POA and intended POI coincident (i.e. - clicking and mil-dot/MOA holdover), do you believe that scope height affects the magnitude of gun cant errors?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu