I think Sierra sells a ballistics calculation program which will gives that information in the output. However, I got a video about long range shooting (for hunting), and in the video they said that for the most part when shooting uphill or downhill that any compensation could be neglected. The first reason was that on big game size targets the compensation, even for very steep inclines and normal ranges, would be small compared to the size of the target. The second reason was that for very long ranges, the angle of incline is rarley very steep. Another factor in regard to shooting in the mountains is the altitude. That is, if one has sighted in their rifle at a much lower elevation and knows the trajectory of the load at that lower elevation, it will shoot flatter at a higher elevations because of the thinner air not slowing the bullet down as quickly. I went antelope hunting last year in Wyoming where the altitude was between 5,000 and 10,000 feet. I took my .338-.378 Weatherby which is set up for long range shooting with a long heavy barrel and a scope with a custom range compensating reticle. It shoots a 225-grain Nosler Accubond bullet, which has a pretty good balistic coeficient at 3,330 fps. On my old ballistics program I compared trajectories at 1,000, 6,000, and 11,000 above feet above sea level. In short there was barely an inch of difference at 400 yards for the different elevations, but much more at longer distances. For example, going from 1,000 feet to 6,000 feet elevation for a range of 600 yards the bullet drops 3 inches less. And going from 1,000 feet to 11,000 feet elevation for a range of 600 yards the bullet drops 7 inches less. That amount would be significant on a deer or antelope. For a rifle with a cartridge with less velocity and a bullet with a lower ballistic coeficient I would think that varying the elevation would cause a greater difference in trajectory.