bgary

Called Vortex this morning, they seemed to be focused on the fact that the side parallax adjustment doesn't seem to be doing much. The tech said that it should noticeably change the focus on the target; it doesn't. So they're sending me a shipping label to send it in for a check-up. Can't beat that!

It's a 4-16 FFP PST, in a JP one-piece mount, rings and base appropriately torqued and solid. this one: http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-viper-pst-4-16x50-ffp-rifle-scope.html For grins, I did some "testing" in my kitchen.... I know (!) this isn't definitive, but for sake of example: -- I mounted a Leupold 4.5-15x50 LR/T (SFP) on the rifle, set it to 4.5x, set the focus (+0-) so the reticle was sharp, and centered the reticle on a wall switch on the other side of the room (7 yards, if it matters). I then moved my head all the way to the left until the image corona'd out, and to the right until it corona'd out the other way. The reticle moved from one side of the switch to the other. A little less than 1/2" difference at 7 yards, works out to a little under 6 MOA of reticle movement when I move my eye behind the scope. Tried it all settings of the side focus adjustment, no major difference -- did the same thing with a Horus 4-16x50 FFP from another rifle. Same setup, same result. -- did the same thing with the Vortex. When I moved my eye from side to side, the reticle moved all the way off the wall plate - not just the switch, the *plate*. More than 3-1/2" of difference at 7 yards Rough math says that's about 50 MOA of reticle movement based on the position of my eye - 10x as much as the other scopes. I think I'll be calling Vortex in the morning.

Thanks I'm working up loads for a "distance" gas-gun (.260), shooting groups at 200, and I'm familiar with the need for a consistent cheek weld. My usual go-to scope for interesting distances is a Leupy 4-14, and rather than buying another one of those for this rifle I thought I'd try Vortex 4-16. I'm seeing far more parallax with the Vortex (even at lower powers) than I'm used to seeing with my Leupolds. I haven't done a side-by-side yet, but... rough observation, at 10x there's more than enough parallax to pull the reticle off a 2-MOA target at 200 yards if I don't nail my position.

I finally mounted my Vortex scope to work up some loads, and noticed that I was dealing with a lot more parallax than I'm used to seeing. The side-focus adjustment helped some, but... I found I really had to nail a consistent cheek weld in order to put the rounds where I thought they should go. This is the Viper PST HD 4-16x FFP scope... not a cheapo... and it was a little surprising. Is this... normal, for this scope? Or should I be sending it back for replacement?

"practical" target load, 500-100 yards, sub-MOA (a larue at 800 is 2 MOA wide) Basically looking for good "starting places" for some ladder tests. Have (on hand) H4350, H4831, and a bunch of 123gr and 142gr SMKs. Figured I'd start with mag-length loads for a JP gas-gun, will fine-tune for the bolt-gun later.

Looking for a load that will really sing through a 22" 1:8 barrel. Whatcha got?

Hints on where to find some? Every online place I've looked at is backordered....

My gut feeling is that there would be an announcement if that was the case, so I doubt it.. but an update would be nice Bill Sahlberg ("higher capacity") has a prototype running, but I haven't seen one in the wild yet.

My reading was the club membership requirement only comes into play when it's time for slots to be handed out. Other than that, the cashes and trophies are available to NWS members. +1. Anyone can compete for score in the series matches. But only section members can earn section slots with their placement in the series....

ATF%20M16%20Letter.pdf

Are there any 3-gun matches planned at Rattlesnake Mountain (Tri-city) this year?

9.10.1 ONLY gives the RO the authority to determine whether or not a timer failure prevents recording an accurate time. It does NOT give the RO the authority to decide, subjectively, whether a time is "realistic" or not.

We had this situation at the recent area 1 match. A gm in our squad put up a smoking' run on the house stage. RO "didn't believe it could be done that fast". Reviewed the timer, found that it didn't pick up enough hits, decided it must not have picked up the last shot. Was going to order a reshoot. Two problems with that. One, the RO was next to the shooter at the first position, lagging behind in the middle, and next to the shooter at the last position...it was entirely likely that the timer missed shots in the *middle* and still picked up the last shot. In other words, missing shots were not proof that the time was not accurate. Two, the "RO" part of the rule (9.10.1) isn't a judgment call. It is a question about equipment failure. The only place where a subjective judgment comes into play is in 9.10.2, thru an arb. The RO does not IMO have the authority to decide "it can't be done that fast" , only "the timer didn't work" We encouraged the RO to at least record the score and call for an RM. he did, the time stood (and the GM subsequently had "can't be done that fast" runs on a whole lot more stages, finishing top A1 shootr in his division despite zeroing a stage with a broken extractor....)

I'd almost guarantee that the muzzle velocity is the answer. To begin with, your barrel is almost certainly shorter than the test fixture they used, when they chrono'd it. If they did. But more than that, almost all manufacturers are...uh..."optimistic" with their published MV numbers, in much the same way that car manufacturers...uh..."help" their mpg numbers. It's just the nature of the beast. What really matters is what the rounds do thru your barrel. If you shoot at 100, 200, 300, 400 and log your actual bullet-drops, you should be able to model the trajectory in your ballistic program and figure out what the MV has to be to be producing those results. I don't know about the Federal ammo, but a lot of 55gr ammo uses the Hornady FMJ which, IIRC, has a BC of .243. Two other things: One, make sure that your ballistic program is using the right drag model. A BC of .243 (or whatever) using the G1 model is going to produce a very different trajectory than the same BC figure through the G7 drag model. And two, note that BDC reticles are really only ever "on" if your round (MV, BC, sight-height) *exactly* matches the trajectory the reticle was designed for. If there are any differences, your 400-yard stadia (for example) is *not* going to be "on" at 400 yards. With many BDCs it makes more sense to work backwards - shoot at distances, log the drops, then figure out what the various stadia "mean" for your ammo. It may well be that the 300-yard stadia is "on" at 275 yards, the 400-yard stadia is "on" at 360 yards, etc. That's not a bad thing, it just means you know where it hits based on real data rather than ammo-box labeling. $.02

Http://Area1championship.com

Yeah, you're a victim

This is just awesome. Congratulations, Chuck! It is great to see the match growing (and off the I-5 corridor, too)

Maybe I'm dumb (!), but I've used a far simpler solution for years. I have a handful of spent case on the bench. I run them through the press, putting them into the shell-plate one at a time *after* the size/decap station, and they happily run through the powder drop station. I pull each case out at the next station, dump the powder onto the scale and check the weight. When it is throwing the charge I want, I load up the primer tube, turn on the case-feeder and go to town. ObNote, if you want to check powder in the middle of a run, a similar approach works great... pull out a primed/charged case at the station after the powder drop, and check the weight. You can either manually dump the powder back in the case and put it back into the same spot in the shellplate, or... set the empty primed case aside, and run it through the press at the end of the run, putting it into the shell plate *after* the size/decap die. Easy-peasy.

^^^ what he said. great match! Many thanks to Carl and Pat, the lovely stats ladies and all the rest who made it happen...

Depending on where you set a price, I'd be interested in one each of your "extras". That was a great magazine.

Sailboat racing is probably not on the list only because it is a relatively "small" sport. In an average year, we "lose" on the order of a dozen competitors. Like, lost-at-sea, never seen again. Not counting untold numbers of injuries. In a "good" race, pretty much everyone will be bleeding by the time you cross the finish line.

I tried that, but the threaded section on the JP stud I have wasn't long enough (I have the "kit" from jp where the backer protrudes almost all the way through the vent-holes in the VTAC hand-guard.) I'll dig around in my box and see if I can find a longer one. Great idea!

can one of you come over to my house? I've "lost" an unopened 8-lb jug of Varget, and it is making me nuts.

Thanks, Jesse. I haven't gone that direction yet mostly because it looks like an awkward solution to have the bipod base that far away from the tube. The Harris bipod is designed to pull against the stud and self-center against the handguard, it doesn't seem like it would be as stable if it is mounted on a rail. How solid is your rail + adapter + bipod setup?

Samson makes a QD sling mount specifically for the Evo rail. It includes 2 screws and the backing plate. http://www.samson-mfg.com/ar-15_html/product/QD_Mounting_Kit.html Ah, should have been more precise. I need a sling stud for mounting a Harris bipod... not a QD sling point. I called Stag, they said "put a picatinny adapter on your bipod and stick it on a rail". Samson said "we'll have one by the summer, in the meantime go to walmart and get one you can put on with a machine screw, and put a nut and washer on it as a backer." I'm looking for better options than either one of those...