Wap wap

Take a look at American Rifle Company rings before deciding.

A source of confusion is ranging with sfp vs. reticle holdover at various powers. They are not the same. When using holdover parallax is used in positive sense to set the holdover distance of the ballistic curve of the round your using. But this trick can also be used to range. Swaro uses it their TDS reticle and Leopold (somewhat) in their BAS system. It rests on knowing the projectile curve between 200 and 300 yds., setting the magnification such that the hash marks coincide with a known height of the target, then calculating the distance. Since decreases in magnification on a sfp scope will move the reticle center under the target, a re correction on the shooters part will lift the muzzle for the distance correction. If you interested sometime use a scope with a high end and wide range in the magnification experiment walking the bullet in using magnification adjustments rather than holdover. Its a great learning experience and the effect is amplified when using 22.lr and long ranges. SFP reticles have the advantage over ffp reticle (in most cases) of being able to quarter or bi-sect the target rather than shooting center of mass. So at the lower powers on sfp for the increased field of view (movers) its a little easier (and faster) to shoot the right upper hand corner for windage and distance correction than dial in. This technique is used by some of the biggies on tactical shooting competition. Another misconception is that sfp do not change poi with changes in power and using dial in. For this to occur the erector magnification would have to perform exactly the same every time, which is impossible. Usually this random error is slight and irrelevant in better made sfp scopes.

As suggested the biggest down to ranging at different powers with sfp is lack of positive clicks on the mag ring to announce when your at that power. However some scopes , the Br NFs and some others, range on 22 not the highest power. With any scope one should check the tracking against a precise measure as well as the distance between the hash marks used against a scale. A simple yardstick at exactly 100 yds works great. When that position of the hashmarks coincides with the measurements on the yardstick, make a small mark on the scope power selector ring (or a great big one if you prefer). Why would you want to to this? Shooting movers at 200 yds and you want to dial down for increased FOV is one reason. Or you could just be curious. Milling, regardless of sfp/ffp, selection will show between 3 to 5% error of the distance your reading, depending on quality of the scope, magnification etc. But thats only part of the problem, even if you know the exact distance your shot still depends on other factors. If you know the exact velocity, ballistic profile of the bullet, have access to realtime ballistic information for variable input, (pressure,temp,wind) you can either compound the miss (tolerance stack up) or make the error read in the distance result in a more precise hit. (Just shoot and let the wind blow it in). More often the width of the target at the various distances will determine your percentages of hits because of changes in wind.

Nightforce suggests recalibration of the range estimation using their sfp scopes in the product manuel of every scope they sell- if you don't like the one thats there. Exbal ballistics program and nightforces allow you to recompute the ranging and reticle drop of any of their scopes. Recalibration of the "milling distance" is particularly useful if your using a sfp scope for shooting 22lr at 300 yds. as an example, and don't want to mess with a 20 or 30 moa rail. Another useful feature is if your using a standardized target like a golf ball or tennis ball and want to calibrate between to hash marks for speed and ease of reference. If you are reloading and want to mess with simulations by changing the velocity figures of the gun your using, both Swaroski and Zeiss web site be used to "readjust" the ballistic profiles of their scope drop reticules, Using a laser rangefinder is very good way quick and dirty way to recalibrate the ranging of reticle, but if you have a laser rangefinder why do it in the first place. Distance range finding using some type of radial measurement (milling) is an urban and suburban sport. There are few objects in nature that you will be "ranging" on that will be of known dimension. Try it in the desert sometime.

Didn't quite have the same experience. After 1200 rds of 308 the sear wouldn't hold -- sent back for adjustment. After 1600 rounds extractor started pulling off the round. Loved the stock. Accuracy was on par with this group of rifles.

The prizmatic uses two optical fibers in the lighting unit and can be removed from the main scope tube. It is outstanding when going from dark interiors (rooms) with the lit reticle to bright sunlight which becomes a black reticle. The change in the ratio of brightness of the lighting to my pupil dilation seems to work best for me with the priz. 200 yd a-zones are not as easy as the leo spr reticle set on low power. I've used the prizmatic since its introduction on Ar's and shotguns. I'm on the second as the first developed lint from many slug rounds. Currently it rides a 930 where I think they work best as a shotgun sight. Have an aimpoint and eotech, but prefer the older Tasco pro 45 mil with the dot size change options. The eotech and the second eotech went bad when used on a 458 socom. The recoil batters the end of the batterys and they leak. I found its best use (for me) was as a scout set up on an ak with the ultimak mount. A zone hits were about 100 yds for me. Currently use a leo mk4 1.5 x 5 because of its versatility. If I were in the market for a straight 1x I would look hard at the SS 1x4 ffp which gives the desired 1x with a lot of extras.

I don't think a conclusion can be drawn. It makes no sense in the "art" of ranging to range at a lower power, the most accurate readings or calculations will come from the highest magnification in either ffp or sfp. In scope design, as an example, tactical scopes are designed for fast target acquisition at the expense of depth of field, whereas in a target scope depth of field is better. This is achieved at the expense of problems in parallax, or clean images in both planes. In a sfp scope, ranging at 1/2 of the highest power is simply a matter of 2x the highest power readings-- the relationship is linear. Ffp doesn't matter. So stating that the scope,in the case of the sfp, ranges at one power, either in the middle or the highest has no meaning, except that the buyer doesn't have any idea how the whole system works. The diavari mil-dots range in the middle for tactical applications whereas their diavari Rapid Z ranges on highest magn. for accuracy in reading. Scopes with higher quality glass such as the NF and Diavaris, USO,etc.etc. sometimes have what appears to be focusing problems when trying to getting the parallax set, because the better glass gives a more accurate rendition of the image plane. This is why one sometimes hear that some "cheaper" scope was amazing that when adjusting the parallax focus the image snapped into focus. Current thought in ffp design is to have the "measuring" ability in the reticle transparent, until moved to the highest magnification , then the hashs or dots snap into the sight picture not the other way around. The EBR2 Razor and SS 1x4 are good examples and this trend will continue as it lets the shooter choice between a faster tactical mode at lower power or more refined "bench" at higher powers.

very true some of the best sfp scopes made do their distancing in the middle range. The 6x24 diavaris (except for the z's) and the Nightforce Br series.

That is the most conclusive info test I've seen. It sets all other methods back at least 100 years. The other positive is it takes care of the bad crown on the barrel at the same time, no extra steps necessary. Ya, but the guy lives in alaska, has about 50 rifles (each with their own optics) , and shoots more rounds per year than the combined total of this forum. He has shot Kodiak with calibers I use for varmint hunting--- and keeps PacNor in business. Thats why it's so funny.

Isn't that true of everything? I'd fly into each shooting match in my own lear, but they cost to much.

if moly coated bullets could give longer cleaning intervals, if putting a copper heat sink along the entire length gave longer accuracy life, coulda, woulda, shoulda.

another what's good for the military/le-- doesn't have anything to do with civilian needs/uses. Leo did some pretty amazing engineering stuff to make this scope work. And by their graces, we as sports shooters, get to share in an "over production" , instead of upgrading some of the stuff sports shooters could really use, but I guess war drives technology. Nightforce has a super scope in the works because of these contracts, and swfa has introduced their 5x20 ffp so the money has attracted some other players. Hopefully the sports shooters will see something out of all this in lower prices and better product.

why would fouling ever become an issue if it, at least in some minds, didn't affect accuracy? Accuracy is , or lack of it, or not enough of it, etc. is the cause of most overcleaning problems, of which barrel breakin mantras are just the start of the cycle. Just the fact that there are so many different methods, combined with the folks that don't do it at all indicate, at least, there is no correct way or even if its necessary.

the degree of accuracy of ranging is determined by the magnification power whether ffp or sfp, ranging on lower power with ffp offers little or no advantage. Using a lower power ffp for increased fov, doesn't solve the problem either. A more accurate reading can be had with a sfp 32x than a 10x ffp. Shots under 300 yds usually don't present a problem under normal conditions, and 308 shots usually only run somewhere around 3 mil or 10 moa at 500 yds. 2nd corrections are simply fraction math, (but then 5 out 3 people have problems with fractions). In any case if you want to learn "milling" as an artform learn them all, if your really serious get a laser range finder.

the mil-dot reticle has been around awhile and is still being put in some of the newer under $1k scopes, why I don't know. hash marks are much easier, some sfp reticules such as the zeiss z series range as well as the ffps. The higher the power the less error which usually runs about 3-5% of the distance. a 8x32 nf br can reduce that error margin by 50% even in sfp. between the ranging advantages offered between sfp and ffp , ffp works better if using a spotter or for windage holdoff at any mag, and thats about it.

best mod. I did to my AR10T was replace the stock with a CCA adjustable. Adjustable lengh of pull (17 in), cheek riser monopod, and recoil pad.

agreed , the flash suppressor is too short for a 308, in this regard it is almost useless, altough a good crown protector, the suppressor needs to be a least as long as the one on a m1a or better yet the older FN_FAL. Original scouts , such as the Savage and custom models had the scopes forward to facilitate loading, with the box magazine its not as necessary. That z6 set looks like the hot ticket.

best video on barrel break in out there.

if you take an across the board survey, you'll get the typical Gaussian distribution of pros and cons leading with at least two conclusions, either no one way is superior to another, or that any one way works as well as the others. Personally I don't bother other than making a pass with a rag initially to get foreign material for the first shooting. Have an Fn spr a5 300 wsm with 2400 rds, barrel wiped out every 1000 rds, with small change in precision, and no statistical change in practical accuracy no break in no harsh cleaning. Same for an AR10T with 3k+ rds. Both use moly coated bullets to extend wiping intervals. Same method used for other rifles no moly, same results. If you do decide to break in and over clean would advise only pulling the rod through the bore and no pushy, rod guide or no rod guide.

reason .5 moa doesn't matter, what groups you shoot from a bench just tell you the scope is sighted in, few can shoot .5 moa standing from a barricade, and few can shoot .5 from prone with a sporting stock and manipulating a stock bolt in the time constraints -- just isn't there. Not saying you should go out and get a 10k alpine. Using a standard hunter set, will never let you know possibilities that extend past that, let alone trying to master them. What makes the 1911 a great handgun, the fact that its a 1911, or the beaver-tail?

Its a lot more competitive based than you think, most the majors have people reading the forums like this and change or build new product, look how many scope changes have been made in the last 5 yrs, geared to this area. wouldn't have to change that many parts, most quality guns will outshoot the shooter (Erik you made the sentence a double negative, so I can't tell which side of the fence you're on). The ruger already has the DBM, some other factory changes wouldn't take that much. Hard for me to believe that folks wouldn't cough up a couple of hundred more anyway for the real deal. Didn't say stock guns couldn't shoot, just lower end hunting rifles not being qualifed as a precsion/tactical rifle. Savage accue stock proves my point that a rifle could be factory altered for a lower cost than next layer up modifications. Not saying that a savage or stock R5 can't shoot .5 moa, what I am saying is that .5 moa don't mean squat. No way can you come on the 2nd,3rd,4th,7th shot fast enough to make it the real deal. I have several "stock" rifles that will shoot with the best customs, but there expense puts them away from the point of this post, which include trg 308 and 300mag ,kimber308, FN spr 7wsm A5, AI, and a DTA. And this doesn't include the stock Alpine (just including because of its stock nature). Stock barrels will never be good enough for a certain group of people anyway, and in the case of my FN it was rebarreled to 7wsm from barrel wear, which is also another major consideration in a precision (how long will the basic chassis go?)

it really isn't. by the time you have it trued up etc. your into almost as a stiller or something, and you will still have stock problems. Your answer is the "Well look what Ford did without a college ed." with the obvious answer of "Look what he could have done if he had have gone". There isn't any starter rifles that will shoot with the big dogs if your looking at the complete picture-- shooting groups maybe, but not in the total aspect. I was looking at a grander scale. Most of the posters here can tell you down to what wt. of springs they use in their handguns, but yet they aspire to mediocrity in a precision/tactical rifle. Because a manufacturer attaches an X or SP to one of their standard hunting bolt rifles it must fit the needs. Why they don't approach a maker as a group, as this forum could, and offer suggestions that would meet 90% of the real needs is beyond me. Mossberg would probably go straight to the problem or may T/C. Ruger almost did it in their scout rifle but decided to go with the name affiliation of scout for sales reasons. If they would have put a med varmint barrel, a tactical bolt handle a reasonable good brake (maybe as an option) and not the least, a better cartridge say a 260 for example, at the price they are selling the scouts they would have wiped up. Could of, would of, should of. The only thing I'm reading is the suggestion of a basic hunting rifle with a different name on it, because somebody wants to think its different than any other hunting rifle. Reloading and shooting is a series of probability distributions taken through time (Poisson distributions) ,each one characteristic of an event space in time relying on several random variables not controllable (weather) by the shooter and usually play more of a role than ES. The totals of which even out to a probability mass function. So whats your batting average?

entropy is degree of unpredictably in the random variable associated with stochastic processes, if you keep if specific to thermodynamics, then discussions like the above result. A study methodology would include it as a subcategory. post counts can mean anything the reader wants them to,anything from high posters have no jobs to a high degree of activity in that area -- a conjecture statistic at best but none the less, in this case the reply indicated somewhat where the posters comments on Remington was coming from. In your example it would mean that the better the equipment the more proficient the shooter. Maybe, maybe not. Bigger and better banana contests can be informational if they contain the whys. Which leads to the next question, why isn't starting with a Remington/Savge, or used remington the better/good/best/cheapest/more efficient way to go?

I try to make mine as ergodic as possible. Alamo-- not making any assumptions about your shooting, but from my own internet forum experience, high posts counts usually indicate a high level of interest. If youre in the build department, start with the stock and purpose, select the best bullet then build the action and barrel around it. I use the 155 amax in a trg 300 mag out to 1200 yds, and at 3300 fps it kicks my 6.5x284 Cooper phoenix butt. The 178 amax is outstanding and costs 4-5 bucks less than the sierras, I use a bunch in an ar10T because the drop figures correlate well with 6x24 diavari z1000 reticle used with it.

alamoshooter, the remington was a suggestion given the constraints of the original poster. With your 5000 posts it seems that your post is more tongue in cheek. Remington, certainly could work buts it certainly not in the "good" stuff.