Wap wap

A comparable quality ffp scope with mil/mil matched reticle and made as well from IOR, Leo, USO would run you around $1k, Millett, weaver aren't even in this catagory. The SS runs about 600, the above post is talking about the old SS. The 10x HD is even better but about $800 and compares to a 10x USO its that good. Don't take my word for it check out Lowlights review on sniperhide. Sorry its not in you mag range, but turrets, and durability are more important than mag range.

perhaps not in the variable range you need, but the ffp 3x9 SWFA is a better scope, and still better the 10x HD Swfa.

Trusted for what?? A pellet gun course running out a 100yds or so. While the op question specifically asked about aos on rifles, prismatic range finders used for cameras and long range big guns are quite accurate.

1/2 oz 9 same number as 7/8 oz 71/2 20 ga. pattern just as uniform in my guns. But I can run straight with a 12, 20 or 28. , Sometimes drop 2-3 with the .410. In my case the reloading techniques of 410, especially crimping, give too high of ES in velocities. Still would like to try this choke in .410 for the light issue, (who knows maybe it would average the ES more) but if it isn't made. ----

shoot a lot of doubles in skeet and then theres the shoot off--- use reloads and skeet chokes in the 4 gauges but would like to try one in .410. Sometimes the light is really bad at some ranges ( or bad at some stations on particular ranges) and the shot is almost instinct, if it worked the choke would be good for a few situtations.

Ok I'm with you now. Sounds to me like the choke is breaking the wads leaves giving the wad more drag thus the shot column is leaving the wad sooner and less compression is on the shot distorting it less thus giving more uniform patterns. Do they make them in 410 for skeet?

Hey I Love Briley-- Use a four gauge set for my Krieghoff. Help me out though. Your pattern is wider at 10 yds than 20 yds?? Gotta run this one past the Skeet club. All skeet chokes have a tighter pattern than cyclinder. Most shot guns rarely shoot center of pattern to poi. This is what you pay Briley for when you get it a barrel set. Even then it can change with a change in the load type, shot hardness, powder rate etc. Did you pattern 10 of the same loads on a pattern board? Even when using a rear sight that will "shift" the poi it changes with distance. Most removable barrels are not trued to the action. Hey if it works for you -- use it.

Have you examined any of you wads to see if they were "stripping"? Rifled chokes barely work with solid mass such as slugs. Do you really think that the shot column is rigid enough to have its rotational velocity, increases from zero to whatever in 1-2 inchs?

back when--- before chronographs became a dime a dozen (sortof ) there was no way to determine the power factor of a load. Easy way that is- one that could be used a the local match level. At that time alot of guys were having moulds (casting) made that looked just like 230 gr round nose but weighed out around 160 grs. At that time this was a serious advantage against the regular 1911 using full power hard ball. Some clubs used ballistic pendulums which required some one on the RO staff with some sophistication in ballistics get stuck with the job of ranking power factor. A power meter was developed by Cooper, at least the one I saw, about a year or so before the Pepper popper which when toppled by hardball set the standard for power factor (out of a 5" 1911). Pepper made one in humanoid form that was used in several large events and become the standard for power factor determination until chronos become cheap.

Sounds like toolguy could do the job!!! Had one on these when Bain and Davis was doing it back in the 80's , was suprized to see the subject come up again. B and D did a really good conversion of Mod. 28 to 45LC at that time also. First my experience with the cartridge in a Ruger Blackhawk, except with the 357 cylinder. Forcing cone erosion you wouldn't believe. With max. loads around 24-26 grs. of 296 measurable wear occured under 1000 rds, cylinder gap blast was closer to a 454 although I'm sure the pressures weren't as high. And as with most tapered cases in revolvers cases would freeze up under the right (wrong) circumstances, which were loads under max, when the case would move back against the recoil shield and reform. At that time there was another line of thinking (I think it was called the bobcat) which used a nylon collet around a 357 bullet in a regular 44 case, to get around the set back problem. Dan Wesson a few years later came out with the .357 Max. which did away with the problems of both and become the standard for IMHSA for awhile. It had stainless steel barrels that were easily replaced when throat erosion got bad. Not to discourage you, it was a fun project--- but

I have never had an issue with the horseshoe hiding the shots. Horseshoes work good on head shots about the same size. It won't hide all of them of course, but one day the wind will be blowing-- and damn.

the only one I've found with the 454 is the 2x leupolds, and I've trashed 2 of those with letters from leo about not putting the mounts so close together. Good luck - let me know what you find.

Tried a lot of the small 1911s but, everytime it gives up one of the best features, the longer sight length. Great triggers also need good sights. And,- well with the reduction in fire power by 20-25% (mag cap).

Revolver chamfering tools-- mainly tools that came about by a pistol smith by the name of Ron Powers, during the high pt. of IMHSA, and when the Ransom Pistol rest was invented.

Can't believe they run the vertical out to 900 yds. --- Thats a hard shot with a properly set up tactical rifle. 400-500 yds would have given more space with finer hashs. It would have given more "bisecting room" in the 50 to 300 yds range. Also the horseshoe will hide your strikes just like the shoe on the ior cqb. Not sure if your aware but this web site is free-- and one of the best. http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi

Usually bulls eye matches (bianchi cup, ppc) , long range silhoutte , highpressure calibers or bullets with sharp shoulders benefit most from 90 deg. facing, and/or 11 or so deg. forcing cone reaming. Brownells has a good kit for about $80. If you are getting a level of accuracy acceptable with action shooting sports why bother?

schmidt and bender makes a 10x50 with a very large wheel as the dial for the AO side focus. These are used specfically for range finding, but in a little different way than american shooters are used to. In euro. they use air guns in matchs called field trials or shoots and range the target using the ao then dial in the drop for that range. Parallax is greatest the higher the magnification and the closer the target. Thus air guns and 22lr type stuff benefit well from ao distance ranging. As far as US type shooting as we know it the best calibrated ao for ranging is in the most expense scopes. A NF. Br with front ao, or a side focus Zeiss Vari, USO,Premier,Razor, Schmidt and Benders and IORs are usually right on the money. And as parallax problems decrease with distance, the ability usually decreases around 500 yds. As mentioned above the increments are in 100, 200 units so there is alot of room for fudging. If the target is large enough, like an IPSC target with a 8 inch cone of fire this is enough to get the hit. So the answer is a qualified yes.

A 2k scope on something like a $900 Savage will get you a lot further, than a $400 bushnell on a 2k Kimber 8400. Better yet a 3x9 ffp swfa on a $900 Savage with their new stock will get you 90% of anything you want to do and still leave 1k for doughnets.

whooh--were to start-- A 500 yd A zone is not a hard shot, a 500 yd head shot is not a hard shot, a 500 yd golf ball is a hell of shot. It is not needed to use center of mass holds, that is action shooting talk, many top shooters use sfp scopes and fine cross hairs simply because they can "bisect" the target better than an ffp. Also if you are using a lrf complicated reticles become less useful. Reading parallax definitions will just give you a headache. Here is the need to know. In most cases parallax adjustment is not needed. Absolute tracking accuracy is essential. A SWFA 3x9 with no ao is a better scope than a leupold 3.5x10 with ao. My hunting rifle uses a z6 2.5x12x50 TDS on an Alaskan Ti in 280, and using 162 amax at 2900 fps can make first shot hits on any A zone out to 600 yds day in day out. This is a non critical application. I use a NF 8x32x56 BR with 1pnrr, 1/8" clicks and an AO you wouldn't believe on golf balls at 500 yds. This is a critical application (small changes make big differences). With the reticle in proper focus, with scopes having a variable power of 10 or higher, the image will not be in focus with the reticle. AO simply correct this. Parallax occurs because you are not behind the center of the optical axis of the scope, if you are then no parallax occurs regardless of the fuzzy sight picture. Bullets have two trajectory, one on the way up one on the way down, the one on the way down is the important one and as mentioned earlier why Leupold,Swaro, Zeiss pay so much attention when designing BDC reticles using information based on the drops between 200 and 300 yds. As the bullet approaches the target it sees two pictures or circles a circle of entry in front of the target and a circle of departure after the target (the statistical dispersion of the rifle/load combination). The target size defines the tolerence allowable in these circles. I use a Conquest 4x14 z800 on an R5 Remington. It has a moa grid at the top and when used with the holdovers/windage holdoffs is pretty fast. I use a Diavari 6x24x56 with the z1000 on a TRG 22 for really serious shit. The reticle is zeroed at 100 yds, 3.2 mil adjustment "activates" the reticle to a 500 yds zero, allowing the use of the reticle holdovers and holdoffs. If left at the 100 yds zero I can simply use dial in elevation and use the scope at a lower power from 6 to 12 depending on how much field of view I want. Sorry for the complicated example. A common misconception is that dial in is more accurate than bdc. Yes and know. Actually a combination of the two is the most accurate. Ex. Use the BDC for the known hold off dial in the difference. This method is recommended by NF. I use a 3.5x15x50 NF on AR10T using this method with the npr2 reticle (my favorite action reticle) because it has 2 moa hash. I like this reticle because it floats in sight picture. You have the description flipped as to the ranging using ffp and sfp. FFP the realtionship or subtension of the target to the reticle hashes stays the same through the power range. SFP however has a linear relationship at decreases of mag. the more area subtended. This is were most folks get lost. Ranging with sfp and bdc holdover are two different topics, don't confuse them. Unless you are a sophisticated user the bdc will only work on the highest power or designated by the maker. This is the biggest complaint against them. However it is not that hard to change. Here is the work around. Using a program such as JBM (free on the net and one of the best) run your loads ballistics. Then simply compare them at the range with your scope at the range, or a 100 yd distance using a yard stick. Generally speaking when using a sfp scope decreasing the power will raise the point of impact. The greater the magnification range the greater the effect. Using my NF 8x32 I can walk the shot into the target by simply changing the magnification. When using an ffp scope for holdover simply run a JBM sheet. The mil or moa drop from the sheet will tell you which mil or moa hash works for that yardage. (if yardage is a word, is meterage?) sorry for the long winded post.

Nice glass!! optional reticle wasn't too much additional either. How is milling with the small distance between the has marks? what you using it on looks like you could use hold over to 2000 yds.

I have used one for a couple of days, but don't feel the additional cost is warranted. The ebr-2 reticle I use on a Razor works the same way and costs much less. Tactical matches are very much different than most long range shooting. Many things are "measured". Civilians shouldn't confuse their needs for what the military or LE are doing, or use it as a yardstick for measuring performance. Usually civilians come up with better solutions, simply because the constraints are there.

Horus is a good reticle and can be had in a USO, and I think NF now. Realize it adds about $500 to the basic scope cost however.

most picatinny rails are higher than a weaver mt. as they have a bigger ledge. Picatinny rings clamp further over the rail than a weaver thus the higher rail provide for clearance. Why don't you get a good set of one piece Talleys?

77 smk work well in most ar mags and in some ar types will give better accuracy. Some ar prefer a secant ogive to a tangent ogive. If you want to experiment with 75 amax rechamber for .223AI.

Let me approach from a slightly different angle. Most precision rifles are based on hyped up hunting rifle type affairs. Actions like Surgeon,GAP and others improve by makeing the picatinny part of the receiver, but still 90 deg. two lug throws. There are are only several really different actions out there. The Sako TRG with 3 lug 60 degree (and yes somewhat a hunter) and the Desert Tactical Arms. The DTA allows caliber and and barrel replacement in the field and still have precision accuracy. In this case the action is more important. This also applies to Tube rifles, and some of the Windrunners. If your talking off the shelf out the door, type of rifle then the most important items are the reloads.