Wap wap
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Wap wap
-
-
Back when --OK, OK.
-
Back when Don Fisher in Denver was making and building 9 major guns on Browning Hi-Powers and I mean real major.
-
Might add that I haven't shot action pistol formally for a while. Started when I lived in Colorado, shot with Ross Seyfreid, Paul Miller, 3 gun with Jimmy Clark back when the matchs were in the infancy.
-
Thanks for the invite,but I live in the west and thus get to try a lot of long range stuff not available to most shooters. I would be glad to point in a direction, offer from experience, or answer a question.
-
Make sure the eye relief (sometimes called the eyebox) on the Acog is something you can live with, its a bit tighter than some folks like.
whether you use mil or moa doesn't matter, knowing how much your load drops in the one you choose is what matters.
Most trained action shooters have the clock in the back of their minds, and this plays a bigger role in the choice of things than non-timed event shooters, thus different opinions on scopes. This also causes the mix to be different at different events, such as a F-Class shoot where there may be nothing but BR NF or in contrast a 3 gun where you'll probably see just about anything.
-
several problems with a scope for dummies approach, although I wish there was one. The physics and mechanics of the process are there from many sources, but not so much material as to the slight differences the maker either improves on or cuts corners with. Put this with a lack of agreement on which approach is really the best, and the confusion grows. Even if one person has good results from hobby optics, there will always be one on the other side that had their share of problems for one reason or other. Sometimes there is even alot of scope experts on the net, and while fluent in the mechanics and curosity, don't have enough trigger time to focus in on the purpose part. Scopes have come along way just in the last 10 yrs. and the best buys are usually in the slightly higher hunter class types, the Conquest, 4200's that kind of stuff. What you pay for in the top dog stuff --- it does the same thing except much longer. Tactical type scopes are always heavier, bulkier and made better. Slim trim racers of top quality, on light wt. mtn. rifles are yet another type of high dollar specialization. One of the best places to start is make sure have a good grasp of what trajectories are all about. Generally speaking if one knows the drop between 200 and 300 yds, you can calculate or predict all kinds of stuff. (this is the basis of most hold over reticles. Leupold uses it their BAS system with the varmit reticle and Swaro uses it their tds and holdover reticles.). The second thing to funderstand is the difference between ffp and sfp, especially if you think you can just change powers on sfp and have poi the same using holdover-- the difference is essential, and the cause of so much confusion in scope discussions.
-
not to many scopes reticles have at least 9 mil. in holdover. You didn't mention if it was sfp or ffp and if you shoot on one magnification or how you range the distance
-
in general lasers in the scope body will not become common because-- long range shooting is very specialized and I would need 8 of these scopes to replace the ones currently being used. When 1 Swaro lrf works for everything. Also the bushnell/burris is not even close to a good long range scope. The zeiss model is just barely, but if they put one in a Hensholdt the cost would be around 6k. There isn't a bushnell/nikon/burris scope in the alpha scope class. Shooting past 800 yds with changing wind direction is a shooter problem and not something you can program into something. Elevation, bullet drop, ballistics are just physics--- windage is voodoo.
-
ranging is different with sfp scopes than ffp. sfp has a linear relationship to the subtension of the target by the magnification, while ffp is the same through out the power range. using an equally spaced set such as mildot, tmr, or the variations as a bdc will give really weird yardages in your calculations, and will rarely be on the whole number of yards or meters. Your chances of getting them to come out are higher with a sfp and bdc reticle. When the cone of fire of the rifle/load combination is taken into account with the error in estimation (even with a laser) the statistical range of impact will vary as to how many yards of "forgivness" in front of and behind the target you have, which is of course smaller -- the smaller the target.For an example of this visit the swarovski web sight and run some simulations with a load you are thinking about, and watch the figures as to the hold values against the reticle hash mark. If you are still interested visit the Zeiss sight and run there software especially the optimize reticle which will recalculate the power on the variable to "make your numbers" come out on whole yardages.
-
I think this is kinda funny on a forum whose basis is built on how fast can you shoot accurately. Ar10s shooting is completely different than ar15 shooting. The guns act differently. A good ar10T (Armalite) will put 5 head shoots in an IPSC target in 1/2 the time a bolt will, even if your good on the bolt. If you take the clock out of the picture add some wind flags, maybe some spotters, wait we need a spotting scope--- well you get another shooting sport.
-
Most right hand shooters will pull their shots -- to the right. Try shooting prone directly behind the gun, such that you see the muzzle flash and watch the strike.
-
Some things to keep in mind:
it depends on how much you want to spend on the scope, a Zeiss varipoint for 2k with a z1000 reticle will work very well even though its second focal plane. (just dial in the the holdoffs if you don't like to holdover) most second focal plane scopes (the good expensive ones NF, Zeiss, SWaro) will shoot to poi at any magnification if your dialing in-- all second focal plane scopes will change poi with change of magnification when using reticle hold over. _
milling is accurate to about 3-5% of the distance milled, and works best on the scopes highest power sfp, or ffp
holdoff is necessay when shooting movers, which if your going to need this, a ffp works best or at least a reticle and turrets in the same, system,
a 5 mph wind at 500 yds is about a mil or around 3.5 moa holdoff with around 3 mils or 10 moa in your standard 308 stuff. select a reticle that will allow this.
a 308 is used by people who don't have a choice (300 win, or wsm, 7mmwsm, 6.5x284 etc. chose a caliber that is single turn so you don't need a scope that has elevation single turn. (Ex. 300 win. 155 amax at 3300 fps is about 7 mil to 1000 yds)
it doesn't matter what the bullet weighs( heavier bullets aren't affected less, its just that by co-incidence most calibers have higher bc in the heavier weights), the ballistic coefficient is all that matters. the higher the bc the less drag thus less wind drift.
Traditional mil-dot is dated, but it depends on how much you want to spend.
-
haven't worked with the gold trigger, yet, have you ruled out the thickness of the bolt carrier that actually cocks the hammer, it may not be pushing the hammer far enough, also--- on two stage triggers it is possible to feather the trigger to get multiples by not allowing the trigger to go forward, (somewhat like shooting a glock). some guys are so good at this they can rest the gun on their hip and feather the trigger for continous fire, somewhat like the Hellsfire device.
-
The above sites offer a math worksheet on recoil, pressure on a standard gun model (no porting), in .233 cal. and 20 inch barrel.
-
The difference in the experince as the gun changes weight from an empty mag. is the difference between recoil velocity and recoil in ft/lb. Does anyone have the carrier velocities of an AR, 1100 and the slide velocity on a standard 45?. George says he thinks that the force is about 4 ft/lb, and with it's large mass I can calculate the velocity. The amount of recoil reduction that occurs by the addition of weight by the rounds in the magazine is just that, whether it moves in the magazine doesn't change the weight. There is a calculator on the web- search for recoil and muzzle energy. They will give the recoil in ft/lbs and the recoil in velocity. G forces are a constant.
-
Normally you can get a good crimp by reducing the 00 by one pellet. Be careful not to short a powder load if you are using a progressive as it will bridge the load with 00 feed the next round and if you shoot will bulge the barrel. Pumpkin ball loads as slugs- I use an NEI mould with (wheel weights) regular trap loads works great. cone of fire is about double of a good slug, but very good to practice with.
-
George thanks for the hint of posting I will be doing that shortly. However the comparisons can be made regardless of place on the muzzle or the weight -the point is to compare the contribution made by the constituents, weight and gas pressure. Don't get me wrong if a consumer is happy with what they have that is enough reason. I am simply trying to "scale" the topic. Obviously the heavier JP would be better due the weight addition alone- but how about porting in the same location with 6-8 oz of dead weight on the end of the barrel? Obviously not as asthetic as the JP but gives significant insight into the problem as a whole. Also it would be nice if you could get some of JP calculations such that we could enjoy them together.
-
Got the worksheet done on the actual ft/lb contributed by the gas (pressure) for each of 3 conditions, handgun, shotgun, rifle. Done in a engineering program with graphs and live calculations (I'm sure someone is interested), but website only allows simple text uploads, any ideas in how to upload RTF to this site or IBM hypertext, or MathML or PDF? Does anyone have the weights of the various comps and brakes such that I can calculate the contribution due to only the weight and seperate out that contributed only by the gas discharge? This would remove alot of the confusion as to effectiveness. ie. a lighter comp with x discharge would have a higher % percentage of contribution than a heavier comp or brake with the same x discharge.
-
I'm somewhat confused, I can shoot 3" Brennekes or any round in my 11-87 with only one hand without putting it to my shoulder and it has no baffles, ports or duhikees. (Beside I've tried most of them before) What is the baffle, port or brake for if it is not for reducing muzzle flip? to pull the gun away from you during the recoil cycle? I mentioned what you call wind force as the molecular colloison against the baffles (see post on compensators in open pistol of this forum) and concur this is a measurable vector force although not near as much force is available as is being given in these posts. My complaint is no one is putting any quantitative measurement on it. The mass ejecta is 2 parts consisting of the solid and gaseous part. The amount of force availbe to do work is a function of the pressure in megapascals times the surface area. The amount of recoil is a function of the mass ejecta and it velocity divided by the weight of the gun. The amount of pressure available at any port is a function of the it's size and the pressure (which is measure of the chemical energy at that temperature according to accepted thermodynamic theory) The fact that a gun doesn't recoil with light ammo pretty much answers its self, it has no recoil because you are shooting lite ammo. The only shotgun I had that didn't "recoil" was a Browning recoilless trap gun I had for several years. And, George, if you are wondering where I have been all these years it has been doing post grad. work in physics and shooting although I don't have my head stuck in the sand of all action shooting. Still confused though one of the post says no double taps and one says yes double taps. I will try to get the worksheet for this to upload, however I'm sure it well cause much glazing, moaning, and snickering. But on the other hand your posts cause the same in the physics lab in which I work. As a side note the cycle rate for 1911 types and 1100 are just about the same and at the upper limit of the reflex pattern in the human.
-
I'm not stating that everyone won't have a different opinion, I'm stating my experience after 20 years of shooting sports. The pressure reached in any shotgun rarely exceeds 19000 psi which is very low and the ejecta mass does matter. 19 grs ejected at a velocity of 1200 fps, is just about the same as a 44 mag with a cast lead load. If you don't think it does remove it and see if your shotgun still works. A 44 weighs about 3 lbs and a muzzle break is barely noticable a shotgun weighs almost 8 lbs. almost 3 times as much, does that make the brake work 3 times as better? The amount of gas particles striking the baffles of the dams in breaks can only do the amount of work available in that much chemical energy. I have tried many different types of porting and muzzle breaks, most of the loads I shoot are 3" Brenneke slugs (1000's and as much as 5000 rounds a year in the type of speed shooting you do and 300-400 3 inch mag steel loads during duck season) in as fast as my 11-87 can operate its system. Even if the energy provided by the ejecta mass were as much as 5 ft/lb the energy to operate the gas system would be about 3 ft/lbs which leaves about 2 ft/lbs left for "muzzle breaking". With the 25 ft/lbs and up to 36 for 3" loads still only leaves 4% no matter how subjective you paint the picture. High dollar gun makers also make their guns in any color you want, I sure the blue ones don't kick as much either beside I don't think a Perazzi would work well in your type of shooting. The biggest problem with porting and brakes I run into is pattern distortion as the shotcup is allowed to be remoulded by the openings changing the shot pattern to outright slivering of the shot sleeve when using steel shot. I have no doubt many new and possibly useless devices will be developed by all branches of the shooting sports in the future, the one or two that survive make it interesting.
-
After reading the questions-the subconsious point-the Bill of Rights should be changed- all women have an unalienable right to romance.
-
I disagree that comps or porting works on shotguns at least to any degree of differentiation a human to tell. A 1 oz slug weighs 437 grs of which with 19 grs of powder the ejecta mass is 446 gr. The powder and if the comp is 100% effective can only reduce the recoil velocity of the total weight of the gun which 1187 are fairly heavy compared to Benellis, by 19/437 or 4%. This is less than the a 1oz. wheel weight attached to the end of your barrel. Or less than 1/2 ft/lbs of the 25 ft/lb target load 12 ga. produces. Trap shooters more or less abandoned porting years ago (at least 10) and were the first to initially test it to reduce fatique in long matches. Most went to under barrel weights although once in awhile someone comes running in out of breath with a new discovery. Forcing cone can reduce recoil, but it also reduces velocity by reducing pressure.
-
technically a revolver will cycle faster than an auto, however few humans can make it work that fast. The mechanism will operate as fast as the trigger can be operated without limit. Autos have cycle rates, typical 45 run around 350 to 400 round a min. Revolvers have unlimited cycle rates similar to gatlling guns. My use of revolver is due to the wide range of loads in any given caliber and gun configuration. Very few autos can put out the horsepower a Redhawk Casull can for hunting. or on the other end be as small and pleasant to carry as a Mod.38 Airweight loaded with Glaser or mag-safe. The limitation in splits or doubles is people limited not revolver limited. Any hand gun adequate for back country (power factor 300) isn't good for speed shooting and any hand gun light enough to be carried in summer (18 oz.) isn't either--so why compare apples and oranges. In other words revolvers can operate at the extremes of the usage scale while autos perform best in the middle of the usage scale.
-
Moly bullets and spray work well for initial conditioning of the barrel, and as was stated previously that has been my experience. General concerns against it use are that moly is extremely burnishable which means that it is possible to "layer'' up the moly, shoot copper bullets over it, then plate the copper wash with a later use of Moly. The greatest benefit is the decreased necessity of cleaning and the velocity increase of the bullet itself. Diminished accuracy in a rifle arises from throat erosion which moly does not prevent. Accuracy in most cases, particularly in a good barrel, can be had by simply cutting the first two inchs, re-chambering, and re-threading. If the previous described coating occurs it will diminsh accuracy, as will to much cleaning, by simply wearing down the riflings (or in moly's case filling up the groove) that cause the bullet engraving. In my experience generally the "cheaper" the barrel the better moly works. It did nothing for a Kimber and Krieger in cleaning or velocity increase very little for my Remingtions- worked great on some Savages, redundant on chrome lined barrel AR's.
....reading too much again.....
in Rifle - Technical
Posted
Bores and chambers are coated to reduce cleaning interval not a cure for wear. Wear in a rifle barrel is specific to the lands and crown which really don't have a cleaning problem as such. Damage at these points need remedy regardless of the rest of the bore condition. In a handgun coatings make sense as the handling properties are more frequent than parts replacement. In a precision rifle the parts replacement exceeds the handling. (Unless you want to nitride your Accuracy Int. stock). AR's of course are inbetween these two extremes.