Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

2Xalpha

Classified
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

About 2Xalpha

  • Rank
    Finally read the FAQs

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Northern Europe
  • Interests
    Any target, any distance

Recent Profile Visitors

903 profile views
  1. Given that the 1-10 performs comparable to a Razor 1-6 up to 6x, my big question is how usable it's going to be at 10x. Guess I have to handle it and see for myself. Saw this video comparing the exit pupil of the 1-10x24 with other types of scopes. His arguments are interesting, but I wanted to clarify some things. Few PRS shooters use their scopes at max magnification (other than when milling). It is more common to use between 10-14x when shooting. Why? Mostly because the field of view shrinks with more magnification. Also, when you crank up the magnification lever the image becomes darker due to a smaller exit pupil. The smaller exit pupil also makes it more difficult to find the sight picture. Say you have a use case where you want to use a given magnification, in this case 10x as seen on many traditional fixed magnification sharpshooting scopes. Now if you were to compare the exit pupil of a 5-25x50 set at 10x with a 1-10x24 scope on max power, you can not do so by comparing their minimum exit pupils! Two such scopes will have minimal exit pupils of 2 mm and 2.4 mm respectively, however at 10x the numbers will be 4 mm vs 2.4 mm! So the 1-10x24 will only have a 60% the exit pupil of a 5-25x50 when both are at 10x. Why didn't Vortex go for a 30 mm objective lens like Zeiss did with their V8 1-8x30? One good thing by keeping the small objective lens is that it is easier to construct a scope with a good field of view, which is very important in our sport. However, Zeiss managed to get the same field of view (5.3 m at 100 m, or 3 degrees if you will, at 8x) as Swarovski did with their 1-8x24. Interested to hear what the compromise was. Shorter depth of field..?
  2. It is not fair to compare the FOVs at their respective maximum magnifications. At 6x the field of view will be about the same on the Razor 1-10 Gen 3 as on the 1-6 Gen 2. Actually the Gen 3 has a slightly wider field of view. A reason why the FOV of the Razor 1-10 is comparable to that on the March 1-10 is that objective lens diameter and magnification are important factors in field of view. There are also some things you can do with the ocular design, for example Swarovski have been known for squeezing out some extra field of view in their ocular designs. Making a good FFP reticle on LPVOs is challenging because the reticle (and maybe especially the illumination) has a tendency to become very small and "disappear" at low magnification, but on the other side too big and obscuring the target at high magnification. A good reticle design captures the best of both worlds. That is why the illuminated part of the reticle has a segmented outer ring, so that the red dot is still visible and bright on low magnification, while the small center dot still allows for precise aiming at high magnification - at least in theory. I'm interested to see how it works in practice. And I'm so glad the mrad version still uses 0.1 mrad clicks! 0.2 mrad, as used on the Nightforce NX8 1-8x24 F1, gives me a f***ing headache.
  3. Vortex just released a 1-10 scope! https://vortexoptics.com/riflescopes/vortex-razor-gen-iii-riflescopes/vortex-razor-hd-gen-iii-1-10x24-riflescope.html They are not the first, though. IOR has a 1-10x26, and March has a 1-10x24. The IOR 1-10 is very heavy and has the uncommon dimension of a 35 mm tube. The March is said to be very nice, but comes with a side focus, which may indicate that short depth of field is an issue? (I've never seen through one). At least it's interesting that Vortex came with a high end 1-10 before any of the major European manufacturers! Vortex Razor HD Gen III 1-10x24 1-10x24 mm $2899.99 MSRP 34 mm tube FIRST FOCAL PLANE (FFP) reticle Fixed parallax at 91 meters Weighs 609 grams Freedom units version: - EBR-9 (MRAD) Reticle (evenly spaced lines to suit different rifles/loads) - 0.1 mrad clicks - 10 mrad Travel Per Rotation Middle age version: - EBR-9 BDC MOA Subtensions (unevenly spaced BDC reticle to suit certain loads, according to the manual 5.56 mm 55-77 grain boat tail bullets at 2700-3000 FPS , that is 3.6-5.0 grams bullets at 820-915 m/s for us freedom loving earthlings ) - 1/4 MOA clicks - 25 MOA Travel Per Rotation Unfortunately there's no BDC turret and no zero stop.. Would have loved to see a Zeiss Rail option, but at least 34 mm mounts are not that uncommon. Will be interesting to hear how it performs compared to the Razor Gen 2, and the other big guys like Swarovski 1-8x24 and Zeiss 1-8x30. I guess the exit pupil will be small, probably around 2.6 mm at 10x. Also curious on the depth of field, as this can get pretty short on high zoom scopes. Since the scope neither has a single turn turret nor a zero stop, it's probably not meant to be dialed during action (holdovers instead).
  4. First of all happy new year! Sorry in advance, this is going to be a bit long. Didn't know that. If you want to know what scopes etc. tactical dudes will be running tomorrow, look at what the Open divisions guys run today. (Except 1.5 meter tall bipods, that is). Practical rifle shooters used red dot sights in competitions way before they became popular with "professional users". The same with LPVO's. IPSC shooters were the first to use 1-4 sights, 1-6 sights and 1-8 sights at large scale. Basically what you see in Open. Shooting fast with irons at intermediate range is so difficult and so different that it deserves its own division. Not comparable to shooting rifles with any kind of optics. Keeping an irons division in IPSC Rifle does not hurt, but adding a red dot division does. True competition iron sights used in IPSC Rifle are good to go on 300 m targets. Can't say the same for red dot sights. Opening up for a red dot division will effectively put a 100 or 200 m distance limit on IPSC Rifle matches, not because the red dot limits the mechanical accuracy of the rifle itself, but because of poor contrast and that the dot becomes larger than the target at long distances, making it hard to aim. Those who want a red dot division in IPSC Rifle have never shot with a red dot in a true IPSC Rifle match, and I urge them to show up and try it in Open. Decent LPVO's are so affordable these days, so cost is not an argument. Red dots belong on a PCC. It is a fact of life that sometimes sights still fail, mounts come lose, etc. Most Open division shooters have a side mounted red dot in addition to the LPVO, and the red dot can thus work as an emergency backup sight, at least on short ranges. This is the most practical setup in my opinion. The Tac Ops approach of using side mounted irons is plain stupid. Those types of iron sights are unusable on anything above 50 to 100 m, and will snag on ports and stuff. You are correct that it is often difficult to design a rifle stage with lots of options, and that is because you get much fewer options as a stage designer once you put some of the targets at long distance. Same with adding more targets. You can see this on pistol matches as well. To alleviate this, the required round count balance for IPSC Rifle differs from IPSC Handgun. This helps. Designing a good rifle stage is thus a stage design issue, not a rules issue, and you are welcome to design better stages and show us how it's done. I don't think they agree. Hosting a level 2 rifle match can be a damn lot of work, mostly because you have to walk much longer to score targets. I can't begin to imagine how much work it is to host a level 4 or higher match. Comparing the World Shoot to a level 1 club match? Not what they want to hear. Up to the stage design. Really, we should talk more about stage design, not rule changes. I really mean that. We should have more interviews with top shooters talking about stages they've shot at big matches, and what they think made them good or bad. One thing to keep in mind is to make sure the shooting challenge fits the level of the shooters. Short answer: The rifle divisions do not need any major changes. Basically everyone shoots Open today with about similar rifles and the same cartridge. Wonderful! The winner of the Open division is the best shooter. The winner of the World Shoot is therefore the best rifle shooter in the world! Can't say the same for handgun where there are so many silly hider divisions now, and in some divisions you get a scoring advantage for getting lucky choosing the right caliber for that match. Do I want equipment changes? Long answer: 1) It was a mistake to allow detaching bipods during a match, which I think became a thing in the 2010's. Before then, from my understanding, it was common to say that that everything attached to the rifle at the start of the match needed to be attached during the whole match. It was a lot of discussion, and they had an opportuniy to get it right and keep a level playing field. The rule is still the same (5.1.8), but the practice has changed. For that matter, it was also a mistake to allow multiple bipods. The result? Everyone has to drag a bunch of bipods to a match to be competitive, bacause "what if" some stage becomes easier with a 2 meter bipod? 3 meter bipod? Jokes aside, now all top Open shooters need to bring prone, kneeling and standing bipods (1.5 meters), and of course bipod extensions so that lengths can be adjusted and tweaked on the go as you prepare for the stage.. Making an interesting stage design just became much harder. By the way, if you are looking for a versatile, quick adjust bipod, I can recommend the "Primos Trigger Stick Gen3 Tall Bipod". Now EVERYONE needs to have it. 2) I want simplification by having only three divisions that are very distinctly different. Open, Standard and Manual. That is, removing one division, and not adding a single one. No one shoots Manual Standard. If you want a medal, shoot this one, cause no one else will come. On the World Shoot they needed RO's to register in the division, filling up during the match until the last day, just to fire a shot into the berm so they could get enough starters. Thus, by gaining division recognition, a few Manual Standard shooters managed to rob 8 Open shooters (top 8 instead of top 16) from getting a chance to compete at the Shoot-Off. 3) Manual should remain as a separate division. The I in IPSC stands for International, a unified competition ruleset around the world. It is already possible for the stage designer to include mandatory reloads on short courses (1.1.5.2). Reloading with an AR not so much fun in my opinion, but its a skill I would like to se tested more often. Beware that the stage hitfactor will go down, so that may be a reason it is not seen very often. In my world there is no better way to test practical rifle marksmanship than a well balanced IPSC Rifle match (1.2.1.6). By that metric, Jarkko Laukia from Finland is currently the best rifle shooter in the world. If you start adding a separate ruleset for US shooters and having divisions differing from those used internationally, it will only become harder to perform at the international scene. Not just divisional differences, but foot faults, pre-walkthroughs, dry firing, sight pictures, .. Agreed. It is important to adjust the shooting challenge to the audience. The stages on the World Shoot may not be representative of what you will see on a club match. Short courses in IPSC Rifle are maximum 10 rounds already, so 15 would get you through without a reload. Anyway, it is not the way to go if you want to increase stage hit factors. Reloading AR mags are also generally not as easy as reloading pistol mags. Also remember the RO now has to count makeup shots to catch cheaters. It is doable, but still a thing that would need to be added to the list of RO responsibilities. Manual shooters are not really slowing down the stages. Manual division fires 1 round per target instead of 2, giving comparable stage times for equally skilled shooters, or sometimes even lower stage times. The lever release division is not really a thing. It was a last ditch resort that went through the system without assembly approval in an effort to avoid these monstrosities getting banned in the UK. They got banned anyway, so thankfully we don't have to care about having a special division for these creations called "lever release" rifles anymore. Put them in Open. Bolt action rifles are alive and well. In the Norwegian Rifle Championship this year 1st and 3rd place went to bolt rifles, 2nd place was taken with a pump. Straight pull rifles are popular in the UK, and I'm building one myself right now. As said, the I in IPSC stands for International. Having a Manual division makes for an opportunity to travel internationally and compete against others with manual rifles, regardless of firearm laws. One thing is for sure, adding more divisions dilutes the competition aspect of the sport. Back in the days when men were men, there were no divisions, and the winner was the winner. Following the Handgun World Shoot now is annoying when all the best guys are spread over "their own" divisions, so everyone gets a medal. I would love to follow Max Michel, Ben Stoeger, Eric Grauffel and all the other big guys competing against each other! That would be so much hype! The proposed Modified division had so much noise around it. Only 1x red dots was one suggestion. Only LPVO's with max 4x was one. Or only max 6x (dubbed "the Swarovski 1-6 Z6i division"..). Fixed magnification only was another. Fixed magnification with backup irons (but only cowitnessed, not side mounted!), etc. Lots of arbitrary suggestions with no one agreeing. In a few years such divisions would maybe be outdated anyways because of improvements in the optics industry, giving everyone affordable 1-10x LPVO's? Who knows. The divisions should strive to be timeless in my opinion. How much innovation has really happened in the Handgun Open division since 1993? Almost nothing, the guns are about the same. It depends on what you want to accomplish, I guess. If you want a PCC match with rifles you may be onto something. However, if you want a true rifle match with varied distances have a look at the international rifle rules. They are a stable, unified ruleset developed over the years sorting out many things you maybe haven't thought of. Major only scoring with .223 as a baseline is actually a pretty good suggestion. The muzzle brake rules are a joke! People are using the same brakes in IPSC Open and Standard, so what is really the point of having the rule? For example SJC Titan is one of the most effective brakes, and is used in both Open and Standard. The only brakes I know are too large are the JP tank brake and the TE Titan Open, but the latter can easily be turned down a millimeter or two in a lathe. So my conclusion is that limiting comp size are not really limiting neither the effectiveness or concussion of a compensator. So what's the goal? If you want to have flash hiders only, state so. But ruling what constitutes a flash hider and what is a muzzle brake.. Welcome the range lawyers! One alternative could be to have like a "production list" of approved compensators, or just keep it simple and say everyone has to use a $9 A2 flash hider.
  5. The practical shooting channel has interviewed Raine Peltokoski, two times silver medalist at the IPSC Rifle World Shoot. He talks about: Match stress Training Shares his opinions equipment, such as the current IPSC bipod rules, and whether a 45 degree red dot is necessary (his answer may shock you!) Why the Finns win all the time How he will focus on pistol until the 2020 Handgun World Shoot in Thailand IPSC Mini Rifle (.22 LR) vs PCC How he's a rifle shooter by heart
  6. Zeiss 1.1-8x30 is the current top of the line go-to scope for IPSC Rifle. Having crystal clear glass, a small size daylight bright dot and locking BDC turret. It has the largest exit pupil. Swarovski 1-8x24 is also a very good option, only the dot is a little bigger and the exit pupil is of "normal" size. I like the Swaro turrets better. Most run a BDC turret only on the height adjustment. Buying a scope that does not start on 1x (or 1.1x) is buying yourself a handicap for IPSC Rifle, and also Multi-Gun for that matter. You usually shoot close targets with the scope set to 1x, and most shoot much better this way than using the 45 degree red dot. The red dot is however useful when transitioning back and fourth between close and far targets, because then it's nice to have some magnification on the scope and just use the red dot on close targets, so you don't have to turn the magnification up and down. (A little magnification (i.e. 3x) can be nice already on tight no-shoots at 50 meters). The extra red dot can also be nice if you choose to dial the scope turrets for very long range targets (i.e. 300 m) before the stage starts, then you can just use the red dot on close targets without having to "hold under". This is why, in my opinion, an LPVO scope starting on 1x + a red dot is the most "practical setup. I know several guys who have tried various "compromise setups" for IPSC and long range, i.e. 4-16x or 1.8-14x. The Zeiss 1.8-14 may one of the closest things to such a compromise right now, as you seldom need more than 14-15x for any "normal" long range competitions (except when milling). However, the guy who bought a 1.8-14 quickly changed it with a 1-8x30 after shooting some IPSC competitions...
  7. Eric Grauffel has 5 World Shoot titles in Open Overall, I believe all shooting Tanfoglio. It's good enough for him.
  8. Joe Farewell chronoed in at the World Shoot with a 77 grain bullet at 2630 ft/s (5.0 grams at 802 m/s). Would have liked to have a look at the chrono statistics for all the participants..
  9. Official results are not released yet, possibly because some are still shooting in Manual Standard.
  10. The Main Match should be over around this time. If I remember correctly, the score verify will last for one hour after the last shooter has finished, and then probably won't be long until the final scores are posted. Live scoring has seemed to not be accessible today, possibly due to a technical issue. Shoot-Off tomorrow! As you probably know, this is an audience friendly one-againt-one speed shoot in a cup format. The 8 to 16 best shooters from divisions and categories are invited. If you can live with Norwegian commentaries, the event will be broadcasted live on facebook by @riflelandslaget. The Shoot-Off event is scheduled to 11:00-14:00 local time (CEST or UTC+2). I think that will be: 05:00-08:00 (UTC-4) Eastern DST 04:00-07:00 (UTC-5) Central DST 03:00-06:00 (UTC-6) Mountain DST 02:00-05:00 (UTC-7) Pacific DST Hope I got that right. Stay tuned!
  11. Last day of the Main Match tomorrow on Friday 9th. The weather forecast looks quite good. Forecast for Friday 9th: Mostly partly cloudy, except for a short period of fair in the morning, and a short period of cloudy at noon. Wind: 1 m/s almost all day, except between 12:00-14:00 when it's 2 m/s. Mostly coming from north-ish during the whole day, except for the last hour of shooting when the wind comes from south. Temperature: Starts out with 14 Celsius at 8:00, and should be around 20-22 Celsius from 12:00 until the end of shooting. That's 57 °F and 68-72 °F respectively.
  12. Unofficially, it looks like we have a triple Swedish podium in Manual Open: Jiro Nihei (100.00) Stilianos Simeonidis (99.67%) Erik Bjalkvall (99.09%) I say unofficially since there still are a couple of Manual Open competitors shooting tomorrow. However, they will have to win all the stages left with a good margin for them to come past top 5, which I think is unlikely.
  13. For long it looked as if Manual Standard was not going to be recognized due to lack of participants, but today the number of division participants has increased to surpass limit of 20 participants.
×
×
  • Create New...