Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Shooting below the .100 barrier.

Comments

21 comments

  • mrbruce
    You get a big pat on the back for that one, thanks.....
    0
  • whiteclouder
    Fascinating. Thanks for posting this.

    Clouder..
    0
  • bgjohn
    This post is tooooooooooooo Loooooooooooooooooong! Nobody actually read it!
    JM[V]
    0
  • Mk 19
    quote:This post is tooooooooooooo Loooooooooooooooooong! Nobody actually read it!
    JM

    Not true, I read it, and I enjoyed it

    Thanks Zip
    0
  • Hylander50
    I read every word. It was very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
    0
  • 1911a1-fan
    quote:Originally posted by Hylander50
    I read every word. It was very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.


    what did it say?

    a quick synapsis will suffice
    0
  • MVP
    I fell asleep three times and was only half way through when I gave up.
    Does it get any better after the halfway mark?
    0
  • fishermanben
    quote:Originally posted by 1911a1fan
    quote:Originally posted by Hylander50
    I read every word. It was very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.


    what did it say?

    a quick synapsis will suffice


    It said that if you eliminate all environmental factors you can get to the real problems that present themselves in trying to get .100 accuracy, and better. Then it talked about the problems that they found, and how to fix them. These guys even were figuring out how to cut their .05 groups down to .035, and then from .035. down to .015. They were creating the most accurate rifles, and loads, and figuring out how to maintain them shot-to-shot. Very cool.

    Ben
    0
  • SahaganBeta
    Awesome article! Got any more like it?

    Sahagan
    0
  • guntech59
    I read it all. Fascinating! Even though most of it is well beyond my knowledge and abilities. I thought I was doing good with my Savage 22-250 shooting consistent half inch groups. Those guys are WAAAAYYYY out of my league.



    Edited for spelling.
    0
  • 1911a1-fan
    quote:Originally posted by fishermanben
    quote:Originally posted by 1911a1fan
    quote:Originally posted by Hylander50
    I read every word. It was very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.


    what did it say?

    a quick synapsis will suffice


    It said that if you eliminate all environmental factors you can get to the real problems that present themselves in trying to get .100 accuracy, and better. Then it talked about the problems that they found, and how to fix them. These guys even were figuring out how to cut their .05 groups down to .035, and then from .035. down to .015. They were creating the most accurate rifles, and loads, and figuring out how to maintain them shot-to-shot. Very cool.

    Ben


    thanks
    0
  • MVP
    quote:Originally posted by guntech59
    I read it all. Fascinating! Even though most of it is well beyond my knowledge and abilities. I thought I was doing good with my Savage 22-250 shooting consistent half inch groups. Those guys are WAAAAYYYY out of my league.



    Edited for spelling.

    You Are doing excellent at 1/2" in what is more then likely a useable firearm.
    We have bench rest guys at our club with 6mm contraptions that are useless as far as I am concerned for anything other than printing ten shot one hole.
    I just can't seem to get excited about a bench rest rifle weighing 20lbsand a trigger so light if you breath to hard it will go off.
    What good are they?
    I would get bored after pulling a 1/4 ounce trigger with no contact on the bench rest contraption except for a trigger finger.
    Some people are fascinated by it all but I would much rather shoot a rifle that is held like a rifle and printing 1/2" groups and can actually be used for something.
    Thats just me though.[:)]
    0
  • fishkiller41
    I read EVERY word.Some twice.Great article, i think i'll save it. Thanks Zip..

    Jeff
    0
  • SahaganBeta
    It looks as if this article reveals levels of expertise I'd never known existed.

    So may I ask what may appear to be an ignorant question? But first, let me explain where I'm coming from.

    I've spent a good bit of time and ammo recently, trying to determine the brands of ammo that best fit my .22 magnum rifle (Marlin 882SS, with 3-9 X 40 Weaver scope) and my T/C .22LR with 15 inch barrel (with Weaver 2X LER scope). It took me might near forever to get the scopes sighted in, what with every change in weather, every change in temperature, even time of day and changes in humidity seemingly changing zero on both set-ups.

    So, I guess I finally came to realize what the whole concept of hold-over is all about. After finding what seemed to be the best zero for both, I've learned to read where my groups are clustering, then using the target for a register, holding over a sufficient amount to insure some pretty good target scores. If I were to look at my own statistics, it would probably appear that I'm able to use the actual zero on the scope only about 1 out of 4 or 5 shooting sessions, and must hold-over the rest of the time.

    All in all, I've come to doubt anybody could shoot outside in fluid weather conditions sufficient to be a good sniper. Shucks, if zero changes with every change in weather and so forth, and a sniper has to shoot from a cold bore, how on earth does he ever establish a baseline for his killing shot? It's not like a sniper can fire three sighting in shots when lying concealed waiting for that proper moment to take the shot.

    So here's the question. On television I see snipers adjusting their scopes while apparently holding on target. That is, it seems that instead of holding over, they are somehow manipulating the reticle in such a way as to eliminate the hold-over.

    Is this what's happening? If so, how does it work? I understand the principle behind sighting in a scope, and I understand how it is that one click can equal 1/4 MOA or whatever. But to translate that into sighting in on the fly escapes me totally.

    I hope I've described what it is I'm asking well enough for you to understand. I don't communicate well.

    Sahagan
    0
  • whiteclouder
    quote:Originally posted by SahaganBeta
    It looks as if this article reveals levels of expertise I'd never known existed.


    So here's the question. On television I see snipers adjusting their scopes while apparently holding on target. That is, it seems that instead of holding over, they are somehow manipulating the reticle in such a way as to eliminate the hold-over.

    Is this what's happening? If so, how does it work? I understand the principle behind sighting in a scope, and I understand how it is that one click can equal 1/4 MOA or whatever. But to translate that into sighting in on the fly escapes me totally.

    I hope I've described what it is I'm asking well enough for you to understand. I don't communicate well.

    Sahagan


    What you're describing is what's referred to as 'Kentucky' windage. You estimate the distance and the wind and then 'hold' to compensate for what you know the bullet 'must' do.

    Snipers and long-range hunters use range-finding devices to discover precise range target and plain old experience to judge wind deflection. Then, instead of holding over or left/right for elivation and azimuth, they literally move the crosshairs using the adjuctment knobs to allow a 'virtual' dead-on hold.

    Hope this helps.

    Clouder..
    0
  • SahaganBeta
    Hey Clouder;

    I think I've got it. Let me try....a shooter is set to shoot at 200 yards. His rifle scope is zeroed in at 100 yards and the shooter knows the bullet drop is four inches at this longer range.

    And, the wind is blowing enough from the right sufficient to maybe push the bullet about 2 inches to the left of dead center.

    So, instead of trying to hold 4 inches high to compensate for the bullet drop, and 2 inches to the right to compensate for the wind, the shooter, knowing the value of each click of the scope at this range, and knowing the scope is dead on at 100 yards, adjusts the scope to shoot 4 inches high, and 2 inches to the right.

    He then holds dead center on the target, letting the scope/rifle relationship take care of the holdover and windage values.

    I'm assuming then, that after the shot, one returns the scope settings to once again zero the rifle at the desired range.

    If that's wrong, just say so. If not, I'm with you. I can understand that. Question is of course, why aren't more scopes (read: cheaper scopes) made with those external adjusting knobs? It's obvious that the mechanical relationship between scope and rifle is more rigid than any kind of holdover or windage adjustments a body could make physically.

    And by the way, thanks! for the reply.

    Sahagan
    0
  • whiteclouder
    quote:Originally posted by SahaganBeta
    Hey Clouder;

    I think I've got it. Let me try....a shooter is set to shoot at 200 yards. His rifle scope is zeroed in at 100 yards and the shooter knows the bullet drop is four inches at this longer range.

    And, the wind is blowing enough from the right sufficient to maybe push the bullet about 2 inches to the left of dead center.

    So, instead of trying to hold 4 inches high to compensate for the bullet drop, and 2 inches to the right to compensate for the wind, the shooter, knowing the value of each click of the scope at this range, and knowing the scope is dead on at 100 yards, adjusts the scope to shoot 4 inches high, and 2 inches to the right.

    He then holds dead center on the target, letting the scope/rifle relationship take care of the holdover and windage values.

    I'm assuming then, that after the shot, one returns the scope settings to once again zero the rifle at the desired range.

    If that's wrong, just say so. If not, I'm with you. I can understand that. Question is of course, why aren't more scopes (read: cheaper scopes) made with those external adjusting knobs? It's obvious that the mechanical relationship between scope and rifle is more rigid than any kind of holdover or windage adjustments a body could make physically.

    And by the way, thanks! for the reply.

    Sahagan


    I think you understand perfectly. The reason more scopes do not have the extended adjustment knobs is as you stated: the rifle is set back to 'zero' after the shooting assignment. Hunters usually do not have time, nor are they inclined to 'mess' with adjusting the crosshairs, they simply judge as best they can, holdover, apply some windnage and shoot---a perfect shot is not required. A caveat: long range shooters (out to 1000yards or so) will employ the range finders and the target/sniper type scopes to kill elk and such.

    Clouder..
    0
  • SahaganBeta
    "Hunters usually do not have time, nor are they inclined to 'mess' with adjusting the crosshairs, they simply judge as best they can, holdover, apply some windnage and shoot---a perfect shot is not required. A caveat: long range shooters (out to 1000yards or so) will employ the range finders and the target/sniper type scopes to kill elk and such."

    I've been thinking that the kind of accuracy necessary for shooting game, even big game, is a degree of magnitude below that needed for shooting those 'below the .100 barrier' kinds of shots. I mean, how else could you be said to have actually gotten a really good zero on your scope/rifle, with just three shots? And isn't that what's commonly used? Shucks, my first shot had as well be a throw-away entirely, for it'll pretty much take flight on its own, and who knows where it'll end up (usually on the target, but generally not close enough to be considered a part of the grouping)? That would leave just two shots to align scope and rifle with. I simply can't see that as being close enough for that tack-driving kind of shooting, but maybe, good enough to hit a game animal's vitals.

    And then again, there's that cold barrel-warm barrel-hot barrel thing. So I can easily see, in hunting, where sometimes, close is close enough. In tack driving, close won't get it though, will it?

    And finally, watching some of the outdoors hunting shows on television, I don't usually see the shooters taking out pencil and paper and ciphering things out. Apparently, from what I've seen on TV (and if you can't believe television, who can you believe?)shooters such as snipers and so forth usually are doing some figuring and writing notes.

    I suspect they're figuring, as closely as possible, the holdover, and how many 'clicks' on the scope it takes to get that, and then doping out the wind so they can make adjustments there as well. I could see where a body would need to write notes in that kind of shooting.

    Thanks for your help. I feel like a ten year old trying to understand stuff that's way beyond both my experience and knowledge. I'm gonna be studying this accuracy thing real close over the next little while.

    Truth is, I'm becoming ever more excited, shucks, even thrilled, when I can turn in a good close grouping with my .22 magnum rifle and .22LR pistol. And I'm not taking any shortcuts either....I'm now shooting with everything zeroed in at 50 yards. However, I can easily back off to 100 yards, but will take my time, and take it step by step. When I've wrung just about all I can get out of the .22's, at 50 yards, I'll back up to 75, then 100. Of course, when I get back to that 100 yd marker, I'm gonna be looking at something longer range and more powerful to shoot. That's when I'll be looking for range-finders, fancy scopes, and a better relationship with my family financial officer wife.

    Sahagan
    0
  • FrancF
    Great read![:p]

    Still shooting a .200 or lower is still considered a "screamer group" at matches. I still can't break my personal best of .273 @100 yards with my semi/heavily worked on custom bench guns.

    That kind of performance would even make "Speedy Gonzalez" (Gunsmith) a happy camper.
    0
  • whiteclouder
    S-Beta,

    I was taught how to use a rifle long before I was taught how to wring the ultimate accuracy out of the weapon. This, of course, was done long before scopes were the norm and a laser rangefinder would have been science fiction.

    The basics can and probably should be taught using low recoil, relatively quiet weapons. Sight picture, breathing technique, trigger control and posture have to be mastered, and this is best done without the discomfort of recoil and noise. I hope you have an experienced shooter who can show you a few of these skills. In any event, don't be too quick to move to 100 yards with a .22, even a magnum. Learn your rifle first. If you have a question, ask it here or on any of several discussion forums like this one: mausercentral dotcom or rimfirecentral dotcom for example. Most shooters are more than willing to share what they know.

    Clouder..
    0
  • SahaganBeta
    Clouder;

    "Most shooters are more than willing to share what they know."

    Yeah, I've seen that here, and believe me, even if you don't hear it often enough, it's very much appreciated.

    Sahagan
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity