I found my zero

[alamo5000]

I took some advice from a fellow WEVO member to develop a system to start logging my shots. So over the course of several days I have been going out in the back yard and shooting at MOST 5 shots and logging down where they hit. I did this for several days checking each shot individually. I tried several different ammunition before finally choosing one that I got better results from.

I analyzed the data and did some calculations and saw a pattern emerge. My shots before were all hitting low and to the right. Today after doing some math to figure out how much point 1 mil click value is at 100 yards (what my scope uses) I made some slight adjustments to the scope itself.

I want to find good ammo. I also wanted to find a true zero for my rifle. But overall I was curious and I am having fun.

The picture below is of my first 3 shots today. Shot at 100 yards using my 16 inch AR-15 laying prone on the ground using a bipod. All three were 100 yard shots using Winchester 69 grain match grade ammo and a Bushnell AR optics 1-4x throwdown scope.

The patches on the target are from a previous day's shooting. I actually had my target stuck on upside down so in reality the shots were hitting low and to the right slightly before I made the adjustments.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7404/15876184023_7e782ffd8f_b.jpg

[toolboxluis00200]

good job what twist rate are you using ??on the barrel ?/

[alamo5000]

good job what twist rate are you using ??on the barrel ?/

16" Rainier Arms Select Medcon 1:8 twist stainless barrel.

[Txfilmmaker]

16" Rainier Arms Select Medcon 1:8 twist stainless barrel.

Very impressive!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alamo5000]

Very impressive!

I have found that now I am zeroing in on what kind of ammo I need/want to shoot or reload or whatever. This barrel seems to like the 69's.

That 1-4x is possible to do this (obviously) but I think with more scope I could probably do it more or maybe even better given the right conditions. I found that after just a short time shooting my eyes were straining and that was leading to a fall off in this kind of shooting. I am on the hunt for some alternative optics that I could possibly swap out depending on purpose.

But I would say, for what I have I think I found the zero for where I need to be at. That logging down of all the shots revealed a whole lot.

Ordnance definitely needs to be called out here [:D]

[alamo5000]

16" Rainier Arms Select Medcon 1:8 twist stainless barrel.


Rainier says sub MOA out of the box... well this is .7 inches so I would say they have turned out a fantastic product that lives up to the billing.

[toolboxluis00200]

16" Rainier Arms Select Medcon 1:8 twist stainless barrel.

wow that is cool

[browcs]

Nice....I like it.

[Former11B]

I tested a new handload today with 69gr SMKs over 24.1gr of Reloder 15 netting the best group through a 16" Rainier Select 1:8 Heavy Barrel today. What are the odds??

I don't want to post my group though. This is your thread ;)

[alamo5000]

I tested a new handload today with 69gr SMKs over 24.1gr of Reloder 15 netting the best group through a 16" Rainier Select 1:8 Heavy Barrel today. What are the odds??

I don't want to post my group though. This is your thread ;)

Quit screwing around and POST THE DAMN THING! [:D]

We're all sharing and learning here. BRING IT. I want to see.

[alamo5000]

Keep in mind a couple of things:

I used a 1-4x Bushnell throwdown scope, which I really want to upgrade. I am researching a lot about that. At 100 yards I think it was pretty decent.

While I am doing all this I am trying to narrow down a range for a hand load. I am early stages but I am on the case [BD]

[alamo5000]

Nice....I like it.

Thank you! I do try!

I am trying to test the limits of my gear and develop a method to the madness and do a bunch of stuff with all this testing. So far I am pretty satisfied with my progress.

[Former11B]

Quit screwing around and POST THE DAMN THING! [:D]

We're all sharing and learning here. BRING IT. I want to see.


Fine, here.

5 shots @ 102yds according to the Rangefinder
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/DownSouthTAS/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsb1dafcfd.jpg

I was testing quite a few different powder charges and most of them looked horrible. The charges above and below this one were probably 1-1.5" across and my rifle finally said OHHH YEAH. Also, I was shooting suppressed not that it really makes a difference

[alamo5000]

Fine, here.

5 shots @ 102yds according to the Rangefinder
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/DownSouthTAS/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsb1dafcfd.jpg

I was testing quite a few different powder charges and most of them looked horrible. The charges above and below this one were probably 1-1.5" across and my rifle finally said OHHH YEAH. Also, I was shooting suppressed not that it really makes a difference

Very very nice!!!

I am getting there!

What kind of optic did you use?

[alamo5000]

This is the ammo I used to shoot my group...I bought about 5 different kinds to test to see what did better.

Now that I am pretty sure what ball park I need to be in I will break out the chronograph and test it. The box says 3060 fps but I think that is out of a 24" barrel. I wonder what the actual fps is out of a 16" barrel.

Then it's a matter of powder selection....

http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/335/335248.jpg

[alamo5000]

Also, I was shooting suppressed not that it really makes a difference

Did you chronograph this group? If so what was the actual fps?

Also when you are shooting suppressed how much actual POI shift do you experience?

[Former11B]

Out of the 16" barrel it's moving around 2650fps. No chronograph data but this is close to load data and other similar loads I've seen posted online.

Using a 4-16x power optic on 8x; didn't want it far enough in to see specific impacts and subconsciously start Kentucky windage.


There are a ton of good powders out there for .223/5.56...ask a hundred different people you'll see a bunch of different powders. I use Reloder 15; it's very similar to Varget, which is a fan favorite, in burn rate. I have had phenomenal performance from Alliant Reloder10x in Varmint/light weight .223 so I stuck with Alliant and stepped it up to RE15 for heavy .223 and .308.

[alamo5000]

Out of the 16" barrel it's moving around 2650fps. No chronograph data but this is close to load data and other similar loads I've seen posted online.

Using a 4-16x power optic on 8x; didn't want it far enough in to see specific impacts and subconsciously start Kentucky windage.


There are a ton of good powders out there for .223/5.56...ask a hundred different people you'll see a bunch of different powders. I use Reloder 15; it's very similar to Varget, which is a fan favorite, in burn rate. I have had phenomenal performance from Alliant Reloder10x in Varmint/light weight .223 so I stuck with Alliant and stepped it up to RE15 for heavy .223 and .308.

I am kind of agonizing over optics now. I am not sure if I want to run two different optics or if I can find a decent all in one. On one hand for my plinking it would be kind of nice to get something a lot longer. My eyes were hurting when I was staring down at that target with that 4x. I had to put a yellow sticker on my target because I could not see the red dot with a red reticle.

I looked at the Vortex PST and I really like that. The reticle is great. I have thought about buying one of those. It's still a 1-4x but I like it. As for a longer optic I have no idea. I am still looking for the reticle that I like best with all the right stuff on it. I also see the US Optics 1-8x and that would probably be ideal... with that one the reticle is nice and I think 8x would be enough. That said I need to sell a kidney to get one.

I can either do that (the US optics or similar) or get something longer and bigger and swap optics back and forth. Arrrrggghhhh. Too many choices. I am also finding it very difficult even in the age of the internet to get info on comparable products. I tried to look at optics planet and their site is a complete nightmare to navigate.

On my shots all I know is my aim point was the yellow sticker in the middle. Which means I have my scope dialed in to where I want it. Not only was the group decent but I got my center dot to be right on my POI. But like I said with only 4x after a few minutes my eyes were hurting and then I started pulling shots a little.

All I know is good optics are expensive as hell.

As for reloading I have everything needed to do it... I just didn't want to go in blind. I will chrono some of these rounds and then try to match it. I really wonder though about the burn rate. I have reloaded pistol rounds to no end. Thousands upon thousands of rounds... but rifle rounds not so much. Optimizing the burn for a 16" barrel is going to be interesting. I have lots of homework to do.

[Former11B]

You definitely don't have to get a US Optics to get a quality scope. Check out the Vortex PST line again at their 2.5-10x32 optic. Nice combo of size, weight and magnification and while expensive, you won't feel this one down low.

It's always good to have options. The 4-16x I had on my 16" in rifle is really meant for the 18" SPR rifle I'm building (and I don't know if I'll keep it or get a different optic later). I primarily run a fixed power 3.5x ACOG on it, sort of like a Recce platform. Instead of having one rifle and three different load outs (red dot, combat optic, precision optic), I am just building a third rifle so Ill have a 10.5" CQB, a 16" "Recce", and an 18" SPR/Precision build.

Don't try to make one rifle do too many things or it won't do any of them exceptionally. With a 1-4x, I wouldn't overly concern yourself with sub MOA performance: it's not a precision optic or reticle. If you DO want to shoot precision, I don't think a 1-8x is going to fit the bill....I wouldn't get anything less than a 3-9x.

If you want a quality scope but don't have a huge budget:
http://www.amazon.com/Leupold-115390-Riflescope-Magnification-3-9x40-Millimeter/dp/B00AB40WEY

[Farva]

I have the vortex PST 2.5-10 and its a great piece of glass. I had it on an 18" Alexander arms 6.5 Grendel barrel. I only had about 200-300 rounds through it before I parted it out for a suppressor so I never got a ton of time behind the optic but it's a solid choice. I still have the scope though. It's glass quality is right up there with nightforce without the price tag in my opinion. You won't be upset with it that's for sure.

[alamo5000]

I found a store in town that has some Vortex stuff on display. I went and was just poking around and just happened to see that and some other things. It was the first time I ever held a Vortex in my hands. I also held a couple of Night Force optics and holy hell those were nice.

I was very impressed with the PST 1-4x. I played with that one quite a bit. I was seriously tempted to buy it. I am looking at their website now and the 2.5-10x FFP looks mighty attractive as well. The MOA reticle seems easier to me to comprehend for some reason. I see so many other things from different manufacturers. MRAD, MOAR, MOA, MIL, MRAD, holy smokes man that stuff can give you a headache. I don't really know what I want, but so far I kind of 'get' MOA better. Trying to figure out how much .1 mil is at 100 yards and all that is confusing. In the end I need to pick something and stick with it and learn it until it becomes second nature.

I can spend the money on a scope if I need to. I have it right now but I don't like to buy big ticket anything until I know for sure that is gonna be what I want and why. I HATE not knowing and not understanding. Dropping $2500 on an optic is pretty much something i would stew on for a very long time before I go there.

But all that said I was very impressed with the Vortex PST. If I had known about them before I started I would have skipped the Bushnell and dropped an extra $300 and got that 1-4x PST instead.

For some reason I am drawn to their turrets too. I like the zero stop thing. Vortex is definitely in contention.

Truth be told I need to sharpen my purpose and figure out what kind of shooter I want to be. On one hand I really like the 1-4x but then again I am rarely taking my scope off of 4x. But then again I am still in the phase of learning my rifle. Once I get it to shoot where I point it and have ammo for that... then I will do other things. I also get a lot of kicks from trying to make accurate shots. That said I know I will never shoot past 300 yards unless it's just some special thing. I would like to, but the opportunities are limited.

Honestly I am having a huge internal struggle. I think the Vortex 1-4x would be perfect for a battle rifle type scenario. That said I am finding myself constantly wanting more zoom. That 2.5-10x FFP might just be it. Then again I might want the 4-16x. Until I can try out scopes of that range I just won't know.

I am also debating having two scopes. The Vortex 1-4x for battle rifle stuff and the 2.5-10x FFP for longer (out to 300 yards) or more precision stuff. I want to develop both sets of skills. But I don't know if it's really practical to use two optics. And I am not sure if I really want a FFP or if a 2nd is better. I have a FFP now and I like it. Big time. But all these scope things are sort of unknowns to me and it drives me nuts.

It's almost like with photography. When I started I was used to seeing on TV the guys with all the super long lenses. I was thinking in my head "I need a 1000mm f2.8 lens"... but after shooting pictures for a while I don't even own long lenses anymore. I sold them all. I prefer shorter to standard/medium primes. From what I thought I wanted I ended up going polar opposite.

In the end of the day I am not at all worried about the quality of Vortex and they seem more reasonable in price. But all these other factors are making me have a hard choice. I am seriously probably going to have to build another rifle. Put the 2.5-10x on this one and then build me an SBR and put the 1-4x on that one.

But if I only have one rifle and I get a different optic all together I really do wonder about the practicality of having a one piece mount sort of like the one I have now for each and swapping back and forth depending on what I am doing. It's not about making the rifle do more things... it's about making ME do more things.

[Farva]

Man the internal struggle is real with you lol

[ddearmon2010]

easy solution... set up a battle scenario rifle and then build and set up a long ranger

[BoilerUp]

I've got a PST 1-4 on a Bobro QD and love it. The Bobro let's me easily move it between rifles for only a small weight penalty. It's a versatile scope with a low profile that essentially can be run like a red dot or a scope. 4x however is not great if you are trying to get tiny groups at 300 or even 200 yards. My next scope will likely be the PST 2.5-10 FFP to use for precision shooting. My 1-4 is primarily intended for my PTR91 where I need the 1-4's short length to avoid interfering with the charging handle and the rifle is only 1.5-2.0 MOA shooter with good ammunition anyway, but I know I would not be happy with it on a 18" SPR set up because I'd always have an excuse for poor groups at 200 yeards.

My 1-4 is MOA because, like you, I just grocked it better. However, as I look into long range shooting, I realize MIL-MIL (reticle - adjustments) is probably the way to go and I wish I had picked a MRAD 1-4 so I could have consistancy across systems. That said, I don't see myself doing any ranging calculations with a 1-4 because I doubt I'll ever use it to take a shot beyond 200 yards in a dynamic scenario, so it really doesn't matter.

[alamo5000]

Man the internal struggle is real with you lol

Thats true!

I chalk it up to a number of things... one I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to things. I like to understand how things work. I think I might be a reincarnated engineer or analyst or something. I am somewhat OCD about some things, or rather a perfectionist. I hate failure. I hate it. It drives me nuts to no end when I am not able to accomplish things. (Anything... could be skill related, could be professionally whatever) If I was a golfer I would be out there micro analysing my back swing and this or that.

You should have seen the process for me building my AR! Holy smokes man. I also want to get things that I like. I also chalk my agonizing over these things to LEARNING. I don't want to be that guy who just buys to buy. I am kind of cheap with my money (I have been in the struggle bro) but moreso I want to be wise with it. Measure twice cut once.

Then throw in that I have a couple of other things that I want to do---where if I did it all right now I would be flat ass broke living in my car... but yet I have a bad case of the wants. [:D]

On a serious note though lets say I forgo a second build (for now---but we all know it's coming so let's just cut the crap there)...

If I get two scopes and mount both of them up solidly on the rifle and get it all locked into place like its supposed to be and zeroed to my liking... and then I take them off my flat top and say swap back and forth. If I put them back in their exact position will they or won't they lose their zero in that process provided I am meticulous in what I do?

[gatordev]

Alamo, the PST 2.5-10 may be what you want at the end of the day, but if you're looking for that kind of scope, I'd take a peek at the IOR 2.5-10 (I think that's mag). It's a little more than the PST, but the clarity is a little better, as well. Several years ago, I was debating between the two and went with the IOR and it's been fantastic. Slightly bigger than the PST, but also FFP. It's also only 1 oz heavier than a NF 2.5-10.

One thing it does NOT have is a zero stop (or at least mine doesn't). I wrote up a review of it a while back that's here somewhere if you're interested.

[alamo5000]

As of right now the Vortex 2.5-10 FFP MOA based scope is winning out in my mind. I have a 1-4x already that seems to be working fine, but I think the Vortex 1-4x is just an overall better optic.

I am thinking that 2.5-10 range would ultimately be more in my ball park of the kind of shooting that I tend to do.

I can't complain about the Bushnell though. It works by all means. I bought it because it was highly rated and cheap. It was more or less my learner's scope. For under $200 I still think its a value.

All that said I think it would be valuable to discuss at least some how different optics are (or rather should) be deployed and used. That's one thing that kind of threw me for a loop when I did my review of the fixed 2.5 scope. I am not knowlegeable at all on things like tactical scenarios of when to use what optic or whatever. Obviously on the longer end it's pretty easy to figure out but shorter range optics are designed to be used on 'what kind of weapons' and in what kind of situation.

[alamo5000]

My 1-4 is MOA because, like you, I just grocked it better. However, as I look into long range shooting, I realize MIL-MIL (reticle - adjustments) is probably the way to go and I wish I had picked a MRAD 1-4 so I could have consistancy across systems.

Care to expand on this?

Are you saying for longer range MIL is better?

This is yet another discussion I want to have. MIL vs MOA... at the end of the day the Milirad gives you .36 inches at 100 yards on your clicks and a 1/4 MOA click scope (like the Vortex) gives you .26 inches per click. Seems to me that the MOA (if we are being technical about it) would be more accurate... but I don't know.

[gatordev]

As long as the turrets match the reticule, the adjustments really aren't that big a deal. Go with what makes sense to you. Mils made sense to me when I started, so that's what I went with, but if MOA works just as well. If the turrets don't match the reticule, it requires some extra computations. Not the end of the world, but not something to discount if you fail at public math like I do.

[alamo5000]

As long as the turrets match the reticule, the adjustments really aren't that big a deal. Go with what makes sense to you. Mils made sense to me when I started, so that's what I went with, but if MOA works just as well. If the turrets don't match the reticule, it requires some extra computations. Not the end of the world, but not something to discount if you fail at public math like I do.

With my scope that I have now there isn't any windage or whatever. It's 110% Kentucky. That said I guess with a 1-4x you're probably not calculating out things. Like I said though, 'tactically' I am not really 110% sure how to use 1-4x. You're talking about a country boy with zero tactical training. I think part of my metal delimma is that I am trying to overlay my 'tin can shooting' history with ALL optics. I need to learn more about HOW all these other things work both in theory and in practice.

[alamo5000]

I am thinking that for however many dollars I can have the Vortex 1-4x and the 2.5-10 FFP both in MOA. I can zero them and swap out as needed depending on my mood.

Seriously man... if I get both of these I already know I am gonna end up with a supressed SBR for the 1-4x and the one I have now will have the 2.5-10x and be my 300 yard/shooting groups gun.

[Former11B]

With my scope that I have now there isn't any windage or whatever. It's 110% Kentucky. That said I guess with a 1-4x you're probably not calculating out things. Like I said though, 'tactically' I am not really 110% sure how to use 1-4x. You're talking about a country boy with zero tactical training. I think part of my metal delimma is that I am trying to overlay my 'tin can shooting' history with ALL optics. I need to learn more about HOW all these other things work both in theory and in practice.

I think Gator was talking about scopes with MIL reticles and MOA turrets and the difference in adjustments that are necessary

[alamo5000]

I think Gator was talking about scopes with MIL reticles and MOA turrets and the difference in adjustments that are necessary

Oh yes, I get that. It's not like you have to do all this math anyway. [:D]A mismatch just complicates things.

My comment that you quoted was aside from that. What I was saying is that I am a back yard tin can shooter with zero training. Lets take a completely different optic for example. Lets use the SRS. Would you mount that optic on a rifle with 24 inch match grade barrel? Yes it would work but is that the best match for how the optic was designed? On the other hand would an SRS match better with a 12" SBR meant for clearing houses by a SWAT officer?

I am basically saying that I don't know the best pairings and much about the professional intent behind some of these lower power optics or even lower power settings and how I should be trying to think about those in terms of intended use.

[gatordev]

Oh yes, I get that. It's not like you have to do all this math anyway. [:D]A mismatch just complicates things.

My comment that you quoted was aside from that. What I was saying is that I am a back yard tin can shooter with zero training. Lets take a completely different optic for example. Lets use the SRS. Would you mount that optic on a rifle with 24 inch match grade barrel? Yes it would work but is that the best match for how the optic was designed? On the other hand would an SRS match better with a 12" SBR meant for clearing houses by a SWAT officer?

I am basically saying that I don't know the best pairings and much about the professional intent behind some of these lower power optics or even lower power settings and how I should be trying to think about those in terms of intended use.

Since I know you're a details guy and looking to dive deep into what you're using, here's some suggestions:

-Whichever type of reticule (mil or MOA) you decide, get a reticule (on the 2.5-10) that has a basic milling reticule. No dots, pies, BDCs, etc. Get one that has the mil or MOA sub-tensions. This gives you room to grow into the scope as you learn it.

-Since you like Kentucky windage, get a FFP scope. If you miss the target but see the splash, all you really have to do is move the reticule point where the splash was over the target, regardless of mag. This isn't a requirement for precision shooting, but it sure is a nice feature to have.

-I'd start off with matching turrets and reticule because it's a place to start and a way to learn the system. As I said, it's not the end of the world to have mismatched units, but to make corrections more quickly takes additional steps.

[SINNER]

Since I know you're a details guy and looking to dive deep into what you're using, here's some suggestions:

-Whichever type of reticule (mil or MOA) you decide, get a reticule (on the 2.5-10) that has a basic milling reticule. No dots, pies, BDCs, etc. Get one that has the mil or MOA sub-tensions. This gives you room to grow into the scope as you learn it.

-Since you like Kentucky windage, get a FFP scope. If you miss the target but see the splash, all you really have to do is move the reticule point where the splash was over the target, regardless of mag. This isn't a requirement for precision shooting, but it sure is a nice feature to have.

-I'd start off with matching turrets and reticule because it's a place to start and a way to learn the system. As I said, it's not the end of the world to have mismatched units, but to make corrections more quickly takes additional steps.

that technique works with a 2nd focal plane optic too as long as magnification is unchanged.

[BoilerUp]

Care to expand on this?

Are you saying for longer range MIL is better?

This is yet another discussion I want to have. MIL vs MOA... at the end of the day the Milirad gives you .36 inches at 100 yards on your clicks and a 1/4 MOA click scope (like the Vortex) gives you .26 inches per click. Seems to me that the MOA (if we are being technical about it) would be more accurate... but I don't know.

I'm not saying MIL is better. Frankly, I'm not qualified to say one way or the other. But as I've been researching optics in support of a SPR / DMR build I'm planning, I've come to the conclusion that a) it doesn't really matter as either will work, but b) most of the long range shooters out there, especially those with a military background, are using MIL. I've decided my SPR scope will be configured as MIL primarily so I learn to speak the same language as those I'm most likely to be learning from.

Regarding precision, you are talking a 1" difference at a thousand yards where even very good rifles have accuracy that will be around 5 inches at the same range. And how much magnification do you need in an optic to even discern 1" of movement on target at a 1000? Certainly a 10x won't give you that.

My next scope will be for shooting between 200-600 yards, so I think the PST 2.5-10x32 FFP will fill that need nicely, and frankly I may just go with the SFP version to save some $ as, realistically, the price premium for the FFP probably isn't really worth it for the type of shooting I do (bench rest on a known distance range and, hopefully someday, large game hunting in WA.

[Former11B]

I know optics and magnification or personal preference, but if I'm shooting 600 yards, I'd look at something in the 4–16x or even 6-20x range, you can always dial back the magnification. However, if you have a 2.5-10x and max it out, you might wish you had a little more at that range. But it also depends on the type of shooting you're doing. Are you shooting man-size silhouettes or are you shooting six-inch steel gongs? It all depends on how well you need to be able to see

I agree with gator in the fact that I feel like Alamo needs a plain MilDot reticle. Some of the BDC or fancy reticles can over complicate things and it some points are only good for a specific type of ammo. Learn the basics with the MilDot. ACOGs are about the only scope with a range to drop compensation reticle that I trust

[tact]

Here is a pretty good article I pretty much agree with....plus it saves me from typing a bunch on my phone...

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/ChoosingScope.asp

[Former11B]

Here is a pretty good article I pretty much agree with....plus it saves me from typing a bunch on my phone...

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/ChoosingScope.asp

I agree with a lot of what the article said about magnification for combat type optics and human engagement. If you are trying to score hits, and not place ten shots out of ten in a 1/2 MOA group, a 10x is perfect. However a benchrest shooter or precision/match rifle has a different requirement. I am building an SPR, which doesn't require massive amounts of magnification; like my 16", it's a "combat" type of build and large targets (about 24"x19") are my goal. If I was building a varmint 22-250 or a match .260, itd be a different story.

Also, eyesight does have some to do with it; my dad just had to go from a 3-9X to a 4-12 on his .30-06 because it age 65, things were getting hard to see at 100 yards

[gatordev]

that technique works with a 2nd focal plane optic too as long as magnification is unchanged.

Well, crap, you're right. I guess I should have clarified that if you're trying to make adjustments based off the splash with a SFP and you're not at the calibrated mag, then the reticule isn't all that helpful. Thanks for the correction.

That said, another reason I personally have become spoiled with FFP is because I can use the reticule as a BDC at any mag (assuming I can see the reticule at that mag). I've found that helpful during the few times I've been running against a clock, or even just having a friendly competition with my dad.