ditmo
Member
I didn't either. With that aging eyes thing I now use red dots. Makes shooting them a whole lot easier to actually hit what I'm aiming at. If the barrel is long enough I can still see the front sight, but the shorter ones not so much.
Acceptable accuracy for a .357 carbine at 50 yds?
- Thread starter Trey Veston
- Start date
- Status
doubleh
Member
My 357 rifle is a lowly Rossi 92. Never shot it with it's factory sights. I immediately installed a Marble's tang sight and started experimenting with loads. Later I added a Lyman globe front sight and using the post insert improved my groups. I also found that as I went up in velocity the better the accuracy. I settled on a Hornady 140 JHP over a near max load of W236. I can do 1 1/4" groups at 50 yards with this load off a good bench rest most days if my shakey pills are working fairly well. Going to lead 38 special loads adds about an inch to group size. For some reason I have never been great with peep sights. I wish I could scope the rifle to see what it is really capable of.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,261
The thing about scopes and lever guns, for me, is that the slim flat receiver makes for such a comfortable carry. It just fits the hand. Just feels natural in either the left or right hand, at my side. For a plinker I suppose that does not matter, but I carry my lever guns far more than I shoot them. And I find lever guns (without scopes) to be super-comfortable and "handy" in the field.
I think that's the main difference between those who scope them, and those who never would. I don't think it's so much of a "it don't look traditional" thing. Of course if one is used to hunting with scoped rifles, or slings the rifle most of the time, the comfort-carry thing would not matter.
I think that's the main difference between those who scope them, and those who never would. I don't think it's so much of a "it don't look traditional" thing. Of course if one is used to hunting with scoped rifles, or slings the rifle most of the time, the comfort-carry thing would not matter.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,261
I sure like mine.
Yes the xtp140 with a full load is snappy. In a revolver it's zingy. Those are true technical terms.
Certainly is a good one. Very good at 100.
Last edited:
Edit: I’m not exactly sure how I posted this. For some reason I keep posting blank replies, and I can’t figure out exactly why.
Last edited:
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,082
I carry my scoped leverguns the way God intended - with my hand wrapped under the receiver with the lever pivot lump fitting my hand like a finger groove. Without a scope, my thumb can cross the top of the receiver. Not an earth-shattering difference.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,261
Not so odd. Often 3" at 50 does not translate to 6" at 100". Common "oddity", The SMLE will often or typically do 3" at 100, but less than 6" at 200...trying to say that dispersion of shots is not always linear. (would that be the right term?)
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,261
I hear what you are saying, and understand it, but still clumsy and awkward for me. For sure an earth shattering difference. But perhaps it is I, and not the scope, that is awkward.
I have experienced the same phenomenon in some of my rifles.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,082
Bryan Litz will pay for your trip and a $1,000 bounty if you can demonstrate it in person for him…
My results and experiences are not indicative of contradicting physics. Let's leave the work of ballistics to ballisticians who utilize math and science facts to demonstrate what is in the realm of physics and leave practical experiential results to shooters.
Rifles that shoot well up close can have poor accuracy farther out, but if a rifle shoots poorly up close, yet shoots a great group farther out, it's a fluke.
The reason would be shooter error or conditions causing a tighter group. Shots blow into groups, as well as out.
The reason would be shooter error or conditions causing a tighter group. Shots blow into groups, as well as out.
My assumption is that it has something to do with type of sight, sight picture and my eyes. I have a couple rifles that group better at 300 yds than 200 yds.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,082
1) yes, your false claim here is contrary to physics.
2) There are thousands of us shooters who are physicists and engineers which know your fluke is a fluke, an anecdotal observer error which is disproven by those thousands of us which will outshoot folks making these bogus claims every day of the week.
No, no you don’t.
InTheSwamp
Member
No rifle will group better at a longer distance. And as much as I hate to say this, yes, it's because of physics.
I would say that was shooter's poorer job at the shorter distance.
I would say that was shooter's poorer job at the shorter distance.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,261
Don't think anyone made that claim. Some just doubt that dispersion is always a perfect cone shape. But how dare such low-life shooters doubt the intelligence of such expert shooters who outshoot them crack head, idiot stupid scum every day of the week, because they make bogus claims. Oh my GOODNESS!!! For shame for shame. Greta says: "How dare they!!!!!!"
Last edited:
InTheSwamp
Member
I perfectly understood what the user said, on this format: a popular forum. It's not like we're writing for Annalen der Physik.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 15,082
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,261
But, did they actually mean "better", or just that the group did not enlarge as they would have expected?
Anyhow, you know, I think my buttons just got pushed due to the "extreme" arrogance I saw/see. I think some do that purposely for some reason, get some kind of "kick" out of it, and I fell into the trap. I hope my previous post wasn't too weird. I think I will disconnect my button, (not "ignore", just not take the bait) and not play the game.
In order to steer this into more of an intelligent discussion, and not a "tit-for-tat-I know more than you and you know nothing" thing, are we saying that the cone of dispersion is perfectly cone shaped at all ranges? What is the claim in that regard?
Anyhow, you know, I think my buttons just got pushed due to the "extreme" arrogance I saw/see. I think some do that purposely for some reason, get some kind of "kick" out of it, and I fell into the trap. I hope my previous post wasn't too weird. I think I will disconnect my button, (not "ignore", just not take the bait) and not play the game.
In order to steer this into more of an intelligent discussion, and not a "tit-for-tat-I know more than you and you know nothing" thing, are we saying that the cone of dispersion is perfectly cone shaped at all ranges? What is the claim in that regard?
No, the issue is your reading comprehension level is poor. Anyone capable of properly using reading comprehension of posts, 114, 115 and 116 can determine no one made the claim against the physics/ballistics of accuracy or grouping at longer distances. I've seen many of your posts and you have poor communication skills, so not surprising.
I think with varmint, there is the perpetual issue of arrogance and know it allism. I don't find much he posts to be written with thoughtfulness or humilty.
Ugly Sauce
Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2020
- Messages
- 6,261
I'm thinking getting a kick out of pushing buttons has a bit to do with it. What say you, Varmint?
- Status
