Long Range Rifle/Scope/PRS question(s)

[taliv]

like most things in life, some people will be advantaged because they have a team of friends and family supporting them. doing things solo is hard. nothing you do to the PRS rules is going to change that. it's not hard to make friends at matches.

 

[Nature Boy]

There was a lot of teaching/coaching at Benchrest matches, even during registered matches, folks always willing to help. If new shooters do not have fun, and sucking at something is not fun, they don't come back.

Same with High Power. The NRA has even written it into the rules allowing coaching of juniors and new shooters, for the reasons you stated so well.

 

[Bayourambler]

Six one way, a half dozen the other.. You could argue this all day long. At the end of the day, I was raised doing our own carpenter work, repairs, etc., and we always used inches and feet to measure stuff. I do not shoot in organized matches, but we have "gatherings" of friends who shoot a few times a week in a 3,000 acre field behind my house, and use inches when spotting for each other. Most of us use MOA , and a few use Mils, but each man understands what x amount of inches means in his shooting. We are getting better at being more rounded on both units, but most agree MOA is easier to comprehend. 1 MOA at 800 yds. Is 8". I really can't understand how anything can be easier..

 

[taliv]

bayou, your prob is that when your friends get together, trying to shoot groups and plinking, then trying to convert an angular unit of measure into a linear one your brain can comprehend and relate to a good or bad group, MOA does make sense and is easy, but that is not at all what competitive shooters are doing.

at matches, nobody competitive is converting into linear units. we only use the angular unit. we do not care at all how many inches anything is. that is why mil is easier. it's just mil and there's no conversion to it.

 

[Varminterror]

MOA is easier to comprehend. 1 MOA at 800 yds. Is 8". I really can't understand how anything can be easier..

Not converting anything at all is easier. If a guy works in inches, they have to do math. If you work in straight MOA or Mils, you don’t. MOA is much larger numbers, and not as many guys in competition use them, so we all default to mils.

When you have unlimited time, and work at simple, regular distances in your backyard, life is pretty simple.

But let’s say I have a stage where I have to shoot two targets at 587 and 642 yards, one shot each from each of 5 windows, in 90 seconds. If my spotter called out, “15 inches left” on my first shot at 587, I’d want to strangle him, because that information is completely useless for my next shot, which needs to happen in the next 5-7 seconds at a DIFFERENT RANGE AND TARGET. So now I’m stuck thinking, “ok, 15” at 587, how much is that at 642yrds?” And then I have to figure out how far that distance represents in my scope at 642yrds...

Reading corrections in inches is largely BS anyway - what reticle does the spotter have which reads in inches? Unless you’re shooting on grid-paper, there’s no good way to accurately read inches at range.

If a spotter had a spotting scope with a mil reticle and I were shooting a MOA based reticle on my rifle, a guy can get close. So he’d call 0.7mils instead of 15”, and then I’d have just have to remember the conversion to MOA is a little more than 3x the mil reading - so that 0.7mils would be 2.1 plus some fudge, call it 2.4 - which is pretty dang close. I’ve been in that world, the Grendel rifle I shot a big last season was MOA based, and it did work.

If a spotter gave me calls in MOA, I’d be close. They might as well be giving me calls in Spanish, but I’d be able to power through either way. If they gave me calls in inches, I would ask them to stop giving me calls.

In precision rifle matches, at LEAST give calls in terms of the target size. For example - half a target off right, lower 1/3 impact. The shooter can then read that position in their reticle, whether MOA or mils.

 

[Walkalong]

They both work, I have both, but everyone using the same thing (In anything) is easier and faster, and when dealing with long range the numbers, like VT posted, get really big with MOA. Dealing with smaller numbers is easier in your head, at least for me, and decimals is easier as well IMO.

So when I decided to give PRS a try, I asked what folk used, and Mils is it. My two Mil scopes were second focal plane though, and while that works ok at fixed yardages and taking your time in a big field, first focal plane is obviously the way to go here after research and asking questions. There is a wealth of good info in this thread. And of course I have been you-tubing etc.

 

[BigSteve57]

I use MOA for hunting and for competition. I suppose I could go back & forth between mils & MOA if I had to. I can see advantages to both angular systems. Inches are just too hard for me. Maybe if I practiced more with inches I'd get better.

I wasn't ever able to adequately guesstimate holdovers in inches at longer ranges. For example my .300WM has a drop of something like 75 inches at 600 yards. I can't tell what 75 inches is at 600 yards. At shorter ranges hunting, say 1-200 yards, when I could estimate inches I really don't need to hold over, because I'd be in hopefully the vital zone anyway because I zero at 200. Same for competition - 200 yards is where you start - that's your initial zero.

Another reason I use MOA for hunting is because it's what my range finder uses and it translates to subtensions in my reticle. In competition I use MOA because my rear sight is 1/4 minute per click elevation & windage.

 

[Nature Boy]

I know we’re talking PRS here but MOA does have an advantage in precision shooting like F Class due to the fact that it allows finer adjustments. Probably why that’s all you see on the line. I bet it’s the same for bench rest.

0.1 MIL click = .36 MOA so even a .25 MOA per click allows more precise adjustments. Most are shooting 1/8 MOA adjustments for even more precision (which is what I have on my Kahles 1050). The downside is a very busy turret with a lot of little hash marks and tiny numbers. I bet that would get old real quick in a PRS environment.

There have been times when shooting my MIL scope in F Class I’ve found myself between clicks in elevation at 600 yards and I have to hold over or under to make up the difference.

Having said all of that, I’m more comfortable with MILs. Maybe because the army beat it into my thick skull or I like a quicker to adjust, less busy turret. It just seems simpler to me

 

[Varminterror]

Same for competition - 200 yards is where you start - that's your initial zero.

For anyone getting into PRS, zero at 100yrds. The “zero board” available at every range I have been to for PRS and NRL competition has been set at 100yrds, so being zeroed at 200 would leave you dialing under to 100yrds anyway to check zero the day before the match. Zero at 100yrds for PRS/NRL. You’ll never shoot within your MPBR in a match, so zeroing for MPBR doesn’t work. Zero to match the zero boards available at the matches - which are 100yrds.

If I didn’t sound fair to MOA above, that wasn’t my intent. It’s the same thing, units of angular measure, it’s just not the language which is spoken in Precision Rifle Competition. I know in Service Rifle, MOA is the mothertongue, and that’s what I typically saw in BR too, since 1/4MOA is more control than .1mil. There’s just some time lost when you have two people trying to communicate in their second language, and mix-ups or misses are prone to happen.

But I want to be absolutely clear - inches do NOT work for competition. That’s not speaking a different language to say the same thing, it’s more like giving information by means of word problems or riddles, in a different language.

So I’d use these examples - and recognize I’m not a native Spanish speaker, so my dialect will be off. If my business partner in Mexico says “vamos a almorzar a las dos,” I have to think for a split second longer than if he said, “let’s go to lunch at 2,” but I still understand it quickly and immediately have the info I need. Giving calls in estimated inches would be a disaster in competition - it would be like my partner in Mexico saying, “comemos quando el sol esta quince grados padado mediodia”. I’d think the same split second - ok, let’s eat when the sun is 15 degrees past noon... wait, what? I don’t have a clock that reads degrees of sun angle, I’m not carrying a protractor in my pocket... So if my spotter ever said, “17 inches off right” on a stage, I speak mils, so does my reticle, so do my turrets, so I’d have to do a lot of thinking to get to my native language, and then still further translate that to the next target at a different range.

Even if I had an IPHY scope, aka “shooter’s MOA” scope, if you tell me, “17 inches off right on a 587 yard target,” I would still have absolutely no valuable information without doing math on the clock to make the correction, especially if my next shot is on a 642 yard target. I’m pretty good at math, even in my head, but I’ll readily admit, I’m not capable of translating 17” at 587 yards to mils, then correct that to 642 yards within the second and a half I’m running my bolt for the next shot, especially while balancing my rifle on the tip of a tank trap. I’d be no better at doing that translation if my scope were in MOA or IPHY - dividing by 17 by 5.87, multiplying by 6.42.... do that in the context of a stage, on the clock...

It just doesn’t work.

 

[Walkalong]

Most are shooting 1/8 MOA adjustments for even more precision

Yes, even in Benchrest, where we just had to have the group inside the black rectangle, fine adjustments were beneficial. Same for small critter shooting varmint guns.

 

[Walkalong]

For shooting pigs 400/450ish yards and in a second focal plane MOA scope works just fine with it's limitations. Like this MOA Sightron 3-16x42 S-Tac I bought on sale ($375) back when the price dropped so much and they were "on sale" all over the web. Nice little scope for shooting pigs on the dove field where the max shot is 450ish. Use 16X or use 8x and double the numbers. But 450 yards isn't very tough, even with a straight plex reticle.

 

[Bayourambler]

Yes guys , I see what your saying about giving corrections in direct scope adjustments. If the shoot is timed it needs to he that way. This is going to sound dumb to the pros here, but how does your spotter give corrections in mils? Is he measuring the impacts with the reticle in the spotting scope?

 

[taliv]

You’ll never shoot within your MPBR in a match

which is a shame, since back in the day, we had shots as close as 10' or so. at rifles only i assume they still do the stage where they shoot like 800 or 1000 yards off the tower and then shoot straight down 7 yards at shoot n sees on paper ipscs at the base of the tower. knowing your dope up close is important. but for match flow, nobody wants to mess with paper anymore. i detest the "we have to shoot 300 rounds" mentality.

Yes guys , I see what your saying about giving corrections in direct scope adjustments. If the shoot is timed it needs to he that way. This is going to sound dumb to the pros here, but how does your spotter give corrections in mils? Is he measuring the impacts with the reticle in the spotting scope?

yes, either a spotter or his own rifle scope

 

[Varminterror]

how does your spotter give corrections in mils? Is he measuring the impacts with the reticle in the spotting scope?

Reticles in the spotting scope.

If they DON'T have a reticle in the spotter (Swaro SLC 15x56mm binos are very popular for spotting last season and this season), and you're at a rare match where spotters are allowed to give coaching on the clock, usually they give target size references - so "full width off right," or, "target and a half low".

It's supposed to be, and in my experience it IS rare that anyone is giving calls on the clock at matches, however. PRS 2019 Rulebook 3.2.12 prohibits any corrections on the clock, by anyone - which by the rule itself, can be waived by Regional Series Directors for 1 day (regional series) matches. New shooters will often get a pass on that, and I've spoken with MD's which recommended if a new shooter is missing the same place twice, ask if they can see it, and if they say no, or hit the same spot a third time, give them correction. Only newbies, naturally. The Kansas club does a "pro-am" where we waive that rule, so more experienced "pros" (whether classified Pro's or just more experienced guys) are meant to help coach newbies through stages, whether taking time to share hints on gear usage, techniques, or offering corrections.

which is a shame

The game is changing, for sure. I talked to a couple MD's this season already who said they're not planning to program any pistol at matches, and likely won't mess with physical stressor stages, nothing more than maybe running back and forth to get more rounds - no dragging tires like I saw at matches a few years ago. I think there's also a shift in those "unique skills" like super-close range shooting, or side laying shooting. I was a little disappointing to see Lone Star didn't use their swing set last month (maybe they had another swing on another stage - I couldn't go, I just saw the photos of guys shooting from a cooler inside the swingset frame, instead of the swing itself). Just too much complaining when these unique aspects are programmed into a match. Some guys might say unique stuff unfairly favors shooters who were experienced in it (duh?), or that it unfairly hurts the new guys while boosting scores for the guys who would already be at the top, or that it distracts from fundamentals of marksmanship - or that some shooters gamed the stage like jamming a boat simulator or other swing, defeating the intent of the device... MD's don't like taking flak from shooters, and REALLY don't like it when shooters don't come back to their matches, so I think a lot of them are trying to "accommodate" shooters by avoiding controversy or "special skills" stages.

Then again, I had an MD mention he's including a machine gun component to one of his stages (MG and ammo provided), so maybe not all of them got the memo.

But for ranges - I'm not sure I've shot more than one stage shorter than 300, and only a handful of stages last year and this year so far with a target 300-399. I do warn new shooters, any time you see a short stage, you know you're going to be A) shooting small targets, B) shooting REALLY fast, or C) shooting from a really compromised position - or any combination of the 3. Give me a long range troop line stage over a 250-350yrd stage any day - I know how MD's like to torture guys with "apparently simple" stages.

 

[Walkalong]

Turns out there is a gun club just outside Rockford Al., and they have a 1K range.......... one of the nurse managers at work shoots there, and has shot a 6MM Creedmoor in PRS for a couple of years.

Going to meet up this Saturday at noon and shoot. Looking forward to it.

 

[MCMXI]

at matches, nobody competitive is converting into linear units. we only use the angular unit. we do not care at all how many inches anything is. that is why mil is easier. it's just mil and there's no conversion to it.

I need to print up some new targets for load development that have mil squares and get away from moa completely. I still think in terms of moa because when I started buying "expensive" scopes they had mil reticles but moa adjustments and I shot F-Class that had moa targets. I have hunting scopes with moa adjustments and RZ reticles but they're set and forget type optics. I've only bought mil/mil scopes for the past seven or eight yeas but my brain is still doing a conversion. I have one of those older Mark 4 spotting scopes with the TMR reticle so do call out scope adjustments to a coworker or friend when getting a zero for a mil/mil scope.

The problem with the rifle industry is that everyone talks in terms of moa. A rifle might have a sub moa or sub 1/2 moa accuracy guarantee. It would be hard to convince the industry to change the standard to 0.290 mil or .145 mil accuracy guarantee.

 

[MCMXI]

I created a milrad grid and dot target today good for 100 yard load development. The grid is 0.1 MIL and the orange aiming dot is 0.3 MIL. Print without scaling on Ledger paper to maintain an accurate grid size. The squares should measure 0.36" and the dot 1.08". The inner black circle in the orange dot has a diameter of 0.5".

Here's a link if you want to download the pdf file

 

[Walkalong]

 

[MCMXI]

This thread started out as a long range rifle and scope discussion and I recently had to go through the decision process for a new rifle. I reached out to a couple of members here to ask for their input on the best scope for my needs. A well-known distributor in CO advised me to buy a Mark 5 HD but that option fell out of the running. I received a Vortex RAZOR HD Gen II 4.5-27x56mm with the EBR-7C reticle earlier this week and got it installed this afternoon on the new rifle using a Spuhr mount and I'm looking forward to trying it out this weekend. It has a deep brown appearance that matches the rifle quite well. I really like that it's compact (length) and it reminds me a lot of my Premier Reticles scopes. I'm not sure if there's a connection between the two but Premier built very similar scopes about 10 years ago. I also have a Nightforce ATACR 7-35x56mm with the MIL-C reticle arriving on Monday which will either go on the new rifle or another AI depending on which I prefer. It was supposed to be here today but FedEx messed up yet again.

A few initial impressions of the RAZOR.

1. It's heavy
2. It's compact for what it is
3. The glass seems to be very good
4. Great reticle
5. 2nd turn indicator (like my Premiers) is good
6. Good pull-out illumination dial
7. Parallax/focus down to ~ 30 yards
8. Locking turrets
9. Turrets have positive clicks and are easy to turn
10. 34mm main tube
11. No flip up covers or throw lever included … should be at this price point

 

[Walkalong]

Went to the Rockford Gun Club today.

Shot a few rounds at 1000 yards,


then moved over the the "PRS Style" area.

It had steel at 100ish, 197ish, 280ish, 575ish, 672ish, and 692ish (Same steel we shot at 1K), plus some others here and there.

We shot a couple of "stages". Jeff picked first and we shot at 197, 575, & 672, 2 shots at each yardage. I did OK, slow, missed a couple, hit the tough (small) one twice.

Then the kid from Pelam chose next, start back, run to the first spot (I walked), shoot 1 shot at 5 yardages, moving each time to platform of choice.
First was 197, then 280, then 575, then 672, then 692. I hit the 197, the 280, the 575 & 672 without a miss, but then needed three shots to hit at 692. *Sigh* I used .3, .8, 3.1, 4.0, and 4.2 Mils elevation.

Overall I was happy with how I shot, I greatly improved my wobble shooting off tires with the Game Changer over the course of 50 rounds. I was really happy with the scope, I like but don't love the reticle, love the glass. Much clearer than the Athlon (Don't remember which one) and the Viper HST scopes I looked through there.

The Seekins was a little finicky feeding, which was aggravating, I need to learn it's idiosyncrasies I guess. There was a Begara Pro there and that action was slick with a capitol S.

The fellow from Pelham had three rifles, all suppressed. A Savage .308, A begara Pro 6.5 Creedmoor, and an AR in .224 Valkyrie.

Suppressed was sweet. Gotta do it.





I worked at the property all morning, met Jeff at the range at 12:45, shot until 4:00ish, then dropped back by the property to unload and pickup the trailer, then went home.

Went out to eat with the wife, and then finally got to sit down and exhale.

 

[MCMXI]

Very nice @Walkalong .

I was really happy with the scope, I like but don't love the reticle, love the glass.

Sorry if I missed it but what reticle do you have? Is it the G3? What don't you like about it? We really need a thread dedicated to high-end optics where those that have and use them provide insights into the good, bad and indifferent.

 

[Walkalong]

Is it the G3? What don't you like about it?

Yes, likely just personal preference more than anything, and too sleepy right now to explain. I am a very picky fellow, that's likely 90% of it. it worked just fine, not too thick, not to thin, easy to hold over, don't understand the little tiny "lines" between 1 Mil/2 Mil, don't care for the extra thick line at 1 Mil on both sides, would rather it matched the others. Don't care for the half mil lines being different on the horizontal vs vertical lines, of the two I prefer the vertical where they are only on one side of the line, but think I would prefer them going across equally on both sides for both horizontal and vertical, just shorter than the mil crosses. You know, picky little stuff. Worked just fine, but I do think the center of the crosshairs are kind of funky and annoying with the hashes one way horizontal, another vertical, and then the little short 1/4 and 1/2 mil hashes between 1 Mil & 2 Mil. The G2 does not have those, I wonder what they added them for?

And this is the first time I have used a reticle like this for this type shooting, so what do I know?

But overall I liked it. Not unhappy with it at all.

 

[MCMXI]

Oh yes, the wonderful world of reticles. Sometimes you wonder if the reticle is how it is because it looks cool or whether extensive testing has shown that various aspects are useful.

It might be helpful to show some images to aid in the discussion. Here's the G3 reticle in your Bushnell Elite Tactical XRS.



This has me thinking about the reticles I've used in "long range" optics. My first "tactical" scopes were the Leupold Mark 4s with tactical milling reticles (TMR). Then came a couple of Premier Reticles Heritage scopes (3-15x56mm and 5-25x56mm) with Gen2 XR reticles followed by a Nightforce 3.5-15x50mm with the MLR2.0 reticle. Then Vortex Viper PSTs (Ithree of them) with the EBR-2C reticle, and now this past week a Vortex RAZOR HD Gen II with the EBR-7C reticle, and finally a Nightforce ATACR with the MIL-C reticle arriving on Monday. One thing I know I like for sure is to have numbers in the reticle. I like the Vortex EBR-2C reticle so time will tell if the EBR-7C is an improvement. As for the MIL-C reticle, it seemed to be the best of the ones offered by NF. The TReMoR reticle seems way too busy for me.

Leupold TMR


Premier Reticles Heritage Gen2 XR


Nightforce NXS MLR2.0


Vortex EBR-2C


Vortex EBR-7C


Nightforce MIL-C


Nightforce TReMoR3

 

[Walkalong]

Of those, I would choose the Nightforce NXS MLR2.0 or the Vortex EBR-2C.

 

[z7]

@Walkalong did you dial elevation for each shot or hold?