long range rifle & scope recommendation

[cdb1]

I'm assuming thats sarcasm

Yes, since I hit the like button on your post.

 

[stoky]

Are you saying someone would be better served buying a good rifle and decent scope then practice practice practice than purchasing a custom rifle, expensive scope and seldom practicing? Surely you jest. My mother warned me about people like you.

I'm hoping to be served good with a (relatively) expensive scope, also a 6x24 Viper. The MIL MIL Christmas tree (for windage hold off) reticle and knobs hooked me like a trout.
Made in America was a factor as well.
This is going on a po-boy Savage 10 that will have a 26" heavy 112 .308 barrel screwed into it.

 

[Walkalong]

I could always find a rifle to put it on later.

Me too, mine is still in the box.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Some clarification, please.

Is that the largest, average of several or smallest group in that claim? What range? How many shots?

I ask because I don't think the best match grade bullets from Berger and Sierra shoot that well past 200 yards in their test barrels. Any rifle can do that once with a few shots using any ammo at any range, if shot enough.

Record holding benchrest rifles haven't done that well past 200 yards.

.......

Bart, I find your posts interesting, and you demonstrate a lot of knowledge. One thing that amazes me is is your oft-repeated contention that rifles aren't capable of small groups...in this case 3/8 MOA.

You usually follow this by saying that at longer ranges, a rifle is no longer capable of such accuracy.

I'm with you on sample size. I'm with you on the increasing difficulty in 'effectively' keeping groups to the MOA standard they've demonstrated at longer range.

Maybe you could explain why you believe that a rifle that shoots 3/8ths MOA at 100-200 yards isn't a 3/8ths MOA rifle at longer ranges.

I contend that you're not putting the blame where it belongs...the shooter's ability to hold on target, fouling, lack of fouling, wind conditions, etc.

Have you never read of testing like?: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/...-warehouse-lessons-in-extreme-rifle-accuracy/

What demons do you feel changes that 3/8th MOA performance at 100-200 to something greater at 600-1000?

In my opinion, real world challenges don't make the gun less accurate at longer ranges...they just add difficulty in terms of matching conditions, judging wind, keeping the same precise aim point, etc.

We've been through this before. I can't reconcile your experience, and knowledge, with your oft-repeated claims on this, other than a possible bias on not thinking the guy at the trigger could do better.

You've claimed, essentially, that 1/4 MOA guns don't exist with large samples. How do you explain testing, such as the article I listed, where they got 0.025 MOA, when they controlled those conditions? (The full article by Dave Scott can be downloaded from the summary link I posted. It is free.)


To the OP...I'd pick the Savage in a heartbeat...if not simply for the ease at which the barrel could be replaced with a premium barrel. (Yes you can do that with an AR, but you can't get the headspace adjusted as finely, and the Savage opens up the possibility of many cartridges better suited for longer range than .223 Rem.)

 

[Bart B.]

I find your posts interesting, and you demonstrate a lot of knowledge. One thing that amazes me is is your oft-repeated contention that rifles aren't capable of small groups...in this case 3/8 MOA.

You usually follow this by saying that at longer ranges, a rifle is no longer capable of such accuracy.

First, show me where I've specifically stated that rifles are not capable of small groups of any size. Search this forum of some 2743 of my posts for all I've posted saying that. Then I can show where you've misread and/or misinterpreted what I put in print. You might consider looking up the IBS and NBRSA benchrest shooting web sites then check the records for single groups and aggregates at all ranges to see what their sizes are; noting that aggregates include groups larger than that dimension. You may notice that the smallest 5-shot group fired at 100 yards is .0077" but its holder has no other records to his credit.

Second, do the same thing where I've said, specifically, a rifle no longer capable of such accuracy at longer ranges. Then, again, I'll show where you have misinterpreted what I put in print. You might consider learning why this happens by using good ballistic software allowing you to change bullet BC's a few percent and cross wind speeds in different range band segments to see how each will change bullet drop and drift for each 50 or 100 yards of range. Also, look up positive compensation as to why it causes some rifles to shoot smaller groups down range than at shorter distances because bullets leaving slower go out at a higher angle above the line of sight and faster ones at a lower angle.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

....

Nobody has a 1/4 MOA rifle at 1000 yards. 3/4 MOA is as good as the best will keep all test shots inside of. Of course, there'll be a rare, tiny group about 1/4 MOA, perhaps once in a hundred 3-shot groups. I don't state accuracy by the smallest groups shot; they're nye impossible to repeat.

Thread: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/260-rem-or-6-5-creedmoor.818436/

Need more?

This was meant as a question. I think you're taking it more personally than I had hoped you would.

 

[Bart B.]

You have different standards, conditions and objectives for what's accurate than I do. You use a few shots; I use all shots.

By your method, the rifle that holds the world record of .0077" for 5 shots at 100 yards is a .0077 MOA/inch rifle. Its owner holds no other records.

Well then, so are all of mine. They've all put 5 shots in a quarter MOA at all ranges; once. I'll try real hard to forget when they shot larger groups.

Here's a group of 7.62 NATO match ammo at 600 yards. It shoots some 5-shot clover leafs under an inch. So it's at least a 1/6th MOA batch of ammo by your standards. Ignore the extreme spread of all 270 shots is about 10 inches; 1.67 MOA.



One nice thing about using a rubber ruler to measure things. It can be stretched to suit the number desired about what it's measuring.

Regarding that Houston Warehouse story where it's stated that a 21-3/4ths inch long barrel was made that long so its vibrations would be repeatable.

a barrel MUST be 21 3/4” long for optimum accuracy. That precise length sets up a vibration pattern that duplicates well from shot to shot.

Any mechanical engineer working with vibration analysis and measurements knows that a given shape in a given condition always vibrates at the same resonant and harmonic frequencies all the time.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

You have different standards, conditions and objectives for what's accurate than I do. You use a few shots; I use all shots.

Now you're making things up.

I already agreed with you on large sample sizes.

I think I've learned all I need to know about what is behind your opinions. Never mind.

 

[Bart B.]

Now you're making things up.

This:

Well then, so are all of mine. They've all put 5 shots in a quarter MOA at all ranges; once. I'll try real hard to forget when they shot larger groups.

was a reading/comprehension test. You passed it.

Now go back and do what I suggested about my posts claiming things I never said. Apply the same principles and you may learn the realities of what I've said.

 

[salt&battery]

Now you're making things up.

I already agreed with you on large sample sizes.

I think I've learned all I need to know about what is behind your opinions. Never mind.

don't you know what Bart is saying? it is simple and I have found the same results the more I shoot. if you shoot 30 -5 shot groups same ammo distance rest etc say no wind and one or two will be very small the rest average. so you will take the smallest and go with that but it might have been more accidental . if you take the average of all those groups then you get realistic idea

 

[RugerOldArmy]

don't you know what Bart is saying? it is simple and I have found the same results the more I shoot. if you shoot 30 -5 shot groups same ammo distance rest etc say no wind and one or two will be very small the rest average. so you will take the smallest and go with that but it might have been more accidental . if you take the average of all those groups then you get realistic idea

An accurate calculation of the MOA capabilities of a rifle based on a large enough sample is the assumption. Bart keeps going back to that as if it some new element or deep insight.

It is his claims that once that rifle is determined to be capable of shooting "X" MOA at one (reasonable) range, that it isn't an 'X MOA' rifle when pointed at a target farther off that I believe is utter hogwash. Truly, wind variances over that distance, and other factors come into play to make it more difficult to achieve those results, but it isn't a problem with the rifle. It is a problem of those wind variances (etc.).

The rifle doesn't become less capable of accuracy at longer range. It is simply that the combination of the rifle, shooter, and conditions make it more difficult to achieve those results.

In the Houston Warehouse tests, they eliminated those variables, measured in large sample sizes, and achieved results Bart implies can't be achieved. From a practical sense in real world conditions I agree. From a standpoint of theory, and what could be achieved, I feel it is a cop out.

 

[salt&battery]

An accurate calculation of the MOA capabilities of a rifle based on a large enough sample is the assumption. Bart keeps going back to that as if it some new element or deep insight.

It is his claims that once that rifle is determined to be capable of shooting "X" MOA at one (reasonable) range, that it isn't an 'X MOA' rifle when pointed at a target farther off that I believe is utter hogwash. Truly, wind variances over that distance, and other factors come into play to make it more difficult to achieve those results, but it isn't a problem with the rifle. It is a problem of those wind variances (etc.).

The rifle doesn't become less capable of accuracy at longer range. It is simply that the combination of the rifle, shooter, and conditions make it more difficult to achieve those results.

In the Houston Warehouse tests, they eliminated those variables, measured in large sample sizes, and achieved results Bart implies can't be achieved. From a practical sense in real world conditions I agree. From a standpoint of theory, and what could be achieved, I feel it is a cop out.

it is silly to think if a rifle shoots 3/4" at 100 yds it will carry that MOA out to 1000 yds. I have seen rifles shoot excellent at 100 and fall apart after 200 yds no matter who was shooting it. and I have seen rifles shoot average at 100 and tighten up the MOA the further they went. you would have to compete and fire a million rounds to get the experience Bart B has. you would do well to learn from it. when I started framing houses at 16 I kept my mouth shut got friendly with the old guys and learned tons of info. I was able to frame off set hip roofs polygon roofs octagon turrets at 20 on 12 all because I respected their experience.

 

[Bart B.]

Of course it's not a problem with the rifle. It's' not being shot downrange. It's the ammo.

Some facts to take into consideration....

All bullets have a small spread in ballistic coefficient. That makes all those shot out at the same muzzle velocity drop different amounts at each range point down range. Match bullets have less than a 1% spread. Sierra Bullets was one of the first publishing this data in one of their reloading manuals; they timed bullets between two points and while the same bullets entered the timing band the same speed, they exited at a spread of lower speeds. Those having higher exit velocity had lower BC's than those leaving slower. This was done with their very best match bullets that tested in sub 2/10ths inch at 100 yards.

All bullets don't leave at the same muzzle velocity. 308 Win's bullets drop about 2/10ths inch/MOA more at 100 yards for each 100 fps drop in muzzle velocity; that's 2/100ths inch/MOA for a 10 fps drop. At 1000 yards, the drop difference for a 100 fps change in muzzle velocity is about 40 inches or 4 MOA. I think now readers can easily calculate what the drop difference in inches/MOA is for a 10 fps drop in muzzle velocity.

Do I need to explain why atmospheric conditions are not always the same for each bullet's trajectory path? Warmer air slows down bullets less than cold air does.

The Brit's proved a over a century ago that their 303's shot with Cordite powder were more accurate at long range than short range. The way the barrel whipped caused slower bullets to leave at a higher angle than faster ones; That made them shoot smaller groups in subtended angle than mid range. People have been putting tuners (weights) on their muzzles to time the barrel whip vertically so bullets left at the right point in the muzzle axis up swing to all arrive at the same point on targets down range; slower ones arced higher than slower ones.

Look at the benchrest records at short range and note they get bigger in MOA at 300 yards than at 100 yards.

All the data I've seen says groups from the most accurate rifles open up about 10% in subtended angle (MOA) for every 100 yards past the firsst 100 yards. Some rifles and their ammo have greater spreads. Rifles with positive compensation (tuned or not) will produce smaller groups at longer range than at medium ranges.

The rifle doesn't become less capable of accuracy at longer range.

It is the ammo's problem as I've impliled and stated before.

How much muzzle velocity or bullet BC drop has to happen before bullets start grouping below point of aim at long ranges?

 

[salt&battery]

Of course it's not a problem with the rifle. It's' not being shot downrange. It's the ammo.

Some facts to take into consideration....

All bullets have a small spread in ballistic coefficient. That makes all those shot out at the same muzzle velocity drop different amounts at each range point down range. Match bullets have less than a 1% spread. Sierra Bullets was one of the first publishing this data in one of their reloading manuals; they timed bullets between two points and while the same bullets entered the timing band the same speed, they exited at a spread of lower speeds. Those having higher exit velocity had lower BC's than those leaving slower. This was done with their very best match bullets that tested in sub 2/10ths inch at 100 yards.

All bullets don't leave at the same muzzle velocity. 308 Win's bullets drop about 2/10ths inch/MOA more at 100 yards for each 100 fps drop in muzzle velocity; that's 2/100ths inch/MOA for a 10 fps drop. At 1000 yards, the drop difference for a 100 fps change in muzzle velocity is about 40 inches or 4 MOA. I think now readers can easily calculate what the drop difference in inches/MOA is for a 10 fps drop in muzzle velocity.

Do I need to explain why atmospheric conditions are not always the same for each bullet's trajectory path? Warmer air slows down bullets less than cold air does.

The Brit's proved a over a century ago that their 303's shot with Cordite powder were more accurate at long range than short range. The way the barrel whipped caused slower bullets to leave at a higher angle than faster ones; That made them shoot smaller groups in subtended angle than mid range. People have been putting tuners (weights) on their muzzles to time the barrel whip vertically so bullets left at the right point in the muzzle axis up swing to all arrive at the same point on targets down range; slower ones arced higher than slower ones.

Look at the benchrest records at short range and note they get bigger in MOA at 300 yards than at 100 yards.

All the data I've seen says groups from the most accurate rifles open up about 10% in subtended angle (MOA) for every 100 yards past the firsst 100 yards. Some rifles and their ammo have greater spreads. Rifles with positive compensation (tuned or not) will produce smaller groups at longer range than at medium ranges.

Yes I remember the BOSS that browning put on their A bolts at the end of the barrel where you could tune the barrel whip with fine adjustments. it really worked if you had the time to tune it. the "purists" did not like it so it died out.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Bart said

Of course it's not a problem with the rifle.

That is the point I was driving at.

Yes it is consistency of the ammo. Most of the difficulty people see at longer ranges is simply a manifestation of wind variance over the bullet's path, ammo consistency, spin drift, magnus effect, poisson effect, coriolis drift, Eötvös effect, and human factors such as being able to hold on an exact point of aim as the reticle (some scopes) now covers a larger area.

All that, just to agree.

Those factors are on us, the shooter/handloader, to deal with.

 

[Bart B.]

spin drift, magnus effect, poisson effect, coriolis drift, Eötvös effect,

Those are all effectively constants; they don't change for a given shooting situation. Nobody shooting best results in long range matches ever considers their effects because the atmospheric varables masks them all.

Do you know how much faster the wind blows above the line of sight (in the bullet's whole trajectory) than in the line of sight? Or the difference between close range winds compared to longer range winds?

 

[salt&battery]

Those are all effectively constants; they don't change for a given shooting situation. Nobody shooting best results in long range matches ever considers their effects because the atmospheric varables masks them all.

if shooting came down to memorizing all those exotic terms and their effects I would give it up lol. reading the wind wins most long range matches

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Those are all effectively constants; they don't change for a given shooting situation. Nobody shooting best results in long range matches ever considers their effects because the atmospheric varables masks them all.

You'll see more spin drift at longer ranges, right?

I'm with you, but I don't think it is because atmospheric variables mask them, it is because they adjust their scopes.

 

[cdb1]

After reading this good stuff I feel better all over than I do anywhere else. I feel more like I do now than I did a while ago.

 

[Bart B.]

You'll see more spin drift at longer ranges, right?

Nobody I know of shoots well enough nor has the equipment to perform consistently enough to even think about spin drift or any other miniscule thing effecting accuracy. A 308 Win has about 7 inches of spin drift at 1000 yards and that's not enough to matter to anyone because it's a constant and cannot be changed. It's automatically built into the windage zero on the sights. Nobody has the same winage zero every day on the range because it's masked somewhere in a 1 MOA spread by subtle cross winds.

One exception; they'll change sight elevation for different altitudes; 308's bullets drop 4 to 5 MOA less at 6600 feet altitude than at sea level. Thick air slows them down enough to matter.

I've shot long range matches in all directions at altitudes up to 8200 feet above and below the earth's equator with the best marksmen on this planet. Nobody does anything about spin drift, magnus effect, poisson effect, coriolis drift, Eötvös effect. Not even the slight drop change with cross winds at long range as with right hand twists, winds from the right make them strike a bit higher, lower if from the left. Not nearly as much as 22 rimfire bullets do at 50 and 100 yards.

One more time....

How much muzzle velocity or bullet BC drop has to happen before bullets start grouping below point of aim at long ranges?

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Nobody I know of shoots well enough nor has the equipment to perform consistently enough to even think about spin drift or any other miniscule thing effecting accuracy. A 308 Win has about 7 inches of spin drift at 1000 yards and that's not enough to matter to anyone because it's a constant and cannot be changed. It's automatically built into the windage zero on the sights. Nobody has the same winage zero every day on the range because it's masked somewhere in a 1 MOA spread by subtle cross winds.
...

I simply said spin drift is seen more at longer ranges.

Its effect is noticeable, and must be taken into account, starting around 500yds. For your .308 Win and a 175 Gr SMK bullet, fired at 2700fps from a rifle, with a barrel twist rate of 1:12”, the amount of spin drift would be about 1½ in at 500yds and about 9 in at 1000yds.

You see it more at longer ranges.

Yes, we all adjust our scopes after shooting sighters.

Colorado...Ever shoot out in Raton, NM? Maybe one day we can argue/debate out there. I'm only half the prick you think I am.

 

[cdb1]

One more time....

How much muzzle velocity or bullet BC drop has to happen before bullets start grouping below point of aim at long ranges?

Seriously? Lighten up Francis.

 

[salt&battery]

After reading this good stuff I feel better all over than I do anywhere else. I feel more like I do now than I did a while ago.

what ever that means. are you drunk?

 

[cdb1]

I simply said spin drift is seen more at longer ranges.

Its effect is noticeable, and must be taken into account, starting around 500yds. For your .308 Win and a 175 Gr SMK bullet, fired at 2700fps from a rifle, with a barrel twist rate of 1:12”, the amount of spin drift would be about 1½ in at 500yds and about 9 in at 1000yds.

You see it more at longer ranges.

Yes, we all adjust our scopes after shooting sighters.

Colorado...Ever shoot out in Raton, NM? Maybe one day we can argue/debate out there. I'm only half the prick you think I am.

You are being too harsh on yourself. I'd say 1/4.

 

[Bart B.]

I simply said spin drift is seen more at longer ranges.
Its effect is noticeable, and must be taken into account, starting around 500yds. For your .308 Win and a 175 Gr SMK bullet, fired at 2700fps from a rifle, with a barrel twist rate of 1:12”, the amount of spin drift would be about 1½ in at 500yds and about 9 in at 1000yds.

I don't care about spin drift. I've used the same windage zero's through 1000 yards on stuff shooting that far. Too many other variables involved to be concerned with a constant at each range. I wish everyone understood that.

Yes, I've shot at the Whittington Center near Raton.