Thread: FINALLY got my LR come ups

Unfortunately @ ebf I'm not a good enough shot to do it that way I'd end up blaming the scope for my own errors

Originally Posted by ebf

I just go the the pointless and wasteful exercise of firing 2 shots...

Very easy to measure edge of hole to edge of hole, but hey, that's just me...

neither am I rich, that's why I use a decent front and rear rest for these and most other tests, hopefully removes most of the shooter induced errors...

Originally Posted by ebf

neither am I rich, that's why I use a decent front and rear rest for these and most other tests, hopefully removes most of the shooter induced errors...

What about environmental factors and reloading techniques? Or ammo components, or barrel fouling/damage or bedding??

Face it man, its a fucking waste of bullets and time to test a scopes click values the way you do.

But whatever makes you happy.

However you test them I've seen a couple of leupold's that didn't move the poi at the top part of the adjustment.

Originally Posted by Proudkiwi

What about environmental factors and reloading techniques? Or ammo components, or barrel fouling/damage or bedding??

Face it man, its a fucking waste of bullets and time to test a scopes click values the way you do.

But whatever makes you happy.

Um, ok then, so I guess I should stop trying to zero my rifles and shoot groups when doing load development as well...

Originally Posted by ebf

Um, ok then, so I guess I should stop trying to zero my rifles and shoot groups when doing load development as well...

You can't be that stupid, surely??

That's a completely different subject .The topic I'm commenting on is shooting to test click values and that is it. A topic you raised.

Your method introduces way to much "noise" to ever be able to get any valuable info at all. Trust me when I say you are not that good a shot. No one in the world is.

If you want to test a scope for click values you need to remove the scope from the rifle, clamp it in a way that it will not be able to move at all, ideally in a vise mounted on a concrete bench for example.

Then place a measured chart at exactly the correct distance (100mtr for mil turrets etc) and wind away observing your ret against the chart.

Your method is so flawed its a joke.

But again, whatever makes you happy.

Originally Posted by ebf

Useful post.....

Care to share, or are you just leaving it there ?

I use tall target for 2 things. One to check cant / scope level. Two to see the real value of clicks - contrary to popular belief most scope manufacturers don't have the tolerances their marketing department would have you believe.

If you're interested in doing some reading : Applied Ballistics by Brian Litz, chapter 9

I bought the ebook copy of Bryan's famous book. All the snipers hide disciples have me convinced I shouldn't be tinkering with BC so i looked at my scope which is a March. To be fair I'd seen similar range data from 2 of my cheapy scopes so I've come to the conclusion that you are totally right (clicks not being exactly what manufacturers say)

I did a micro ladder test (no firing, just using pins in a board and lining up my crosshairs) and then scaled up my results to true Mil distance (100m) using AutoCAD. I got scarey close using only 8.6m as my base distance and a laser measurer.

Question - what is the best distance (if you can scale any results accurately using CAD) to your test target for your scope test?
The pro's of setting up close - you can see and measure the Rise really well, it takes 10mins it your backyard too.
The cons of setting up close - any error from measuring estimated reticule out to target will be magnified massively. For me i must have been bang on to only get 1.76% error over all

I reckon the full 100m is probably best if you have the magification and space

In short - I believe that the elevation adjustment feature in 'Applied Ballistics' is more about tuning your own body's relationship with the recoil of your rifle. It may not be the scope which has untrue clicks - just that your mass + shooting style is causing more muzzle flip than the next guy. Hell, it could be that the clicks are actually off but mine was only 0.08 to fully bring my proven FOS into line.

Originally Posted by ebf

Couple of questions for you...

Have you been using G1 or G7 BC ?

What projectile and what BC value ?

Have you confirmed your scope clicks by shooting a tall target test ?

I tested the shit out of the software, tinkering with everything. BUT this time i had the knowledge that my 6.5x55 T3, using 140g Amax was truely doing 2723ft/sec average. I had the good luck of being able to use a very expensive chrony set up by 2 gunsmiths, in absolutely perfect weather! They measured my case head expansion and found my load to be extremely mild with next to no expansion after 5 firings. I'm lucky to know these fellas eh. They suffer me with the patience of saints

So, with confidence I believe I'm using G7 (on their advice) which comes with a default bc of .299. The G1 bc is 0.584 (litz) and this was pretty close to my field tests too. G7 was only marginally better and apparently it really helps the .338 guys out at the 1.5km mark. My rounds go crap-sonic at 1100m so 1025 would be about my max accurate distance.

Originally Posted by BRADS

Lets go right of tangent here and ask who has done this?

I did this only after performing so badly at a comp that i swore I'd scour the earth till I found out why. I might yet still come to light that i just cant bloody shoot...but fingers crossed haha

DIB, cool. I'm using Lapua Scenars, also with Litz G7 value, and got electronic target speed at 900 and 1000 yds, then worked it back to MV.

So far, using those values, my dope has been extremely close.

Moral of the story I guess is getting decent chrony values for projectiles with known G7 values

Originally Posted by Proudkiwi

You can't be that stupid, surely??

That's a completely different subject .The topic I'm commenting on is shooting to test click values and that is it. A topic you raised.

Your method introduces way to much "noise" to ever be able to get any valuable info at all. Trust me when I say you are not that good a shot. No one in the world is.

If you want to test a scope for click values you need to remove the scope from the rifle, clamp it in a way that it will not be able to move at all, ideally in a vise mounted on a concrete bench for example.

Then place a measured chart at exactly the correct distance (100mtr for mil turrets etc) and wind away observing your ret against the chart.

Your method is so flawed its a joke.

But again, whatever makes you happy.

Whoah Harsh! You're both raising legit issues I reckon. Scopes can wear out / shift / break etc and If you've never tested your glass (even if its just optically) then it may not occur to you to check it. To me, you cant beat measuring fall of shot on a good day, recording everything you can think of. Then, just fudge the elev adj in your software till they marry up 'cause its far easier than playing with bc and mv. That's an endless exercise of 'robbing peter to pay paul'.

That's it man! There are so many variables that they're all worth locking down. Even adding the elements that most ignore can add up to a couple of clicks. Being short 5 clicks will see you hit the dirt at Harry's range!. On Sunday the pressure was 1027hpa and that in itself will cause me to hit fairly low when it returns to 1013. I guess another big point is to know all the important numbers of the day you set up.

I'm glad I buy my rifles with scopes fitted and sighted in, can't piss round with this shit!! ,I've got bloodshot eyes reading it

Originally Posted by Dead is better

I tested the shit out of the software, tinkering with everything. BUT this time i had the knowledge that my 6.5x55 T3, using 140g Amax was truely doing 2723ft/sec average. I had the good luck of being able to use a very expensive chrony set up by 2 gunsmiths, in absolutely perfect weather! They measured my case head expansion and found my load to be extremely mild with next to no expansion after 5 firings. I'm lucky to know these fellas eh. They suffer me with the patience of saints

So, with confidence I believe I'm using G7 (on their advice) which comes with a default bc of .299. The G1 bc is 0.584 (litz) and this was pretty close to my field tests too. G7 was only marginally better and apparently it really helps the .338 guys out at the 1.5km mark. My rounds go crap-sonic at 1100m so 1025 would be about my max accurate distance.

Did you try the truing function in litz' app? Most people suggest not even bothering with a chrony and just getting click values required at various ranges and putting the data into Ballistic AE. You can then "true" the ballistics chart it generates.

It does this by adjusting the muzzle velocity to the closest possible fit to what's actually happening in the real world (the data you entered).

Two different chronys we're giving me readings around 2700. Went out for a day with a friend and we shot 200m, 400m and 600m and entered the data. It generated a velocity of 2661fps to give me the closest fit to what was actually happening.

I need to do this click test mentioned earlier on my scope!

Originally Posted by Proudkiwi

You can't be that stupid, surely??

That's a completely different subject .The topic I'm commenting on is shooting to test click values and that is it. A topic you raised.

Your method introduces way to much "noise" to ever be able to get any valuable info at all. Trust me when I say you are not that good a shot. No one in the world is.

If you want to test a scope for click values you need to remove the scope from the rifle, clamp it in a way that it will not be able to move at all, ideally in a vise mounted on a concrete bench for example.

Then place a measured chart at exactly the correct distance (100mtr for mil turrets etc) and wind away observing your ret against the chart.

Your method is so flawed its a joke.

But again, whatever makes you happy.

can you do it this way but drop to 5 or 10m and multiply the results? or would that introduce errors
would make it easyer to see
but its somthing i need to do with both of mine