Messing around with the .22 on paper at 50 metres again today. Something I noticed, if I was aiming for a 10mm target, my groups were consistently good. Groups were no where near not as good with a 24mm target. Anyone else find this?
Printable View
Messing around with the .22 on paper at 50 metres again today. Something I noticed, if I was aiming for a 10mm target, my groups were consistently good. Groups were no where near not as good with a 24mm target. Anyone else find this?
yeah I find the same thing. I use a bit of black insulation tape, cut to a square and placed on an angle like a diamond. the cross hairs line up with the points of the tilted square nicely!
Its all relative to the range/magnification/recticle size.
I can just center on a 12mm dot at 100m with 12x zoom, with iron battle sights on the 303 I need at least a 5 inch solid black dot to even hit a A4 sheet.
Although it is nice to shoot small targets to get small groups, it is equally challenging to have good size circles or disks and divide them in 4 equal quarters with your reticule and try to shoot small groups .
The eye very naturally centers a cross on a circle...better than you can measure with a rule at least....but I am no longer talking about shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
As you were.
It's a question of fitting your crosshairs into the aiming mark with a good amount of white or whatever colour around it. Too tight and you can't see what you're doing, specially you can get diffraction deforming the target shape. A lot of thought went into this with aperture foresights sights for smallbore and fullbore shooting. By equalising the white ring around a circular target they can shoot right up to the limit of what the retina can resolve.
Always used insulation tape in a basic cross.
All my scopes are a duplex type and works well to align the cross-I find the eye self centres the stadia to the tape.
Agree with @berg243 aim small miss small. Aim for a part of a target not just for the target. Tightens up.
do you mean a cross like the letter x or like a letter t cross?Quote:
Originally Posted by csmiffy
I like a dot that I can centre on. I find it easy enough to equally section a 24mm dot at 100m. At 50m with the 22 and a fixed 4x scope I found that the centre of the cross hair neatly covered the entire dot when centred. Basically it varies with distance and scope, but I like to aim as small as I can.
Ill try that, but have a go at a square (tilted like a diamond) of insulation tape, iv found the points of the diamond are helpful to line up the cross hairs on for really accurate shooting. Im no expert but that works for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
More things to consider in this thread:
https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....ign-why-25207/
As Bagheera mentions, in theory more precise alignment should be possible by creating a sight picture that makes use of fine gaps of a contrasting colour between the reticle and the shape of the target, or alternatively the reticle splits the target into four congruent shapes, again of a colour that contrasts with the black of the reticle.
The problem with a solid black diamond is that the width of the reticle - regardless of how thin - must necessarily obscure the vertices of the diamond. Within that width no further refinement may be possible. Try adding a second method of alignment to this same shape by instead using a black outline of a diamond leaving the centre white instead of solid. The reticle quarters this contrasting centre into 4 triangles. As in your original post the target design can then be reduced down in size - to the minimum usable for the width of reticle at the scopes maximum usable power setting. If a solid diamond is already a contrasting colour then you have the same thing.
Cross like a + not X.Quote:
Originally Posted by 40mm
The + hairs (see what I did there) line up very well against the reticule. At best they are only 3/4" wide tape so as mentioned it naturally centres well.
Cheap, quick and yes @Cordite no stuffing around with print outs. as long as it sticks you are away.
The old adage used to be : 1 inch (25mm) dot at 100yds, 2 inch (50mm) dot at 200 yds, 3 inch at 300 yds, and so on
Ive always stuck to that for sighting in purposes, or checking long range accuracy. Works for me.
There is another way to look at this. Eyes have a marvelous optical ability to judge both angle e.g. cant and to quarter or otherwise dissect a target.
Once you get the hang of it most people can shoot just as well on an even big target as they can with a small one. Every now and again you'll strike someone in F class who wants to put a "dot" at the centre of their target, even if they are allowed (they shouldn't its not in the rules) they never shoot any better than those on standard targets, and if you have enough scope to see the spotter, and you happen to shoot a central, the spotter is a huge distraction and often inhibits the next shot.
No problem on targets but when it comes to game so many people starting don't have much ability to exactly place their shots (I've never seen a deer with a "small target" on it). If you start by placing your shot to a place on the target I reckon you'll more quickly get a be a better shot on game (or gong or whatever thing that doesn't have an exact aiming point).
Same goes for magnification, an experienced marksman can shoot just as well with a double aperture sight as with a scope - however scopes do have a really big advantage in allowing a shooter to "see the wind" down the range.