Filter

Adapters for the A&d fx120i scale

My $0.02 worth... I absolutely would *not* mount any kind of rotary powder thrower directly to the scale. I'd either find or make a thrower stand that sits/mounts off to the side. Throw the charge into the cup, and gently sit the cup on the scale. Or if you must, position the thrower directly over the scale, with a cantilevered arm - but I still *would not* mount it to the scale or the draft shield in any way.

Most powder throwers - in my experience - tend to get 'hung up' or have to 'crunch through' even medium stick powders (Varget/4895/N140/N150/H4350). The only reason the original AutoTrickler got away with using the Lee PPM mounted directly on top of the scale housing was because of the Teflon wipers that particular design employs; it literally *can't* 'cut' kernels like basically any other thrower on the market.

^thats the answer right there

Manual drop into cup, place on sclae, then trickle into cup to top off by whatever means you choose
Yep

Maximizing accuracy

In my quest to maximize accuracy and cartridge equality:
in looking at load data all over the place I have noticed some things:
A. on the same chart, different cup readings for the loads. Por Que?
I assume a full nearly full load will be more accurate than one with an air gap
if a barrel can handle a CUP of 7900 for one load why make one for the same bullet with only 6500?
max velocity is mostly better yes?
First. . . note a difference between "accuracy" and "precision":
Accuracy vs Precision.jpg


I would say that a full or nearly full load tends to be more consistent than low fill loads (having to do with how the powder ignites uniformly as the powder lays in cartridge at the time of ignition. In a low fill case, the powder can lay differently depending on how the cartridge is handled upon chambering. A pretty full case load tends to produce better "precision".

faster to target, more stability....
Not necessarily. There's different things involved effecting stability of a projectile. In some cases, more velocity may not give the projectile enough time to stabilizes. Though, less flight time reduces the effect any wind will have on the projectile, particularly as distance increases.

B. different Initial velocity, with different powders why not maximize velocity at a certain CUP.
If you're after both accuracy and precision, then the focus should be on what you get on target. If you maximizing velocity, you're loading to the max pressure for the particular powder. That can be problematic if you find yourself shooting in conditions that will elevate the pressure or a condition in your chamber that can do that too . . . resulting in changing precision and even accuracy.

C. different books and sources have different load information for the same cartridge configuration.

I suspect that the numbers on the charts are assembled from different sources, and are not from the same trial or same rifle.
Yes.
They're often different because their own testing is dealing with variables that are different (e.g. same powder, but different burn rate as different lots burn at different rates; different chamber configurations used; different case volumes). This is why it's good to use those books as a guideline to get some idea where to start with a load and work up a good load that you put together with the components you happen to be using.

Is there a way to know what the maximum safe CUP is for loads with different powders?, do yall just keep increasing the load till you get ejection and primer deformation then back down a little? or get a full case?
When you choose a particular powder, and you want to work up a good load with as full a cartridge as possible, it's best to run a pressure latter to know where this particular lot of powder begins to have pressure signs for the projectile being used at a particular seating depth. Once you know where the max is for your cartridges in your particular gun, you can then start working up a safe load, starting low and working up to find a load that's accurate with precision.

to eliminate variables I try to fill my case to the bottom of the bullet without any compression or minimal.
You don't have to fill to exactly at the bottom of the bullet (100% fill). Having a fill as low as 95% can work just as well. The trick is finding a powder that can give you a good fill (like 95% or better), AND . . . will also be completely burned by the time the projectile leaves the muzzle.
  • Like
Reactions: flogxal and Doom

Ukraine war Bullshit.

The issue with Russian tank number is that a lot of the figures being thrown out are cope, a lot of articles will say 7000 in storage from the USSR but I've also seen NATO sources that state 12,500 without including T-62's from whatever reason (you know the ones in the vid that was just posted).

It also looks like the Russians are losing three to four times less tanks for 2025 so far compared to the previous years of the war (when was the last time you seen more than a single tank and a few IFVs in an assault?, they are not using large concentrations of armour plus the development of bike/buggy movement.)

We also have pretty rough but consistent data that puts a complete loss at about 1 in every 4 tanks damaged or traditionally claimed as "destroyed". Ie, for every vid you see of a Russian tank being destroyed, there is a 75% chance that even if the FPV drone did damage (not guaranteed) that tank will be repairable and sent back.

Not sure on numbers but 2025 might be the first year we see Russia end with more tanks (and more modern tanks) than they started with.

Unlike Iraq, it's not a flat ass desert with no cover a few roads down which to drive, as I said before, Russia is not concentrating armour so it's hard to imagine any sort of Gulf war one style air campaign success, drones already prevent both Russia and Ukraine from concentrating forces, especially in the open.

Adding a Riser to the Rifle

I’ve been farting around with this for the last 6 months. I d9nt do a lot of prone shooting so I haven’t tried that. It definitely feels better and if you have neck problems it alleviates some discomfort.

I had a Midwest Industries qd mount on my APO 700 back in 2019 and it was a 1.5” mount and felt nice to get behind. I also put closed cell foam on the stock and wrapped it in hockey tape to have a raised comb. I should have messed around more with it back then but health issues kept me sidelined for a few years.

I guess long story short is there’s no reason not to try it with the abundance of adjustable comb height on stocks and chassis.

The new Athlon Ares BTR G3 2.5-15x50, initials, and ongoing thoughts.

I got one of these scopes a month ago or so, in like new condition, and put it on my 22LR rifle as a placeholder while I figure out a more ideal optic for it. I think I will put it on my AR, as it's a great mag range for an SPR.

Initially I was a little unimpressed with the eyebox, and I will say it's not excellent, but I also had it mounted too far back, and once I moved it forward one slot it's much easier to acquire (so user error there). It is a little tighter at 10x than I wish it was, but it's still pretty easy to pick up and retain, at least with the low recoil of 22LR. I think with 223 it'll still be fine as long as you're not trying to take quick shots at max mag.

The dials are very solid, great positive clicks with no mush to speak of. Truly impressive at this price range. The parallax knob is quite stiff but nice that it won't get bumped. I'm not worried about bumping elevation or windage at a match but maybe slinging it over my back while hunting would be a different story. Depends on your hunting scenario and if you have time to check your dials before taking a shot.

Color is pretty decent, though I haven't shot it in dim lighting to know how bright or dark the image is in those conditions. It's plenty sharp at all ends of the magnification range. It does get a little soft towards the edges when at lower mag, but that's field curvature for you. When parallax is adjusted all the way down at low magnification, there is significant barrel distortion, with a "rolling ball" effect. This pretty much doesn't affect me because the reticle is pretty unusable at min mag and I'll be do any close up shooting with a top mounted red dot anyway.

At 25yd parallax and 8x there is very little to complain about. The depth of field is pretty shallow for close objects if your parallax isn't set within 5-10 yards, when zoomed further than 6x, but around 10x the parallax is surprisingly forgiving for longer ranges... everything from 75 to 400 yards is mostly in focus with parallax set to 100 yards. Very usable for quick shooting if you like the deep depth of field.

Overall I'm pretty pleased with the scope! The gen3 additions with the scope caps and sun shield are nice quality of life improvements at no extra charge. Yes, the scope is a little long, but I think it pays off in performance. If you like the 2.5-15x zoom range of this optic, and are looking for something focused on precision (and thus will like the fine, detailed reticle), this is one of the best options on the market IMO.

Man you're making me want to get out mine again to see if I can see the things you saw.

"When parallax is adjusted all the way down at low magnification, there is significant barrel distortion, with a "rolling ball" effect."

Was the object you were intending to look at in perfect focus? I ask because if it wasn't the image through the scope is going to be weird looking, is that what you mean by barrel distortion? Even if the focus is slightly off at close range it's going to be wonky and have poor IQ.

Because I'm used to shooting Field Target airgun comps with 10Y close focus scopes I'm accustomed to how scopes react at close range whereas many have never used a scope at close range before so this throws them off.

What I mean is you just can't dial the side focus to it's extreme/all the way down, and expect anywhere near to a proper clean image except at that one and only distance where the object in perfect focus, and from what I can tell that'd be at 10Y or very close to it.

Basically on 15x you have to have the focus almost exactly set to your eye inside 20Y for the IQ to be as nice as possible, with focus being much less critical on 2.5x but it still needs to be mostly in focus.
For the heck of it try your scope at 11 yards from lowest to highest magnification and each time you change the magnification refocus again exactly.
Not only that but changing the diopter setting at a certain distance can sometimes clean the IQ even more. This is actually a great way to set your diopter to work the best compromise between close range and long range.

Maggie’s Funny & awesome pics, vids and memes thread (work safe, no nudity)

5 feet below the waterline, 25 feet above. Who couldn’t have seen that one coming?
Maybe they were counting on having so many bikini clad wimens on the lower deck, it would have been enough ballast to be stable.

According to Cornell Engineering's hand book and quick reference guide to Marine Engineering, gold digger skanks weigh a lot for their size.

So my money is on somebody at the main office dropped the ball and the skank delivery didn't make it before the launch time.





Follow me for more engineering tips.

SOLD WTS Kahles K328i CCW SKMR4+

For Sale barely used Kahles K318i 3.5-28x50mm CCW With SKMR4+ reticle w/right windage SKU-10697. It’s just not for me.

Open to trades

$3500 shipped to your door.

Attachments

  • IMG_3268.jpeg
    4.1 MB · Views: 90
  • IMG_3272.jpeg
    3.8 MB · Views: 41
  • IMG_3269.jpeg
    IMG_3269.jpeg
    2.6 MB · Views: 86
  • IMG_3273.jpeg
    IMG_3273.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 77
  • IMG_3275.jpeg
    3.1 MB · Views: 26
  • IMG_3271.jpeg
    IMG_3271.jpeg
    2.7 MB · Views: 78