Search results

Do a fairly coarse test all the way back to .120 jump - every .015 or so, and then fine tune from the best spot. A lot of bullets will show good results at unconventionally long jumps. Watch the pressure if you're near max, though - .120 vs 0 makes a little bit of difference.

A quick note on the calculator. I don't know exactly what Berger and JBM do, but I'm guessing its very similar to what is in my calculator. When mine reports "overstability" its just saying that the Sg is higher than it needs to be. In theory (and practice) this means that you could go with a...

Can it be done? Consistent 5 shot groups under 1 MOA?

Sold.

.

NIB 3 lug adapter. Part number AC2447 Same product as this: https://www.brownells.com/aspx/search/productdetail.aspx?sid=233727&pid=126763 I ordered it from Brownells as a special order, but they took forever and SilenerCo got some in stock. So I bought one from SilencerCo, and tried to cancel...

Civil disobedience (aka ignoring the law) and good old fashioned capitalism are the answers. The more people who own items that are troublesome to prohibitionists, the more people will be motivated to just ignore the laws. At some point it becomes unenforceable. No matter what state you're in...

I mean if I look through my scope and I see a bullet hole about 3/10 of the way from center to the first tick mark. The way I figure that is to split that tick (say it's 1 MOA), in half, then half again (in my head), and see that the hole is right about where 1/4 MOA is. I then dial 1/4 MOA...

That's kind of my point - you're still multiplying 3 numbers (value, direction, and scale). I'm not saying my way is better. Just that it's no more difficult. If the rule of thumb gets even a little complicated, it's harder than just looking at a card. (And I agree - the MOA based rules of thumb...

The way I see it, any esitmate of wind direction is going to be spotty at best. Simply using full/.75 (rounded from .707)/.5 for 90, 45, 30 degrees is plenty fine enough. And pay attention to direction a lot more in a fishtail, because the impact of an 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock twitch is WAY...

So the main benefit of this rule of thumb is that you don't have to look up (or memorize) a windage value? That's not nothing, but I don't know that I would call it a reason to choose mils over MOA. I think I'm just in the "it doesn't matter" camp (outside of communication, if that's something...

I get all that. And I get the benefit of radians and why they exist. And yes, they are metric. ;) But practically, are you not still having to scale the wind value (say, 10 mph to the actual value of 6mph), and account for direction (half value, full value, etc)? Neither of these are factor of...

Can someone explain how any of these methods remove the need to do math in your head, or to specify a bullet & velocity? Am I just dense? It all seems the same to me.

Here's the short answer. If you shoot PRS-style stuff, use mils. If you shoot high power (including F class), use MOA. If you do anything else, use whatever the hell you want because it doesn't really matter.

Are you guys saying that you've seen people who have optics with marked reticles call things out linearly rather than use the reticle to measure the angle? I can't condone that level of stupidity. It's like looking out the window to guess your speed rather than looking at the speedometer. Mixing...

Reverse the call if that makes it easier, and use whatever linear units you want (inches, meters, targets, miles, whatever). But there is no math. Just estimating a linear dimension, holding the crosshairs over it to measure the angle. Same as if you have a spotter with a reticle. It's literally...

I may be a heretic, but there's nothing wrong with thinking in linear units. "You hit about 3 feet to the right" contains all the information that "you hit 3 MOA to the right" (because the target is fixed), and it's just as easy to line up the reticle and dial it. SOMEONE has to have a reticle...

It never gets old... By the time you pick a scope with the features you want, the decision has very likely been made for you. P.S. Mils are metric. This is an undisputed fact.

I know that Joe Chambers has fixed some less than optimal work done by other smiths - he's worth giving a call. He's very detail oriented and stubborn (in a good way) about getting things right. You may have a long wait ahead, though. I'm not sure what his backlog is like these days.

This is all changing as we speak. Not sure when the new rules come out, but ITAR is being revamped significantly, which should make things easier.