better consistency with lower magnification?

[OFIS]

maybe im just being over-diagnostic about this, but for some reason my groups are the same at 200 and 300 yards... im not complaining to be making swiss cheese of 2" and 3" target dots at respective ranges, but i figured if i were making mistakes they would be more obvious at 300y, in some cases im shooting better at 300y than i am at 200y...

my theory is that i cant see impacts with my 10x scope at 300y, so maybe im not psyching myself out and subconsciously trying to correct POI between shots? is that even a real occurrence?

ill have to be less trigger happy and remember to get some target pics next time at the range.

 

[ewoaf]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

remember the "does sub moa at 100 mean sub moa at 1000" threads?

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

All,

Magnification is seen as a device which can help resolve, or perfect the relationship between reticle and target.

However, magnification can be a distraction to good shooting, if the shooter has had no basic marksmanship training.

The scenerio plays out like this. The shooter can hit relatively big targets at relatively short distance, but has trouble at distances considered long range. He thinks the answer is more magnification.

With more magnification, the shooter's concentration is now all about aim. Upon picking up the rifle, focus, no pun intended, is placed on establishing a relationship between the reticle and target, with no thought at all about adjusting NPA, or stock-weld. Now, with parallax error a certainty; plus, perspective of aim being maintained by muscle, the result is perception of aim inconsistency, as well as unpredictable recoil, both dramatically spoiling the desired result.

Without a clue, the shooter blames the result on wind, the rifle, or ammunition, as he believes it certainly can't have anything to do with not knowing how to shoot.

It's a mistake, it seems, many who get into LR shooting make, equating executing the firing task with actually knowing how to shoot. Getting into it, they think, with just a good rifle, big-ass scope, and match grade ammunition, they're gonna tear it up. At some point, perhaps, they'll realize that understanding where the gun is pointed has more to do with basic prone marksmanship than magnification.

BTW, I'm not doggin' the OP, he just inspired me to comment on the big picture regarding magnification-the great deceiver.

 

[OFIS]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

weird thread i guess. wasnt sure if there was more behind the necessity of 1x zoom per hundred yard way of doing things.

 

[3bnRanger]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All,

Magnification is seen as a device which can help resolve, or perfect the relationship between reticle and target.

However, magnification can be a distraction to good shooting, if the shooter has had no basic marksmanship training.

The scenerio plays out like this. The shooter can hit relatively big targets at relatively short distance, but has trouble at distances considered long range. He thinks the answer is more magnification.

With more magnification, the shooter's concentration is now all about aim. Upon picking up the rifle, focus, no pun intended, is placed on establishing a relationship between the reticle and target, with no thought at all about adjusting NPA, or stock-weld. Now, with parallax error; plus, perspective of aim being maintained by muscle, the result is perception of aim inconsistency, as well as unpredictable recoil, both dramatically spoiling the desired result.

Without a clue, the shooter blames the result on wind, the rifle, or ammunition, as he believes it certainly can't have anything to do with not knowing how to shoot.

It's a mistake, it seems, many who get into LR shooting make, equating executing the firing task with actually knowing how to shoot. Getting into it, they think, with just a good rifle, big-ass scope, and match grade ammunition, they're gonna tear it up. At some point, perhaps, they'll realize that understanding where the gun is pointed has more to basic prone marksmanship than magnification.

BTW, I'm not doggin' the OP, he just inspired me to comment on the big picture regarding magnification-the great deceiver.



</div></div>

Excellent post Sterling....I witnessed this first hand at a recent school I attended. A student using the 18x setting on his brand-new and expensive NF. He was shooting okay, right around .75 MOA but he was becoming frustrated because other shooters were drilling groups right around .5 MOA with their old department issued 3.5x10x40 Leuppies. One of the instructors had NF (this is not a bash on NF optics)guy dial it down to 10x and CONCENTRATE ON THE CROSSHAIRS.....bingo....keyhole.

 

[desertHK]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

along the same line, under higher magnification, the natural tendency is to try to resist the so call "slight movements" of the crosshair, be it wind, muscle fatigue, breathing etc... When that happens two things occur, one your POA is slightly different everytime. Two is the tensing of the muscles to resist the movements, which can also affect the POA, as well as POI.

 

[bwanajcj]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

great post sterling, you are spot on. So many guys try to make up for the fact they don't shoot well by buying bigger scopes. it never occurs to them the fault lies with them and not the gear.

 

[eevilweevil]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I noticed this too, last time I went shooting. I have a 4-16x scope and used it mostly on the 10-16x. When I dialed it down to 4x my groups got better (almost cut in half). I noticed that I didn't have to concentrate on holding the crosshair on target as much, and could concentrate more on NPA and breathing. Prob. won't be using the higher mag. much anymore.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I dont know if its my eyes or other faults, but I normally shoot better scores at 1000 yards in the any rife-iron sights then I do using a scope in the any rifle-any sights.

That using the same rifle (Model 70 300 WM,) Using Redfield Olympic sights vs Weaver T-10.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I agree with Charles.

I think that magnification has its place, but as Charles points out, is very easy to misuse.

I think parallax is a key factor here. I go so far to say that when dispersion opens up with magnification, the first place I look for a solution is parallax error.

Yes; small motions are magnified, and can lead to delibrate efforts to control them. This is a mistake, as it ignores the entire concept of NPA. If complete relaxation does not yield an ideal sight picture, no amount of muscling will bring the dispersion into center.

Magnification demands discipline and dedication to the basics. Too many attempt to use magnification to cover faults with their execution of the basics, but what magnification really does is amplify those errors.

Greg

 

[Unsichtbar]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

Amen, I have always found it difficult to shoot real high magnification, most often dialing back helps, for me, to much information is a handicap ( maybe too may years with irons). It’s really surprising what you can do with irons, not sure a lot of people these days have seen what a Palma High Master can do a 1000 yes and at 300 ISU with irons off a sling, it’s incredible.

 

[Laserguy]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

Good stuff guys, I agree I use a fixed 10 X out to 1000yrds.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I use as much magnification as atmospheric conditions will allow.

With a 6-24 Scope, that's around 18X at 1000yd on a warm day with substantial mirage, and more as distances decrease, until I find that 24x works OK under all but the most horrendous mirage conditions at 200yd.

But this also means I have to pay a premium in attention to all the basics, as well as taking a disciplined and positive approach to parallax detection and correction, and quartering the scope image for each shot, to verify a proper cheek/eye weld.

Using high magnification is as much a burden to good shooting as it is an advantage.

Greg

 

[hue001t]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

ive learned quite a bit from this thread thanxfor posting!

 

[dar1246]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I bought a March 10x60x50 trying it out. I ended up shooting the scope on 15x. I found it was harder to concentrate on the shot on higher mag. Some people may use these types of scopes but for me the highest mag. would be 25 power is all a person needs.

 

[Trevor]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I will be the lone descending voice here magnification does not hurt accuracy what is does do is enhance a smaller section of the target the magnified section of target now exaggerates natural tremors and NPA errors.

Lets look at two scenarios the first guy is using a 10x scope at 1000yrds.
For argument sake lets also say he has a field of view of 100 yards at 1000yards.
When he places the cross hairs on the middle of the target he sees no reticle movement from his breathing or NPA and breaks the shot. The reason he doesn’t see any movement is because the low magnification with the large field of view hides small errors created within the width of the cross hairs. In order to see errors the shooters pulse and breathing would have to move the cross hairs feet not inches to be obvious to the shooter. The larger field of view reduces the amount of identifiable error to zero.

The same shooter has a 2nd gun with a 40x scope still shooting at 1000 yards however the field of view as been reduced by a factor of 4 or 25 yards. So now when he gets into firing position he notices that his pulse and breathing are moving the reticle around, and tries to compensate for each by holding harder. BUT and here is the important part the amount of movement is equal to the size of the aiming mark using the 10x. The difference is that instead of having to move the cross hair feet to see movement with the 10x it only takes the 40x to move inches and we notice the movement. This fact is what most people don’t realize when using higher magnification scopes.

As an experiment for those with variables draw a dime size circle and post it at 100 yards then at your lowest setting look at the centre of the circle see how much movement there is and whether or not you go outside the lines of the dime. Now turn the setting to the highest magnification, and do the same things. The centre of the reticle should move around but it should not move any further then the lowest setting.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I bought a March 10x60x50 trying it out. I ended up shooting the scope on 15x. I found it was harder to concentrate on the shot on higher mag. Some people may use these types of scopes but for me the highest mag. would be 25 power is all a person needs. </div></div>

Dar I would be really interested in your results if you try this test.

P.S.
I use a 12-42 nightforce for FTR shooting and other then turn it down to 12 to get on paper i leave it set at 42.

Trevor

I would like to add as pointed out by Sterling that it is the shooter trying to Eliminate the increased movement from the higher magnification that causes accuracy to suffer.

 

[dar1246]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

It is more for the field of view for the lowest setting at father distances. At 60 power at 600 yards your field of view is not much. Paying attention to the target and some of the surroundings at 60x is not happening.
Shooting steel targets out to 800yards you can easily hit targets with 10x. In the off season we shoot 10x only. When the season rolls around. We turn the scopes up to 15 to 25 power. It feels like your target is sitting a lot closer.

Having a scope that has a variable is a bonus but not a abosulte need. Higher mags can cause more notice to heart rate and form than a lower mag. This will inturn cause more focus on the shooter than the shot.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I shot better at 300 yards than I did at 100 or 200.

At Ft Lewis wiht SKRanger, he shot all 3rounds inside ofeachother, I had 2 plus a 1/4" flyer.

I rarely get that close at 100 yards consistently.

Probably more to do with ballistics?

I was using 175's, in my 1/12 twist they don't seem to settle in as well between 0 and 200, but 168's hammer at 100 all day long..

 

[zodiusracemosis]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I have a question for someone like me whos a beginner, ive been shooting for about 2 years and I have never really shot better than 1 MOA. Im not the best shooter in the world but i LOVE gun as a collector and art, ive got about 20 thousand in pistols and rifles sometimes its embarrassing going down to the range with my McMillan M40A5 that i have 6 grand in and have people shooting better than me with Remington 700's with no name scopes. But to me with guns and scopes, when i buy, just save up and buy best of the best. I think of guns in my gun safe as money in the bank. Accuracy international, sako, zeiss scopes and us optics, for the right price those will ALWAYS sell on gun broker. I have never lost more than 100 dollars on a gun that i needed to sell on gunbroker and all sold within 72 hours. The only "shitty" gun i ever bought was a bushmaster carbon 15 in 9mm and it took over a month to sell and i ended up losing 200 bucks on it! From then on when im saving up for a new gun i just save the extra few months and get the best money can buy instead of short cutting and think of it more of a collectors item AND investment, like gold. I think guns are probably the best things to collect in the world. I dont know why someone whos into guns would but shitty guns and shitty scopes, because if you are ever in a bind and need to sell, its the COLLECTORS who are buying all the time, not the one timers looking for something cheap. So for high end guns and optics there will always be a huge market. Sorry for the long rant i just dont want you wondering why im maybe asking a stupid baby questions when im talking about an expensive optics. I just got my CZ 550 UCS in which is there brand new 16 inch sniper rifle that comes standard with a surefire muzzle break (awesome gun dead accurate i highly reccomend for anyone whos been thinking about getting it) but i need to get a really primo best of the best scope on it. Right now im thinking about getting a US OPTICS 3.2-17X but after reading this scope im wondering if now i should get the US OPTICS fixed 10x with the erek knob. The only thing is when i go to the range and shoot at 100 yard (which is as far as our range permits) 10x just doesnt seem close enough. I havnt looked into a scope above 12x and ive always wanted to try higher magnification because i thought it would give me a cleaer close up view of the target. Now guys im speaking in terms of purely target tactical shooting not hunting. I want to get good enough to where i might be able to compete in the next couple years. Also I want to be able to take my rifle out to arizona and shoot targets out to 800 yards. Should i go with the us optics 10x fixes, or should i go with the us optics 3.2-17x?? Do the majority of competition shooters shoot with 10x or do they shoot with higher mags like 15-24x? Also say i get the 3.2-17x and i get good at shooting on higher magnification, in the long run will it benefit me and make it easier to make long distance shots, or is it ALWAYS best to use the lowest magnification possible?????? thanks

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

There are two components to aim: sight alignment and hold. Hold is the relationship between the reticle and target, while alignment describes the relationship between the eyeball and the eyepiece. And, although hold is important, it is not as important as alignment. That's because sight misalignment produces angular error, which increases with distance.

With this basis of understanding, we should see that all that's necessary here regarding hold is to establish and maintain a relationship between the target and reticle which is consistent. So, the question is how much magnification, if any, is required for an understanding of consistent hold? The answer is always relative to the target size/distance; and, therefore, sometimes, no magnification may be needed.

What is needed however, in all scenarios, is picture memory for when the target/sight relationship is as desired. And, since the ability to both center and balance things comes naturally, and is independent of resolution, magnification for bullseye targets, where the crosshair is is placed in the center of the target, is not as useful as it is for targets which appear so small as to need magnification to be identified, or which require magnification to allow the shooter to recognize a desired hold and/or favor.

Still, with magnification, depth of field and field of view are lessened, and other distractions, illusions, and deceptions are introduced which can undermine the desired result. Also, some scenarios are just absurd, like where the magnification might help resolve a golf ball at let's say 600 yards. In this example, although, through magnification, a target/reticle relationship is made discernible, the target at such distance nevertheless will likely elude good hits unless the shooter can shoot better than 1/4 MOA.

Magnification is an aid to marksmanship, not a substitute for marksmanship.

 

[zodiusracemosis]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

Haha damn sterling are you a scientist, a competitive shooter, or both??? That is some serious wisdom right there. Ill read it over a few more times to try and grasp it, but i get the jist of what you're saying. I think im going to go with the higher magnification because i can always keep it on 10x for shooting until im better than move up to try higher magnification, but i can use the higher magnification on the scope for use with spotting at long distance and target acquisition like said earlier in this post.

 

[timelinex]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

Parallax error and cheek weld always come's up in psts about magnification or bad LR shooting. I've asked this before, but didnt get an answer.

Why is cheek weld so important? I completely undersatnd parallax error, but my scope(as most other mid range+ scopes) comes with a nice parallax adjuster on the side. My impression is what this is supposed to do is adjust it so there is no parallax. So why would cheek weld be important. If I focus my scope and check that the cross hairs aren't moving, then no matter my head's position, the cross hairs dont move!

I completely understanding the same cheek weld effecting accuracy in the way that you want the same position on the rifle every time for recoil management and such. But its always brought up to questions about accuracy due to the scope image.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

Stock-weld anchors sight alignment.

 

[Basher]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

Let me preface my post by saying that when it comes to long range shooting (and even medium range to some extent), "all I know is that I know nothing."

That aside, making accurate and precise hits at extended distances is all about consistency. Most of us here know and understand that already. You want to do everything the same with each shot, or as close to the same as you can get.

If you change where you place your cheek on the stock, then you'll most likely change your body's position somewhat, moving you out of your NPA. You'll be using more muscle than bone structure to support your head in the position you have it in, causing tension and stress (which will tire you quickly or induce small tremors). On some scopes with smaller eyeboxes, whether they're "parallax free" or not, moving your head just a bit will cause shadowing in the image, and you'll subconsiously move a bit to try and eliminate it.

In short, a consistent cheekweld should occur naturally as a result of you obtaining the proper NPA. You should be able to "fall" into the same spot every time you get behind the rifle, which will result in consistency.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Basher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me preface my post by saying that when it comes to long range shooting (and even medium range to some extent), "all I know is that I know nothing.


In short, a consistent cheekweld should occur naturally as a result of you obtaining the proper NPA. You should be able to "fall" into the same spot every time you get behind the rifle, which will result in consistency.</div></div>

You know more than you think you do, but, regarding the relationship of NPA to stock-weld your statement is not clear to me. I explain it: as the rifle is shouldered, to avoid unconscious steering, the position is built without consideration for the target, and, afterwards, established NPA is adjusted for the desired hold, or target/reticle relationship. Since NPA is corrupted by any factor (butt-to-shoulder, non-firing hand, grip, elbows, or stock-weld) being reorientated, movement of the entire body at the belt buckle is how NPA is properly adjusted for hold.

If the desired bone/artificially supported position cannot be maintained in a muscularly relaxed condition then the position is re-built, and factors to a steady position, such as non-firing hand placement and butt-to-shoulder placement, will be readdressed as required to achieve a hold which is muscularly relaxed, and which uses as little pressure as is required to control the rifle.

Sequencing, mental management, and motor memory aid the position building process.

 

[timelinex]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Basher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me preface my post by saying that when it comes to long range shooting (and even medium range to some extent), "all I know is that I know nothing.


In short, a consistent cheekweld should occur naturally as a result of you obtaining the proper NPA. You should be able to "fall" into the same spot every time you get behind the rifle, which will result in consistency.</div></div>

You know more than you think you do, but, regarding the relationship of NPA to stock-weld your statement is not clear to me. I explain it: as the rifle is shouldered, to avoid unconscious steering, the position is built without consideration for the target, and, afterwards, established NPA is adjusted for the desired hold, or target/reticle relationship. Since NPA is corrupted by any factor (butt-to-shoulder, non-firing hand, grip, elbows, or stock-weld) being reorientated, movement of the entire body at the belt buckle is how NPA is properly adjusted for hold.

If the desired bone/artificially supported position cannot be maintained in a muscularly relaxed condition then the position is re-built, and factors to a steady position, such as non-firing hand placement and butt-to-shoulder placement, will be readdressed as required to achieve a hold which is muscularly relaxed, and which uses as little pressure as is required to control the rifle.

Sequencing, mental management, and motor memory aid the position building process. </div></div>

Thanks for both your explanations guys. I kind of figured that it had more to do with body positioning and maintaining consistency, I just couldn't figure out why people brought it up during magnification threads.

I got alot more practising to do!

 

[Former0302]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 3bnRanger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

...I witnessed this first hand at a recent school I attended....One of the instructors had NF (this is not a bash on NF optics)guy dial it down to 10x and CONCENTRATE ON THE CROSSHAIRS.....bingo....keyhole. </div></div>

Interesting. I know when shooting with iron sights I was taught to concentrate on the front site post and not the target so as to ensure site alignment.

I understand how dialing down magnification would make the small wobbles in the site picture less distracting and less tempting to muscle the weapon onto target instead of using your NPA

Why would concentrating on the crosshairs work, aren't the crosshairs and the target now a single image in the scope? Is it just a mental thing, in that it would get your mind off of processing the fact that the site picture is wobbling around a bit?

 

[timelinex]

Re: better consistency with lower magnification?

I ran across this thread again, and remembered a piece of information that might help explain this phenomenon. Parallax error gets larger proportionately with magnification. So if parallax is off by .1 moa at 1x, it will be 2.4 inches at 24x.

So I think the problem, for some might be that their scope isn't 100% parallax free and turning back their magnification also turns back the amount of error.

As others have said, good form with a consistent cheek weld would take care of parallax issues with grouping since you will have the same parallax consistently.