PU Scope Accuracy?

[Nuthershooter]

I have a couple of PU Mosin snipers (the Classic/AIM ones) that I've been shooting this summer without impressive results. Nothing seems really wrong, but though 7N1 groups some better, it doesn't do much less than 2" at 50Y. Close to the field spec (8cm @100M?) for Mosin snipers but not really what I expected. Bores look good, basic tuning helped one of the rifles a bit but ... still not what I expected.

I've been inside one of the scopes to replace the middle lens block (one doublet came unglued) and I pulled the reticule out to have a look -- not an exercise for the faint hearted as the reticule itself is fine wires and not well protected but I got it back together okay. Modern scopes have some way to take up play in the mechanism that moves the reticule (Don't they? a spring or something?) but there's nothing but grease in this '43 PU scope.

Wondering if these scopes might not be designed for precision rifle accuracy I stuck a modern Chinese scope in a 1" split ring PU-style mount which amazingly enough went on the Mosin just fine, though it's 3" high instead of 2" and a bit right of the center plane of the rifle. (Mount said to be designed for the AK but it fits the Mosin base.) Three four-shot groups all under 1-1/8", one of those groups was 5/8" On average about 1/3 the size of the groups I had been getting.

So -- I'm scratching my head. Are these scopes expected to deliver the accuracy the rifle is capable of? Or are they intended mainly to make it easier to see a target?

I believe the PU was redesigned and simplified internally sometime early in the war -- an internal drawing shown in a PU scope repair thread on another forum is quite different from the '43 'Progress' scopes I have. I'm wondering if they said whatever is the Russian for "Good enough for a sniper rifle we have to build by the tens of thousands."

The total movement of the reticule in the field of view might be 2 mm. That's 20 mils, elevation or windage. 0.1 mm of play divided between the lead screw and the slot in which the nut rides would be a mil -- 1.8" at 50 yards. That ballpark certainly doesn't seem impossible.

Another way to ask the same question: People here have gotten Mosin snipers to 1 MOA or less. Did any of them do it with a PU scope?

Or am I just missing something really stupid here?

 

[Tango down]

Most of the time, my 43" Tula PU sniper and I will shoot 1.25, 1.5 at 100, with reloads. Yes, 1" at 100 may happen but very rarely. Now for less than moa...never happened. Some may argue with this but the PU was not designed with small groups in mind, even though some may do well with it.
The PU has his limitations but altogether, the Soviets came up with a rugged and reliable product.
They are still going strong after 70 + years in service, went through a few wars and put down plenty of game as a hunting rig.
I zeroed a few PU but never took them apart, so you are ahead of me on that one.

 

[ksthomas]

Nuther,

Two common Soviet quotes here that may shed some light. The first was from Joseph Stalin himself; "Quantity has a quality all of itself." The second was a general quote often heard in a great many contexts of Soviet design and production; "'Better' is the enemy of 'good enough.'" Russian way of saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! There's probably some application to each of these where Soviet sniper scopes are concerned.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Never shot a PU (or a PEM for that matter), but have been doing some experimentation with several of the basic MN91/30's and several NCStar, etc. LER scopes in a very basic homemade Scout mounting (remove rear sight block, replace with a pair of Heavy Duty Medium height air rifle 11mm dovetail rings and crank them down on the barrel/sight dovetail tighter than a crab's ass in a windstorm). This is staying solid and brings the optical axis way down so scope/barrel/receiver clearance is under 1/4".

This mounting method still allows feeding the mag using strippers.

I also wrap the barrel under the bands with 2mm neoprene foam.

From that point, it's about ammo. I have a starting load using HDY 150gr FBSP "303" caliber Interlock bullets, PPU brass, CCI 200/WLR primer, and 49gr of IMR-4064. Shoots better than spamcan, and is a very valid hunting load as well. Still coming up to speed using the Nosler 125gr .308 Ballistic Tip for reduced recoil and flatter trajectory within 250yd. Samesame for SRA 125gr Pro-Hunters. This chambering does not like 'reduced' loads.

Not looking for performance beyond 250yd.

No question, this is cheap stuff, but my 91/30's were had for $114 and up, and the entire thrust of my project was to engineer a cheap shooter. I wasted a bunch before hitting on this solution, but write off the waste, and we still have a scoped shooter for under $200. No way I'm buying a PU Sniper after this.

I am curious about lightly 'dressing' the counterbore with a drill bit to clean up the internal 'crown', will report results, but it may be awhile.

Also testing out an Archangel AA9130 stock installation on one of my rifles. This brings up the unit cost to about $400.

Greg

 

[Mike Radford]

Lots of us on gunboards get sub-MOA from some of our PUs. Some require quite a bit of tuning. Any require good ammo. The Soviet Match ammo is rated well enough to do sub-MOA. Handloads with 174 SMK or Hornady 174 match bullets, most folks use Varget, will get it done. Research the tuning techniques used on gunboards and use good ammo. If you have a good rifle and your scope is without issues, you should average about MOA with good ammo off a rest.

 

[Thresher96]

Don't use that 7n1 stuff its crap. That stuff is 155 gr. I found that In all the mosins I have shoot best with 174-200 should be the grain bullets you use. Every time I use 150 grain bullets I have larger groups. Try privy or hornandy and I have also gotten really good results with silver bear. Silver bear is .310 so it only works well with some. Glass bed them and you will see improvment they have really loose tolerancws. Here are some of the groups I got at 50after glass bedding.

 

[Thresher96]

Also free float them an put cork strips under the barrel bands

 

[Ledzep]

My PU scope had quite a bit of parallax error. I had Chad at LRI (he's local) make me a .013" thick washer/shim for the front lens assy. to set the parallax correctly. Groups halved. I haven't really played with pressure points or free floating too seriously, seems like an exercise in futility IMO.

 

[Nuthershooter]

Nuther,

Two common Soviet quotes here that may shed some light. The first was from Joseph Stalin himself; "Quantity has a quality all of itself." The second was a general quote often heard in a great many contexts of Soviet design and production; "'Better' is the enemy of 'good enough.'" Russian way of saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! There's probably some application to each of these where Soviet sniper scopes are concerned.

That is what I've started to suspect about at least the late model PUs. I don't see how there could reliably be less than 1-2 MOA of play in the elevation/windage mechanism.

The two knob shafts are threaded with four threads of about 0.75 mm pitch (wound together something like the red-white-blue stripes on a barber pole) so the reticule would move about 3 mm per revolution. The windage knob is calibrated over about 1/2 revolution, elevation somewhat more than that. These threaded shafts move nuts that are retained in slots in the reticule assembly itself: This looks something like the bobbin for a sewing machine with the crosshairs crimped or welded in the center hole.

There's play both in the screw threads and in the slots in which the nuts slide. The only thing that reduces the play is heavy grease which doesn't seem very reliable for shot-to-shot accuracy with a rifle having Mosin recoil.

I've tried some (non-destructive) experiments to reduce this, but I've been hoping someone will give me a new direction or idea. Or even "This is a recognized problem with PUs" -- both you (Kevin) and Tango have waved in that direction, which is helpful.

I have pulled one shaft from two different rifles and the rifle that shoots best had such a close fit that it was tricky to get the shaft started back into the nut.

Every five years or so I run into something that makes me wish I had a good lathe. This is one of those occasions, though as I recall metric threads require specific gearing.

 

[Nuthershooter]

My PU scope had quite a bit of parallax error.

The lenses are good on these scopes but the precision of the assembly -- or it may be repair, since it's likely they were all re-arsenalled at some time -- is REALLY poor. Of three '43 Progress PUs I've used, ALL THREE were seriously out of focus, i.e., considerable parallax error. Shimming the objective will help if the scope is focused at infinity or 'beyond.' (AFTER ADJUSTING THE EYEPIECE FOR SHARP CROSSHAIRS just look for the point of zero parallax or -- equivalent -- sharpest focus.) I'm guessing these scopes are supposed to have zero parallax at 300-400M since they were intended for sniper use but someone shooting mainly at shorter ranges might want more like 100Y or so. You can get a pretty good idea what shim is needed by unscrewing the objective to get what you want (it'll take just a fraction of a turn) and calculating from the pitch of the thread. 0.5 mm? But measure it -- It has been a couple of months.

If the objective needs to move CLOSER to the crosshairs (scope focused at 25Y or something like that) then it would be necessary to carefully grind the front end of the scope tube. It will take very little.

Greg I've been following your 'cheap shooter' experiments with interest.

In general I'm not yet ready to do serious tuning on these rifles. If the scope is adding 1-2 MOA to the group then that's likely to mask other improvements, especially since the scope problem could come and go depending on temperatures, position in which the gun was stored, etc.

Your 7N1 comments noted, Thresher. I picked an answer that was considered better than regular light ball for initial testing and it has proven to be that. It's odd that heavier bullets are better since the rifle was designed around 148 gr. bullets was it not? However others have said the same. I have some heavier stuff I think and I'll try it, one of these days.

I'm trying to keep the number of dimensions of this problem manageable! Not too successful, but ...

THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS!

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Greg I've been following your 'cheap shooter' experiments with interest.

Latest piece for testing arrived in yesterday's mail. It's a Williams aperture rear sight intended for mounting on a rimfire/air rifle dovetail.

From the palm of my hand, it looks like it will mount OK on the Mosin dovetail, but it's both lightweight, and could be fragile. It's not a micrometer sight in the usual sense, but it's a peep, has elevation and windage adjustment capability, and it will be interesting to see whether this can be used to improve accuracy or maybe serve as a BUIS.

Greg

 

[Nuthershooter]

Latest piece for testing arrived in yesterday's mail. It's a Williams aperture rear sight intended for mounting on a rimfire/air rifle dovetail.

Greg

Cute little thing. If it'll stand up to Mosin recoil it should be useful.

Odds and ends:

It is possible to make shims for the PU scope by hand. Estimate the thickness by unscrewing the objective to get zero parallax, then cut a 1-1/2" or so square of suitable stock -- I used a tin can (=.010 but there's some variation) and scribe or pencil a line on it around the outside of the objective. Use a drill bit and then a step bit (Irwin, etc.) to get past the diameter of a Dremel grinder tool and carefully grind the hole larger using the scribed circle as a guide to roundness, until the objective will screw into it. The objective is relieved past the threads so the shim will sit flat if it screws on. Remove the burrs. Then using a small pair of scissors or sharp tin snips trim the outside around the hole.

Speculation: Several people have commented (on various forums, etc.) that the PU scope BDC isn't adequate at long range, even for the original round. I wonder if this is the result of play in the mechanism: A mil or so of play is in the ballpark of 100M of elevation, so if you approached zero at 100M by lowering the elevation, then cranked it up for longer ranges ...

Even with a PU scope that gives acceptable groups it might be well to form the habit of always ending adjustments in the same direction. There IS play in there. For windage pick either way but for elevation go up (longer range) to finish as this will eliminate room for gravity and shock to change the setting with the rifle upright.

There can be play in the shaft and knob assembly but that can be completely removed by bending the spring washer under the knob. When checking do one knob at a time as they have to go back on the same shaft or the locking setscrew won't fit.

These are representative of the groups that sent me on the PU accuracy quest. The first is one of three four round groups fired with the rifle in original (PU scoped) configuration, the second is with a Chinese scope in a PU-style mount that fits the Mosin base, though actually intended for an AK. Again, typical of three such groups. Same ammo, same range (50Y), same day ...

The coins are quarters; the smaller group is 11/16" between the extreme shots.

 

[Tango down]

These are representative of the groups that sent me on the PU accuracy quest. The first is one of three four round groups fired with the rifle in original (PU scoped) configuration, the second is with a Chinese scope in a PU-style mount that fits the Mosin base, though actually intended for an AK. Again, typical of three such groups. Same ammo, same range (50Y), same day ...

The coins are quarters; the smaller group is 11/16" between the extreme shots.

View attachment 49105
View attachment 49106

FWIW: I never shot the 7N1, so wouldn't know what to expect but with my PU, the smallest group would be a decent group (minus the flyer, with reloads and at 100 yards) and I would be looking for a place to hang myself after shooting something like the largest group
If 7N1 are as good as some say (some say they are not), the PU should give you better groups; it is understandable that these over sized groups sent you on an accuracy quest.
Also FWIW: Not sure if it is a mix of powder load/bullet/COAL + luck or whatever but the elevation turret numbers (on my PU) are in sync with my loads, from 100 to 800; takes away the need for a secondary dope chart.
When it comes down to these scopes, you seem way more mechanically inclined than I am; I cleaned and zeroed in the scope, that was about it. Not saying I would never do this or I am not curious of how it is made but I would have to mentally accept the fact that I may mess up that scope for good.
Good luck in you accuracy quest

 

[Mike Radford]

7N1 is really good ammo and was tested superior to most Soviet ammo. Accuracy was superior and it was designed for their SVD. It also is much more lethal if a hit is scored. It has a "knocker" which is hammered into the target and also causes tumbling. It is a more accurate round and more lethal. It is not as good as Extra Match or Target for accuracy but it is the only round with which I would get sub-MOA groups from many 54r rifles prior to availability of better factory ammo.

Now, it is not affordable for most. I bought it for about $160 per 880 rds. I have also bought it for over $300 for 440 rds. I have fired about 5000 rds, probably more. Good stuff. Extra and target are better for accuracy but Target is marginally better on accuracy.

Ammo is typically loaded for a purpose. Soviet ammo is tested and rated. When they want to win international matches, and they have, they use Extra Match. It is kinda like US M72 and M118 Match, only better.

 

[Mike Radford]

On PU scope accuracy question, yes they are not precise by modern stds. I can tell you I know dozens of folks that shoot sub-MOA with them very frequently, any theoretical inconsistency due to the pitch of the treads and tolerances is not real world. The proof is in the results. These rifles were serious snipers and having fired over 75 WW2 snipers, anyone who does not understand these are quite accurate needs more real world experience.

 

[Tango down]

On PU scope accuracy question, yes they are not precise by modern stds. I can tell you I know dozens of folks that shoot sub-MOA with them very frequently, any theoretical inconsistency due to the pitch of the treads and tolerances is not real world. The proof is in the results. These rifles were serious snipers and having fired over 75 WW2 snipers, anyone who does not understand these are quite accurate needs more real world experience.

Mike, thanks for sharing your knowledge; I should have been hanging out with you
My rifle is not sub-moa very frequently but it delivers a honest consistent 1.25/1.5" at 100, as well as for all distances, when I don't mess it up. Heck, I even shot it at a mile on a 24"x30"; didn't ring steel but was only a foot or two away on several shots. It took some work and thinking to get it right but I for sure like the result; so much that I am thinking taking it deer hunting this season. Still waiting to hear from Barnes for load data, or whoever shoot the Barnes TSX 150 303 311...but that's a different topic.
To go back to the PU, Nuthershooter's scope issue is unfortunate and let's hope he will figure out a way to fix whatever the problem is. Let's also remember that anything mechanical is subject to failure.
All the best.

 

[Nuthershooter]

Nuthershooter's scope issue is unfortunate and let's hope he will figure out a way to fix whatever the problem is. Let's also remember that anything mechanical is subject to failure.
All the best.

Actually figuring out the problems is a lot of the fun and I don't have to win every time. I now have an Accumount 1" split ring PU mount and a scope with eye relief that will give me a decent shooting position so I can work on the rifle while the scope work goes on separately. Many thanks to all who posted on this thread; I learned something from every post.

I spent about two hours on a long detailed answer to several points raised on this thread but -- the reason I generally don't 'do' forums -- lost it all in the regular forum way: I was logged out without notice while writing and when I logged back in, no post. I did notice regular autosaves but where they went I've no idea.

Anyway I'll try to remember to post only short posts in the future.

 

[Mike Radford]

Mike, thanks for sharing your knowledge; I should have been hanging out with you
My rifle is not sub-moa very frequently but it delivers a honest consistent 1.25/1.5" at 100, as well as for all distances, when I don't mess it up. Heck, I even shot it at a mile on a 24"x30"; didn't ring steel but was only a foot or two away on several shots. It took some work and thinking to get it right but I for sure like the result; so much that I am thinking taking it deer hunting this season. Still waiting to hear from Barnes for load data, or whoever shoot the Barnes TSX 150 303 311...but that's a different topic.
To go back to the PU, Nuthershooter's scope issue is unfortunate and let's hope he will figure out a way to fix whatever the problem is. Let's also remember that anything mechanical is subject to failure. QUOTE

Thank you.

I saw your Video. You do good stuff and shoot well. I rarely get a chance to shoot over 100 yds. I bought property in WY so I could, and to retire there, but I have ageing parents who keep me in NC way too much. Hopefully I can get to WY much more in the future.

Trust me on the yellow box "Extra Match" ammo. The stuff is amazing. .Of course I am sure you know about the 174gr match bullets from Hornady in 0.312 and the 0.311 in HPBT match. Hopefully we can get together and shoot, share knowledge, etc.

Typically a PU will do 1.5 MOA on average. That does seem to be the norm. Good news is that 3 or 4 of a 5 shot group will be less than MOA. Get one tuned with good ammo and sub-MOA can happen about half the time.

 

[Tango down]

"Actually figuring out the problems is a lot of the fun and I don't have to win every time."



"I spent about two hours on a long detailed answer to several points raised on this thread but -- the reason I generally don't 'do' forums -- lost it all in the regular forum way: I was logged out without notice while writing and when I logged back in, no post. I did notice regular autosaves but where they went I've no idea.

Anyway I'll try to remember to post only short posts in the future.

"



True, this reminded me of when working on accurizing the Mosin; from the oiled paper to oiled fabric, to different thickness of shims to pressure points and so on and so forth...sometimes frustrating but so much rewarding when gratified with success.



That is frustrating, been there done that, I went to a point when I was copying everything I was writing, just in case. It is better now but obviously it still happens.
Nevertheless, thanks for taking the time to share with us. I would't feel too comfortable pulling an old scope apart but I am glad you do, as we can all learn from this. On the other hand, I will try countless kind of reloads, in order to have a plan B, C and D in case I cannot find this powder or these bullets, etc...I guess all of us are complimentary to each other, as long as we keep on sharing whatever we find, good and bad and in that optic, forums are good, once we learn how to navigate through the obstacles
Keep up the good work and let us know of your progress.

 

[Tango down]

"


I wish I still had my ageing parents but I know what you mean; sure you are doing what's best.

Got to try to find a couple of these yellow boxes "Extra Match" ammo for sale; this is only the 2nd time I hear about these but always in very good terms; now I am curious. Something is telling me I won't find them at Walmart.

That is 100% correct, 3 or 4 holes out of 5 shots will often be less than MOA; I never looked at it that way but I am my worst critic. Thanks I feel much better now...

Mike, thanks, have a good one and...until next time.

 

[ScharfshutzeK98]

Have you tried shimming the action or wrapping the barrel? This was a technique used by Finnish armorers and Soviet snipers that helped tune barrel harmonics. I sell a shim and barrel wrap kit that comes with a set of easy to follow instructions. Most users have experienced a grouping reduction of 1/3-2/3 the original size.

How is the trigger? Is it a heavy pull?

As far as the scope goes does the reticle delay and "jump" at all when making adjustments?

Let me know if you are interested in an accurizing kit, I have yet to hear of a disappointed user.

 

[Nuthershooter]

"
I guess all of us are complimentary to each other, as long as we keep on sharing whatever we find, good and bad and in that optic, forums are good, once we learn how to navigate through the obstacles
Keep up the good work and let us know of your progress.

Yep. And I'll keep coming back to share new obstacles.

Well ... and any progress.

At the most recent range session I did the obvious (as in, I should have done it before) experiment with the problem PU: I wound it to '0' elevation, then up to exactly '3' where I usually shoot for 50 and 100 yards -- group should be 2-1/4" and 6" high respectively for zero at 300M. At a range of 50Y I shot four rounds then wound it to '9' and back down to exactly '3' to shoot four more rounds on another target.

The two first shots were about 2" apart, with the 'going up' shot lower. Then the two following three round groups were about 1/2" different in elevation, again, 'going up' was lower. In other words, about 2" of backlash in the screw but the first shot after moving settled it close to the same spot regardless of direction.

This scope moves to the thought experiment pile. There may be an answer (short of making new elevation and windage screws) but I don't know what it is at the moment.

The ammo for this was my first batch of 'Mexican match' (reloaded 188/81 LPS) and I was very pleased with the results: My impression is it is every bit as accurate as the 7N1 at a fraction the price.

I pull the bullets with an impact puller, resize the neck, reload with the original powder using the mean load for a sample of 20 (48.6 gr), and a bullet chosen from a group with not over 0.3 gr. variation, then crimp the neck. The original has about an 0.5 gr. variation in powder and just about 2 gr. range of bullet weights. It takes around 3-4 minutes/round, total, but if you have more time than money, could possibly be worthwhile. For me it's also a good intro to reloading with a subset of the tasks and issues when doing the whole job.

Finally, is there a link or specific name for the yellow box 'Extra Match' ammo?

 

[Mike Radford]

It sounds like you may have a worn leather washer on your turret or turrets. Very common, not serious. Hey, they may be 70 years old and how long can leather last?

There is serious data on gunboards sniper forum stickies on how to deal with the PU scope.

7N1 is pretty good. I have been there trying to reload Soviet ammo to better standards. It will help little. Extra Match should google well and tell you much. It may not be available now from retailers.

 

[Nuthershooter]

It sounds like you may have a worn leather washer on your turret or turrets. Very common, not serious. Hey, they may be 70 years old and how long can leather last?

There is serious data on gunboards sniper forum stickies on how to deal with the PU scope.

7N1 is pretty good. I have been there trying to reload Soviet ammo to better standards. It will help little. Extra Match should google well and tell you much. It may not be available now from retailers.

This may be the gunboards thread you're referring to:

PU scope disassembling and repair instructions (Many pics inside!)

It's really excellent: ESSENTIAL for anyone thinking of opening a PU up.

I will look at the leather washer matter again. I don't see how they could influence accuracy because they're in recesses in the scope body right under the turrets and don't touch the nuts or reticule itself. My impression was the job they do is helping to keep out dirt and moisture as we would use an o-ring today.

I haven't really done comparison testing of the reloaded Soviet ammo: My favorable impression was from the feeling that I was calling my shots much better than usual with that ammo. I will try a more organized approach next range day.

Everything is variable with the Soviet 'raw material.' Not just the powder charge and bullet weight but also the COLA and (lesser extent) length of the case and the tightness of the crimp. Some of these I can control in reloading, some not.

 

[Tango down]

It sounds like you may have a worn leather washer on your turret or turrets. Very common, not serious. Hey, they may be 70 years old and how long can leather last?

There is serious data on gunboards sniper forum stickies on how to deal with the PU scope.

7N1 is pretty good. I have been there trying to reload Soviet ammo to better standards. It will help little. Extra Match should google well and tell you much. It may not be available now from retailers.

Mike

Good to know about the "serious data" on gunboards sniper forum stickies for the PU, as just like us, the PU's are not getting any younger. On the other hand, just like us, most of them are still kicking

Still trying to find some Extra Match "yellow boxes" but hard to find, no success for now. Finally received the Barnes TSX FB 303 311 and loaded a few .05 off lands (per Barnes) with loads of 4064 that I pulled out of my a.., as, except for the .05 off the lands, Barnes as no load data for it...weird. Will be shooting these soon.

All the best.

 

[Mike Radford]

Good luck TD. I will try to remember to message you if I spot any Extra Match for sale. The Blue box target is worth buying as well. Several members here and elsewhere have pet loads using SMK 174 grain, 0.311 and Hornady Match 174 grain in 0.312. Varget 43-44 grains comes up a lot. Best regards.

 

[Tango down]

Good luck TD. I will try to remember to message you if I spot any Extra Match for sale. The Blue box target is worth buying as well. Several members here and elsewhere have pet loads using SMK 174 grain, 0.311 and Hornady Match 174 grain in 0.312. Varget 43-44 grains comes up a lot. Best regards.

Thanks Mike
I looked at the PU posts on Gunboards; outstanding work in details from Ratnik, great info.
FWIW, I shot a few barnes 150 TSX 311 303, went from 45 to 49 gr of 4064, .05 off lands. Best was 48 gave 1.5" @ 100, so decent accuracy for the Barnes. Didn't check for FPS but will do next time, when refining load.
Shot a few 180 spitzer too, cannot remember amount of 4064 but wrote it down. Right on par with the 174 SMK for accuracy @ 100 and 200, maybe 1" lower.
As we are on a PU scope topic, something had to happen to my PU. Shot in desert from 0600 to 0800, all was well. At 0800 went to a range, 45 minutes away, to enjoy the comfort of a solid concrete bench, compared to prone in dirt, with the addition of human flesh eating ants on steroids, in order to check out the Barnes. Anyway, had to re-zero PU for the first time ever since I originally zeroed it; something moved and my POI was low of 4" at 100. It is OK now but not sure why this happened. Didn't shoot anything especially hot so recoil should not have been a factor. The desert ride in the Jeep was a bit bumpy but not the first time for the PU; hopefully it won't happen again.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Following this. Just tested a SWAG handload of .311/'303' HDY 150 SP Interlocks/49.0gr IMR-4064, Izhevsk '43 91/30 in an Archangel stock, and got a group under 1" at 100yd (once, not significant). Will try 48.0gr soonest.

Greg

 

[Tango down]

Following this. Just tested a SWAG handload of .311/'303' HDY 150 SP Interlocks/49.0gr IMR-4064, Izhevsk '43 91/30 in an Archangel stock, and got a group under 1" at 100yd (once, not significant). Will try 48.0gr soonest.

Greg

That's a good start!
Lol...my loads were somewhat based on SWAG too, as not much info on these Barnes. Every time I hear that word, I think of our one of a kind Gunny Hathcock and one of his explanation of long range sniping, outstanding.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The 1" is an estimate, more a horizontal string than a group, vertical is less than 1/4". The scope is an El Cheapo Aim Surplus 2-7x32 Chinese special, and is proving to be hard to get clarity or reliable adjustments out of.

Finally threw in the towel and ordered this.

We are well past the threshold of reasonable cost on this old Russky.

Greg

 

[milprileb]

THe Question is PU scope accuracy. The last 4 yrs here is my results at USMC Q uantico.

a. We shoot 100 to 1000 yds iwth PU scopes. If you shoot quality loads and read winds, you are into the 9 ring
easily. To get 10's , you must really aim far better. This is all on NRA bullseyes. If the subject is hitting man
size targets (E silhouettes), there is no issue here...you can get hits with no big effort. The scope was made for
this purpose and not for "Scores".

b. Accuracy: How about .183 inches at 100 yds ? More common is .250 and if sloppy .50 inches at 100 yds. Its all
about how well you hold the rifle. Again with proper ammo and I am not talking LPS surplus. Fine tuned hand loads
will bring in accuracy. If you want a average for LPS , with good LPS , I've done 18 inches on E Silhouettes at 600 yds.
However, LPS is old and not match stuff: it has flyers and good / bad lots: Its surplus ! Nothing wrong with it for "hits"
and I do it all the time at 600 yds. Certainly not for "scores".

c. I have success with IMR 4064 and Varget powders with .311 Sierra 174 gr BTHP Match Kings and Hornady .312 dia. 174
gr BTHP. Depending on the lot, Sierra can measure .311 or .312. My jury is still out with the .3105 FMJBT Hornady 174gr BTHP.

d. Seating of bullets makes a difference and each rifle is different. Test COAL and find sweet seating depth for that bullet for that load for that specific rifle.

e. How much accuracy is enuff for you and how far back do you shoot. Most anything will shoot fine at 100 yds but at 300 yds you see what really shoots accuracy and if it holds at 300, then it will hold farther back. A low velocity load is not going to go back far so if you get a great 100 yds low velocity load, its going to flop at 300 and 600 . I have some near max loads to make 1000 yds but its also rifle specific. One PU sniper will shoot as good as my other one at 1000 yds but it wants 43.5 gr of Varget and the other demands 45.0 Gr of Varget. The one t hat takes 43.5 gr will exhibit pressures issues if I go over 43.5 gr Varget so its stuck right there, however its results at 1000 yds are same as the other one shooting 45.0 grains of Varget.

f. Don't understimate the PU scope and PU sniper rifle, it performs far better than most shooters can shoot at long range. Yes, I and a few others are pushing the platform beyond its envelope and shooting it like a match rifle and chasing accuracy far above what it was designed to do. It was , after all, made to drop men flat 100 to 600 meters with a few shots out at 800m.

g. Yes, its tougher to shoot a 3.5 power WWII optic , far tougher to use but its quite adequate at 1000 yds. You just got to work really hard at it and that is a challenge. Sure, slap a modern scope on the rifle and things will get easier and better immediately. You can do that and certainly optics limit t his rifles potential . However, if you desire to shoot historically correct as a PU was in WWII, you press on with the 3.5 power WWII optic and work harder to shoot well.

h. If your bore is shot , poor shape and / or your muzzle is not tight : accuracy will suffer greatly and just accept that. Many PU owners did not get a good muzzle or good bore and that is what degrades performance ...along with poor ammo and of course: not trying very hard.