Re: Shooting at 1200 yards and 1 mile
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmm, define 'useless'. Let's suppose you seup the gun for max range, and to do so you require 25 mils of travel. You therfore select a 500 yard zero range, and slope the rail to leave you only .5 mil of down. You cannot dial a 100 yard zero on the gun, but it's a simple matter to hold down 1.4 mil, is it not? Even supposing a 1000 yard zero range, if it takes less than 5 mils up to get there you still can hold for 100. I'm not sure what you'd be shooting that a 1000 yard zero would be required to then use 25 mils of travel, but I doubt it would take that load more than 5 mils to get to 1K.
Using a PBZ of 400 to 600 should make torso shots a done deal with little to no hold required. It sort of depends on the degree of precision you are looking for. which is why I say, define useless.
An external adjustment system has been used by any number of people to deal with the issue, although that creates it's own set of challenges. </div></div>
Given the context here, I was thinking something like this:
In order to reach 2500yds with, say, a 50 BMG, you need something like 100-130MOA depending. If your scope has 100MOA of internal, there is a pretty good chance that you will not be able to continuously dial a zero hold from 200yds to 2500yds.
Even if you got all of the machining of action, rail, and rings exactly correct to make the absolute most of your adjustments, it still won't work.
Let's say for sake of argument that everybody did their job and you can use exactly 50MOA of adjustment. Then, you put a 40MOA rail on there and you now can use 90MOA exactly. That still leaves you with the need to hold 10-40MOA on either the top end or the bottom end.
Can it be done? Rudimentarily. Are most optics/reticles set up for that? No. Is that what one would ultimately prefer? I hope not.
Even in your scenario, having to hold additionally is one more annoying thing to remember. I guess that's OK as long as we are strictly talking about fooling around ("oops, I forgot that this rifle needs a 10MOA under-hold for 700yds, my bad, here comes the correction"). I prefer to be able to center-hold on the closest targets, as those are statistically the most common ranges that I (personally) will be shooting at. So, I end up having to hold over on the very distant targets. That is still not ideal.
Setting a gun up specifically to shoot 1000-2500yds requires arranging matters so that the zero hold is available at the longer ranges. Depending on exact configuration (and I've outlined the "ideal"), that can seriously handicap the gun at 1000 and in.
The gun is never "useless" as long as it retains its blunt-weapon nature or its appearance as a liberal's deepest nightmare....right? So, a semantic discussion would be.......useless.
And I never said anything about external adjustments....but yes, they would be more problematic then getting a special optic built for this.
