I personally would never buy another scope without zero stop nor would I buy a rifle stock with about adjustable comb and LOP
. I bet many people on this site feel the same way.
. I bet many people on this site feel the same way.
- Thread starter DLis0311
- Start date
Can confirm. Have shot my rifle on it's side in a match.
Did it make me think and learn something?
Yes
Was it fun?
Yes.
Was it practical?
Debatable...
Another valuable benefit that can be critical.
A Zero Stop tells you where "home" is without having to see it.
In situations of degraded light conditions and /or when he cannot afford to take his eyes out of the scope, the rifle driver can exactly confirm zero.
I will threaten people in a class if they get caught talking in "clicks" especially to or from a spotter. Valid reason to get pissey if caught twice.
Then later on one exercise while blocking their view, I will put random dope on their elevation and cover the turret markings.
Stand everybody behind their grounded rifles, give them range to target then give them X seconds to go to ground, I'D the target, put their dope on in "clicks" and successfully engage.
Now those shooters can reliably check zero or add dope when using clip-on NV or in the dark without illuminating their position. Ditto if their turrets are muddy, iced or pouring rain.
Still gonna dish out shit if caught talking "clicks". Do that shit in your head but only as a last resort.
This is valuable in producing well rounded rifle drivers that understand how their equipment works and how to use a feature to their benefit under stress.
I'm glad I've been doing it right, even if I didn't know it...
Always talk in mills, clicks can vary (sightron with .05 mil "clicks" anyone?)
I wish companies would license turrets. Mk5 turrets on a nx8 4-32, and I'd be buying nx8s.
Collecting antiques is a noble hobby. I believe he was talking current century technology...
Collecting antiques is a noble hobby. I believe he was talking current century technology...
They always seem to run with the latest and greatest when on the line with them......
@Terry Cross I'm kind of curious. What do you think are the one or two biggest shitshows of LEO procurement caused by the popularity of the PRS? It sounds like a really interesting subject.
I’ll go out on a limb (I am neither LE nor a sniper) and say the biggest shit shows are probably “match triggers” that shit the bed when dirty and/or allow the user to adjust them well below “safe settings” for a LE call out, custom actions that “run like they are on rails” when clean but bind up when dirty, and detachable box magazines that- through their design or through the interface with the action- cause the rifles to be unreliable. I’m observing from the cheap seats, but no reason to assume that the biggest issues in PRS aren’t the biggest issues outside of PRS…
1: Over-scoping work rifles. Specifically too much magnification and push toward FFP.
2: Pressure to adopt 6.5mm or 6mm as the primary PMO round.
Edited to add a 3rd shitshow:
3: Muzzle brakes on work guns. Fuuuuuck that.
.
Last edited:
Interesting, but I can understand how that is happening with it often being suggested to minimize what needs to be remembered and keeping gear & kit as common as possible. I'm not saying you're wrong, just suggesting possible thinking behind it. If an LE sniper also shoots different types of matches & training courses, keeping everything the same across the board might be a common thought process.
The first definitely seems like a trainwreck considering the average LEO sniper shot is something like 53 yards or something (if memory serves). The second I'm kind of conflicted on because both have less recoil than a .308 for instance so is that their reasoning? I guess they have to consider how the bullet will go through glass or something and stay on course which I imagine a .308 bullet would do better since it has more mass? The muzzle brake thing sounds terrible (pun unintended), do LEO snipers get to use suppressors or is their added length kind of a no-go?
Triggers: For some reason, trigger weight seems to be a hot button with most and they stay reasonable 2.5 to 3# or above. My thought is that this is a hot button because there has been past incidents and litigation pointed at light or defective triggers.
Custom Actions: Actions that are too tight are pretty much a self curing phenomenon. Any rifles that bind when running dirty are usually weeded out even by the most backward ass agencies.
Detachable Box Magazines: I do not think DBM systems on a work gun are an issue at all. We see pretty much flawless function from vetted and proven rifle systems using DBMs.
You would be amazed at how fucked up a BDL/internal box magazine can get if the parts are out of spec or the user is not paying attention when seating rounds into the box.
We witnessed the old guard fight ferociously to keep magazine fed semi-auto handguns from becoming the mainstream L.E. sidearm. People whose entire careers were spent carrying and training peeps to use S&W and Colt revolvers were totally convinced that the semi-auto would fail in a fight and the users would lose all the magazines. How many revolvers are standard duty carry now?
We witnessed fights against moving from 870 and Mossberg shotguns to M4 style patrol rifles. Same argument. Now 100% mainstream.
I think the VAST majority of magazine issues within the PRS circles can be contributed to running cartridge's that are not optimal for the feed system (6BR, 6Dasher and others) along with people having rifle/stock/bottom metal combos assembled out of spec to the Z-axis specifications of each bottom metal maker as well as just general F'ing around with their equipment. If you are installing spacer kits in your mags or cutting out the front plate just to run your magic competition rounds, your are absolutely going down a path that the initial DBM/magazine system was not designed to function in.
.
.
Regarding #3: muzzle brakes belong on artillery not rifles. IMHO, anyone who uses a muzzle brake is compensating for something.
Well, your answers are really boring.
I mean, too much magnification and hot rod cartridges? That doesn’t sound like a shit show. I suppose it is heartening to know LE agencies are “smarter” than the average PRS shooter. Or, minimally that they know they have more on the line than a bad stage…
I'm going to throw out a guess as to why an FBI sniper class would say not to set the zero stop.
Saying "don't use it" takes about two seconds. Teaching everyone in the class to use their particular scope's zero stop, then waiting for everyone to do it wrong, fix it, do it wrong again, and then finally fix it enough to finish the class, except for the one guy who unscrewed his turret... takes a little longer.
Saying "don't use it" takes about two seconds. Teaching everyone in the class to use their particular scope's zero stop, then waiting for everyone to do it wrong, fix it, do it wrong again, and then finally fix it enough to finish the class, except for the one guy who unscrewed his turret... takes a little longer.
Or maybe, just maybe, the instructors don't know how to set or use a zero-stop themselves. So, to align with your theory, they just tell everyone not to use the zero-stop.
Also a valid point.
I may be a bit trigger-happy with Hanlon's razor, so I'd still love to hear the official explanation.
I’m guessing we will never know the original reason.
I have witnessed more than a few times when instructors say something questionable or dumb, if you ask them why or for clarification, then they often act like i pose a dumb question (And maybe I do sometimes
).Possibly the original guy that said this is this type? Or HE has no reason but is repeating something he heard,
aka “institutional inbreeding”
But this is only a presumption on my part.
The FBI has used optics that have zero stops for years, not sure why they would now start acting like they're voodoo.
Similar threads
