G
Guest
Guest
What is the minimum magnification you guys would trust to reach out and still achieve tight groups out to 1000 yards? 10x?
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
- Tags
- magnification minimum
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
I'd say 10X is the standard, depending on the size of the target you could do it with 6x. I'm a fan of magnification, but I have to remind myself sometimes that there are guys shooting 1k with open sights.
I'd say 10X is the standard, depending on the size of the target you could do it with 6x. I'm a fan of magnification, but I have to remind myself sometimes that there are guys shooting 1k with open sights.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
I have been to a lot of competitions, but I have never seen anyone shooting at 1K with open sights.
I see a lot of people shooting with competition sights, complete with adjustable peeps an verniers and what not and other people shooting with high powered scopes. The competition sights are not inexpensive and are very sophisticated. The scopes of the winners invariably have more magnification that 30X.
Define tight groups.
I have been to a lot of competitions, but I have never seen anyone shooting at 1K with open sights.
I see a lot of people shooting with competition sights, complete with adjustable peeps an verniers and what not and other people shooting with high powered scopes. The competition sights are not inexpensive and are very sophisticated. The scopes of the winners invariably have more magnification that 30X.
Define tight groups.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Go to Camp Perry...there's plenty of 1k shooting with peep sights, if you consider those "open". On a normal sized target though a scope of 10x would be about minimum, you can hold impressive groups in highpower with peeps but thats because the target is easy to line up with the sights.
Go to Camp Perry...there's plenty of 1k shooting with peep sights, if you consider those "open". On a normal sized target though a scope of 10x would be about minimum, you can hold impressive groups in highpower with peeps but thats because the target is easy to line up with the sights.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tyler Kemp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Go to Camp Perry...there's plenty of 1k shooting with peep sights, if you consider those "open".</div></div>
There are three types of Iron Sights: Open Sights, Aperture Sights and Shotgun Beads. I have never seen anyone shoot at 1000 yards with Open Sights or shotgun beads. I have seen lots of people and I myself have shot at 1000 yards with Aperture Sights. I have a Palma Rifle but it does not have "Open Sights," it has Parker Hale Aperture Sights.
I am sure there have been people who shoot at 1000 yards with "Open Sights," I don't remember ever seeing anyone do that. I have an old Mauser that has a movable rear open sight and it has some type of scale that can move the notch up to 1200 meters, I just don't see how it's possible to be accurate with that Rube Goldberg contraption. I guess with hundreds of rifles at the same time, it's like an area weapon.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tyler Kemp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Go to Camp Perry...there's plenty of 1k shooting with peep sights, if you consider those "open".</div></div>
There are three types of Iron Sights: Open Sights, Aperture Sights and Shotgun Beads. I have never seen anyone shoot at 1000 yards with Open Sights or shotgun beads. I have seen lots of people and I myself have shot at 1000 yards with Aperture Sights. I have a Palma Rifle but it does not have "Open Sights," it has Parker Hale Aperture Sights.
I am sure there have been people who shoot at 1000 yards with "Open Sights," I don't remember ever seeing anyone do that. I have an old Mauser that has a movable rear open sight and it has some type of scale that can move the notch up to 1200 meters, I just don't see how it's possible to be accurate with that Rube Goldberg contraption. I guess with hundreds of rifles at the same time, it's like an area weapon.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
For me, the minimum magnification is the maximum magnification that can be comfortably used under the prevailing mirage conditions.
Although there are some very good reasons for using fixed power scopes, the modern variables are very adequate to the task.
I figure that if visibility conditions ever get absolutely just this side of 'go home', I could make do with a 6X magnification; and if they ever got astronomically clear, I could put 24X to some good use.
On a sunny midday with average mirage, I find myself settling for about 18X.
Greg
For me, the minimum magnification is the maximum magnification that can be comfortably used under the prevailing mirage conditions.
Although there are some very good reasons for using fixed power scopes, the modern variables are very adequate to the task.
I figure that if visibility conditions ever get absolutely just this side of 'go home', I could make do with a 6X magnification; and if they ever got astronomically clear, I could put 24X to some good use.
On a sunny midday with average mirage, I find myself settling for about 18X.
Greg
G
Guest
Guest
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Wow, this is all great information, fellas. Keep it coming!
Wow, this is all great information, fellas. Keep it coming!
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
I don't know. Carlos Hatcock made that longest shot in his days, over a mile ,with a 14 or 16 Uerlt scope mounted on a double duce. Ther's a picture of it over at Sniper Hide Photo Gallery,damn scope seems awfully small.....
I don't know. Carlos Hatcock made that longest shot in his days, over a mile ,with a 14 or 16 Uerlt scope mounted on a double duce. Ther's a picture of it over at Sniper Hide Photo Gallery,damn scope seems awfully small.....
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
From personal experience I have never had an issue shooting at 1000 meters with a 10x fixed scope. Definitely enough magnification to get acceptably tight groups on a man-size target.
If the OP is referring to 1000 yards then that is around 900 meters so even less magnification would be sufficient.
Would prefer a bit more magnification at those distances for a bit more precision to achieve the tight groups the OP seeks. That is why I have a 17x variable being built
From personal experience I have never had an issue shooting at 1000 meters with a 10x fixed scope. Definitely enough magnification to get acceptably tight groups on a man-size target.
If the OP is referring to 1000 yards then that is around 900 meters so even less magnification would be sufficient.
Would prefer a bit more magnification at those distances for a bit more precision to achieve the tight groups the OP seeks. That is why I have a 17x variable being built
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
I have found that at long range, the quality of glass really comes into play more than just mere magnification. A 10X Bushnell is not equal to a 10X S&B.
If I were going to spend the money, I'd want to buy once and deal with the sticker shock.
I've heard nothing but great things regarding the quality of glass from S&B and Premier Reticle. I think that after those two quality-of-glass "leaders" (so to speak), the list includes USO, Leupold, IOR and NightForce.
Of course, now I'm going to get jumped on now for my selections, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I have found that at long range, the quality of glass really comes into play more than just mere magnification. A 10X Bushnell is not equal to a 10X S&B.
If I were going to spend the money, I'd want to buy once and deal with the sticker shock.
I've heard nothing but great things regarding the quality of glass from S&B and Premier Reticle. I think that after those two quality-of-glass "leaders" (so to speak), the list includes USO, Leupold, IOR and NightForce.
Of course, now I'm going to get jumped on now for my selections, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
With good credit,uyou can get a NF scope over at Bear Basin on payments plans. Good glass is good glass ,less then you're gonna buy again.
With good credit,uyou can get a NF scope over at Bear Basin on payments plans. Good glass is good glass ,less then you're gonna buy again.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Harold Dale</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bear Basin on payments plans</div></div>
Thanks for the tip.
Mike
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Harold Dale</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bear Basin on payments plans</div></div>
Thanks for the tip.
Mike
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Damn credit rating gotta be 7.4 or better. My NF was 1950.00 with Luepold rings.,of that $ 1500 was finacnce over 12 months and rest I put on CC card.
Damn credit rating gotta be 7.4 or better. My NF was 1950.00 with Luepold rings.,of that $ 1500 was finacnce over 12 months and rest I put on CC card.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
the 8-32 x 56 NXS has been next on my list but does anyone have any experience with US OPTICS? I have been doing a lot of research on them but they are WAY out of my price range. I can barely handle the Nightforce without selling a kidney but the US Optics SN-9 looks like it has marvelous capabilities...including being able to customize it with an 80mm objective for those low light conditions. (if you don't want a heart attack, dont look at the price)
basicly...does anyone have any experience with them?
the 8-32 x 56 NXS has been next on my list but does anyone have any experience with US OPTICS? I have been doing a lot of research on them but they are WAY out of my price range. I can barely handle the Nightforce without selling a kidney but the US Optics SN-9 looks like it has marvelous capabilities...including being able to customize it with an 80mm objective for those low light conditions. (if you don't want a heart attack, dont look at the price)
basicly...does anyone have any experience with them?
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Just a heads up for ya, the 5.5-22 NXS has 100 MOA of internal adjustment versus the 8-32 NXS with 65 MOA. Don't know how far you're planning on shooting, but I'd prefer the most adjustment I could get! There have been shots made at over 2000 yards with the 5.5-22 so I don't think that slightly more magnification of the 8-32 would justify the tradeoff in adjustment capability, at least not for me.
The USO's are excellent scopes, but for the price, reticle choices and features it's hard to beat the NXS series IMHO.
Just a heads up for ya, the 5.5-22 NXS has 100 MOA of internal adjustment versus the 8-32 NXS with 65 MOA. Don't know how far you're planning on shooting, but I'd prefer the most adjustment I could get! There have been shots made at over 2000 yards with the 5.5-22 so I don't think that slightly more magnification of the 8-32 would justify the tradeoff in adjustment capability, at least not for me.
The USO's are excellent scopes, but for the price, reticle choices and features it's hard to beat the NXS series IMHO.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Good day,
At the HardRock matches, most folks shoot something adjustable at 20X or better. A variable will let you dial down to 12-15 if conditions warrant. It's nice to be able to see where you've hit, since you don't have a spotter.
YMMV,
DocB
Good day,
At the HardRock matches, most folks shoot something adjustable at 20X or better. A variable will let you dial down to 12-15 if conditions warrant. It's nice to be able to see where you've hit, since you don't have a spotter.
YMMV,
DocB
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggarrett1911</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a heads up for ya, the 5.5-22 NXS has 100 MOA of internal adjustment versus the 8-32 NXS with 65 MOA. </div></div>
I completely agree and understand your point. My cousin shoots the 5.5-22 NXS on his SR25...i on the other hand am still using my 10-40x50 Barska SWAT. (yes i know its on the cheap scale, but i havent had any issues yet) Since i am only shooting an AR in .243WSSM it works fine. The thing I like, as stated previously...is that when he is shooting at 1k, he asks me where he is hitting. He can see/hear a "hit" but I can see exactly where the bullets are being placed. Precision long range shooting...dont go with Barska. 600m-800m hunting or sport shooting...it works just fine for me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggarrett1911</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a heads up for ya, the 5.5-22 NXS has 100 MOA of internal adjustment versus the 8-32 NXS with 65 MOA. </div></div>
I completely agree and understand your point. My cousin shoots the 5.5-22 NXS on his SR25...i on the other hand am still using my 10-40x50 Barska SWAT. (yes i know its on the cheap scale, but i havent had any issues yet) Since i am only shooting an AR in .243WSSM it works fine. The thing I like, as stated previously...is that when he is shooting at 1k, he asks me where he is hitting. He can see/hear a "hit" but I can see exactly where the bullets are being placed. Precision long range shooting...dont go with Barska. 600m-800m hunting or sport shooting...it works just fine for me.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pointblank4445</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the minimum magnification you guys would trust to reach out and still achieve tight groups out to 1000 yards? 10x? </div></div>
Many Palma rifle shooters will shoot better -- with aperture (iron) sights -- than shooters equipped with riflescopes.
It's about reading the conditions and holding accordingly.
But, for the average long-range shooter, I think 16x would be the least I would want.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pointblank4445</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the minimum magnification you guys would trust to reach out and still achieve tight groups out to 1000 yards? 10x? </div></div>
Many Palma rifle shooters will shoot better -- with aperture (iron) sights -- than shooters equipped with riflescopes.
It's about reading the conditions and holding accordingly.
But, for the average long-range shooter, I think 16x would be the least I would want.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Are you saying that Palma shooters shoot tighter groups at 1000 yards than Benchrest shooters do at 1000 yards? Or are you comparing disciplined Palma shooters to just any one who happens to be shooting at 1000 yards with a scoped rifle.
I've shot 1000 yard IBS matches for about five years and don't remember seeing any aparature sights but I have seen alot of three inch groups from the crowd I shot with.
I am not knocking the Palma discipline as a matter of fact I think I'll take it or some type of F-class up next.
I believe when shooting for TIGHT groups at 1000 yards you need the most magnification you can see the target clearly with at the condition of the time. Also forget about conditions. Dial into your last sighter and shoot as fast as you can. I liked the Leupold premier reticles 14-35 power.
Are you saying that Palma shooters shoot tighter groups at 1000 yards than Benchrest shooters do at 1000 yards? Or are you comparing disciplined Palma shooters to just any one who happens to be shooting at 1000 yards with a scoped rifle.
I've shot 1000 yard IBS matches for about five years and don't remember seeing any aparature sights but I have seen alot of three inch groups from the crowd I shot with.
I am not knocking the Palma discipline as a matter of fact I think I'll take it or some type of F-class up next.
I believe when shooting for TIGHT groups at 1000 yards you need the most magnification you can see the target clearly with at the condition of the time. Also forget about conditions. Dial into your last sighter and shoot as fast as you can. I liked the Leupold premier reticles 14-35 power.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggarrett1911</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a heads up for ya, the 5.5-22 NXS has 100 MOA of internal adjustment versus the 8-32 NXS with 65 MOA. Don't know how far you're planning on shooting, but I'd prefer the most adjustment I could get! There have been shots made at over 2000 yards with the 5.5-22 so I don't think that slightly more magnification of the 8-32 would justify the tradeoff in adjustment capability, at least not for me.
The USO's are excellent scopes, but for the price, reticle choices and features it's hard to beat the NXS series IMHO. </div></div>
Good for you. So you like more adjustment range instead of better optics. Not every one agrees with that trade-off. I would rather user a canted 20MOA rail and get better use of the 65MOAs of the 8-32 than the smaller internal lenses of the 5.5-22 scope with its 100 MOA adjustment. Just remember that 50MOA of that range is wasted as it is below the middle of the scope. With a 20MOA ramp, you will get a range of 52 MOAs using the 8-32NXs as opposed to 50 MOAs with the 5.5-22 without a canted rail.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ggarrett1911</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a heads up for ya, the 5.5-22 NXS has 100 MOA of internal adjustment versus the 8-32 NXS with 65 MOA. Don't know how far you're planning on shooting, but I'd prefer the most adjustment I could get! There have been shots made at over 2000 yards with the 5.5-22 so I don't think that slightly more magnification of the 8-32 would justify the tradeoff in adjustment capability, at least not for me.
The USO's are excellent scopes, but for the price, reticle choices and features it's hard to beat the NXS series IMHO. </div></div>
Good for you. So you like more adjustment range instead of better optics. Not every one agrees with that trade-off. I would rather user a canted 20MOA rail and get better use of the 65MOAs of the 8-32 than the smaller internal lenses of the 5.5-22 scope with its 100 MOA adjustment. Just remember that 50MOA of that range is wasted as it is below the middle of the scope. With a 20MOA ramp, you will get a range of 52 MOAs using the 8-32NXs as opposed to 50 MOAs with the 5.5-22 without a canted rail.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
My first long range shoot at over 1100 yards was with open sights. It was very close if not a hit. I use 17&18 power the most. If the target isn't moving and you have lots of time, the higher power the better.
My first long range shoot at over 1100 yards was with open sights. It was very close if not a hit. I use 17&18 power the most. If the target isn't moving and you have lots of time, the higher power the better.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
No offense Sig (& none taken either), I'm sure not everybody agrees with the tradeoff, was just letting the guy know about the difference in adjustment range between the two. I understand about the lens difference between the 2, but until you brought it up, nobody mentioned anything about using a 20 MOA base. I was basing my opinion on a 0 cant base for both scopes, which would make the clear advantage to the 5.5-22 IMHO. Heck I've got a 40 MOA base for mine to get rid of some of that wasted adjustment range LOL! No hard feelings bro, maybe we could just agree to disagree?
No offense Sig (& none taken either), I'm sure not everybody agrees with the tradeoff, was just letting the guy know about the difference in adjustment range between the two. I understand about the lens difference between the 2, but until you brought it up, nobody mentioned anything about using a 20 MOA base. I was basing my opinion on a 0 cant base for both scopes, which would make the clear advantage to the 5.5-22 IMHO. Heck I've got a 40 MOA base for mine to get rid of some of that wasted adjustment range LOL! No hard feelings bro, maybe we could just agree to disagree?
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
None taken and none meant; we are having a discussion here, trying to help out the OP.
Yes, I brought up the idea of a canted rail in response to your comment about the larger adjustment range in the 5.5-22 as opposed to the range in the 8-32. Using the canted rail, one is able to enjoy the benefits of the larger internal lenses of the scope with the much smaller adjustment range.
I know we have discussed this before and I am a firm believer in higher magnification with excellent optics for long range precision shooting. I love the comparison between Palma shooters and scoped riflemen. The question was asked if we are comparing Palma shooters and average shooters with scoped rifles some benchrest shooters. Well, no offense to anyone is meant, but I am an F-class shooter and I am here to tell you that I compete alongside "sling-shooters" at every match. Many of the folks are NRA High Masters and shoot incredibly well. However, one must remember that Palma targets are based on a 2MOA 10-ring, whereas the F-class targets are based on a 1MOA 10-ring.
There is a reason the F-class target rings are one quarter the size of the corresponding Highpower targets; a ranked F-class shooter or Long Range Benchrest shooter will get tighter groups at long range simply because of the higher resolution afforded by the riflescope, and the higher the magnification, the higher the resolution, provided the optics are of high quality.
None taken and none meant; we are having a discussion here, trying to help out the OP.
Yes, I brought up the idea of a canted rail in response to your comment about the larger adjustment range in the 5.5-22 as opposed to the range in the 8-32. Using the canted rail, one is able to enjoy the benefits of the larger internal lenses of the scope with the much smaller adjustment range.
I know we have discussed this before and I am a firm believer in higher magnification with excellent optics for long range precision shooting. I love the comparison between Palma shooters and scoped riflemen. The question was asked if we are comparing Palma shooters and average shooters with scoped rifles some benchrest shooters. Well, no offense to anyone is meant, but I am an F-class shooter and I am here to tell you that I compete alongside "sling-shooters" at every match. Many of the folks are NRA High Masters and shoot incredibly well. However, one must remember that Palma targets are based on a 2MOA 10-ring, whereas the F-class targets are based on a 1MOA 10-ring.
There is a reason the F-class target rings are one quarter the size of the corresponding Highpower targets; a ranked F-class shooter or Long Range Benchrest shooter will get tighter groups at long range simply because of the higher resolution afforded by the riflescope, and the higher the magnification, the higher the resolution, provided the optics are of high quality.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Gotcha Sig, I'm not too familiar with the F-class discipline so thank you for helping me understand what you're talking about. I totally agree with you now, especially when you have a known distance to shoot. My current project is an ELR rig in 375-408, so that has a lot of bearing on my reasoning behind the adjustment issue, especially when you could be shooting anywhere from 600 to 2000+ yards in one sitting. F-class & ELR is kinda like apples to oranges I guess, but at least it might help the OP out to see it from both sides of the fence!
Gotcha Sig, I'm not too familiar with the F-class discipline so thank you for helping me understand what you're talking about. I totally agree with you now, especially when you have a known distance to shoot. My current project is an ELR rig in 375-408, so that has a lot of bearing on my reasoning behind the adjustment issue, especially when you could be shooting anywhere from 600 to 2000+ yards in one sitting. F-class & ELR is kinda like apples to oranges I guess, but at least it might help the OP out to see it from both sides of the fence!
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
ggarret1911, for the purposes that you are describing, the availability of a large elevation range is crucial and I wish you great success with your project. I certainly hope that you will let us know how it turns out.
You are indeed correct about the apples and oranges comparison, but they are both delicious fruits. I certainly learn from reading about other disciplines or goals, and I am always happy to share what little I know.
ggarret1911, for the purposes that you are describing, the availability of a large elevation range is crucial and I wish you great success with your project. I certainly hope that you will let us know how it turns out.
You are indeed correct about the apples and oranges comparison, but they are both delicious fruits. I certainly learn from reading about other disciplines or goals, and I am always happy to share what little I know.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
All,
The 1000 yard NRA LR target has a 44 inch aiming bull. This is a big enough blob to allow an accomplished shooter, using irons, to usually get some kind of consistent relationship between the target and the front sight, making good hits possible, even with a Service Rifle. So, clearly, no magnification is necessary for such kind of shooting.
No doubt though, any amount of magnification from an optical sight can help a shooter get better results than with irons; but, for me, it's not as much fun. One example of this is when conditions don't reveal the bullseye. Then, the resourcefulness of the shooter coming to the firing line with irons will be challenged to find something else out there to serve as an alternative aiming point.
Now, I realize, some folks don't have any interest in shooting with irons at LR. They say they can't see the target. Until F-Class came along you'd not see any of these folks shooting in 1000 yard competition, mostly, because desired success was seen (no pun intended) to be unobtainable.
F-Class has really helped to get folks out to fill target points and dramatically improve interest in the shooting sports. Today, it seems, no one has much interest in irons. It appears, scopes and LR are becoming as ubiquitous together as peanut butter and jelly.
All,
The 1000 yard NRA LR target has a 44 inch aiming bull. This is a big enough blob to allow an accomplished shooter, using irons, to usually get some kind of consistent relationship between the target and the front sight, making good hits possible, even with a Service Rifle. So, clearly, no magnification is necessary for such kind of shooting.
No doubt though, any amount of magnification from an optical sight can help a shooter get better results than with irons; but, for me, it's not as much fun. One example of this is when conditions don't reveal the bullseye. Then, the resourcefulness of the shooter coming to the firing line with irons will be challenged to find something else out there to serve as an alternative aiming point.
Now, I realize, some folks don't have any interest in shooting with irons at LR. They say they can't see the target. Until F-Class came along you'd not see any of these folks shooting in 1000 yard competition, mostly, because desired success was seen (no pun intended) to be unobtainable.
F-Class has really helped to get folks out to fill target points and dramatically improve interest in the shooting sports. Today, it seems, no one has much interest in irons. It appears, scopes and LR are becoming as ubiquitous together as peanut butter and jelly.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
Well, seeing as this forum is called "Sniper's Hide" and the modern sniper does not carry on his trade with an iron sighted rifle at very long distances, I should think it would not be a total surprise that a lot of folks who come here are somewhat partial to scoped rifles at long ranges.
Yes, F-class competitions are frequented by current and former snipers. I compete alongside some of them frequently. They use scoped rifles also.
I have respect for any shooter (slinger or f-er) who competes and hits the target reliably at long range. To be successful, slingers have to develop a rigid consistency that may require years to develop to a fine degree. They also need to tend to their equipment with great care and that includes the ammo.
To be successful, the F-er also needs to develop a consistency, but to be honest, it does not require anywhere near the discipline demonstrated by top slingers. On the other hand, the F-er must be virtually anal about the equipment, especially the ammo. It's almost as bad as the benchresters. Sometimes, I even think that F-openers expend too much energy looking for the ultimate cartridge and front rest. The F-trasher may pursue the ultimate bullet or load for a little while but ultimately, since there are only two calibers to chose from and since they are both marginal for LR, the F-trasher may expend more effort at reading the conditions and trying to be as consistent as possible.
I find that slingers who move to the dark side of F-class have tremendous advantages in their favor, once they get over the shock of dealing with miniature targets.
At the 600 yard match this past weekend, we were talking in the pits, as we always do and making comments about group sizes and so on. I am always in awe of the kind of accuracy that is being demonstrated at these matches and many of my fellow shooters feel the same way. Until recently, this kind of run of the mill accuracy was unheard of, outside of benchrest.
Well, seeing as this forum is called "Sniper's Hide" and the modern sniper does not carry on his trade with an iron sighted rifle at very long distances, I should think it would not be a total surprise that a lot of folks who come here are somewhat partial to scoped rifles at long ranges.
Yes, F-class competitions are frequented by current and former snipers. I compete alongside some of them frequently. They use scoped rifles also.
I have respect for any shooter (slinger or f-er) who competes and hits the target reliably at long range. To be successful, slingers have to develop a rigid consistency that may require years to develop to a fine degree. They also need to tend to their equipment with great care and that includes the ammo.
To be successful, the F-er also needs to develop a consistency, but to be honest, it does not require anywhere near the discipline demonstrated by top slingers. On the other hand, the F-er must be virtually anal about the equipment, especially the ammo. It's almost as bad as the benchresters. Sometimes, I even think that F-openers expend too much energy looking for the ultimate cartridge and front rest. The F-trasher may pursue the ultimate bullet or load for a little while but ultimately, since there are only two calibers to chose from and since they are both marginal for LR, the F-trasher may expend more effort at reading the conditions and trying to be as consistent as possible.
I find that slingers who move to the dark side of F-class have tremendous advantages in their favor, once they get over the shock of dealing with miniature targets.
At the 600 yard match this past weekend, we were talking in the pits, as we always do and making comments about group sizes and so on. I am always in awe of the kind of accuracy that is being demonstrated at these matches and many of my fellow shooters feel the same way. Until recently, this kind of run of the mill accuracy was unheard of, outside of benchrest.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sig685</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, seeing as this forum is called "Sniper's Hide" and the modern sniper does not carry on his trade with an iron sighted rifle at very long distances, I should think it would not be a total surprise that a lot of folks who come here are somewhat partial to scoped rifles at long ranges.
Yes, F-class competitions are frequented by current and former snipers. I compete alongside some of them frequently. They use scoped rifles also.
I have respect for any shooter (slinger or f-er) who competes and hits the target reliably at long range. To be successful, slingers have to develop a rigid consistency that may require years to develop to a fine degree. They also need to tend to their equipment with great care and that includes the ammo.
To be successful, the F-er also needs to develop a consistency, but to be honest, it does not require anywhere near the discipline demonstrated by top slingers. On the other hand, the F-er must be virtually anal about the equipment, especially the ammo. It's almost as bad as the benchresters. Sometimes, I even think that F-openers expend too much energy looking for the ultimate cartridge and front rest. The F-trasher may pursue the ultimate bullet or load for a little while but ultimately, since there are only two calibers to chose from and since they are both marginal for LR, the F-trasher may expend more effort at reading the conditions and trying to be as consistent as possible.
I find that slingers who move to the dark side of F-class have tremendous advantages in their favor, once they get over the shock of dealing with miniature targets.
At the 600 yard match this past weekend, we were talking in the pits, as we always do and making comments about group sizes and so on. I am always in awe of the kind of accuracy that is being demonstrated at these matches and many of my fellow shooters feel the same way. Until recently, this kind of run of the mill accuracy was unheard of, outside of benchrest.</div></div>
I think your perspective on it all is how a very thoughtful shooter would see it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sig685</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, seeing as this forum is called "Sniper's Hide" and the modern sniper does not carry on his trade with an iron sighted rifle at very long distances, I should think it would not be a total surprise that a lot of folks who come here are somewhat partial to scoped rifles at long ranges.
Yes, F-class competitions are frequented by current and former snipers. I compete alongside some of them frequently. They use scoped rifles also.
I have respect for any shooter (slinger or f-er) who competes and hits the target reliably at long range. To be successful, slingers have to develop a rigid consistency that may require years to develop to a fine degree. They also need to tend to their equipment with great care and that includes the ammo.
To be successful, the F-er also needs to develop a consistency, but to be honest, it does not require anywhere near the discipline demonstrated by top slingers. On the other hand, the F-er must be virtually anal about the equipment, especially the ammo. It's almost as bad as the benchresters. Sometimes, I even think that F-openers expend too much energy looking for the ultimate cartridge and front rest. The F-trasher may pursue the ultimate bullet or load for a little while but ultimately, since there are only two calibers to chose from and since they are both marginal for LR, the F-trasher may expend more effort at reading the conditions and trying to be as consistent as possible.
I find that slingers who move to the dark side of F-class have tremendous advantages in their favor, once they get over the shock of dealing with miniature targets.
At the 600 yard match this past weekend, we were talking in the pits, as we always do and making comments about group sizes and so on. I am always in awe of the kind of accuracy that is being demonstrated at these matches and many of my fellow shooters feel the same way. Until recently, this kind of run of the mill accuracy was unheard of, outside of benchrest.</div></div>
I think your perspective on it all is how a very thoughtful shooter would see it.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
1. Well, technically 1.5 as I run a half diopter lens in the front sight. Can tell you where the 6" spotter is in the black at 1k too.
1. Well, technically 1.5 as I run a half diopter lens in the front sight. Can tell you where the 6" spotter is in the black at 1k too.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
I have shot long range highpower and have used a number of scopes with various magnification. I have found that the higher the magnification (up to 24x) the smaller the groups. Simple. That's just MY experience. I started with a 4-12, then a 16 x, then up to a 20 and ended up with a 24x. You will never see a 1000 yd benchrest shooter using anyhing much under 20-24x and usually 36x. If you are using a rifle for tactical shooting...That is obviously too much magnification. Try some scopes out from some friends rifles and see what works for YOU.
I have shot long range highpower and have used a number of scopes with various magnification. I have found that the higher the magnification (up to 24x) the smaller the groups. Simple. That's just MY experience. I started with a 4-12, then a 16 x, then up to a 20 and ended up with a 24x. You will never see a 1000 yd benchrest shooter using anyhing much under 20-24x and usually 36x. If you are using a rifle for tactical shooting...That is obviously too much magnification. Try some scopes out from some friends rifles and see what works for YOU.
Re: What is the minimum magnification for 1k?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pointblank4445</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the minimum magnification you guys would trust to reach out and still achieve tight groups out to 1000 yards? 10x? </div></div>
i would use a gun that i am really familiar with that sports a 6x
rather than a gun i have never fired with a 30x scope anyday
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pointblank4445</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the minimum magnification you guys would trust to reach out and still achieve tight groups out to 1000 yards? 10x? </div></div>
i would use a gun that i am really familiar with that sports a 6x
rather than a gun i have never fired with a 30x scope anyday
Similar threads
