6ARC

[Lincoln]

oh and don't ask me to repeat that. I have lost a bunch of skill and some eyesight in the last 15 years. Maybe this year I can get a little skill back.

As for the 5.56. I was able to scrounge up a rock chuck at 680 (maybe 630 fuck..) in a 15mph cross wind on the 3rd shot. I shoot Hornady 75 Matches out of it. That was a few years back and I quit for the day.

 

[Roc Doc]

224 Valkyrie could shoot 90g bullets out of an AR, but there were some teething issues, and i don't know anyone that shoots it in that platform.

OK, I understand your explanation, but Bryan Litz seems to disagree, and I've never seen precision increase over distance. I agree 500 is not far enough, we've got targets out to 1325, but it's like a 20 x20 plate so not sub-moa, still a first round hit is satisfying.

Bryan Litz Ballistics​

·

These are examples of groups fired on our 100-300 yard 'shoot-thru' target. Bullets pass thru the paper at 100 yards and continue on to 300 where you see a bigger version of the same group.
This test and many others were fired on the shoot thru target, looking for something that would result in non-linear dispersion, meaning, smaller moa group at 300 than 100 as claimed by many on the internet.
Long story short, after over 70 trials, we found no evidence of non-linear dispersion. Bullets simply don't fly that way. 1 moa at 100 is 1 moa (or more) at 300.
Follow me for more ballistic myth busting

 

[Roc Doc]

Also, getting off topic a bit, but Litz talks about dispersion quite a bit in his books. He uses computer simulations so it eliminates all the variables, 0 SD, 0 ES, same exact velocity, and as he enters variations of 1% or 5% or 10% you can predictably see the groups open up. Also I was talking to Rob Leatham about when he was shooting in his prime for Springfield and as a team they'd shoot 100 round groups at 15yds or whatever, and nobody could get a full 100 rounds in an acceptable group, there'd be 98 or 99 in a tight pattern and one or two flyers, every damn time.

 

[Lincoln]

I agree with him. It's the point many claim to be true but isn't. If it shoots 1 moa at 100 it will never be smaller.

What I was trying to say is two bullets can shoot 1 moa at 100 and one may be 2 moa at 1000 and the other 1.5 moa. I haven't ever had a round not lose accuracy at 1000.

In my example:
SMK was 3/8 moa @100 and .80 at 1000 (I screwed up the numbers)
AMax was 1/2 moa at 100 and .60 at 1000.

The loss was less with the Amax 100-1000 even though it started less accurate.

Last year it took me 20 rounds to hit a 24x24 at 1300. I was Kentucky windaging it but I was still sad. I want to get in some practice this year and drop by that course for another go.

And the groups are exactly that. It's why a sub moa group is way harder on a 5 round group than a 3. My 243 us in an original stock we pillar bedded. I throws one about every 6 shots on a good day. I've never been better than a .5 moa shooter unless everything is perfect so I don't worry about it much. You rarely catch me at a range and I don't shoot paper unless I have to. I get many more smiles throwing a jacket on the ground and shooting vermin at long ranges, hell even rocks.

 

[Lincoln]

damnit I need to quit thinking. Looked at my notebook.

I had my numbers closer the first time.

The SMK went from .375@100 to .60@1000 a 60% increase in moa.

The Amax went from .50@100 to .75@1000 a 50% increase in moa.

Point is...does't matter. oh and I'm a dumbass.

 

[Roc Doc]

damnit I need to quit thinking. Looked at my notebook.

I had my numbers closer the first time.

The SMK went from .375@100 to .60@1000 a 60% increase in moa.

The Amax went from .50@100 to .75@1000 a 50% increase in moa.

Point is...does't matter. oh and I'm a dumbass.

No worries. There's so much Fudd info out there, I appreciate the scientific approach Litz uses, AND he can shoot so it's not all lab talk.

 

[Lincoln]

No worries. There's so much Fudd info out there, I appreciate the scientific approach Litz uses, AND he can shoot so it's not all lab talk.

I like that as well. I have seen several people claiming what he simply refuted. If it starts at 1 MOA it's not going to be less. What he didn't seem to touch on was the bullet can stabilize better at longer ranges. It's really why we have a massive amount of options in bullets compared to what existed even 20 years ago.

But I do laugh at some of the things people do to get every last bit out of them. What benchrest shooters do really doesn't matter anywhere but the bench. Even a dear has a 10MOA kill zone so don't try and convince me that going from .75 MOA to .50 MOA is going to make the difference between you killing one and not.

As you have stated. PRS is 1 MOA targets, so in theory if you can shoot those targets aren't an issue. Plus you aren't measuring group sizes, hit or no hit. But 500ish yards and up is completely different than 500 and down so it isn't easy. You don't just plug into a computer and wham your 100% at 1000 yards. I used to figure a heart beat could throw you off an MOA at 1000 so timed my shots accordingly.

I have a friend I call "Mr. Camp Perry" that taught me a lot shooting long range and finer details of handloading. He made the most impressive shot I have witnessed. 16" Olympic arms .223 shooting 60 gr Vmax's. Shooting across a draw, no wind at us and not picking up any at the target, initial was 975 yards. 1st shot I had my scope turned up to much and missed the hit. Second shot, holy shit your 40 yards right. We both lift up and there right in the middle of the draw was a hawk at a stand still cruising the currents. Third shot was 2 yards low and 5 left, that got it moving. 4th shot, splat. Ranged at 1025. We laughed about how that shouldn't be possible.

Really no different than anything else. Spend all the time you want researching and talking on the internet. Nothing will replace lots and lots of practice and experience. The guy above would build his chart and I never went shooting with him that he wasn't crossing out numbers and making adjustments based on what he found shooting.

 

[Gatorgrizz27]

I'm hearing Peterson will be making ARC brass later this year.

I was going to suggest the KRG Bravo chassis, but apparently they are not compatible with the Howa mini.

Thanks. The front runner at this point is the JTAC elf owl chassis. It looks sweet, but with their stock included it’s over $800, and I need two of them plus optics. All of the rifles i hunt with I paid less than $800 complete for

There’s the Oryx deal which is less $, but seems like it might be a poor compromise since the stock doesn’t telescope.

Honestly I’d be fine with something like the Magpul Hunter stock that had a near vertical pistol grip and could get a short enough LOP and add a bunch of spacers as they grow. I have a CNC at my shop but my CAD skills aren’t there yet.

 

[Roc Doc]

Thanks. The front runner at this point is the JTAC elf owl chassis. It looks sweet, but with their stock included it’s over $800, and I need two of them plus optics. All of the rifles i hunt with I paid less than $800 complete for

There’s the Oryx deal which is less $, but seems like it might be a poor compromise since the stock doesn’t telescope.

Honestly I’d be fine with something like the Magpul Hunter stock that had a near vertical pistol grip and could get a short enough LOP and add a bunch of spacers as they grow. I have a CNC at my shop but my CAD skills aren’t there yet.

All of my high dollar guns have not taken a single animal, , now my 60+ year old Winchester Model 88 in .308 has taken countless deer, a couple elk, some pigs and a few yotes, with a 4x Weaver scope of the same vintage. I looked it up, and in 1955 when they introduced it, MSRP was $134, which adjusted for inflation would be near $1500 today, and yet now you can get a Ruger American setup with a decent scope for less than $700, which would probably out shoot my old 88.

 

[Steve300xcw]

Thanks. The front runner at this point is the JTAC elf owl chassis. It looks sweet, but with their stock included it’s over $800, and I need two of them plus optics. All of the rifles i hunt with I paid less than $800 complete for

There’s the Oryx deal which is less $, but seems like it might be a poor compromise since the stock doesn’t telescope.

Honestly I’d be fine with something like the Magpul Hunter stock that had a near vertical pistol grip and could get a short enough LOP and add a bunch of spacers as they grow. I have a CNC at my shop but my CAD skills aren’t there yet.

Why not some plywood? Pretty easy to modify to whatever your needs are.