How accurate can an AR consistently be???
- Thread starter varminter .223
- Start date
We are on page 3 and only one person mentioned in passing the rest.....what are you using for a benchrest to shoot this thing???? Ar's are not the best shape/configuration to be shot off a benchrest. How about the bench itself??? Concrete??? Wood??? Old pallets stacked up???
All that aside, what you are describing is pretty much typical for all of us. Some days I shoot great groups with my rifles and it "feels" like I am making mistakes and just in general don't seem like I am shooting my best. Other days, things really feel right and I think I am really doing some consistent top notch shooting, but the target says "no"!!!!!!
All that aside, what you are describing is pretty much typical for all of us. Some days I shoot great groups with my rifles and it "feels" like I am making mistakes and just in general don't seem like I am shooting my best. Other days, things really feel right and I think I am really doing some consistent top notch shooting, but the target says "no"!!!!!!
varminter .223
Well-known member
Well someone mentioned brass culling but what I had to do is scope culling! I had a weaver v16 and a brunton eterna that were a major part of my issue. After having some weird group poi shift that occured in two differnt ARs which I switched these scopes onto, I started dry firing them while aiming and watching the reticle. Every now and then it would jump about an inch on both scopes. 450 rounds later in 2 rifles, I learned never ever put a scope on and shoot it without dryfiring it 20 times on the bench to see if it holds. I threw the vx1 3-9x40 on and it cured most of my issues. 12 shots with 1 getting out to an inch and 1 at .750 and the rest right close to .5" Not too bad considering it was windy with only 9 power and fat cross hairs. I have to use a big azz dot so I can see it behind those 2x4 sized crosshair lol. I had my first split neck after probably 12 loadings and I can tell some are harder them others while resizing. Some spring back .002" or so at the shoulder after bumping .005". Loaded rounds vary up to atleast 11 grains so
Im gonna starting sorting brass now too. Brass is now terribly mixed and will be loaded to shoot and loose hunting. I may not have hair left soon but Im gettin chit figured out lol.
Im gonna starting sorting brass now too. Brass is now terribly mixed and will be loaded to shoot and loose hunting. I may not have hair left soon but Im gettin chit figured out lol.
Last edited:
OldTurtle
Moderator - Deceased
Quote:Most guns shoot better than the operator,+100...The trick to repeatable accuracy is operator and components consistency...
That's everything from loads to the shooter doing the exact same thing every time, usually when you have no control of factors like temperature, humidity and lighting...all factors that can change in a matter of minutes...and each can change your results...The only way to beat the elements is to shoot in a 100 yard indoor environment..(I have read about a group in Houston TX that has that particular set up in an old warehouse)
I have an upgraded competition 16" bull barreled DPMS that I've had for 15+ years that when conditions are right, the planets are in alignment, and it's a good day for me, that will still produce groups, from a 'tactical' rest (ammo box with a sand bag on top), that will produce groups between .3" and .5"...Any variation is on my part, not the weapon...
That's everything from loads to the shooter doing the exact same thing every time, usually when you have no control of factors like temperature, humidity and lighting...all factors that can change in a matter of minutes...and each can change your results...The only way to beat the elements is to shoot in a 100 yard indoor environment..(I have read about a group in Houston TX that has that particular set up in an old warehouse)
I have an upgraded competition 16" bull barreled DPMS that I've had for 15+ years that when conditions are right, the planets are in alignment, and it's a good day for me, that will still produce groups, from a 'tactical' rest (ammo box with a sand bag on top), that will produce groups between .3" and .5"...Any variation is on my part, not the weapon...
6mm06
Well-known member
As to how accurate an AR "CAN" be, here is an example of my Dtech 6x45:
Here's an example at my 60 yard coyote bait site. Plenty good enough for dropping coyotes or most anything at that distance. I don't understand the flier, but stuff happens.
As some have already mentioned, "consistent" is yet something else. On certain days I shoot it very well and yet other days not so much, based on a host of variables.
In a nutshell, however; I will say that a good quality AR will shoot less than 1" groups at 100 yards regularly, and usually much less. My Bushmaster 16" carbine will group an average of 1" more or less most of the time, and the Dtech will shoot better than that.
BCD 45
Member
If someone figures out the answer to accuracy variations, please PM me with the solution.
I have a Remington 5R mil-spec .223 that I consider my most accurate rifle. Using 52gr. Berger's with X-Terminator or N133, 75% of the time I shoot 3 shots into 1 small hole @100 yards. The other 25% of the time, different days, I can't get under .500 to .700. Same loads, same brass powder & bullets, & same me with a 8oz. Jewell trigger. Just doesn't make sense.
I gave up a long time ago trying to figure it out. BUT, in my mind I really believe it all comes down to atmospheric conditions, besides temperature maybe even the barometric pressure & humidity not to mention wind. I'm not sure if it might not affect the barrel steel, powder, bullets or even the shooter.
It's kind of like digging a hole. Sometimes you don't have enough dirt to fill the hole, other days you have way too much. Just my thoughts.
Jim D---
I have a Remington 5R mil-spec .223 that I consider my most accurate rifle. Using 52gr. Berger's with X-Terminator or N133, 75% of the time I shoot 3 shots into 1 small hole @100 yards. The other 25% of the time, different days, I can't get under .500 to .700. Same loads, same brass powder & bullets, & same me with a 8oz. Jewell trigger. Just doesn't make sense.
I gave up a long time ago trying to figure it out. BUT, in my mind I really believe it all comes down to atmospheric conditions, besides temperature maybe even the barometric pressure & humidity not to mention wind. I'm not sure if it might not affect the barrel steel, powder, bullets or even the shooter.
It's kind of like digging a hole. Sometimes you don't have enough dirt to fill the hole, other days you have way too much. Just my thoughts.
Jim D---
varminter .223
Well-known member
I have had 5 scopes on this rifle all of which are in the 175 to 300 dollar range. None of them are half minute capable imo. While dryfiring them from the bench while aiming I can watch the crosshairs ocasionally shift. Sometimes they wont adjust if only moved 1 click either. I guess the average rat tat tat joe would never notice but it is really driving me nuts. I have 321 rounds of basically the same load through this rig now fighting my way through these scopes. This thing is bench rest rifle accurate for 7 or 8 rounds and then gets out to an inch with small group shifts and single flyers. Ironic my issues are the same amount I know my reticles are shifting. Tight 3 shot groups come pretty easy but 5 shot groups will really make your inconsistencies show up.
Last edited:
One problem that shooters may not be aware of is the lash in the turrets of their scopes. When I change out a scope on my competition guns I always find out where the lash is. The lash is the slop between gears in the turrets. Some scope turrets lash clockwise and others counterclockwise. Many times a shooter will sight in their scopes and make adjustments and end up leaving their scope in that lash area. This has a tendency to let their reticles bounce in that lash area. I will find out which direction that my scope lashes is and then adjust one click past where I want to be and adjust back into the adjustment so as to take out the lash. This tends to help hold a better adjustment.
where do you go to find out this information?
204 AR
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: SnowmanMoOne problem that shooters may not be aware of is the lash in the turrets of their scopes. When I change out a scope on my competition guns I always find out where the lash is. The lash is the slop between gears in the turrets. Some scope turrets lash clockwise and others counterclockwise. Many times a shooter will sight in their scopes and make adjustments and end up leaving their scope in that lash area. This has a tendency to let their reticles bounce in that lash area. I will find out which direction that my scope lashes is and then adjust one click past where I want to be and adjust back into the adjustment so as to take out the lash. This tends to help hold a better adjustment.
I've heard of that before. Talking to a local who does gunsmithing about a cheap Cabelas scope with adjustable turrets. I told him it didn't adjust consistently and he said they would be consistent turning one way but not the other (don't remember which) and to go past a few clicks and come back to where you wanted to be. I figured screw that and bought better scopes. What price range do you figure you need to be at to eliminate that? Zeiss HD5 seems to be extremely repeatable but I probably haven't put it to a good test really.
I've heard of that before. Talking to a local who does gunsmithing about a cheap Cabelas scope with adjustable turrets. I told him it didn't adjust consistently and he said they would be consistent turning one way but not the other (don't remember which) and to go past a few clicks and come back to where you wanted to be. I figured screw that and bought better scopes. What price range do you figure you need to be at to eliminate that? Zeiss HD5 seems to be extremely repeatable but I probably haven't put it to a good test really.
steve garrett
Active member
Originally Posted By: 204 AROriginally Posted By: SnowmanMoOne problem that shooters may not be aware of is the lash in the turrets of their scopes. When I change out a scope on my competition guns I always find out where the lash is. The lash is the slop between gears in the turrets. Some scope turrets lash clockwise and others counterclockwise. Many times a shooter will sight in their scopes and make adjustments and end up leaving their scope in that lash area. This has a tendency to let their reticles bounce in that lash area. I will find out which direction that my scope lashes is and then adjust one click past where I want to be and adjust back into the adjustment so as to take out the lash. This tends to help hold a better adjustment.
I've heard of that before. Talking to a local who does gunsmithing about a cheap Cabelas scope with adjustable turrets. I told him it didn't adjust consistently and he said they would be consistent turning one way but not the other (don't remember which) and to go past a few clicks and come back to where you wanted to be. I figured screw that and bought better scopes. What price range do you figure you need to be at to eliminate that? Zeiss HD5 seems to be extremely repeatable but I probably haven't put it to a good test really.
nightforce is your huckleberry
I've heard of that before. Talking to a local who does gunsmithing about a cheap Cabelas scope with adjustable turrets. I told him it didn't adjust consistently and he said they would be consistent turning one way but not the other (don't remember which) and to go past a few clicks and come back to where you wanted to be. I figured screw that and bought better scopes. What price range do you figure you need to be at to eliminate that? Zeiss HD5 seems to be extremely repeatable but I probably haven't put it to a good test really.
nightforce is your huckleberry
BCD 45
Member
varminter .223,
I've had to same issues with similar priced scopes, a lot of inconsistency. About 2 years ago I said to hel with this & started selling scopes. I've sold all my cheaper scopes except 2 Japan made Weaver 6x24 Classic V's. Everytime I sold 2 or 3 I'd buy a $800-$1200 scope.
I use a 1 piece picatinny rail & Warne QD rings & keep a scope dope book so I share 1 scope between 2 rifles on some of my guns.
My favorite scope has been the Zeiss HD5 5x25x50 with the Rapid-Z varmint reticle. I have 4 now & the most I paid for a new one was $950. Along with their on line ballistic calculator, they are awesome. I've also bought some of the Sightron SIII 8x32's which are made in Japan and are about $850ish.
Long story short, my shooting has improved immensely & my groups much smaller since I got away from those $250-$350 scopes that seemed always to give me a headache & pluck my nerves.
Jim D
I've had to same issues with similar priced scopes, a lot of inconsistency. About 2 years ago I said to hel with this & started selling scopes. I've sold all my cheaper scopes except 2 Japan made Weaver 6x24 Classic V's. Everytime I sold 2 or 3 I'd buy a $800-$1200 scope.
I use a 1 piece picatinny rail & Warne QD rings & keep a scope dope book so I share 1 scope between 2 rifles on some of my guns.
My favorite scope has been the Zeiss HD5 5x25x50 with the Rapid-Z varmint reticle. I have 4 now & the most I paid for a new one was $950. Along with their on line ballistic calculator, they are awesome. I've also bought some of the Sightron SIII 8x32's which are made in Japan and are about $850ish.
Long story short, my shooting has improved immensely & my groups much smaller since I got away from those $250-$350 scopes that seemed always to give me a headache & pluck my nerves.
Jim D
varminter .223
Well-known member
I have a zeiss conquest mc 3-9x40 that i might pull off of my 17 rem lvsf. I wish it was more than a 9x but I have shot some of the most consistent groups with that scope on multiple rifles. I have always bought another rifle instead of and 800 or so dollar scope but I now understand the "if you have a 1000 dollar rifle, put a 1000 dollar scope on it"! Live and learn.....
Last edited:
Varminterror
New member
Rapping on the turret after adjustment helps "seat" the lash as well.
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
BCD 45
Member
Not saying that $300-$500 scopes can't shoot good, what I'm saying is there is a lot of difference in a $300 scope and a $1000 scope. A lot less likely for something to be defective or wrong with it.
Plus on the higher end scopes, generally you can have a lot better reticle choice & the image is clearer & sharper. But one of the main things is that tracking & turret adjustments are more precise. Not to mention side focus & a lot of little other bells & whistles.
Jim D
Plus on the higher end scopes, generally you can have a lot better reticle choice & the image is clearer & sharper. But one of the main things is that tracking & turret adjustments are more precise. Not to mention side focus & a lot of little other bells & whistles.
Jim D
varminter .223
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: VarminterrorRapping on the turret after adjustment helps "seat" the lash as well.
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
I put my zeiss on and it tracked perfect. I shot 3 in 1 hole at 100 but 1" right after getting on paper at 25 yards. I gave it 4 clicks left and then 4 down and 5 up to to try to eliminate any slack coming 1 up. The next 2 touched and then a 3rd about at about .5". I decided to put 2 more in that group and 1 ended up at .75 or better and the other right in the group too. I was having a heck of a time seeing the 1.5" bull and holding dead center with only 9x. No doubt a lot of that group size was me floating around on the bull. This combo will out shoot me now on my fold up bench and bags. I have all kinds of little 3 and 4 shot groups with drifter and flyers that are a combo of human error and loose reticles imo.
I often take an open bull and dot it with all the groups from that session in order to overlay many groups. I have done that several times prior to putting this zeiss on and 50% of my shots are .5 or better 40% are at the .750"ish mark and 10 % drift out as far 1.25' or so. With 333 through I think I may have had 1 over 1.5". My groups are always in the same area. If I move the scope in between I account for that to shift that group to overlay with the others to get as true of an apples to apple comparison as possible. I find these ARs harder to shoot that a big ol heavy bolt guns with a big flat beaver tail forearm that anchors down to the bags nice. I have learned a ton from this build and my confidence has now peaked with everything at .75 or better with plenty of me drifting around in a big bull at only 9x. I am finally happy. I just need some more high end scopes or fewer rifles lol.
Know I need to get out my Stag model 6 and burn a ton of powder off of the Caldwell magnum field pod. Im sure that is gonna open the groups up lol.
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
I put my zeiss on and it tracked perfect. I shot 3 in 1 hole at 100 but 1" right after getting on paper at 25 yards. I gave it 4 clicks left and then 4 down and 5 up to to try to eliminate any slack coming 1 up. The next 2 touched and then a 3rd about at about .5". I decided to put 2 more in that group and 1 ended up at .75 or better and the other right in the group too. I was having a heck of a time seeing the 1.5" bull and holding dead center with only 9x. No doubt a lot of that group size was me floating around on the bull. This combo will out shoot me now on my fold up bench and bags. I have all kinds of little 3 and 4 shot groups with drifter and flyers that are a combo of human error and loose reticles imo.
I often take an open bull and dot it with all the groups from that session in order to overlay many groups. I have done that several times prior to putting this zeiss on and 50% of my shots are .5 or better 40% are at the .750"ish mark and 10 % drift out as far 1.25' or so. With 333 through I think I may have had 1 over 1.5". My groups are always in the same area. If I move the scope in between I account for that to shift that group to overlay with the others to get as true of an apples to apple comparison as possible. I find these ARs harder to shoot that a big ol heavy bolt guns with a big flat beaver tail forearm that anchors down to the bags nice. I have learned a ton from this build and my confidence has now peaked with everything at .75 or better with plenty of me drifting around in a big bull at only 9x. I am finally happy. I just need some more high end scopes or fewer rifles lol.
Know I need to get out my Stag model 6 and burn a ton of powder off of the Caldwell magnum field pod. Im sure that is gonna open the groups up lol.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: varminter .223Originally Posted By: VarminterrorRapping on the turret after adjustment helps "seat" the lash as well.
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
I put my zeiss on and it tracked perfect. I shot 3 in 1 hole at 100 but 1" right after getting on paper at 25 yards. I gave it 4 clicks left and then 4 down and 5 up to to try to eliminate any slack coming 1 up. The next 2 touched and then a 3rd about at about .5". I decided to put 2 more in that group and 1 ended up at .75 or better and the other right in the group too. I was having a heck of a time seeing the 1.5" bull and holding dead center with only 9x. No doubt a lot of that group size was me floating around on the bull. This combo will out shoot me now on my fold up bench and bags. I have all kinds of little 3 and 4 shot groups with drifter and flyers that are a combo of human error and loose reticles imo.
I often take an open bull and dot it with all the groups from that session in order to overlay many groups. I have done that several times prior to putting this zeiss on and 50% of my shots are .5 or better 40% are at the .750"ish mark and 10 % drift out as far 1.25' or so. With 333 through I think I may have had 1 over 1.5". My groups are always in the same area. If I move the scope in between I account for that to shift that group to overlay with the others to get as true of an apples to apple comparison as possible. I find these ARs harder to shoot that a big ol heavy bolt guns with a big flat beaver tail forearm that anchors down to the bags nice. I have learned a ton from this build and my confidence has now peaked with everything at .75 or better with plenty of me drifting around in a big bull at only 9x. I am finally happy. I just need some more high end scopes or fewer rifles lol.
Know I need to get out my Stag model 6 and burn a ton of powder off of the Caldwell magnum field pod. Im sure that is gonna open the groups up lol.
Those are some good observations. Target size and reticle play a part in accuracy on paper. I run a 4-12x40mm Nikon Coyote Special on my .308 AR and it always shakes me a bit when my groups are a bit bigger than I expected. But that scope hasn't let me down once when it came to hammering fur. I once mounted one of those scopes onto a 6.5 Grendel build for a client. I went to sight it in and realized that I could see a white ring around the black target circle in the reticle. I realized that the target did not fill the reticle and that allowed for some variance in group size. I got a target that filled the reticle and the groups were are under 1in from then on and that was with the big circle reticle.
I think the big issue is acceptable accuracy for your intended purpose. There is no need for microscope accuracy for hammering fur. I am happy with consistent minute of coyote. Now, if we are talking about an "F" class money match, well, that is a whole other ball game...
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
I put my zeiss on and it tracked perfect. I shot 3 in 1 hole at 100 but 1" right after getting on paper at 25 yards. I gave it 4 clicks left and then 4 down and 5 up to to try to eliminate any slack coming 1 up. The next 2 touched and then a 3rd about at about .5". I decided to put 2 more in that group and 1 ended up at .75 or better and the other right in the group too. I was having a heck of a time seeing the 1.5" bull and holding dead center with only 9x. No doubt a lot of that group size was me floating around on the bull. This combo will out shoot me now on my fold up bench and bags. I have all kinds of little 3 and 4 shot groups with drifter and flyers that are a combo of human error and loose reticles imo.
I often take an open bull and dot it with all the groups from that session in order to overlay many groups. I have done that several times prior to putting this zeiss on and 50% of my shots are .5 or better 40% are at the .750"ish mark and 10 % drift out as far 1.25' or so. With 333 through I think I may have had 1 over 1.5". My groups are always in the same area. If I move the scope in between I account for that to shift that group to overlay with the others to get as true of an apples to apple comparison as possible. I find these ARs harder to shoot that a big ol heavy bolt guns with a big flat beaver tail forearm that anchors down to the bags nice. I have learned a ton from this build and my confidence has now peaked with everything at .75 or better with plenty of me drifting around in a big bull at only 9x. I am finally happy. I just need some more high end scopes or fewer rifles lol.
Know I need to get out my Stag model 6 and burn a ton of powder off of the Caldwell magnum field pod. Im sure that is gonna open the groups up lol.
Those are some good observations. Target size and reticle play a part in accuracy on paper. I run a 4-12x40mm Nikon Coyote Special on my .308 AR and it always shakes me a bit when my groups are a bit bigger than I expected. But that scope hasn't let me down once when it came to hammering fur. I once mounted one of those scopes onto a 6.5 Grendel build for a client. I went to sight it in and realized that I could see a white ring around the black target circle in the reticle. I realized that the target did not fill the reticle and that allowed for some variance in group size. I got a target that filled the reticle and the groups were are under 1in from then on and that was with the big circle reticle.
I think the big issue is acceptable accuracy for your intended purpose. There is no need for microscope accuracy for hammering fur. I am happy with consistent minute of coyote. Now, if we are talking about an "F" class money match, well, that is a whole other ball game...
varminter .223
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: SnowmanMoOriginally Posted By: varminter .223Originally Posted By: VarminterrorRapping on the turret after adjustment helps "seat" the lash as well.
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
I put my zeiss on and it tracked perfect. I shot 3 in 1 hole at 100 but 1" right after getting on paper at 25 yards. I gave it 4 clicks left and then 4 down and 5 up to to try to eliminate any slack coming 1 up. The next 2 touched and then a 3rd about at about .5". I decided to put 2 more in that group and 1 ended up at .75 or better and the other right in the group too. I was having a heck of a time seeing the 1.5" bull and holding dead center with only 9x. No doubt a lot of that group size was me floating around on the bull. This combo will out shoot me now on my fold up bench and bags. I have all kinds of little 3 and 4 shot groups with drifter and flyers that are a combo of human error and loose reticles imo.
I often take an open bull and dot it with all the groups from that session in order to overlay many groups. I have done that several times prior to putting this zeiss on and 50% of my shots are .5 or better 40% are at the .750"ish mark and 10 % drift out as far 1.25' or so. With 333 through I think I may have had 1 over 1.5". My groups are always in the same area. If I move the scope in between I account for that to shift that group to overlay with the others to get as true of an apples to apple comparison as possible. I find these ARs harder to shoot that a big ol heavy bolt guns with a big flat beaver tail forearm that anchors down to the bags nice. I have learned a ton from this build and my confidence has now peaked with everything at .75 or better with plenty of me drifting around in a big bull at only 9x. I am finally happy. I just need some more high end scopes or fewer rifles lol.
Know I need to get out my Stag model 6 and burn a ton of powder off of the Caldwell magnum field pod. Im sure that is gonna open the groups up lol.
Those are some good observations. Target size and reticle play a part in accuracy on paper. I run a 4-12x40mm Nikon Coyote Special on my .308 AR and it always shakes me a bit when my groups are a bit bigger than I expected. But that scope hasn't let me down once when it came to hammering fur. I once mounted one of those scopes onto a 6.5 Grendel build for a client. I went to sight it in and realized that I could see a white ring around the black target circle in the reticle. I realized that the target did not fill the reticle and that allowed for some variance in group size. I got a target that filled the reticle and the groups were are under 1in from then on and that was with the big circle reticle.
I think the big issue is acceptable accuracy for your intended purpose. There is no need for microscope accuracy for hammering fur. I am happy with consistent minute of coyote. Now, if we are talking about an "F" class money match, well, that is a whole other ball game...
What bugged me is the rifle was over the top accurate for a basement type build AR for a series of shots and then it went to heck. I knew there was a mechanical glitch somewhere causing it. Seems like a shame to have a tack drive that is hampered by a faulty scope. I realize a moa rifle will do the job but it really peaks my confidence when they all go in one little hole or at least as tight of a group as I feel like I am capable of that day.
We saw some remarkable groups shot in the last season with cheaper optics, as Service Rifle matches just started allowing < 4x optics. Nobody won matches with a blister package BSA, but there were a lot of $300-500 optics which proved to do very well.
A thought - on the original string of this thread - whenever I shoot a rifle which throws a tiny group plus one outlier, consistently, I'll shoot a double or triple count group, or more. When you throw 20+ shots at a single POA, you learn a lot about where a rifle really wants to print. How often have you seen guys put up pics of multiple tiny little 3-5 shot groups, but all of them are positioned differently relative to the bore. If you lay those all on top of eachother, you get a group twice as big as any given one of them. The only way to prove that is a POA issue, not just coincidental random clustering within a larger actual precision is to shoot them all at one POA and see how large the group grows.
If you're calling fliers, great. If you're getting random outliers on shots called "in," then your shot count should go up - prove to yourself they're outliers (then figure out why), or learn for yourself your groups are actually a lot larger than you might think.
I put my zeiss on and it tracked perfect. I shot 3 in 1 hole at 100 but 1" right after getting on paper at 25 yards. I gave it 4 clicks left and then 4 down and 5 up to to try to eliminate any slack coming 1 up. The next 2 touched and then a 3rd about at about .5". I decided to put 2 more in that group and 1 ended up at .75 or better and the other right in the group too. I was having a heck of a time seeing the 1.5" bull and holding dead center with only 9x. No doubt a lot of that group size was me floating around on the bull. This combo will out shoot me now on my fold up bench and bags. I have all kinds of little 3 and 4 shot groups with drifter and flyers that are a combo of human error and loose reticles imo.
I often take an open bull and dot it with all the groups from that session in order to overlay many groups. I have done that several times prior to putting this zeiss on and 50% of my shots are .5 or better 40% are at the .750"ish mark and 10 % drift out as far 1.25' or so. With 333 through I think I may have had 1 over 1.5". My groups are always in the same area. If I move the scope in between I account for that to shift that group to overlay with the others to get as true of an apples to apple comparison as possible. I find these ARs harder to shoot that a big ol heavy bolt guns with a big flat beaver tail forearm that anchors down to the bags nice. I have learned a ton from this build and my confidence has now peaked with everything at .75 or better with plenty of me drifting around in a big bull at only 9x. I am finally happy. I just need some more high end scopes or fewer rifles lol.
Know I need to get out my Stag model 6 and burn a ton of powder off of the Caldwell magnum field pod. Im sure that is gonna open the groups up lol.
Those are some good observations. Target size and reticle play a part in accuracy on paper. I run a 4-12x40mm Nikon Coyote Special on my .308 AR and it always shakes me a bit when my groups are a bit bigger than I expected. But that scope hasn't let me down once when it came to hammering fur. I once mounted one of those scopes onto a 6.5 Grendel build for a client. I went to sight it in and realized that I could see a white ring around the black target circle in the reticle. I realized that the target did not fill the reticle and that allowed for some variance in group size. I got a target that filled the reticle and the groups were are under 1in from then on and that was with the big circle reticle.
I think the big issue is acceptable accuracy for your intended purpose. There is no need for microscope accuracy for hammering fur. I am happy with consistent minute of coyote. Now, if we are talking about an "F" class money match, well, that is a whole other ball game...
What bugged me is the rifle was over the top accurate for a basement type build AR for a series of shots and then it went to heck. I knew there was a mechanical glitch somewhere causing it. Seems like a shame to have a tack drive that is hampered by a faulty scope. I realize a moa rifle will do the job but it really peaks my confidence when they all go in one little hole or at least as tight of a group as I feel like I am capable of that day.