Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Firearms Forum > Guns
Why so Inaccruate? >

Why so Inaccruate?

Guns Like firearms themselves, there's a wide variety of opinions on what's the best gun.

Why so Inaccruate?

Old 11-27-2011, 07:27 PM
  #11  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Lance_23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 183
Default

Thanks guys i appreciate the response some good ideas here to try out, the gun is in perty good condition and im sure its had plenty of rounds run threw it, Nomercy448 thats a good view to look at.
Lance_23 is offline  
Old 11-27-2011, 07:47 PM
  #12  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,594
Default

One of the mantra's I live by: "If you don't measure it, you can't manage it." If something has a margin of error of less than 1%, you dang sure can't measure it accurately.

(More comparison for you: 1.75-4x32mm scope = 30ft at 100yrds at 4x, 3-9x40mm scope = 12ft at 100yrds, 4-16x40mm scope = 7ft at 100yrds. 1" groups at 100yrds... 1" for the 1.75-4x32mm = 0.28% variance, which is 0.14% margin for error. 1" groups for a 3-9x40mm scope = 0.7% variance, or 0.35% margin for error. 1" groups for a 4-16x40mm scope = 1.2% variance, or 0.6% margin. Basically, I get more than 4 times the forgiveness from a 4-16x40mm scope than I do from a 1.75-4x32mm scope. I would have to ensure my scope doesn't move more than 0.14% in any direction to deliver a 1" group with a 1.75-4x, while I'd get to move 4.29 times farther before I'd be outside the same margin for error with the 4-16x scope).

Sheridan and I have had similar discussions about high magnification scopes on different threads lately. This is honestly why I believe that 3-9x scopes, and anything smaller, are absolutely pointless beyond 100yrds. Yes, they can work, but so did Model T's and steam locomotives... Technology advances, so should we...
Nomercy448 is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 04:38 AM
  #13  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,054
Default

I can't begin to recall how many times I've listened to guys cuss their optics at the range. True, it's asking a bit to take on a target at 300 yards with a garden-variety 3-9x, but I will offer that replacing optics without isolating out other potential causes puts you in great risk of perpetually being "one of those guys"

1. The Remington semi-auto and pump have never been known for long-range accuracy. They often shoot more like ... ever notice the similarities between their receivers and those of the 870 and 1100? Always exceptions.

2. But that's not a big deal close-in in the deer woods where these things seem to shine. Unfortunately, most of them I've seen have those two-piece, see-thru mounts. No two-piece base ever came close to a one-piece, solid base when it comes to accuracy, what with twice as many pieces able to move.

3. The shooter always plays a role. In situations like these where you're trying to diagnose where the problem lies, the shooter's errors can be isolated out by properly sandbagging front and rear (or using a benchrest - bipods don't guarantee a solid platform) and ensuring that the "8 steady hold factors" are consistently applied.

And enter the "onsies-twosies". The inherent potential for inaccuracy of the rifle, added to the potential for inaccuracy caused by the scope mounting system, added to any number of potential shooter-induced problems, and it's quite conceivable you'd obtain the groups that you are.

Go back to the range and sandbag that rifle. Torque all of your scope mount screws to spec with an actual (in/lbs) torque wrench. Drill the 8 steady hold factors into your shooting, and then see what you come up with.

Last edited by homers brother; 11-28-2011 at 04:44 AM.
homers brother is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 09:03 AM
  #14  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
Lance_23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 183
Default

I see what you are saying, but i have a one peice solid mount and the reange is behind my house 101 yards to be exact, i shoot off a shooting bench tho i didnt try out sand bags so thats a option also, I was thinking about what the guy said about the scope being 1.74-4 power and came up with the conclusion that using this scope on this rifle is almost like shooting with iron sights at 100 yrds, ok heres a scenario, Im shooting a rifle with iron sights at 25 yrds my groups are nearly on top of each other, ok i move the target to 50 yrds and my groups are still good (lets just say still touching), ok i then move the target to the 100 yrd mark and the groups are all not even close to each other, what i see here is that shooting through iron sights and grouping within inches of each other is well..... awesome shooting i guess you could say. So theres not much diffrence between shooting iron sights or with the power scope i have at that distance being that it is made for a shotgun. Am i hitting close here on this or what?
Lance_23 is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 12:29 PM
  #15  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 666
Default

Check the barrel crown too, a little nick or dent can cause lots of problems.
goatbrother is offline  
Old 11-28-2011, 12:40 PM
  #16  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 588
Default

I had the same issues with a new 700ADL that I had put a cheap Bushnell scope on with see through mounts. The gun sat in my closet for a long time because I didn't care to shoot it. I eneded up changing the scope to a Nikon with Warne rings and mounts and that made a huge difference. With some other minor fine tuning, I'm getting 1/2 to 1 1/2 inch groups now. I'm keeping it! I think your scope is probably the issue and would start there.
Colorado Cajun is offline  
Old 11-30-2011, 11:42 AM
  #17  
Fork Horn
 
skiking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stumptown, MT
Posts: 152
Default

Originally Posted by Nomercy448 View Post
On a relative scale: 1,000yrd shooters often use 30x powered scopes, such as the 8-32x56mm Nightforce BR scopes. These have FOV's of 30ft at 1,000yrds. Basically, shooting a 1" group at 100yrds with your 1.75-4x scope has the same margin for error as shooting a 1" group with a 8-32x56mm Nightforce scope AT 1,000yrds!!!!
1" groups primarily don't happen at 1000 yds because of many more factors that come into play that FAPP aren't factors at 100 yds. If the gun is capable of it, 1" groups with a 4x scope at 100 yds are very possible. Trying to equate 1" groups at 100 yds with a 4x and 1" groups at 1000 yds with a 30x scope is illogical.

The problems that the OP is experiencing are most likely the shooter, the gun, the scope not holding zero or the scope mounts. If I read correctly, he has been shooting 3" groups at 50 yds, which he should be able to do at 100 yds with open sights.
skiking is offline  
Old 12-01-2011, 01:27 PM
  #18  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,594
Default

Originally Posted by skiking View Post
1" groups primarily don't happen at 1000 yds because of many more factors that come into play that FAPP aren't factors at 100 yds. If the gun is capable of it, 1" groups with a 4x scope at 100 yds are very possible. Trying to equate 1" groups at 100 yds with a 4x and 1" groups at 1000 yds with a 30x scope is illogical.
I believe you missed my point, AND you didn't read my other posts. My first posts recognized that OF COURSE the shooter has to troubleshoot the root source for the problem to make sure that he doesn't have other problems, like poor skill, an unstable base, shifting rings, moving zero, etc etc.

BEYOND THAT, as I said before in my other posts, even if all of the other variables have been exhausted, then it might be because he's asking too much of his scope, because using a low magnification scope introduces too much variability in POA.

Frankly, I completely disagree that it's "illogical" to compare shooting at 100yrds to 1000yrds. By the time we get over scope and put finger to trigger, regardless of range, we have already made our adjustments for environmentals. By the time we break the shot, we are assuming our estimations were correct and that POI will meet POA. HOWEVER, if I don't have enough scope to ensure that I had a consistent POA from one shot to the next, I can't expect my shots to mate up. Yes, making the estimations to assure that POI = POA is more difficult at long range, but the level of control over the sighting hold, i.e. maintaining consistent POA is equally difficult at 100yrds with a 4x as it is at 1000yrds with a 32x. It doesn't matter if you can hit what you're aiming at unless you can aim at what you want to hit.

For the humor of it, if I represent that each shot's POA is equal to it's POI, then for my 3 shot group: POA1 = POI1, POA2 = POI2, POA3=POI3... HOWEVER, if I can't ensure that my control system, the sights, is accurate enough to have a consistent POA, my shots won't group: if POA1 =/= POA2 =/= POA3, then because POAn = POIn, POI1 =/= POI2 =/= POI3 (=/= means "doesn't equal).

Essentially, for ALL shooting at ANY range, we have 2 challenges 1) make sure our POA = center of the target when we break the shot, and 2) make sure we account for all variables properly to ensure that POI = POA. Part of challenge 1, when shooting for group, is that our POA is consistent. Even on a pencil drawn dot, our groups suffer if we hold POA on the right side of the dot for the first shot, and the left side of the dot for the 2nd shot. So basically, it becomes 1) POAn = POAx = center of target, and 2) POA = POI. Challenge 1 is in our hold and technique, challenge 2 is in our estimations and corrections. (POAn, n represents any single shot, i.e. POA1, POA2, POA3.... ,POAn-1, POAn, POAn+1... Also POAx, x similarly represents any selected shot, but a different shot than that selected for POAn).

The longer the range, the harder it is to make POI = POA (relationship is directly dependent upon range), but making POA = POA = center target is different. POA = POA is dependent upon the relative size of the target to the visible field, regardless of range. The bigger the target appears, no matter what the range, the better you can aim. It's the old addage "aim for a hair", the better you can see the target, the closer you can incrementally ensure you are to the center.

No matter how well a world champion 1000yrd shooter can estimate windage and drop, if you take him from a 32x scope down to a 24x scope, his groups will suffer. Equally, if you give him a 9x scope and a 4x scope, at 100yrds, he will shoot better with the 9x than the 4x. Can't hit what you can't see, as they say.

Target sighting consistency is an area that's commonly overlooked by most shooters. Again, it doesn't matter how consistent EVERYTHING ELSE IS, your rest, your hold, your trigger pull, your ammo MV, etc, if your POA isn't consistent, then you can't expect your POI to be consistent (aka, small groups). No matter how well you do on Challenge 2 (POI=POA), if you fail at Challenge 1, you fail.

Any of us that have spent any time shooting benchrest have had at least ONE shot where we've called our own shots because we knew it was off target when we pulled the trigger. It's that sinking feeling that hits you as fast as your lock time. You KNOW that bullet is going to hit "left" even before it gets there. If a shooter's scope doesn't let him tell if he's shooting the left side or the right side of a 1" dot, that introduces AT LEAST 1" of variability.

Kind of like answering the question "what does that weigh?" Is "about 500lbs" good enough? Or do you need to know that it's exactly 517lbs? Comparatively answer the question: "What were you aiming at?" A shooter that answers "I aimed at the center of the intersection of the X" will group a lot better than the shooter that answers "I aimed at the target".
Nomercy448 is offline  
Old 12-01-2011, 02:31 PM
  #19  
Typical Buck
 
huntingkidPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 872
Default

Originally Posted by Nomercy448 View Post
One of the mantra's I live by: "If you don't measure it, you can't manage it." If something has a margin of error of less than 1%, you dang sure can't measure it accurately.

(More comparison for you: 1.75-4x32mm scope = 30ft at 100yrds at 4x, 3-9x40mm scope = 12ft at 100yrds, 4-16x40mm scope = 7ft at 100yrds. 1" groups at 100yrds... 1" for the 1.75-4x32mm = 0.28% variance, which is 0.14% margin for error. 1" groups for a 3-9x40mm scope = 0.7% variance, or 0.35% margin for error. 1" groups for a 4-16x40mm scope = 1.2% variance, or 0.6% margin. Basically, I get more than 4 times the forgiveness from a 4-16x40mm scope than I do from a 1.75-4x32mm scope. I would have to ensure my scope doesn't move more than 0.14% in any direction to deliver a 1" group with a 1.75-4x, while I'd get to move 4.29 times farther before I'd be outside the same margin for error with the 4-16x scope).

Sheridan and I have had similar discussions about high magnification scopes on different threads lately. This is honestly why I believe that 3-9x scopes, and anything smaller, are absolutely pointless beyond 100yrds. Yes, they can work, but so did Model T's and steam locomotives... Technology advances, so should we...
i feel that 3-9's are good out to 300. You just need to practice. i feel that any hunter that practices can be very efficient out to that range with a 3-9. Yesterday i took my .270 with a 3-9 and got a 4 inch group at 375 yards. my dad just 3 days ago took a deer at 320 meters. i don't think many people are likely to take shots over 300 yards, sometimes in the west for mule deer,elk, etc.
huntingkidPA is offline  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:22 PM
  #20  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,594
Default

Originally Posted by huntingkidPA View Post
i feel that 3-9's are good out to 300. You just need to practice. i feel that any hunter that practices can be very efficient out to that range with a 3-9. Yesterday i took my .270 with a 3-9 and got a 4 inch group at 375 yards. my dad just 3 days ago took a deer at 320 meters. i don't think many people are likely to take shots over 300 yards, sometimes in the west for mule deer,elk, etc.
I'd disagree that "not many people take shots over 300yrds unless they're out west after mule deer or elk". Stroll over to our small game and predator section, a LOT of 300yrd plus shooters over there, Ridge, Stapher, Sheridan, and probably a dozen others have posted pics on here of game taken "way down town", and not only on mule deer or elk out west. Heck your own post states both you and your dad are shooting over 350yrds... That 4" group is still a 1% margin for error, and is the same level of accuracy to deliver a 1" group at 100yrds (regarding consistent POA hold)... Again, not a difficult shot, but could be easier.

Originally Posted by Lance_23 View Post
ok heres a scenario, Im shooting a rifle with iron sights at 25 yrds my groups are nearly on top of each other, ok i move the target to 50 yrds and my groups are still good (lets just say still touching), ok i then move the target to the 100 yrd mark and the groups are all not even close to each other
This is what I'm talking about. In this scenario, the shooter is obviously capable of shooting well and doesn't have a problem with an unstable rest or shifting sights, since he's shooting ragged holes at 25 and 50yrds, but then at 100yrds, the groups are opening up, for no other perceivable reason than the shooter can't see well enough to ensure POA is exactly centered consistently on target.

We all agree that a scope adds to the shooters ability to improve their accuracy. I don't see why people get so hung up on a 3-9x, if a little helps in this case, a little more helps more. There's no reason to suggest a 3-9x scope is better than a more powerful scope, except that guys are cheap and higher mag scopes cost more. If you want to save money, throw rocks.
Nomercy448 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.