Which rifle?

[warpedskydiver 0]

BTW put a Matchking and a Scenar next to each other.

The Matchking looks like a damned football.

They are not as sleek as people seem to think they are.

Short ogives and a short BT do not help the BC at all.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

But the BC is a larger factor in that it will overcome the slight loss of velocity from the chop of a bbl.

Yes, but once again, now you're having to adjust something else along with the shorter barrel. It's not just the shorter barrel alone.

Quote

Stiffer is better and if the ammo was the same in both rifle and burned well in the shorter you will have a better shooting rifle with the shorter bbl.

Ah, but there's an "if" in that equation. As you know, different powders burn at different speeds. Handgun powders burn fast to produce all their energy over a short barrel length. Rifle powders burn slower, to produce the bullet acceleration over a longer distance. If you interrupt that process in a rifle by chopping the barrel off short, you may lose velocity. It depends upon what powder one is using, and thus, this short-barrel thing isn't a universal rule. Instead, it depends upon other things also being compatible with the short barrel.

A rifle is a system that requires several things work together in harmony to produce accuracy. If you change one component, like shortening the barrel, you may end up screwing up the harmony, and then you have to go and start tweaking other things too to get that harmony back.

Accuracy from a shorter barrel is certainly possible. But I think that making people believe that just cutting off inches from their barrel and doing nothing else, will automatically improve their accuracy, is bad advice.

While those testimonials on that web site story sound convincing, they don't tell the whole story. I shoot with a bunch of expert 1,000 yard guys. Some of them are on the national F-Class team. And none of them use short barrels. So, for every one of those short-barrel testimonials, I've also got direct personal evidence of high-master level shooting from long barrels. And I don't like to mess with something thats already working just fine.

Cutting off the barrel also cuts off the front iron sight. You may shoot only with a scope on that rifle, but I like to be able to use iron sights too. And removing that front sight eliminates some of the utility of the rifle if you ever want to shoot it without the scope. Yeah, you can re-mount the front sight on the end of the shorter barrel, but that's a bitch to get re-zeroed. I learned that when I changed the barrel on my AR15. But let's say you're in the field and you've whacked your scope on a tree and broken it, or it's developed a leak and it's fogged up inside. If you have only the scope to shoot with, your trip is done. But if you can still shoot the iron sights instead, you're still in the game.

And finally, using iron sights on a shorter barrel effects your accuracy, because it produces a shorter sight radius. Any wiggle causing misalignment of the sights is magnified with a shorter distance between the rear and front sights. That's why people sometimes use extension tubes over the barrel in order to mount a front sight further out. This short-barrel technique goes the wrong way on that for iron sights.

[steve1 5]

Quote

All you need is an 18-20" bbl anymore is a waste.

....................................................................

I read Lou's articles. I do agree that a stiffer barrel is usually better for accuracy. That is one reason I'd like to get a fluted barrel. It would be stiffer without the weight of a bull barrel.

I don't agree that cutting down barrel length is the thing to do in most cases though.

There's no way you can cut a 300 magnum down in length and expect maximum velocity. There's no way you could expect magnum veloscity out of an 18 inch barrel. You can use a faster burning powder, but you are still talking about a much slower moving bullet. This means drop at longer ranges. A 308 might shoot ok, but rifles with larger powder capacity would not.

This isn't just old school thinking. Every reloading manual that I've ever looked at shows bullet velocity with various powder charges. Barrel length is a huge factor in all of this. Bullet speed is checked with a chronograph. They don't lie.

I bought my wife a model 7 Remington rifle. If I recall it has around an 18 inch barrel in 243. That rifle comes in a few different calibers. It doesn't come in 30/06, 270, or any magnum calibers. There is a reason for that. You would lose to much in velocity with that short of a barrel.

I've tested it at longer ranges. A 243 should shoot almost as flat as a 270. Yet with that short barrel, (even with a fast burning powder), it drops a lot more than my 270 does with it's 22 inch barrel.

BUT! Things are changing. I've heard that the military has a new powder that will change things dramatically. I've heard tell that this new powder will allow fast velocity with even the bigger cartridges in as little as 17 inches. So this will probably change the design of rifles in the future.

I shoot a 26 inch barrel in my 300 magnum. There's a reason for that. It will deliver faster bullet speeds than even a 24 inch barrel.

Maybe there is a powder out there now that will produce maximum velocity out of a shorter barrel. If there is tell me. As far as I know none is now commercially available. None of my reloading manuals show that either......

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Maybe there is a powder out there now that will produce maximum velocity out of a shorter barrel...

And on that comment, one more thing.

In order to get the same velocity out of a shorter barrel, you need higher pressure. And that means a pressure spike that is now closer to exceeding the maximum for which the rifle is designed. Especially when shooting 1000-yard loads which are at the maximum of their rated capability already, in order to try and keep the bullets supersonic for that distance. If you try and replicate that in a shorter barrel requiring higher pressure, now you may be pushing the pressure envelope too far. That increased pressure is also going to be harder on the action, battering it unnecessarily, causing parts to wear out sooner.

So then you've got to start changing things to get the pressure under control, like shooting higher BC bullets. And now you're off to re-working the entire formula again trying to find a combination that works well. Shorter barrel, different bullets, different powder, different charge weight... You can spend considerable time trying various combinations before you get things back in the x-ring again.

I'm not knocking that if it's what you want to do. But it's a lot of turmoil and work just to cut a few inches off of a barrel, that was working just fine before as-is.

But maybe I'm full of crap and don't know what I'm talking about.

[steve1 5]

reply]

But let's say you're in the field and you've whacked your scope on a tree and broken it, or it's developed a leak and it's fogged up inside. If you have only the scope to shoot with, your trip is done. reply]
......................................................................
That's a good point John. I've had a few different scopes go bad over the years. I also have iron sights on most all my hunting rifles, for back up.

That reminds me of a story....

A friend of mine (Tom) was out hunting one day with a buddy of his. They split up for a while. Tom later spotted his friend hiking up a ridge toward him. Tom decided to play a joke.

He hid behind a big tree. When his friend walked past Tom jumped out behind the guy, and let out a big roar. With that he kicked his pal in the rear.

The hunter freaked out. He jumped about two feet in the air and litterally threw his gun. It landed on a rock, breaking the scope. The guy turned around to face what he thought was a bear. There Tom stood with a big grin on his face.

But! This wasn't Tom's friend. It was some other hunter who had just seen a big set of bear tracks. I'm not sure how Tom talked his way out of that one. It sounds like a good way to get beat up.

[steve1 5]

Always a good idea to buy as much glass as you can afford. With that said, a scope that I was skeptical about at first but now am sold on are the Horus scopes

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I'll keep these Horace scopes in mind.

Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, god of hunters and warriors.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[tkhayes 348]

I have had Remington model 700 BDL 30-06 for 25 years now. That is one of the best guns I ever owned. I also considered the Ruger M77 but never owned one.

I eventually had the tock customized, it still shoots wonderful after all these year, never fucks up at all.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'd like to get a scope with target turrets to adjust your point of aim at longer ranges. I know you would need notes to adjust the turrets. This would be too much to memorize. Is this old school sniper work? Is there a better way?

This can be as simple as a small chart taped to the side of your stock. In the attached photo you'll see my M1A (M-14) stock with such a chart. The left column is distance in hundreds of yards, and the right column is the number of minutes of elevation for those distances.

I have enough rifles that there's no way I can memorize this info for each one, and I don't want to have to consult a notebook, flipping through pages to find what I need. So I stick the info right on the stock of each rifle. All I have to do on the firing line is look at my chart, dial in the needed elevation, and shoot.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

I'll keep these Horace scopes in mind. I'd like to get a scope with target turrets to adjust your point of aim at longer ranges. I know you would need notes to adjust the turrets. This would be too much to memorize. Is this old school sniper work? Is there a better way? I'm afraid my knowledge is limited here.


I'd also like to buy a quality range finder. I've been holding off buying one. This can run into big bucks. I've heard the cheaper ones are very inaccurate at times.

In a round about way you are referring to what is known as wind Dope or doping. I won't attempt to explain it in detail here but I will point you to this Article on it that I googled. It is a basic description of what you are wanting to do and how it is achieved. I breezed through the article so there may be more there than you wanted to know.


The great thing about scopes with Mil Dots and or scopes like the Horus ones is that they offer stadia lines in them that allow you to range your target without the need of a separate range finder. Horus has an online demo/game that shows you how to use their system here and HERE.There are also "computers" that can be used like the ones on the Horus website and ones you can download to your iphone,etc. I've even seen a wrist watch that has it as a function. A demo of this software can be seen HERE. You can play with the PDA version of it HERE


The Horus system and reticle is an improvement on what is known as Kentucky windage that is way more effective than if done with a normal reticle scope. Actually having the skill to call your winds though takes practice and time sending rounds down range to get the dope for your gun/ammo combo. The software makes it easier and less time/round consuming but at the end of the day you still need to be able to call your own winds and figure your holds.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[steve1 5]

There's a whole lot to long distance shooting that I don't know. New technology is changing things too.

In the Vietnam days many snipers used Remington 700's. Some of them had Redfield scopes with a rangefinder recticle inside. This was two lines above the reticle.

This was developed for hunters. The average deer was about 18 inches from shoulder to belly. So you'd put a deer sized target between the two lines, then adjust your variable scope till it fit, and then you'd get a read out inside your scope telling you how far it was.

This was adapted to Vietnam. Snipers would place a Vietcong or NVA soldier between the two ranging lines and adjust the scope until the lines were from shoulder to crotch. On a small person this was thought to be about 18 inches.

I haven's seen any of these scopes on the market lately, so maybe this method has long since been outdated by something better.

I'd like to be able to attend a sniper school. I'll bet there is a ton of things you could learn.

I've never shot long distances enough to allow much for windage. On prairie dogs I have held above them and then a half a foot or so into the wind. It's fun being able to make a shot like that....

[steve1 5]

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I used to read a lot of Jack O'connor stories growing up. He used a lee Dot in the reticle of his scopes. This may be a crude method of doping, but he would use that to size up how big a critter was in reference to this dot. He'd then estimate range.

Excellent! Yes, you don't need a fancy scope, or a range finder, to do this kind of stuff.

You already know this, but for everyone else reading with interest, here's an article I once wrote on this topic for my gun club's newsletter:

* * *

Did you know that you can use a stock service rifle with open iron sights to determine the range of an object based upon a known object size, or to determine object size based upon a known range?

That's correct! You don't need a fancy rifle scope, or an expensive laser range finder to do these functions.

You can do it with simple iron rifle sights, using two pieces of information: The width of the front post sight, and the sight radius. The sight radius is the distance between the front sight and the rear sight.

Using these two numbers, you can extrapolate the size of the area covered by the front post at different distances. This is a direct linear relationship.

The idea is similar to a math formula, in the form A + B = C. If you know any two of the three values, you can determine the third value. With a rifle you're shooting, you can know the sight radius and front post width. Using those two known values, you can determine the distance to a target of known size, or the size of a target at a known distance.

As an example, on my AR15 the front post is .052 inches wide, and the sight radius from my rear peep sight to my front post sight is 20".

So, the front post covers .052 inches at a 20" distance. Therefore, at twice that distance, or 40" (an additional 20" out in front of the front sight), the front post will cover twice that width of area, or .104 inches. You can keep extending this extrapolation distance outward in increments of the sight radius, or to simplify, we can use a formula:

 

Yds x 36 / SR x FPW


Where:

"Yds" is the distance in yards to the target 

"36"  is the number of inches in a yard

"SR"  is the sight radius distance, in inches    

"FPW" is the front post width, in decimal inches

You can use this formula for any rifle, simply by measuring the front post width and sight radius. To measure the front post width accurately, you'll need a fine instrument like calipers.

Using this formula, you can now determine range-finding information at given distances. At 100 yards for my AR15:

 

100 x 36" / 20" x .052"    

3600" / 20" x .052"

180 x .052"

9.4" 

So, at 100 yards, my AR15 front post covers an area 9.4 inches wide.

This means that if you know what the size of the target is, you can accurately estimate the distance to that target, simply by looking at it through your iron sights, and gauging the size relative to the angle of area covered by your front post.

Good soldiers know that the average human chest is about 12" wide. Therefore, if you were to aim at the enemy with my AR15, and the front post was slightly smaller than the width of the enemy's chest, with about an inch of chest showing on either side of the front post, then you would know that the enemy was about 100 yards away, and could set your sight elevation accordingly for accuracy.

Likewise, if you know the distance to your target, you can accurately estimate the size of the target.

For example, if you're shooting at a 100 yard rifle range, and the black spot of the bulls-eye is the same diameter as the width of your front post as you look through your sights, you know the bulls-eye is 9" in diameter. And if you use a six-o'clock hold sight picture with the front post held underneath the black spot, that tells you that you want your point of impact to be 4.5" higher (the radius of the black spot) than your point of aim in order to hit the center of the bulls-eye. You can then adjust your elevation accordingly.

Rather than use this math formula in the field, you can come up with a table of the derived values for known distances, to help you out, and keep them in a notebook or in memory. Using the numbers for my AR15 sights, I have the following table:

 

Yards  Width

---------  --------

100       9.4"

200      18.7"

300      28.1"

400      37.4" 

500      46.8" 

600      56.2" 

For simplification, we can just round this off to 10 inches per 100 yards, and use that as an easy number to remember without consulting notes or working formulas, and is accurate enough for all practical shooting purposes.

That's it! Now you know how to do range-finding and size estimation, using nothing but the simple open sights on an ordinary rifle.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Agreed on sight radius and not cutting off the front sight if at all possible.

If I use a Leupold on a rifle with really good rings, I would have to really damage the rifle in order to damage the scope.

I have seen them dropped, abused, and dented and they still worked.

My FAL has a very long portion of bbl beyond the FSB so if I do shorten it it still has quite a bit of bbl left after the FSB.

Yes variables matter and all of it has to be taken into account before determining any changes to be made.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Everyone could benefit from reading Jack O Conners stories.

He knew what to do, when to do it and why.

Several of my friends hunting cabins have old magazines and book with articles or stories by him.

The fact he used a .270win to take so many different types of animals is a testament to his knowledge of shooting accuracy, shot placement, anatomy, bullet choice, ranging, stalking and sheer balls.

Sniping is an art that is very detailed and very important for placing first round cold bore shots on target.

IMHO the best snipers in the world are also natural riflemen in that when conditions or targets present themselves they are able to make off hand shots on fast moving or fleeting targets with extreme accuracy.

I am not a sniper by any means, however I can shoot long range and still achieve "snap shots" where I can bring a rifle up to my shoulder, sight in, establish lead and get a kill shot in less than one second on a fast moving target that may be as far away as a few hundred yards.

There are people on this website that can attest to this.

A few years back I missed a deer that was standing still at no more than 35 yards and quartering away.

I was hunting with a shotgun that had been sighted in by a friend as I did not get enough opportunity to zero it myself.

When I missed my hunting partner of many years said, "You would have hit him if you gave him a chance to run at full speed!"

[steve1 5]

The more I learn about long range shooting, the more I realize I don't know much. Most hunters want to be able to reach way out there and bring down their quarry.

Some, like myself, practice at targets, shooting off a bench rest, and then think I can do the same in the field. That is when things can turn to crap and I have a wounded animal. I hate it when that happens.

A long shot in combat is probably okay. A wounded enemy soldier might be considered good.

Let me give an example of what not to do hunting. I used to shoot targets a fair amount. I knew what my handloads would do. I had a good system for estimating range, or at least I thought I did.

But as Lou's articles illustrate there are a whole lot of other factors to consider. Temperature, mirage, wind, humidity, and probably a bunch of other stuff I don't even know about.

Anyway, there was a nice buck out in the middle of an alfalfa field a few years back. It was getting dark. Shooting hours would be over soon. It was either take a long shot or let it go. I should have waited.....

But being the crack shot that I thought I was, I decided to give it a go. I figured the range to be about 450 yards. I had a bipod to steady my aim. Calculated everything out perfect. There was little wind.... A trained sniper could have made that shot easy. Hathcock could have done it blindfolded. These were the thoughts that were dancing in my head.

When he stopped walking I touched one off.

Something was off in my calculations. I missed the top of his back by about an inch. This put him into a walk. It looked like he had no intention of stopping, so I fired again. I led him a little because he was walking, and held a little lower.

How much do you lead a walking animal at close to 500 yards? Believe me it's more than you think.

The bullet caught him right square through both hind quarters. What a terrible shot! At that point I hated myself for even trying such a stunt. He got back on his feet and was heading at a fast walk for cover. So, then I commenced to empty my gun trying to finish off this poor wounded animal at long range. And I finally did kill it. What a mess!

I always considered myself to be an ethical hunter. I always tried to kill an animal quickly and cleanly. At that point, I felt like a true "Slob Hunter". What a terrible thing to do!

So, from then on I almost never shoot over 400 yards. A long shot may be tempting, but in most cases it's better to wait, and get closer....

[steve1 5]

Quote

Everyone could benefit from reading Jack O Conners stories.

He knew what to do, when to do it and why.

Several of my friends hunting cabins have old magazines and book with articles or stories by him.

The fact he used a .270win to take so many different types of animals is a testament to his knowledge of shooting accuracy, shot placement, anatomy, bullet choice, ranging, stalking and sheer balls.

..................................................................
I've had many heroes in life. Jack O'connor was one of them....

[warpedskydiver 0]

For me when it came to marksmanship and the ability to use it to survive it was my Father, Chuck Mawhinney, Carlos Hathcock, Maj. John Plaster, and Lyudmila Pavlichenko.

They did what they had to do with the tools they were given.

All of them were naturals in that they did not merely become snipers or riflemen, they were born one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

All of them were naturals in that they did not merely become snipers or riflemen, they were born one.

That reminds me of a quote I heard someone say recently:

"Athletes are made in the womb, not in training."

In other words, some people are just born with special abilities, and if you don't have that from birth, no amount of training is going to make you as good as they are.

[steve1 5]

Winchester had some pretty rough years when they were making total crap. reply]
....................................................................
I saved all my money and bought a Winchester Model 70, 30/06 back in about 66. Winchester had made "great" rifles prior to 64 or so. I was young and didn't know much about guns when I bought this one. It came with a plastic butt plate, stamped checkering, and a floating barrel that you could slide a thick piece of cardboard under. (Truly a cheaply made rifle!)

I didn't like it. I sold it and bought a Remington 700 BDL. This started my love affair with Remington.

Then Winchester started building rifles that looked better in quality. I bought a Winchester Model 70 in featherlight. It didn't shoot tool well. I floated the barrel and this didn't help much at all. I put a shim under the fore-end, and it will now drive tacks. My wife uses it now for hunting.

So then I bought another Winchester rifle. A 300 Winchester in stainless, with a synthetic stock and a claw extractor on the bolt. I loved the looks and feel of that rifle.

So, I took it to the range. It didn't shoot good at all. I tried various hand loads, floated the barrel, bedded the action, adjusted the trigger, and nothing seemed to help much. I just plain ran out of ideas that might improve it's accuracy.

So, I traded it at a gun show for a Remington BDL out of Remington's custom shop. It had a 26 inch barrel. Right out of the box it would shoot better than the Winchester. With the right handload it will now shoot close to 3/4 of an inch with a four shot group at 100 yards. That's really good for a magnum.

At any rate, I've heard tell that Winchester has improved the quality their rifles since then. I wouldn't mind trying another one. I've heard that they should shoot better now that the company is under new management. If the army is using them for their sniper rifle, that says a lot. They must be accurate.....

[warpedskydiver 0]

You really to try a Savage as well.

Great things happened, they got better triggers and as for the rest of the rifle they are superb.

It would not take much to turn one into a phenomenal rifle.

BTW one certain Company makes the base for the scope on that rifle, it has a name that is an animal!

The newer FN rifles are really nice as well.

[steve1 5]

Quote

You really to try a Savage as well.

.

Savage have the reputation of being deadly accurate. I just don't like the look and feel of them too well. A lot of this is personal preference. I'm really picky about little things. There's probably nothing at all wrong with them. the price is really good on Savage rifles.