Shot ONE really nice group this weekend...

[Merc1138]

I agree with all you've posted, except in this case, the OP's 2nd outting, it's possible *he* doesnt know how.

How to adjust his scope? He can certainly learn, and it's still easy.

[postal]

How to adjust his scope? He can certainly learn, and it's still easy.

Yeah, of course he can learn. Just a 2nd outting, maybe he doesnt know how yet...

[Merc1138]

Yeah, of course he can learn. Just a 2nd outting, maybe he doesnt know how yet...

Well that's fine. My question regarding someone not understanding how to adjust their scope was directed toward CK_32 who doesn't seem to grasp the concept.

[Merc1138]

Oh I don't do I?


I wonder how I've shot my plate at 700 yards all these years then

Still doesn't mean you actually understand it. If you did, the concept of shifting your point of impact from your point of aim, a simple mechanical change, wouldn't be so hard for you to grasp(and would also explain why you think that silly quote you posted is some sort of truth).

[CK_32]

Well that's fine. My question regarding someone not understanding how to adjust their scope was directed toward CK_32 who doesn't seem to grasp the concept.

Oh I don't do I?


I wonder how I've shot my plate at 700 yards all these years then?


I always thought those knobby clicky things were to make my scope look cooler

[CK_32]

Still doesn't mean you actually understand it. If you did, the concept of shifting your point of impact from your point of aim, a simple mechanical change, wouldn't be so hard for you to grasp(and would also explain why you think that silly quote you posted is some sort of truth).

Wtf are you talking about... I'm not getting into a Calguns argument with you.


Yea I made a name for it. I hope it catches on


A "Calguns argument" - an argument that starts off as one subject but by the time it's over no one knows wtf they are arguing about because the subject of knowledge has been changed so much.

First it was my quote, not it's scope adjustments, then it will be ballistics then my skills will be challenged.

But for the record yea I do and fully grasp the concept. The concept your it grasping and trying to pass off as us (postal) being stupid is that the OP was obviously doing hold overs and adjustments to not blow out his bull.


Which we both don't think was his intentions being only his 2nd time out. Also no other shots around the bull.. Again I had no argument of what scope adjustments or hold overs were I fully understand that. What you were and are not understanding is what my point was from my quote. That was what I was trying to explain but you didn't get it.


But again think what you will and post what you will at my expense to be little my SN to make me sound stupid. But again I'm not getting into it with you to justify your argument.

[Merc1138]

Wtf are you talking about... I'm not getting into a Calguns argument with you.


Yea I made a name for it. I hope it catches on


A "Calguns argument" - an argument that starts off as one subject but by the time it's over no one knows wtf they are arguing about because the subject of knowledge has been changed so much.

First it was my quote, not it's scope adjustments, then it will be ballistics then my skills will be challenged.

But for the record yea I do and fully grasp the concept. The concept your it grasping and trying to pass off as us (postal) being stupid is that the OP was obviously doing hold overs and adjustments to not blow out his bull.


Which we both don't think was his intentions being only his 2nd time out. Also no other shots around the bull.. Again I had no argument of what scope adjustments or hold overs were I fully understand that. What you were and are not understanding is what my point was from my quote. That was what I was trying to explain but you didn't get it.


But again think what you will and post what you will at my expense to be little my SN to make me sound stupid. But again I'm not getting into it with you to justify your argument.

So then you're saying your quote is a bunch of nonsense and not the "truth" you believed it to be? Your quote has no point, it's garbage.

As far as Postal, I never commented on his ability to shoot, adjust a scope, or his understanding of why someone may not care about POI failing to match POA. You might not want to lump him in with you(whether or not he has a problem with that, I don't know or care), because I wasn't lumping him in with you(he didn't post some nonsense quote and claim it to be truth).

You don't have to justify my argument, you were asked to justify that nonsense quote under the assumption that the OP can learn how to adjust his scope in the span of a whole 5 minutes and that he's not an idiot(not knowing how to do something doesn't make someone an idiot) if it is the case that he doesn't know how yet.

You can try to rename your own fail whatever you want, doesn't change what it is.

edit: To clarify, no I don't think the OP is an idiot. I think you had no idea what you were talking about by posting that garbage.

[Happyhappycamper]

Four shot groups are not statistically significant. Re-confirm with 10 shot groups. That will be a lot closer to real world results.

Are you being serious? I'm not well versed in what is the norm as I'm not really big into the sport nor do I consider myself a marksman I just like shooting guns. I mean I do personally shoot 10 shot groups, but I never see anyone else doing it. I see most people shooting 3 or 5 shots at a time.

[jetman624]

Ok then...

I remember your thread with bullet setback? What was the OAL you used for the 55gr GK? Just asking because if I recall correctly you were having issues with 2.260"? With what you wrote above it seems like you settled on 2.23"? Not sure if you can or should seat 69gr or 77gr smk that far back. I could be wrong but just be careful when doing load development as most of the figures you'd be looking at in manuals are for 2.260" OAL.

I will have to double check my notes to see what I ended up having them seated at-- its all documented. I want to say it was like 2.212 or something close to that.

That is a good point about the possible depths of the heavier bullets-- I have been thinking the same thing. I will have to experiment a little with dummy rounds and see where the bullet ends up at and how much of it is hanging into the case. I did have some Nosler factory match rounds with 69gr bullets and those were seated 20-30 thou deeper than what I was doing. So I will see what happens...

[Metal God]

for my 308s I shoot 4 round groups when working up loads . Only because thats what my mags hold . I was doing 5rd groups but having to reload got old fast . Once I have a good load I do a couple 10 round groups but not to see how the grouping is but to confirm velocity . Yes the 10rd groups are almost always a little bigger then the 4rd groups .

I believe it's not a group unless you shoot them all in the same string 30sec or less apart . I don't like to heat my barrels up that much so what I do to see how well the riffle shoots . You can do this with any number of shots 1 , 3 , 5 what ever . Shoot your group then place an identical target over the target you just shot then shoot another group . Repeat as many times as you like . When done remove all the targets but the very first one you shot . That target now represents how you and the rifle really shoot because you shot every bullet though that target . I like to do this with three 4 shot groups . That gives me a 12 shot group and tells me How I really shoot with the rifle . There's no such thing as a flyer . Your only as good as your worst shot .

[postal]

for my 308s I shoot 4 round groups when working up loads . Only because thats what my mags hold . I was doing 5rd groups but having to reload got old fast .......

I believe it's not a group unless you shoot them all in the same string 30sec or less apart . I don't like to heat my barrels up that much so what I do to see how well the riffle shoots . You can do this with any number of shots 1 , 3 , 5 what ever .

I have to disagree. It mostly would depend on the barrel diameter....

But a thin hunter style barrel is going to warp like crazy after 5 shots in less than 30 seconds.

Thick barrels tend not to bend much from heat though.

So most lightweight barrel, you'll see it string vert or horiz, or diag shooting 5 rounds that quick unless the barrel was already hot.

[postal]

Still doesn't mean you actually understand it. If you did, the concept of shifting your point of impact from your point of aim, a simple mechanical change, wouldn't be so hard for you to grasp(and would also explain why you think that silly quote you posted is some sort of truth).

In the Navy, I was "Fire Control".... I was a computer geek who worked on electronics dealing with combat systems/weapon systems....

Though I have never seen it done on *MY* ship.... I heard about the tests for CWIS cannons live fire at *friendly* aircraft pulling a banner/target behind it. The cannon mount is offset 2 degrees. Since we're tracking the aircraft, the gun *thinks* it's firing at the aircraft, but that 2 deg offset puts rounds on the banner behind it....

The "BIG BOY" version of intentionally NOT hitting your POA.....

I heard pilots really hated that job.... A 30MM cannon at about 100 rounds per second has got to scare the crap outta them...

[Merc1138]

In the Navy, I was "Fire Control".... I was a computer geek who worked on electronics dealing with combat systems/weapon systems....

Though I have never seen it done on *MY* ship.... I heard about the tests for CWIS cannons live fire at *friendly* aircraft pulling a banner/target behind it. The cannon mount is offset 2 degrees. Since we're tracking the aircraft, the gun *thinks* it's firing at the aircraft, but that 2 deg offset puts rounds on the banner behind it....

The "BIG BOY" version of intentionally NOT hitting your POA.....

I heard pilots really hated that job.... A 30MM cannon at about 100 rounds per second has got to scare the crap outta them...

Jeez... just the thought of that made things start to clench. I guess these days they could just use a UAV or whatever for that.

[Happyhappycamper]

There's no such thing as a flyer . Your only as good as your worst shot .

Yea that is what dimes are for

[postal]

Jeez... just the thought of that made things start to clench. I guess these days they could just use a UAV or whatever for that.

I've been out about 16 years. They probably do use a UAV for that now. Which... is really a silly test anyway. Those cannons are for inbound missiles moving ***WAY*** faster than most aircraft....

And, pulling a banner/target... the aircraft has to be going a certain direction (parallel to the ship) at a certain distance from the ship for the hits on the target.

The missiles would be going directly AT the ship.... at mach 2+...

Though I did hear of tests on missiles/drones with no warheads... They say it blows it to pieces... then starts blowing up the bigger pieces that are left over.... Those things are no joke... but serious pucker factor if you HAD to use them...


------edit----

I was on a carrier. We had 3 of those cannons. One was aft.... We forgot one day, and left the aft cannon in "stand by". Which means it will automatically prioritize *AND TRACK!* targets..... it wont shoot.... It has to be set loose to actually fire.... But we got an earful after a couple planes came in.... and they saw those barrels tracking them all the way to the flight deck!!!!! They got the "willy's" from that.....