Custom Remington 700 SPS Tactical. Need Second Opinions.

[Aprilia Man]

I agree with Oneadam12, I think it’s best I work with the barrel I have until it doesn’t work well for me anymore. I never considered a new barrel until it was mentioned here, but yeah, I think the barrel I have will do. But I am sure that I need a new bolt for a larger grip that has a little more length than the short stock one with the small knob and I also really would like a smoother action. Is there not a bolt you can purchase that is a drop in replacement? Cause I’d prefer to avoid changing the entire action. And the rifle I’m running is the 700AAC-SD threaded barrel one.

KRG Knob and just use your factory barrel until it's time to replace it. That's when you will start looking into getting the action blueprinted and have a custom barrel. Factory barrel will have you goin' for a while.

 

[Cameron SS]

like someone already said, there are a million articles on MRAD vs MOA.

Its basically the difference between metric and imperial, but it is so much more to that.

Whether you are taking long shots for funzies at the farm, practicing at the range, or competing, if you want to get good and fast at precision rifle, one thing that will certainly help is to minimize the amount of math you have to do, and ensure you are doing math with numbers you are comfortable with.

Either system works just fine. Its all about how you do math in your head. Do you like MM, CM, Meters, Mils, KM, Meters/Second, or do you prefer inches, yards, minutes and miles per hour?

Canada is a bit of a weird country where all our science is done in Metric, but a lot of handiwork is done in Imperial. We estimate our distances in meters, but measure our targets in inches. We estimate our speed in KPH, but estimate our height in Feet.

Many known distance ranges across the country are actually in yards.

No matter what system you are using, you probably end up having to do some conversions, and alot of times its these conversions can trip you or slow you down and have you putting bad data in your scope, or have you doubting your math in your head while you are squeezing the trigger.

In field shooting, where you are denied a range finder, you are estimating distance based on the size of certain objects in your reticle, using the hashmarks and an estimate of its height to extrapolate distance. Most people would do better with metric in that case, although older people are probably still going to be more used to imperial.

The nice thing about metric is everything divides nicely by ten. With imperial there are a lot of halves, quarters and eighths. My dad is a 3rd generation carpenter. Ask him to add 7/16, 1/8, and 3/4 and he comes up with about an inch faster than I can understand the question. It really boils down to what you are comfortable with. Don't over think it.

The other thing to consider is if any competition you are contemplating trying measures their targets a certain way. For example, many F Class competitions the 5 ring is 1 MOA, 4 ring is 2 MOA, 3 ring is 3 MOA, etc. After each shot you get an indication of where you hit, and you can use your score to know how many MOA away from center you are. In that case its probably much simpler to just stick to MOA.

The only thing that I would personally recommend to stay away from, is scopes where the reticle is in MRAD, and the turrets are in MOA. I'm sure there is a good reason for it, but I just can't wrap my head around why you would want to add the extra step converting mm to inches every time, if you don't have to.

Those are some hefty scopes you picked out there. You would probably want to look at a -40 MOA rail, and maybe an anti-cant level as well.

 

[Raven41]

like someone already said, there are a million articles on MRAD vs MOA.

Its basically the difference between metric and imperial, but it is so much more to that.

Whether you are taking long shots for funzies at the farm, practicing at the range, or competing, if you want to get good and fast at precision rifle, one thing that will certainly help is to minimize the amount of math you have to do, and ensure you are doing math with numbers you are comfortable with.

Either system works just fine. Its all about how you do math in your head. Do you like MM, CM, Meters, Mils, KM, Meters/Second, or do you prefer inches, yards, minutes and miles per hour?

Canada is a bit of a weird country where all our science is done in Metric, but a lot of handiwork is done in Imperial. We estimate our distances in meters, but measure our targets in inches. We estimate our speed in KPH, but estimate our height in Feet.

Many known distance ranges across the country are actually in yards.

No matter what system you are using, you probably end up having to do some conversions, and alot of times its these conversions can trip you or slow you down and have you putting bad data in your scope, or have you doubting your math in your head while you are squeezing the trigger.

In field shooting, where you are denied a range finder, you are estimating distance based on the size of certain objects in your reticle, using the hashmarks and an estimate of its height to extrapolate distance. Most people would do better with metric in that case, although older people are probably still going to be more used to imperial.

The nice thing about metric is everything divides nicely by ten. With imperial there are a lot of halves, quarters and eighths. My dad is a 3rd generation carpenter. Ask him to add 7/16, 1/8, and 3/4 and he comes up with about an inch faster than I can understand the question. It really boils down to what you are comfortable with. Don't over think it.

The other thing to consider is if any competition you are contemplating trying measures their targets a certain way. For example, many F Class competitions the 5 ring is 1 MOA, 4 ring is 2 MOA, 3 ring is 3 MOA, etc. After each shot you get an indication of where you hit, and you can use your score to know how many MOA away from center you are. In that case its probably much simpler to just stick to MOA.

The only thing that I would personally recommend to stay away from, is scopes where the reticle is in MRAD, and the turrets are in MOA. I'm sure there is a good reason for it, but I just can't wrap my head around why you would want to add the extra step converting mm to inches every time, if you don't have to.

Those are some hefty scopes you picked out there. You would probably want to look at a -40 MOA rail, and maybe an anti-cant level as well.

Thank you for the advice! This is a whole lot more to think about than I realized when I started into buying and changing this rifle.

 

[Cameron SS]

Thank you for the advice! This is a whole lot more to think about than I realized when I started into buying and changing this rifle.

We havent even staryed about first focal plane vs second... hold on to er newt she is headed for the rhubarb

 

[Clocked92]

Probably not gonna need a 40 MOA rail unless you really plan on stretching that 308 out long past 1000 yards. 20 MOA in a rail with a Scope like the Gen 1 Razor is likely more than enough for 99% of shooters out there.

 

[Raven41]

Probably not gonna need a 40 MOA rail unless you really plan on stretching that 308 out long past 1000 yards. 20 MOA in a rail with a Scope like the Gen 1 Razor is likely more than enough for 99% of shooters out there.

Eventually I’d like to get out to Edmonton on one or Rob Furlong’s courses. So I’d prefer to go with the better options so I’m prepared and not having to spend more money continually upgrading. Instead I’d rather my rifle be in a position where it will take a long time for me to out shoot it.

My goal is to practice until I am able to touch out to 800m-1000m. Better if possible, but certainly no less then 800m.

 

[chrisward3]

All good things...just don't fall into the trap of gear > practice. Lots of guys go out there and buy the newest/latest/greatest or whatever the precision rifle blog says...and then quickly get frustrated because they don't know how to shoot their rifle past 100m or in any position other than prone. We had 2 guys at a clinic a few years ago show up with brand new FN SPRs with S&B scopes and neither could get zeroed at 100m to save their lives...they didn't bother coming back for day 2 and I suspect the rifles are still sitting in their new pelican cases, or were sold off quickly.

As I mentioned in my post, get something functional and then spend the rest on practice ammo or reloading. You'll start to identify weak points in your system and can upgrade from there. Youll learn a lot about the equipment and whats needed vs nice to have along the way. Buy quality and it will hold its value when you upgrade.

 

[rugbydave]

like someone already said, there are a million articles on MRAD vs MOA.

Its basically the difference between metric and imperial, but it is so much more to that.

Whether you are taking long shots for funzies at the farm, practicing at the range, or competing, if you want to get good and fast at precision rifle, one thing that will certainly help is to minimize the amount of math you have to do, and ensure you are doing math with numbers you are comfortable with.

Either system works just fine. Its all about how you do math in your head. Do you like MM, CM, Meters, Mils, KM, Meters/Second, or do you prefer inches, yards, minutes and miles per hour?

Canada is a bit of a weird country where all our science is done in Metric, but a lot of handiwork is done in Imperial. We estimate our distances in meters, but measure our targets in inches. We estimate our speed in KPH, but estimate our height in Feet.

Many known distance ranges across the country are actually in yards.

No matter what system you are using, you probably end up having to do some conversions, and alot of times its these conversions can trip you or slow you down and have you putting bad data in your scope, or have you doubting your math in your head while you are squeezing the trigger.

In field shooting, where you are denied a range finder, you are estimating distance based on the size of certain objects in your reticle, using the hashmarks and an estimate of its height to extrapolate distance. Most people would do better with metric in that case, although older people are probably still going to be more used to imperial.

The nice thing about metric is everything divides nicely by ten. With imperial there are a lot of halves, quarters and eighths. My dad is a 3rd generation carpenter. Ask him to add 7/16, 1/8, and 3/4 and he comes up with about an inch faster than I can understand the question. It really boils down to what you are comfortable with. Don't over think it.

The other thing to consider is if any competition you are contemplating trying measures their targets a certain way. For example, many F Class competitions the 5 ring is 1 MOA, 4 ring is 2 MOA, 3 ring is 3 MOA, etc. After each shot you get an indication of where you hit, and you can use your score to know how many MOA away from center you are. In that case its probably much simpler to just stick to MOA.

The only thing that I would personally recommend to stay away from, is scopes where the reticle is in MRAD, and the turrets are in MOA. I'm sure there is a good reason for it, but I just can't wrap my head around why you would want to add the extra step converting mm to inches every time, if you don't have to.

Those are some hefty scopes you picked out there. You would probably want to look at a -40 MOA rail, and maybe an anti-cant level as well.

Again, it doesn't matter if you "think" in imperial or metric, people constantly regurgitate the mantra that mrad=metric and moa=imperial. It's just not true. I shoot lots of matches in the States, all distances are in yards, target sizes in inches, wind is done in mph, movers in mph and 99% of people use mils. We also mil targets (the sizes of which are given to us in inches) to estimate ranges on some stages. No one does the math, you use a chart or an app. In any case being off by 0.05mrad can be a difference of as much as 100 yards so you're just trying to get close.

As for a scope rail, 20moa of cant is plenty. I've taken my .308 out past 1500 yards with a 20 moa rail and I only need to start holding over around 1520 or so.

 

[Cameron SS]

Again, it doesn't matter if you "think" in imperial or metric, people constantly regurgitate the mantra that mrad=metric and moa=imperial. It's just not true. I shoot lots of matches in the States, all distances are in yards, target sizes in inches, wind is done in mph, movers in mph and 99% of people use mils. We also mil targets (the sizes of which are given to us in inches) to estimate ranges on some stages. No one does the math, you use a chart or an app. In any case being off by 0.05mrad can be a difference of as much as 100 yards so you're just trying to get close.

As for a scope rail, 20moa of cant is plenty. I've taken my .308 out past 1500 yards with a 20 moa rail and I only need to start holding over around 1520 or so.

The scopes he indicated have an elevation range of 125 MOA. Assuming he zeroes somewhere near the middle, he is leaving 60+ MOA unusable. A 20 MOA rail still leaves 40 MOA on the table.

Its not about what distance he plans to shoot. Its about getting the maximum possible performance out of a $3,000+ Scope, especially when there is usually no price difference between the two.

 

[rugbydave]

The scopes he indicated have an elevation range of 125 MOA. Assuming he zeroes somewhere near the middle, he is leaving 60+ MOA unusable. A 20 MOA rail still leaves 40 MOA on the table.

Its not about what distance he plans to shoot. Its about getting the maximum possible performance out of a $3,000+ Scope, especially when there is usually no price difference between the two.

Of course it's about what distance he plans to shoot at. If like you said he would zero somewhere in the middle of his elevation travel (leaving him 62.5 moa either way) and you then add a 20 moa base, that gives you 82.5 moa of elevation. Lets call it 80. That's 23.3 mils. That gets you out to 1500+ yards with my dope anyways. He's shooting a .308, why would he possibly need more elevation travel? Not to mention that with a 40 moa base, he won't be in the middle of the elevation travel (which is supposed to be the sweet spot for optical clarity)till about, well, 40 moa up, which is 11.6 mils, well past 1000 yards. I don't see how having an extra bunch of elevation travel that you will never use because you are WELL past the effective range of your cartridge is getting the maximum possible performance out of a $3000 scope? Have you ever shot a .308 that far, out of curiosity?

 

[Cameron SS]

Of course it's about what distance he plans to shoot at. If like you said he would zero somewhere in the middle of his elevation travel (leaving him 62.5 moa either way) and you then add a 20 moa base, that gives you 82.5 moa of elevation. Lets call it 80. That's 23.3 mils. That gets you out to 1500+ yards with my dope anyways. He's shooting a .308, why would he possibly need more elevation travel? Not to mention that with a 40 moa base, he won't be in the middle of the elevation travel (which is supposed to be the sweet spot for optical clarity)till about, well, 40 moa up, which is 11.6 mils, well past 1000 yards. I don't see how having an extra bunch of elevation travel that you will never use because you are WELL past the effective range of your cartridge is getting the maximum possible performance out of a $3000 scope? Have you ever shot a .308 that far, out of curiosity?

Furthest I have shot a .308 is about 1900 hards. Did not do very well at all.

 

[rugbydave]

Furthest I have shot a .308 is about 1900 hards. Did not do very well at all.

Yeah, I wouldn't imagine so, haha. If I recall my wind dope properly, even around 1500 yards a 1mph shift in wind was about 0.4 mil which is like 2ft at that distance.