Shorty M14 issue
- Thread starter Xman
- Start date
- Status
Me too, last fall I was laying prone shooting down a cutline at a target a 100 yards away with some different ammo and bullet impacts were wandering around on my target. The bullet path looked clear and thought the rifle didn’t care for that ammo much but also thought maybe I was getting some grass strikes along the way. Laid down in the box of my truck and fired a few more and things tightened right up. I was getting grass strikes.
Contact lenses. Mild prescription.
I don't know if this has something to do with your case, but every time I've had weird results shooting (admittedly not as weird as yours) it was something related to my glasses.
I have a mild prescription too and shoot WITHOUT glasses when using a scope (unfortunately can't do the irons without glasses anymore) and seem to avoid the corky issues...
RememberTheSomme
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Xman.
I'm not doubting what happened to you. But remember some variable has to have changed here.
I see a discrepancy in the original story already. The first post you said it was 8MOA at 100, 1 MOA at 200, and then 1MOA at 300 etc.
When you showed the target post,... you said you fired first at 300
, moved back to 200, then moved back to 100.
It seems something happened to the Rifle, either sight or action, gas plug, bedding etc etc while moving back, from the 200 meter line.
Now I can see what happened here logically, and I am convinced something came "undone" between the 200 back to the 100. Follow me?
The rifle didn't tighten up at 200meters after a disaster at 100,... it fell on it's face at 100 meters after wonderous results at 300meters,.... so I'm guessing if you went back to 200 right away, you wouldn't keep them on a baby barn if it's 8 MOA at 100.
You sure this is not 100,200,300 feet right??????
The parallax on a center fire scope at 100 feet, 33 yds, can be alot with budget scopes.
I'm not doubting what happened to you. But remember some variable has to have changed here.
I see a discrepancy in the original story already. The first post you said it was 8MOA at 100, 1 MOA at 200, and then 1MOA at 300 etc.
When you showed the target post,... you said you fired first at 300
, moved back to 200, then moved back to 100.It seems something happened to the Rifle, either sight or action, gas plug, bedding etc etc while moving back, from the 200 meter line.
Now I can see what happened here logically, and I am convinced something came "undone" between the 200 back to the 100. Follow me?
The rifle didn't tighten up at 200meters after a disaster at 100,... it fell on it's face at 100 meters after wonderous results at 300meters,.... so I'm guessing if you went back to 200 right away, you wouldn't keep them on a baby barn if it's 8 MOA at 100.
You sure this is not 100,200,300 feet right??????
The parallax on a center fire scope at 100 feet, 33 yds, can be alot with budget scopes.
I'm guessing it's psychological.
As the target starts it's 300yard charge you're cool and collected. By the time it reaches 200yards you're still confident that you can stop it in time. Once it gets to 100yards you're starting to panic because you realize it will be on you in moments; as the adrenalin kicks in sweat drips into your eyes, your heart thunders in your chest and all you can see is that red bullseye coming nearer...nearer...
As the target starts it's 300yard charge you're cool and collected. By the time it reaches 200yards you're still confident that you can stop it in time. Once it gets to 100yards you're starting to panic because you realize it will be on you in moments; as the adrenalin kicks in sweat drips into your eyes, your heart thunders in your chest and all you can see is that red bullseye coming nearer...nearer...
Xman.
I'm not doubting what happened to you. But remember some variable has to have changed here.
I see a discrepancy in the original story already. The first post you said it was 8MOA at 100, 1 MOA at 200, and then 1MOA at 300 etc.
When you showed the target post,... you said you fired first at 300
It seems something happened to the Rifle, either sight or action, gas plug, bedding etc etc while moving back, from the 200 meter line.
Now I can see what happened here logically, and I am convinced something came "undone" between the 200 back to the 100. Follow me?
The rifle didn't tighten up at 200meters after a disaster at 100,... it fell on it's face at 100 meters after wonderous results at 300meters,.... so I'm guessing if you went back to 200 right away, you wouldn't keep them on a baby barn if it's 8 MOA at 100.
You sure this is not 100,200,300 feet right??????
The parallax on a center fire scope at 100 feet, 33 yds, can be alot with budget scopes.
There is no discrepancy. This target posted here I just shot yesterday to show what I was talking about. This time around I started at 300 because I wanted make the longer shots first, when I was fully rested, leaving the closer shots for last.
As for the MOA variations,if you read my first post again, I was approximating. It generally shoots that way. After some people couldn't wrap their mind around what I was saying, I went to the range yesterday and I shot again. I wanted to use the same target to give a good visual of what I was saying.
I put it at 300, I shoot it and I market the holes as "1" as it was my first string of five shots. Then I took the same target, stapled it at 200 and using the same aiming point (the red/orange dot) I shot again. I marked the new holes with "2" before moving the target to 100.
After I moved it to 100 I realized it was getting too busy on there and I made a lower aiming point with a marker, down in the belly of the target.
The last five shots I marked with "3".
It shoots generally in the same fashion every time, with this load and bullet. Tight groups at 200 and 300 (around 1MOA) and much wider groups at 100.
The reason my 200 and 300 groups overlap is because I was using the 200 mark on my reticule at 200 and the 300 mark at 300. I started at 300 because I wanted make the longer shots first, when I was fully rested, leaving the closer shots for last.
And yes, I now I have to dial my scope down so my aiming point matches my impact point. I've just developed this load recently so I wasn't worried about that just yet.
Turkeyslayer 1300
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Russell, Ontario
Do you always do your longer distance shooting first always? I would guess you are flinching by the time you get to the last few rounds.
No, not usually. But you know how you know right after you pull the trigger, if it was good shot or not? The only shot I pulled was one, in the second string.
Here is my take on it.......
trying to aim black crossairs on a small black dot on a dark blue background might be harder than to center the same crossairs on a larger bright orange dot......
Try aiming the same orange circle ant 100-200 and 300.. that might do it..
trying to aim black crossairs on a small black dot on a dark blue background might be harder than to center the same crossairs on a larger bright orange dot......
Try aiming the same orange circle ant 100-200 and 300.. that might do it..
Here's another dumb question: Is your target at 100 as solid as the ones at 200 and 300?
Sometimes the target fames might be a little feeble and wander a bit back and forth with the wind, a movement which might not be as easy to detect as a side-to-side or a rotational one. Although it shouldn't be that hard to see through a scope, but...
Also, sometimes there are so many targets stapled to the frame that it's impossible to get your target completely flat on it, making it easier for the wing to vary the shape of the your target while you're shooting at it.
Just a though. Dumb as it may sound, it has happened to me in the past.
Sometimes the target fames might be a little feeble and wander a bit back and forth with the wind, a movement which might not be as easy to detect as a side-to-side or a rotational one. Although it shouldn't be that hard to see through a scope, but...
Also, sometimes there are so many targets stapled to the frame that it's impossible to get your target completely flat on it, making it easier for the wing to vary the shape of the your target while you're shooting at it.
Just a though. Dumb as it may sound, it has happened to me in the past.
TargetNorth
Regular
- Location
- Southern Alberta
I'd check parallax. It could put you off that much. You're shooting really well at 300, better then I usually do, and you probably know this already but...
-set the gun up on bags aimed at your target. Without touching the gun, look through the scope and move your eye back and forth left and right. The reticle should stay perfectly inline with the target. If the reticle appears to "move" with the different eye position, you have a parallax error.
Thoughts?
-set the gun up on bags aimed at your target. Without touching the gun, look through the scope and move your eye back and forth left and right. The reticle should stay perfectly inline with the target. If the reticle appears to "move" with the different eye position, you have a parallax error.
Thoughts?
If the reticle moves, you may have parallax error. That error will only occur if you don't centre your eye consistently on the ocular lens.
As well, no 40-50 mm objective scope is going to have 7" of added parallax error at 100 yards. Impossible.
I shot it iron sights with similar results at 100. I'd leave it iron sights but I can seem to tighten my groups beyond 100 if I don't use a scope. I can't see a fine enough aiming point with iron sights, to shoot small groups consistently.
That's why I think it's the rifle and not the scope. After what everyone suggested the only logical conclussion I can draw is still that the bullet only stabilizes after 100. Maybe it tumbles wildly before it settles down?
That's why I think it's the rifle and not the scope. After what everyone suggested the only logical conclussion I can draw is still that the bullet only stabilizes after 100. Maybe it tumbles wildly before it settles down?
- Status
