Jump to content

What's in your arsenal??


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I didn't like the G26 or 27.  I had a G26 briefly.  It was still very fat and the short grip sucked.  It never felt comfortable to shoot.

I bought +1 grip/mag extensions for both of my factory magazines. Only used it briefly without those when it was brand new and didn't like the feel that way either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have two Winchester Model 94's. These are part of my families history. The top one was my dads high school graduation present from 1948. It is a .32 Special. When i was young, he always promise

In wouldn't necessarily call myself a "placid" driver.  But I usually don't go out of my way to instigate confrontations either.  However, this one day on the way home from work on a fairly open fast

and some orthere stuffe to.                                    

Posted Images

Back to the .22LR (Dogballs) rifle kit out.  

I'm working on bases and rings right now.  But the rings bring up another question..... scope.  I've got a Vortex Razor HD (gen 1) 5-20x50 sitting on a precision AR right now that seems perfect for the new .22.  The problem with moving the Razor is its in a one piece mount for the AR and I would have to get new 35mm rings for it if I moved it to the Bergara.  

I've also got a Steiner 5-25x56 and a S&B 5-25x56 sitting idle at the moment, both with rings.  I figured both of those would be huge overkill for something I won't go past 500 yds ever with.  Even the Razor HD is sorta overkill.  I'm tempted to just get a bit cheaper scope like a Burris XTR or even a Vortex PST in the 20-24x max magnification range and leave those other higher end scopes for my really long range guns.  It seems to me that logic says the shorter distances would mean it's less demanding for a scope to shoot well.  I would think even a decent $500 scope would do very well at 300-500 yds.

Thoughts?  What are you guys running on your .22NRL rigs?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like high mag scopes on my .22's because even though the distances are short, the holes are small. With a high mag scope on the gun, I don't need a spotting scope so less crap to carry and set up/tear down at the range. 

In your particular case with two excellent scopes sitting on the shelf unused, it seems like madness to buy a third for the new gun. I'd put one of them to use on the .22 and only buy a third if and when you actually need both existing scopes for other purposes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IStream said:

I like high mag scopes on my .22's because even though the distances are short, the holes are small. With a high mag scope on the gun, I don't need a spotting scope so less crap to carry and set up/tear down at the range. 

In your particular case with two excellent scopes sitting on the shelf unused, it seems like madness to buy a third for the new gun. I'd put one of them to use on the .22 and only buy a third if and when you actually need both existing scopes for other purposes. 

Yeah, I'm a high mag guy as well.  I think I'll work with what I have and see how I like it before deciding to get another one.  Damn you though, you just too away my excuse to buy another expensive scope I don't need :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, I'm a high mag guy as well.  I think I'll work with what I have and see how I like it before deciding to get another one.  Damn you though, you just too away my excuse to buy another expensive scope I don't need :lol:

Dude, I feel you. I've got a 36X Weaver with rings collecting dust on the shelf. Nevertheless, I've caught myself surfing over to the optics sites on occasion...Stay strong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 4-16x44 Vortex Diamondback Tactical on my Volquartsen and a 5-25x56 Strike Eagle on the vudoo.

The scope on the Volquartsen has a really picky eye relief.

Remember, if you do nrl, you might be shooting at a 2" target at 100yds regularly. A ¼" target at 50 yards is basically invisible. I like being able to zoom in on it.  I have a lever on mine, and I'll often times zoom in/out going from target to target so I can find it easier.  I'm probably dicking with that too much.

I think 1st focal plane is important for hold overs.  I only dial elevation if all shots are the same distance for that stage. Otherwise I just memorize my holds.  I use moa, but in my area most people I've seen are using milliradians.  Mils make zero ficking sense to me.

I haven't had a reason to use the lit rectical on the Strike Eagle yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hatin' life said:

Mils make zero ficking sense to me.

Gaaahhh!!! Blasphemy!  mils are magical!!!!

<lol>

In truth, for most purposes, MOA and MILs are functionally equivalent.  If I think about "clicks" (or reticle stadia) 1/4 of an MOA is (roughly) an 1/4-inch at 100 yards, 1/10th of a MIL is (roughly) 1/3" inch at 100 yards. Both are fairly easy to deal with.  One could argue the adjustments on an MOA scope are slightly more granular.

The place where MILs (for me) start to come into their own is if you're doing things at distance.  a MIL is 1/1000th of the distance to the target, so.... at 1000 yards, a MIL is 1 yard.    And the math for MILs is a lot cleaner in metric (mils vs. meters) than for MOAs (inches vs. yards).  IMO, MILs lead to a cleaner reticle, too (holding 6-1/2 MILs over is - for me - a lot easier than holding ... what, 22-1/3 MOA? ...)

(in truth, either system works just fine.  it's mixing the two that makes no sense.  I've seen scopes that have MIL reticles and MOA turrets.... WTF?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just do the math easier in minutes than mils, that's my only reason.

It makes more sense to me.  There's 3600 minutes in a circle.  There's 128,000 milliradians I think?

 

Fun fact I didn't know recently.  Excel works in mils and not degrees.  I made a little calculator for some trig functions and could not get the fucking formula to work.  I googled three times before I got an answer and how to do the conversion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hatin' life said:

I have a 4-16x44 Vortex Diamondback Tactical on my Volquartsen and a 5-25x56 Strike Eagle on the vudoo.

The scope on the Volquartsen has a really picky eye relief.

Remember, if you do nrl, you might be shooting at a 2" target at 100yds regularly. A ¼" target at 50 yards is basically invisible. I like being able to zoom in on it.  I have a lever on mine, and I'll often times zoom in/out going from target to target so I can find it easier.  I'm probably dicking with that too much.

I think 1st focal plane is important for hold overs.  I only dial elevation if all shots are the same distance for that stage. Otherwise I just memorize my holds.  I use moa, but in my area most people I've seen are using milliradians.  Mils make zero ficking sense to me.

I haven't had a reason to use the lit rectical on the Strike Eagle yet.

I've just been looking at the Vortex Diamondback tactical 6-24x50 and that seems like the right price pt for the NRL game.  It has the same reticle as my Razor HD and I like it.  And for the distances for NRL, I doubt I'm going to need to have S&B level clarity.  

I am lusting over the new Gen II Razor HD in the 4.5-27x.  I might have to try to sell my Steiner 5-25x Police to fund it.  It seems like a steal @ $1800.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sledracr said:

Gaaahhh!!! Blasphemy!  mils are magical!!!!

<lol>

In truth, for most purposes, MOA and MILs are functionally equivalent.  If I think about "clicks" (or reticle stadia) 1/4 of an MOA is (roughly) an 1/4-inch at 100 yards, 1/10th of a MIL is (roughly) 1/3" inch at 100 yards. Both are fairly easy to deal with.  One could argue the adjustments on an MOA scope are slightly more granular.

The place where MILs (for me) start to come into their own is if you're doing things at distance.  a MIL is 1/1000th of the distance to the target, so.... at 1000 yards, a MIL is 1 yard.    And the math for MILs is a lot cleaner in metric (mils vs. meters) than for MOAs (inches vs. yards).  IMO, MILs lead to a cleaner reticle, too (holding 6-1/2 MILs over is - for me - a lot easier than holding ... what, 22-1/3 MOA? ...)

(in truth, either system works just fine.  it's mixing the two that makes no sense.  I've seen scopes that have MIL reticles and MOA turrets.... WTF?)

100% ^^.  I'm a mil fan as well.  MOA makes zero sense to me and for all the reasons you list, I like mils better.  far cleaner reticle.

But here's the thing...... you touched on it at the end briefly, but it's worth expanding on.  Whether you use MOA or Mil is irrelevant AS LONG AS your turrets are the same.  There used to be some scopes that had a mil reticle but MOA turrets.  WTF???  The thought of that puts me on tilt.  I think those are all gone now, thank the gods.

The bottom line is that whatever unit of measure you use, it's just a unit of measure.  You could come up with something completely arbitrary and call them "pink unicorns".  By using the reticle itself to measure the shots, and then dialing that into the turret to correct - you need not EVER have to think about actual inches or centimeters and such.  An example is if you are sighting in a new scope with a MOA or Mil reticle......Let's say you shoot the first round and it high and left.  Assuming you are using a FFP scope - Does it matter how many centimeters or inches high and left it is?  Hellz no.  Just use the reticle and measure it.  If it measures 1.2 units high of the bullseye and 2.5 units left - then fucking dial 1.2 down and 2.5 right.  Viola - the next shot should be through the center if your scope tracks correctly.  The number of inches or cm in that example are totally irrelevant. I do the same when I'm shooting at distance..... if I see the impact miss left and low of the steel plate in the dirt, I put my crosshair on that spot and hold it there and using the reticle, measure exactly how many units of measure in the scope it missed by.  I then correct that exact amount for the next shot.  No guesswork, no trying to figure out if it missed 18" low and 20 inches left or whatever.  The miss distance in actual measurements is irrelevant.  The miss distance using the reticle is all that matters.  All that math BS is completely unneeded.  

Of course if you have a non-graduated scope like a traditional old hunting fine crosshair - then disregard everything after Bonjour.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hatin' life said:

I can just do the math easier in minutes than mils, that's my only reason.

It makes more sense to me.

 

Fun fact I didn't know recently.  Excel works in mils and not degrees.  I made a little calculator for some trig functions and could not get the fucking formula to work.  I googled three times before I got an answer and how to do the conversion.

What math?  Why are you converting mils to inches or vice versa.  What are you converting and when?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

if I see the impact miss left and low of the steel plate in the dirt, I put my crosshair on that spot and hold it there and using the reticle, measure exactly how many units of measure in the scope it missed by.  I then correct that exact amount for the next shot. 

Yup.  For a while, there was a thing called the "horus" reticle.  Basically a mil-spaced grid.  The idea was that you would "watch" the first round land in the reticle, and note where in the grid it hit.  Then adjust your hold so "that spot" on the grid was on target and send the second round.  Easy-peasy, especially on unknown-distance targets.

A company called Horus Vision made FFP scopes with these reticles.  I've got a couple of them.  They work.  Just not as well as other solutions....like, you know, knowing your dope and stuff.

Definitely not a great solution for first-shot hits.  And you needed to be able to see where the first round impacted - if your shot went over the target and off into the woods, it didn't help you.  And the reticle was super-busy and dense.  Plus, in this use-case, the FFP was a mixed blessing - if you had the scope powered up enough to be able to see the point of impact, there's a good chance you had zoomed through most of the useful area of the grid (and the stadia got REALLY thick). 

But for a while it was the hotness (and I'm "told" some special forces teams still use it)

 

H25.jpg.b1cab095b5b4590e94df3b81aa4c9fd3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

What math?  Why are you converting mils to inches or vice versa.  What are you converting and when?

No, for ranging things.  If it's 2" high, and it's 4moa, I know it's pretty close to 50 yards.  I can figure that out with a calculator pretty easily.  I had to check my math there.

I had to convert mils to degrees to make a chart I was screwing with.  No real reason other than better understanding the trig, algebra, and a spreadsheet function.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hatin' life said:

No, for ranging things. 

Yup.

I don't know if it's allowed in the kind(s) of competition you do, but I made this for my 3-gun "dope book", and have been known to stick a subset of it on a wrist-card where I can refer to it during a course-of-fire.

ranging.JPG.4dd0e3c3e69e673fb67e0cd84eeeea99.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hatin' life said:

I can just do the math easier in minutes than mils, that's my only reason.

It makes more sense to me.  There's 3600 minutes in a circle.  There's 128,000 milliradians I think?

 

Fun fact I didn't know recently.  Excel works in mils and not degrees.  I made a little calculator for some trig functions and could not get the fucking formula to work.  I googled three times before I got an answer and how to do the conversion.

I'm not all that familiar with the terminology as it refers to scopes (I've been trying to keep up with Google). But, if MOA is minutes of angle then there are 60 minute's in a degree and 360 dgeres in a circle therefore 21,600 MOA in a circle. 

 

Excel uses radians for trig functions unless you convert. There are 2π rads in a full circle. 

 

I could have completly missed the definitions in play for this topic though... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bowman81 said:

I'm not all that familiar with the terminology as it refers to scopes (I've been trying to keep up with Google). But, if MOA is minutes of angle then there are 60 minute's in a degree and 360 dgeres in a circle therefore 21,600 MOA in a circle. 

 

Excel uses radians for trig functions unless you convert. There are 2π rads in a full circle. 

 

I could have completly missed the definitions in play for this topic though... 

Nope, you are correct.  I boneheaded the math.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 7:13 PM, Hatin' life said:

No, for ranging things.  If it's 2" high, and it's 4moa, I know it's pretty close to 50 yards.  I can figure that out with a calculator pretty easily.  I had to check my math there.

I had to convert mils to degrees to make a chart I was screwing with.  No real reason other than better understanding the trig, algebra, and a spreadsheet function.

Yeah I was going to mention the one case of actually using the math to convert if needed for UKD.  But seriously, who does that anymore with laser range finders being so cheap and ubiquitous?

Outside of unknown distance - having to "do the math" during any shooting discipline, IMHO, is just not needed.  The reticle does all the work for you.  

The one area that I like Mils better is the numbers are smaller when dialing for long range shots.  For instance, my buddy I shoot with has all MOA scopes and I run mil.  We were just at the long distance steel range yesterday.  To hit the 1350 plate, I dialed 12.0 mil while my buddy dialed 41.5 MOA.  It was full turn and a bit on the elevation turret and he had to spin his like 3+ times and often loses track of how many revolutions he has dialed up or down to get back to zero.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruger New Model Single-Six w. 9.5” barrel.  (2002)

Put a rail on it and use the Tasco scope.  Use a one-leg pod and it’s good up to 100yds.

Run .22 Mag (comes with two cylinders).  Very nice shooter given the relatively cheap price.  

Added the big fat rubber grips as the original Ruger gripS needed more beef for my hand.

FF847439-1A8A-4C2B-B731-B2579D0D9A5C.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah I was going to mention the one case of actually using the math to convert if needed for UKD.  But seriously, who does that anymore with laser range finders being so cheap and ubiquitous?

Outside of unknown distance - having to "do the math" during any shooting discipline, IMHO, is just not needed.  The reticle does all the work for you.  

The one area that I like Mils better is the numbers are smaller when dialing for long range shots.  For instance, my buddy I shoot with has all MOA scopes and I run mil.  We were just at the long distance steel range yesterday.  To hit the 1350 plate, I dialed 12.0 mil while my buddy dialed 41.5 MOA.  It was full turn and a bit on the elevation turret and he had to spin his like 3+ times and often loses track of how many revolutions he has dialed up or down to get back to zero.  

I just thought it was good knowledge to have.  Might be handy prairie dogging too.

 

No zero stops?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2020 at 7:05 PM, Hatin' life said:

I just thought it was good knowledge to have.  Might be handy prairie dogging too.

 

No zero stops?

It never hurts.  But I hear people say that all the time about MOA being "easier math", and my counter is:  What math do you really ever use actual measurements for? 

I even had one guy with an mil style (w/ MOA marks) reticle say:  "Well I need to be able to do the math so I can zero my scope by knowing how many inches the bullet missed by and then convert it to clicks in the turret".  He would shoot 3 rounds, then walk down the 100yds to the target frame and measure with a ruler and then walk back and figure out how many MOA to dial.  

I sez...... just look through your scope and use the reticle and tell me how many MOA Up and left it was.  He did and all of a sudden the lightbulb clicked on.  No more maths required.  

Of course this is all predicated on having a mil or moa graduated scope reticle.  Plain crosshair or "BDC" reticles can't do the math for you.  You would also need a FFP scope OR always stay in the zoom power that the actual reticle is measured in.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the Magpul rifle bipod?  If so, thoughts?  I'm having a hard time justifying the $300 for an Atlas and I don't like my Harris anymore.  I love the Atlas on my big LR rifle, but this is going on the new .22LR Bergara that's on the way.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2020 at 5:54 PM, blunderfull said:

Ruger MK ll Target .22 LR.   Slab-sided, bull barrel.   El cheapo Tasco P2x20 ST scope.

Lot of fun with the right ammo. Tack driver.

AD3A5505-DD92-40B7-BB14-185B5A44FBF0.jpeg

Very nice.  I have a similar KMK512, 5 1/2” Bull Barrel.  I just realized that mine has the Two Piece Bolt.  The rear part has a rare tendency to come off, destroying the bolt. One shop drills and pins the ears on, but this has to be done before any distortion has occurred.  The other option is to drop a Mk IV Bolt into it.  I think that I’m going to order a MkIV bolt for mine.  I heard Ruger may exchange the bolts.  I may purchase one, and keep the original.

I can’t tell from your photo if your’s is the one or two piece bolt, but it’s something to look into!

 

182DC1AA-899C-4689-8A14-044018A7C392.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Does anyone have the Magpul rifle bipod?  If so, thoughts?  I'm having a hard time justifying the $300 for an Atlas and I don't like my Harris anymore.  I love the Atlas on my big LR rifle, but this is going on the new .22LR Bergara that's on the way.  

I’ve got the Magpul bipod.  I like it: light and solid.  My impression is it’s more tactical than precision long range. However, the aftermarket ss tips helped. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Does anyone have the Magpul rifle bipod?  If so, thoughts?  I'm having a hard time justifying the $300 for an Atlas and I don't like my Harris anymore.  I love the Atlas on my big LR rifle, but this is going on the new .22LR Bergara that's on the way.  

Why not use the same bipod for both?  Different mounts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

I’ve got the Magpul bipod.  I like it: light and solid.  My impression is it’s more tactical than precision long range. However, the aftermarket ss tips helped. 

"ss tips"??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hatin' life said:

Why not use the same bipod for both?  Different mounts?

Yeah, the Atlas I have now is on an AI mount.  I could probably get the pic rail mount, but I think it would be a PITA to change out.  The Harris I have is currently attached to a Pic QD mount, so that is the bipod that moves around rifles as needed.  But I've gotten to the point where I don't like it's stability compared to the Atlas.  I can see distinctive jitter in the scope on any gun I'm using the Harris on whereas the Atlas is rock solid with same bench, same everything else.  Ofc the rifle the atlas is on weighs damn near 20lbs vs my 8-12 lb ARs that I have the Harris on, so there may be some of that as well in play.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

It never hurts. 

There's no real difference between the two.  Two different sticks for the same goal.

I can work my way through the trig to better understand things in degrees.  I can do it in radians as well.  It is just easier for me

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

"ss tips"??

You've heard of Double D tips, right?  SS tips are even Mo Bettah! 

Friend of mine lent me the Stainless Steel tips for the Magpul bipod he got from an aftermarket source. They're pointed, and do help with the recoil of a centerfire cartridge and leaning into the bipod.  They were pretty pricey, the reason they went back to my buddy.   

My pod is the M-LOK version.  It mates well with the MidWestern hand guard.  I value it mostly for it's light weight on an overweight rifle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Yeah, the Atlas I have now is on an AI mount.  I could probably get the pic rail mount, but I think it would be a PITA to change out.  The Harris I have is currently attached to a Pic QD mount, so that is the bipod that moves around rifles as needed.  But I've gotten to the point where I don't like it's stability compared to the Atlas.  I can see distinctive jitter in the scope on any gun I'm using the Harris on whereas the Atlas is rock solid with same bench, same everything else.  Ofc the rifle the atlas is on weighs damn near 20lbs vs my 8-12 lb ARs that I have the Harris on, so there may be some of that as well in play.  

I've got the picatinny mount atlas.  It's been on three of my rifles since getting it.  The only other option that made sense to me was the arca mount, but only the bolt 22 has that

Are you trying to save money on shooting?:P. Is that a thing?:lol:

A couple of friends have the magpul.  It's okay I think.

The ability to angle the legs forwards or backwards on the atlas has been handy.  Warne has some nice features too, but the legs only go one direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hatin' life said:

There's no real difference between the two.  Two different sticks for the same goal.

I can work my way through the trig to better understand things in degrees.  I can do it in radians as well.  It is just easier for me

Yeah, don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to say Mil is better than MOA or vice versa.  Dance with the one ya brung.  All I'm trying to say is that having to run the trig or do other math is typically not an issue anymore with reticles that match the turrets AND cheap accurate LRFs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hatin' life said:

I've got the picatinny mount atlas.  It's been on three of my rifles since getting it.  The only other option that made sense to me was the arca mount, but only the bolt 22 has that

Are you trying to save money on shooting?:P. Is that a thing?:lol:

A couple of friends have the magpul.  It's okay I think.

The ability to angle the legs forwards or backwards on the atlas has been handy.  Warne has some nice features too, but the legs only go one direction.

Good point.  Fuck it, Atlas it is.  Buy once, Cry once.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hatin' life said:

There's no real difference between the two.  Two different sticks for the same goal.

I can work my way through the trig to better understand things in degrees.  I can do it in radians as well.  It is just easier for me

The one area where I find having two different units of measure being a LIMFAC is when shooting with buddies who are using different units.  My shooting partner/mentor is an old skool MOA guy who grew up with duplex reticles and has hunted all the big game in Africa and N. America.  He's 70.  People at Shot Show know this guy by name.  He got me into the Long Range game and we have a small group of friends who get together for fun to do long range steel.  1200-1600 yds.  All of us are between 40-55 years old and all of us are shooting Mil scopes while our older friend is MOA.  At those distances, a spotter is critical.  When you are able to spot through scope using the same reference system, the corrections are quicker and more accurate.  For instance, Spotter:  "3 tenths low and 5 tenths right".  If the shooter listens, the next shot should be a hit because he can quickly dial .3 low and hold .5 left.  My MOA shooter hears this info and he now has to convert that info to MOA and it takes time and is still a bit of a guess.  

Of course if your shooting position is correct, you should be able to spot your own hit and make your own correction.  But that's a whole 'nother topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hatin' life said:

I've never been pissy because I bought the better tool.  I have been because I've wasted money on the inferior one though.

true dat.  That's probably why I have Schmidt & Benders instead of Tascos.  :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2020 at 5:54 PM, blunderfull said:

Ruger MK ll Target .22 LR.   Slab-sided, bull barrel.   El cheapo Tasco P2x20 ST scope.

Lot of fun with the right ammo. Tack driver.

AD3A5505-DD92-40B7-BB14-185B5A44FBF0.jpeg

 

19 hours ago, silent bob said:

Very nice.  I have a similar KMK512, 5 1/2” Bull Barrel.  I just realized that mine has the Two Piece Bolt.  The rear part has a rare tendency to come off, destroying the bolt. One shop drills and pins the ears on, but this has to be done before any distortion has occurred.  The other option is to drop a Mk IV Bolt into it.  I think that I’m going to order a MkIV bolt for mine.  I heard Ruger may exchange the bolts.  I may purchase one, and keep the original.

I can’t tell from your photo if your’s is the one or two piece bolt, but it’s something to look into!

 

182DC1AA-899C-4689-8A14-044018A7C392.jpeg

 

F143FD91-F5CD-4C4A-82C7-02629B9FCB09.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blunderfull said:

Nice & clean.   Scope is?

Longer scope overhang on mine a PITA to pull.  Might swap out scope with the EOTech as it would lot easier to see/pull bolt etc.

Swift 2x20, nothing really special.  I’m looking to find a clean red dot sight and mount to replace this set up.  It’s an old B-Square mount from early 1990’s, before the receivers were drilled and tapped.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is a god afterall.  The .22 Bergara action is getting delivered to my FFL tomorrow.  :D  I have everything except for the tripod in hand now.  Good times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hatin' life said:

Using the trigger that went with the 700 you're stealing the stock from?

Probably.  I'm going to see how the Stock Bergara trigger is first.  But I have a Jewel in the Rem 700 now that is REALLY light.  Like "just brush the pad of your finger on the trigger" light.  So likely it will end up on the .22 until I get around to rebarreling the Rem 700 into a 6.5 something......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

So there is a god afterall.  The .22 Bergara action is getting delivered to my FFL tomorrow.  :D  I have everything except for the tripod in hand now.  Good times.

Now, that’s a Happy New Year!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Probably.  I'm going to see how the Stock Bergara trigger is first.  But I have a Jewel in the Rem 700 now that is REALLY light.  Like "just brush the pad of your finger on the trigger" light.  So likely it will end up on the .22 until I get around to rebarreling the Rem 700 into a 6.5 something......

I've got a Bix'n Andy two stage in mine.  Currently at 10oz and 9oz.  I'm scared to go lighter than that.  The gun doesn't move without the bolt being open, but stupid light triggers kinda scare me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hatin' life said:

I've got a Bix'n Andy two stage in mine.  Currently at 10oz and 9oz.  I'm scared to go lighter than that.  The gun doesn't move without the bolt being open, but stupid light triggers kinda scare me.

I think mine is around 8oz.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 12:13 AM, Burning Man said:

100% ^^.  I'm a mil fan as well.  MOA makes zero sense to me and for all the reasons you list, I like mils better.  far cleaner reticle.

But here's the thing...... you touched on it at the end briefly, but it's worth expanding on.  Whether you use MOA or Mil is irrelevant AS LONG AS your turrets are the same.  There used to be some scopes that had a mil reticle but MOA turrets.  WTF???  The thought of that puts me on tilt.  I think those are all gone now, thank the gods.

The bottom line is that whatever unit of measure you use, it's just a unit of measure.  You could come up with something completely arbitrary and call them "pink unicorns".  By using the reticle itself to measure the shots, and then dialing that into the turret to correct - you need not EVER have to think about actual inches or centimeters and such.  An example is if you are sighting in a new scope with a MOA or Mil reticle......Let's say you shoot the first round and it high and left.  Assuming you are using a FFP scope - Does it matter how many centimeters or inches high and left it is?  Hellz no.  Just use the reticle and measure it.  If it measures 1.2 units high of the bullseye and 2.5 units left - then fucking dial 1.2 down and 2.5 right.  Viola - the next shot should be through the center if your scope tracks correctly.  The number of inches or cm in that example are totally irrelevant. I do the same when I'm shooting at distance..... if I see the impact miss left and low of the steel plate in the dirt, I put my crosshair on that spot and hold it there and using the reticle, measure exactly how many units of measure in the scope it missed by.  I then correct that exact amount for the next shot.  No guesswork, no trying to figure out if it missed 18" low and 20 inches left or whatever.  The miss distance in actual measurements is irrelevant.  The miss distance using the reticle is all that matters.  All that math BS is completely unneeded.  

Of course if you have a non-graduated scope like a traditional old hunting fine crosshair - then disregard everything after Bonjour.  

So basically its the metric version and use of units, makes sense to me.....though thanks to time in the US etc, I can still translate and work in imperial units.:P

There used to be some scopes that had a mil reticle but MOA turrets

That's making it seriously complicated for no reason, who thought that was a good idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2021 at 3:06 AM, Burning Man said:

Good point.  Fuck it, Atlas it is.  Buy once, Cry once.  :lol:

I live by that rule and its worth it every time. Buy what you want and generally only buy it once, replacing cheap shit got dull a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mad said:

I live by that rule and its worth it every time. Buy what you want and generally only buy it once, replacing cheap shit got dull a long time ago.

Yeah, and by the time you've replaced the cheap shit a number of times, you've spent more than you would have spent on the good thing to begin with.  And still have to spend to get it.  Once is better.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sledracr said:

Yeah, and by the time you've replaced the cheap shit a number of times, you've spent more than you would have spent on the good thing to begin with.  And still have to spend to get it.  Once is better.

I like not having excuses.  If I suck at something, I want to rule out equipment as much as possible.  It's a variable once removed as much as possible, allows you to focus on what is actually screwing you over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 3:27 PM, mad said:

So basically its the metric version and use of units, makes sense to me.....though thanks to time in the US etc, I can still translate and work in imperial units.:P 

There used to be some scopes that had a mil reticle but MOA turrets

That's making it seriously complicated for no reason, who thought that was a good idea?

YES.  It's an angular measurement, different units.  https://www.longrangeshooting.org/articles/moa-and-mils-explained

As for mix and match mil / MOA scopes - They came out in the early days of the craze of the "tactical market" wanting mil reticles but no US manufacturer was set up to make mil scopes.  The reticle etching in the glass is pretty easy to replace but the turrets are a whole other issue.  So in the rush to get product out to market they just slapped a mil reticle etched glass into an existing scope scope and called it a day.  Until the bitching started when people couldn't figure out the math(s).......  Yeah, it was a stupid idea, but they sold a metric (or imperial?) buttload of scopes.  

Edit to add:  And just to make the whole thing even more confusing, some manufacturers introduced a unit called IPHY reticle scopes.  Inches per hundred yards.  It's not an angular measurement and doesn't work well for weird non standard ranges.  It died a fairly ugly and short death.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally got the Bergara together.  I'm totally stoked.  Tomorrow is the range break in.  

The scope is borrowed off another rifle that is sitting idle, I'm not trying to decide what final scope to put on this.  I'm afraid I'll get spoiled by the Schmitty and not want to switch, but I've got another big long range rifle build in the works that it's earmarked for.  

I did break down and get the Atlas.  Best decision.  I got the pic rail QD and I can move it around to other rifles.  SOOOOOO much better than the Harris I was using.  Night and day.  

Nothing like more crack cocaine........  

IMG_7803.JPG

IMG_7801.JPG

IMG_7802.JPG

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my arsenal, for the record, I have a #2 Eberhard Faber, in Safety Yellow, with a Panasonic Auto-Stop sharpener, as well as a pair of Columbia "Techlite" models with the Omni-Grip option. 

Both have served me well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK guys looking to get a nice revolver, if I an find ammo. Tell me is the Kimber K6s DASA 4" a good purchase?????

The K6s (DASA) is the next evolution of the Kimber revolver product line that takes the acclaimed K6s system and outfits it with a double and single action trigger mechanism. The platform maintains the benefits of the original K6s such as the outstanding double action trigger pull, compact envelope, and six shot capacity but with the added advantage of a single action trigger. The 4" Target GFO (Green Fiber Optic) model features an extended combat grip with finger grooves and a target adjustable rear sight for pinpoint accuracy with any loading.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FINS said:

OK guys looking to get a nice revolver, if I an find ammo. Tell me is the Kimber K6s DASA 4" a good purchase?????

The K6s (DASA) is the next evolution of the Kimber revolver product line that takes the acclaimed K6s system and outfits it with a double and single action trigger mechanism. The platform maintains the benefits of the original K6s such as the outstanding double action trigger pull, compact envelope, and six shot capacity but with the added advantage of a single action trigger. The 4" Target GFO (Green Fiber Optic) model features an extended combat grip with finger grooves and a target adjustable rear sight for pinpoint accuracy with any loading.

 

The grip looks a little small for my taste.  A lightweight .357 Magnum is going to have a lot of recoil.  If this is for concealed carry/self defense, it might be okay.  If its for plinking, look for a larger framed gun. My Ruger SP-101 grip left my pinky finger hanging.  A new Hogue grip fixed this, and makes the gun a lot nicer to shoot!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FINS said:

OK guys looking to get a nice revolver, if I an find ammo. Tell me is the Kimber K6s DASA 4" a good purchase?????

The K6s (DASA) is the next evolution of the Kimber revolver product line that takes the acclaimed K6s system and outfits it with a double and single action trigger mechanism. The platform maintains the benefits of the original K6s such as the outstanding double action trigger pull, compact envelope, and six shot capacity but with the added advantage of a single action trigger. The 4" Target GFO (Green Fiber Optic) model features an extended combat grip with finger grooves and a target adjustable rear sight for pinpoint accuracy with any loading.

 

The Ruger wheel guns are superior working guns.  Kimbers are prettier.

At least in 1911s, the Kimber is the preferred weapon of douchebags. Butt, their bolt action rifles are good kit, even if they are pricey. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a snub nose Ruger SP101 in .357 Mag. It's only 5 shots but the thing is built like a tank and has never given me a spot of trouble. It's the equivalent of a Glock in the sense that it's an absolute appliance. Use it for years, don't give it any special treatment, even abuse it and it just works. Every. Single. Time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

First range trip.  Just a quick zero and then a few ammo tests to see how it's shooting.  It's showing promise......  Ammo was some cheapo federal "value pack", Aguila Standard and copper plated, some Federal Target and finally some Federal Gold Medal. 

IMG_7814.JPG.02c0b2431dc9906a85230f5d4bfdc515.JPG

1331267159_B-14Firstday.thumb.jpg.0032593924cfb626b2e593efc9b6daaf.jpg

50 yds- And that's not even match ammo.  Basic Aguila Standard lead.  

I think she's a keeper!  :D

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shifting gears here, no clutch used so you may detect a temporary grinding sound.

Installed an enhanced safety button on a Mossberg 12g.

The stock button has a low profile which resists snagging but is not easy to operate with cold or wet hands.gwle-a15-590a1-safety.jpg

Some enhanced buttons have a paddle which could too easily catch on something. No thanks.p_080000564_1.jpg

Like Goldilocks I found the Triceratops Custom safety button to be just right. Consider this an endorsement.il_fullxfull.1591802826_55d9.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 10:29 PM, Burning Man said:

Edit to add:  And just to make the whole thing even more confusing, some manufacturers introduced a unit called IPHY reticle scopes.  Inches per hundred yards.  It's not an angular measurement and doesn't work well for weird non standard ranges.  It died a fairly ugly and short death.

US Optics, a scope that tickles my fancy, I can get the rectical in moa, but the turrets are iphy.

Weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hatin' life said:

US Optics, a scope that tickles my fancy, I can get the rectical in moa, but the turrets are iphy.

Weird.

Yeah, that's right now that you mention it.  I'm surprised that model is even still made.  Totally fucked up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all of you .22NRL gurus - what do you use for ballistic calculators for longer range shots with .22LR. As with center fire, every bullet has a different BC. I can chrono the muzzle velocity but I need the BC to accurately get dope out at some of the longer ranges. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2021 at 4:29 AM, Burning Man said:

YES.  It's an angular measurement, different units.  https://www.longrangeshooting.org/articles/moa-and-mils-explained

As for mix and match mil / MOA scopes - They came out in the early days of the craze of the "tactical market" wanting mil reticles but no US manufacturer was set up to make mil scopes.  The reticle etching in the glass is pretty easy to replace but the turrets are a whole other issue.  So in the rush to get product out to market they just slapped a mil reticle etched glass into an existing scope scope and called it a day.  Until the bitching started when people couldn't figure out the math(s).......  Yeah, it was a stupid idea, but they sold a metric (or imperial?) buttload of scopes.  

Edit to add:  And just to make the whole thing even more confusing, some manufacturers introduced a unit called IPHY reticle scopes.  Inches per hundred yards.  It's not an angular measurement and doesn't work well for weird non standard ranges.  It died a fairly ugly and short death.

In my ignorance, (which there's quite a bit of at times), is that not akin to MOA, 1 inch at 100 yards?? or at least some form of halfway house? 

If I go down this route again, I'm going straight to mils that's for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 4:49 AM, Autonomous said:

Shifting gears here, no clutch used so you may detect a temporary grinding sound.

Installed an enhanced safety button on a Mossberg 12g.

The stock button has a low profile which resists snagging but is not easy to operate with cold or wet hands.gwle-a15-590a1-safety.jpg

Some enhanced buttons have a paddle which could too easily catch on something. No thanks.p_080000564_1.jpg

Like Goldilocks I found the Triceratops Custom safety button to be just right. Consider this an endorsement.il_fullxfull.1591802826_55d9.jpg

 

Appreciate its not your shottie, but that rear sight in the top picture isn't going to last long....I do prefer to have the safety there as Mossberg and almost all over and unders do, still not used to the others like Benelli.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2021 at 4:07 AM, Burning Man said:
On 1/15/2021 at 12:10 AM, Hatin' life said:

US Optics, a scope that tickles my fancy, I can get the rectical in moa, but the turrets are iphy.

Weird.

Yeah, that's right now that you mention it.  I'm surprised that model is even still made.  Totally fucked up!

What's this, try and make it as complicated and confusing as possible??:wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

What's this, try and make it as complicated and confusing as possible??:wacko:

Scope manufactures seem to like that. Here is the reticle layout on a couple of Vortex scopes I have. It's all MOA but FFS . 2.4 MOA? What the hell were they thinking. How are you supposed to remember that shit. And both scopes are different.  Fortunately I don't see me shooting either rifle where I have to worry about holdover.

 

vtx_sub_StrikeEagle_AR-BDC3_moa_1-8x24-v2.jpg

VPR-HS-25-10X44-DEAD-HOLD-BDC-MOA.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mad said:

In my ignorance, (which there's quite a bit of at times), is that not akin to MOA, 1 inch at 100 yards?? or at least some form of halfway house? 

If I go down this route again, I'm going straight to mils that's for sure.

No, because MOA is not exactly 1" at 100 yards.  It's actually 1.047" at 100 yds.  But I" is close enough for gov't work, but it's not precise.  And the further out you go, the father the two split apart.  Not significant enough to know the difference out to say 300-500 yds.  But as you go further out, the errors add up.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, F_L said:

Scope manufactures seem to like that. Here is the reticle layout on a couple of Vortex scopes I have. It's all MOA but FFS . 2.4 MOA? What the hell were they thinking. How are you supposed to remember that shit. And both scopes are different.  Fortunately I don't see me shooting either rifle where I have to worry about holdover.

 

vtx_sub_StrikeEagle_AR-BDC3_moa_1-8x24-v2.jpg

VPR-HS-25-10X44-DEAD-HOLD-BDC-MOA.jpg

And an even bigger mind fuck is that in the notes ^^, it says the subtensions are only valid at the max magnification.  On anything else, they are meaningless unless you're will to do some serious math(s) in your head.  For that reason, the FFP scopes are superior because the subtensions are always valid at any magnification setting.  

 

To me, this is a much more understandable reticle

sub_rzr-g2_45-27x56_ebr-7c_mrad-t.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

And an even bigger mind fuck is that in the notes ^^, it says the subtensions are only valid at the max magnification.  On anything else, they are meaningless unless you're will to do some serious math(s) in your head.  For that reason, the FFP scopes are superior because the subtensions are always valid at any magnification setting.  

 

To me, this is a much more understandable reticle

sub_rzr-g2_45-27x56_ebr-7c_mrad-t.jpg

The SFP doesn't bother me as I am not the long range type. With you shooting 1000+ it matters. And the FFP scopes are a lot more $$$. I agree the Razor reticle is nice, very easy to understand. I'm curious as to why Vortex puts shit reticles on their cheaper scopes. They could have put the hash marks at 2,4,6,8 MOA.

Link to post
Share on other sites