.22s with longer sight radius

now you are moving them off the barrel and onto the receiver, so, may be no net gain in accuracy
Click to expand...

Note the rear sight on the receiver is on a different part than it may be best on which is the same piece the bullet leaves, namely, the barrel.
Click to expand...

It has been implied here twice now that mounting the sights on the reciever some how decreases accuracy. Would someone explain how?
 
I dont see how accuracy would be affected by having a rear sight on a reciever, plenty of desighns work well. And im looking for accuracy as in ease of shooting accuracy. Having a moa gun with poor sights doesnt lend to practical accuracy even if mechanical accuracy is there.
 
It has been implied here twice now that mounting the sights on the reciever some how decreases accuracy. Would someone explain how?
Click to expand...
It works by the same mechanism that makes a rifle better if it has a flash suppressor. IOW, it doesn't. As Forrest Gump would have said: "stupid is as stupid says", or something like that

I suppose all those rifles with sights on the receivers should be retired or at least have the sights mounted on the barrel. Better call Anschutz and let them know. :rolleyes: Are you serious?

First, look at any match rifle on the firing line firing XTC or NRA High Power. None of them have rear sights on the barrels. Next, look at the rifles on the firing line at the Olympics. None of them have rear sights mounted on the barrel either, in fact many of them use extender rails to gain a few extra inches. Whoever made that statement is stating that a $2 dovetailed sight on the barrel that gives you a 14" sight radius is somehow more accurate than a $150 receiver sight securely mounted to the receiver with screws that effectively doubles that sight radius.
Lot more novice shooters here than I expected asking rhetorical questions.
Click to expand...
Oh, please enlighten me, and I'll try to set my novice attitudes aside. While I roll on the ground laughing. 45+ years of shooting experience, 35+ years smithing, the last 10 years spent building precision rifles, and I'm a novice. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Mounting both sights on the barrel could help on a take down gun, where the barrel to receiver fit is far(faaaarrr) from a target rifle. Like a AR-7 (?) or even a Nylon 66.

The tech sights on my 10/22 seem fine. It's accuracy problems are completely unrelated.
RT
 
Mounting sights on a receiver is convenient, not optimal. And you don't know that. Yes, the inherent inaccuracy introduced by putting the rear sight/scope on a different part of the gun, one with its own stuff going on, than where the bullet actually travels may be offset by the longer sight radius compensating. With a scope? Try a forward-mounted long eye-relief one. That the novices here really don't understand why so many rear sights are mounted on barrels is surprising.

Being around awhile with narrow and shallow experience doesn't get you anywhere either. Sights not being on a receiver is such a well known and old issue that knowledgeable people here probably won't even bother to comment -- it would just be another dopey circular internet e-Mail trail with people defending what they have in their hand or want to be true vs. reality.
 
Mounting sights on a receiver is convenient,
Click to expand...

How so? I think maybe your premise is that there is some kind of movement between the reciever and the barrel? Simply stating that inaccuracy is produced by moving the sight off the barrel is not really an explanation.
 
"Lot more novice shooters here than I expected asking rhetorical questions. "

And some giving advice I'd say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top