The chances of making a bad shot at 1000 yrds is FAR and away more likely than 100 yards!!! Sure you got guys that make horrible shots at 5 yards in front of there face and those guys are always gonna be out there, but a good solid shooter and I don't give a ratts --- what rank he is or whatever is more likely to screw up and make a bad shot at 1000 yards vs 100 yards! PLAIN AND SIMPLE
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I have to chuckle
- Thread starter Mobuck
- Start date
I've heard and read this for decades:
In the real world, here's what happens.
If one gets a rifle and ammo that shoots no worse than 5/8 MOA at 1000 when machine-rest tested, that's a good start for the first one-third of the game.
We all have a beating heart to keep our eyes working well but that blood swelling our muscles attached to our 3-point suspension system slung up in prone (both elbows and one side of the rib cage) tend to wiggle it. That bounces our holding area on the target. The best folks shooting top scores will keep that bounce or wobble area inside a 5/8 MOA circle.
After taking three deep breaths and exhaling them (hyperventilating) to where half the last one's let out, we hold that wobble area while "thinkiing" the trigger back to fire the shot; with training we can fire that shot decently inside that wobble area. The round fires and the bullet starts down the barrel. So all of this adds another 3/8 to 1/2 MOA to what the rifle and ammo does.
Now we gotta hold perfectly still until the bullet leaves the barrel. Meanwhile, our body's not gonna be holding that rifle exactly the same way for each shot. The resistance it presents to the recoiling rifle ends up making the muzzle point to different places for each shot. And this adds another 3/8 to 1/2 MOA to what the system's accuracy and holding errors add up to.
Few of us can judge wind to no worse than about 1/2 to 3/4 MOA perfection. And we won't see those subtle wind currents that ever so slightly change the wrinkling mirage (heat waves) moving across our scope's field of view. This can make another 1/2 MOA or more addition to the ones mentioned earlier.
So we throw parties if we keep all our shots with a 5/8 MOA rifle and ammo package inside 2-1/2 MOA at 1000 yards. The 10-ring's 20 inches. Inside it's the X-ring at 10 inches. And the 30-inch 9-ring encircles them. They're centered in the 44-inch black 8-ring that's the aiming bullseye.
20-shot scope sight record's 200-19X.
20-shot metallic sight record's 200-17-X. Most matches are won with a 198-14X or better in average range conditions.
True, but only when shot in an indoor range where there are absolutely no wind currents and the rifle's held by a 3-point supported free recoiling cradle in a machine rest.The X-10 rings of a 1000 yard LR target is ~20 inches across, so in theory a 2 MOA rifle should be capable of cleaning it.
In the real world, here's what happens.
If one gets a rifle and ammo that shoots no worse than 5/8 MOA at 1000 when machine-rest tested, that's a good start for the first one-third of the game.
We all have a beating heart to keep our eyes working well but that blood swelling our muscles attached to our 3-point suspension system slung up in prone (both elbows and one side of the rib cage) tend to wiggle it. That bounces our holding area on the target. The best folks shooting top scores will keep that bounce or wobble area inside a 5/8 MOA circle.
After taking three deep breaths and exhaling them (hyperventilating) to where half the last one's let out, we hold that wobble area while "thinkiing" the trigger back to fire the shot; with training we can fire that shot decently inside that wobble area. The round fires and the bullet starts down the barrel. So all of this adds another 3/8 to 1/2 MOA to what the rifle and ammo does.
Now we gotta hold perfectly still until the bullet leaves the barrel. Meanwhile, our body's not gonna be holding that rifle exactly the same way for each shot. The resistance it presents to the recoiling rifle ends up making the muzzle point to different places for each shot. And this adds another 3/8 to 1/2 MOA to what the system's accuracy and holding errors add up to.
Few of us can judge wind to no worse than about 1/2 to 3/4 MOA perfection. And we won't see those subtle wind currents that ever so slightly change the wrinkling mirage (heat waves) moving across our scope's field of view. This can make another 1/2 MOA or more addition to the ones mentioned earlier.
So we throw parties if we keep all our shots with a 5/8 MOA rifle and ammo package inside 2-1/2 MOA at 1000 yards. The 10-ring's 20 inches. Inside it's the X-ring at 10 inches. And the 30-inch 9-ring encircles them. They're centered in the 44-inch black 8-ring that's the aiming bullseye.
20-shot scope sight record's 200-19X.
20-shot metallic sight record's 200-17-X. Most matches are won with a 198-14X or better in average range conditions.
reynolds357
New member
Yeah, I love going to the range and irritating them. 7k in equipment and cant hit crap.
Bart B said:True, but only when shot in an indoor range where there are absolutely no wind currents and the rifle's held by a 3-point supported free recoiling cradle in a machine rest.
In the real world, here's what happens.
Again, it depends on what your goal is, or how you define "success".
I agree nobody is going to set a world record with a 2 MOA rifle, then again I never made that claim. You are pretty unlikely to shoot top score of a match, but there is more to LR shooting than winning. When I competed, I never had any illusions of doing so, nor was it my goal. I wanted to challenge myself, improve my scores, and have fun.
There are those that think that you cannot take a shot at 1000 yards without dropping a few grand on a custom LR rig. I am saying that is nonsense. An modern off the shelf .308 rifle from a big-box store, with quality match ammo or good handloads should be capable of cleaning a 1000 yard target.
I am not talking about wind, I am not talking about the shooters hold, I am just talking about the rifle, from a pure accuracy standpoint.
It is not a guarantee by any means (nor is a $5K custom rig), but it will shoot better than most beginning shooters, and probably will for some time.
Most deer hunters probably already have a rifle capable of doing so in the closet. It might not be the best option, but pretty much any centerfire rifle larger than .243 is up to the task (with some obvious exceptions, 30-30, etc). All that is really needed is a tapered scope base to get the scope on target, and you can get that for under $50.
Again, not ideal. Not perfect. But adequate for someone to dip their toe in the deep end of the pool that is LR shooting.
The money not spent on a custom rifle buys a lot of ammo for practice and hopefully coaching. And if you find you don't care for it, you are not out the cost of a custom rifle.
Of course. Slob hunters will always be out there, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage more of them, because they saw some assclown shoot an elk at 1000 yards on YouTube.old roper said:does it bother you as much if short yardage shot may be unethical.
old roper said:I'm not trying to pick a fight with you I've passed on more short yardage shots than I have on LR hunting deer/elk. You are right on LR yardage and effect it has but it will also happen at short yardage. Bad shot is a bad shot doesn't matter which yardage and one you never want to happen.
Getting the range call on a ~1000 yard animal off by 2.5% will make one of the the best LR cartridges (338 Lapua) off by a foot of elevation. Getting the range wrong by 2.5% on a ~200 yard target will put your elevation off with the same cartridge by less than a quarter inch.
Getting the wind wrong by the same 2.5% (10 mpg to 12.5 mph full value) on a ~1000 yard animal with the same cartridge, your will be off by about a foot. With a 200 yard animal you will miss your point of aim by about a half inch.
Bart is one of the most experienced LR shooters on the forum, he just said they "throw parties" if they keep all their shots inside 25 inches at 1000 yards. He did not mention, that this is at a relatively flat, surveyed range, with sighters, corrections made shot to shot, wind flags, a known distance, and a logbook showing their sight settings from the last time they shot there.
Hunters don't generally have such luxuries. You need a first shot, cold barrel hit on a ~12-18" circle at unknown ranges, probably from an improvised position (prone with a bipod if you are lucky). This is not even addressing other variables like terrain and it's effects on wind, elevation/density altitude and it's effect on trajectory, slope to target, etc.
Very few people have any business shooting at game at those ranges, and if you need to ask on an internet forum about it, you ain't one of them.
reynolds357
New member
At our last 1Kmatch, best group was 5.something inches. It was shot with a .284 Winchester built on a Savage action that is at least 35 years old. The barrel cost less than $400 and the shooter fit it himself to the rifle. He also did his own trigger job and bedding work. By todays standards, most would laugh at it and label it "JUNK." It outshot the 5,6,7K rifles.
cryogenic419
New member
I fall under the "had little experience" catagory. I had a .22 rifle and had done 200 yards with it and wanted to see if I could do further out. I'll admit seeing the snipers with Rem 700 308's probably majorly influenced my rifle buying choice. When it came time for a new stock and scope I talked to folks on another forum who knew their stuff. So I ended up with a HS Precision stock and damned if it didn't tighten up my groups. Choosing a scope was a 3 month endeavor. After looking at a ton of scopes, reading reviews and learning about features were and more specifically what features I needed to accomplish what I was trying to I finally settled on a Nightforce. I wasn't trying to be part of the tacticool crowd, I wanted a solid reliable scope that was capable. I have since learned a bunch about longer range shooting.
I saw another post about saying something to the effect of why get a .22 when you are going to end up with a long range rifle. I'd say get a .22 to learn the fundamentals, once you've gotten those down, move up to the bigger rifle. You can learn about bullet drop, wind, scope adjustments for pennies a shot instead of whatever higher powered ammo might cost.
I saw another post about saying something to the effect of why get a .22 when you are going to end up with a long range rifle. I'd say get a .22 to learn the fundamentals, once you've gotten those down, move up to the bigger rifle. You can learn about bullet drop, wind, scope adjustments for pennies a shot instead of whatever higher powered ammo might cost.
Shooting long range is a lot easier with a bipod and sand sock using a properly zeroed scope than it is with irons and a sling.
Once the bipod and sand sock have eliminated the effect of the shooters heartbeat on the rifle, it is a simple matter of squeezing the trigger. Much less to worry about compared shooting with a sling.
This is why F Class scoring rings are smaller than High Power scoring rings.
The video game crowd is a lot more familiar with "sniper" style rifles than Palma style rifles, so that is where the love affair with the 338 Lapua comes into play. This may have something to do with why F Class matches have gained so much popularity in recent years. Can't say for sure though.
Jimro
Once the bipod and sand sock have eliminated the effect of the shooters heartbeat on the rifle, it is a simple matter of squeezing the trigger. Much less to worry about compared shooting with a sling.
This is why F Class scoring rings are smaller than High Power scoring rings.
The video game crowd is a lot more familiar with "sniper" style rifles than Palma style rifles, so that is where the love affair with the 338 Lapua comes into play. This may have something to do with why F Class matches have gained so much popularity in recent years. Can't say for sure though.
Jimro
cryogenic419 said:I saw another post about saying something to the effect of why get a .22 when you are going to end up with a long range rifle. I'd say get a .22 to learn the fundamentals, once you've gotten those down, move up to the bigger rifle. You can learn about bullet drop, wind, scope adjustments for pennies a shot instead of whatever higher powered ammo might cost.
All that's true, and I believe that every rifleman should own at least one good .22. It's inexpensive practice, all the fundamentals apply, and it just a lot of fun. There is a whole lot to like in a good, accurate .22 rifle.
reynolds357
New member
In theory, if you can shoot 100, you can shoot 1000. In reality, the wind and mirage are what makes the two light years apart. Its not just holding the rifle and squeezing the trigger; its knowing WHERE to hold the rifle.
Agreed, but..
Natch, even the slightest error due form (such as trigger control) becomes magnified by a factor of 10...
So a "pull" to the side of the trigger that costs you 1/4 minute- and is barely noticeable at 100 becomes 2-1/2" at 1000.
Depending on the size of your target, that could be the difference between a hit, and a splash in the dirt.
Natch, even the slightest error due form (such as trigger control) becomes magnified by a factor of 10...
So a "pull" to the side of the trigger that costs you 1/4 minute- and is barely noticeable at 100 becomes 2-1/2" at 1000.
Depending on the size of your target, that could be the difference between a hit, and a splash in the dirt.
I saw another post about saying something to the effect of why get a .22 when you are going to end up with a long range rifle. I'd say get a .22 to learn the fundamentals, once you've gotten those down, move up to the bigger rifle. You can learn about bullet drop, wind, scope adjustments for pennies a shot instead of whatever higher powered ammo might cost
It is also a great way of learning to read the wind. A .22LR bullet is effected by the wind the same way as any other, but due to the crappy BCs of the bullets and low velocities it is much more evident at closer ranges.
A Federal 40gr Match bullet at 1080 FPS in a 10 MPH full value wind has about 5 MOA of wind at 100 yards, which is roughly the same as my LR 6.5-06 at 600 yards. At 200 yards it has about 9 min, which matches my LR rig at about 950 yards.
Lots more people have access to 100 and 200 yard ranges that may not have access to a 1000 yard range.
I find it rather amusing, actually. Including some of the answers. Thanks to the internet, we all shoot tiny tiny one hole groups at 1,00yds, and nothing you already have in your gun closet is good enough to make a 1,000 yd shot.
The common question is "what do I need for 1,000 yd shooting?", or some variation. And sadly, the common answers are "you need XXX, XXX< & XX" nothing else is good enough, or some variant of that.
All you NEED for 1,000 yard shooting is some place to shoot 1,000 yards, and a rifle. That's it. That's all. Everything else is something to make it easier for you to hit, or more likely to be competitive.
120 years ago they were shooting 1,000 yard matches with iron sighted .45-70s. And making hits. In fact, the winning groups from that era are around 10 inches. I think 8inches was world record for some time. Think on that.
No scopes. No high BC bullets. LOW SPEED (compared to today). And they still got hits! Don't tell me (or the new folks asking the questions) that they NEED a $6k custom rifle set up to hit a long range target, they don't.
All they need is a rifle, the range, and practice. Lots of practice.
That being said, wining a 1,000yd shooting match is a different animal. THERE your high end, high dollar equipment can make the difference between you, and the other guy, providing, of course, that you have the skill to actaully make the fullest use of your hardware.
When the question comes off like "Hi, I just got my lerner's permit, and I need to know what to use to win Formula One races...?" well, in honesty, we tell them, "to win a Formula One race, you need a Formula One race car, and....."
But you don't put someone just learning to drive in a Formula One race, even though they can steer the car....
The common question is "what do I need for 1,000 yd shooting?", or some variation. And sadly, the common answers are "you need XXX, XXX< & XX" nothing else is good enough, or some variant of that.
All you NEED for 1,000 yard shooting is some place to shoot 1,000 yards, and a rifle. That's it. That's all. Everything else is something to make it easier for you to hit, or more likely to be competitive.
120 years ago they were shooting 1,000 yard matches with iron sighted .45-70s. And making hits. In fact, the winning groups from that era are around 10 inches. I think 8inches was world record for some time. Think on that.
No scopes. No high BC bullets. LOW SPEED (compared to today). And they still got hits! Don't tell me (or the new folks asking the questions) that they NEED a $6k custom rifle set up to hit a long range target, they don't.
All they need is a rifle, the range, and practice. Lots of practice.
That being said, wining a 1,000yd shooting match is a different animal. THERE your high end, high dollar equipment can make the difference between you, and the other guy, providing, of course, that you have the skill to actaully make the fullest use of your hardware.
When the question comes off like "Hi, I just got my lerner's permit, and I need to know what to use to win Formula One races...?" well, in honesty, we tell them, "to win a Formula One race, you need a Formula One race car, and....."
But you don't put someone just learning to drive in a Formula One race, even though they can steer the car....
With all due respect, Mod...I'm partially disagreeing with you on this, for the same reasons I stated above.
The Formula One example isn't an analogy.
I wholeheartedly agree that you don't need a 5K stick to shoot long range.
In fact, Team Savage consistently competes competitively- and they WON the World Championship F-Class (F-TR) a few years ago, with bone-stock Model 12's...
We all know it's more about the shooter than the stick.
But buying an accurate platform (and, it can be a $2K Savage setup, or a more expensive custom or semi-custom)- in a long-range CAPABLE caliber, increases the odds of success.
I've read threads here where a new shooter says he wants to shoot long range, and .223's are recommended.
Now, I've only been at this game for a few years, and I'm a decent marksman. But the skill necessary to achieve any level of success at long-range with a .223 is exponential compared to other choices.
I've always been a believer in having the "right tool for the job". Whether in construction, or shooting, not having the right tool usually leads to frustration.
And while a .45/70 might be able to send a bullet that far, doesn't mean it would be a proper selection.
I do everything I can to maximize the accuracy of the platform (including the optic), and the ammo. The rest is up to me. Doesn't have to be a Formula One, but I sure don't want a 100 horsepower Yaris...
I can see NO disadvantage in a brand new shooter starting out with a high-end GAP custom if he can afford it. In fact, it will increase the odds of success, increase confidence, and as he/she learns, he won't need to upgrade because the rifle will always shoot better than he can.
The Formula One example isn't an analogy.
I wholeheartedly agree that you don't need a 5K stick to shoot long range.
In fact, Team Savage consistently competes competitively- and they WON the World Championship F-Class (F-TR) a few years ago, with bone-stock Model 12's...
We all know it's more about the shooter than the stick.
But buying an accurate platform (and, it can be a $2K Savage setup, or a more expensive custom or semi-custom)- in a long-range CAPABLE caliber, increases the odds of success.
I've read threads here where a new shooter says he wants to shoot long range, and .223's are recommended.
Now, I've only been at this game for a few years, and I'm a decent marksman. But the skill necessary to achieve any level of success at long-range with a .223 is exponential compared to other choices.
I've always been a believer in having the "right tool for the job". Whether in construction, or shooting, not having the right tool usually leads to frustration.
And while a .45/70 might be able to send a bullet that far, doesn't mean it would be a proper selection.
I do everything I can to maximize the accuracy of the platform (including the optic), and the ammo. The rest is up to me. Doesn't have to be a Formula One, but I sure don't want a 100 horsepower Yaris...
I can see NO disadvantage in a brand new shooter starting out with a high-end GAP custom if he can afford it. In fact, it will increase the odds of success, increase confidence, and as he/she learns, he won't need to upgrade because the rifle will always shoot better than he can.
tobnpr, it is not more about the shooter than the stick.
Sorry, but "We all know it's more about the shooter than the stick." is one of the most misused, incorrect and oft stated string of words in the shooting sports, especially in the competitive disciplines.
Simple proof is I don't know that because I know otherwise. Regardless of the size of an area on a target one can aim fire his rifle into, the larger the area on target his shots will be distributed in because the rifle and ammo inaccuracies add to the area one can fire a rifle into.
More important, the more accurate the hardware is, the better the feedback to the shooter is. The shooter will learn faster with an accurate representation of what he's doing in aiming, pulling the trigger and judging corrections for wind. Poor accuracy with the rifle and bullet tell far too many lies on how the shooter's doing.
Sorry, but "We all know it's more about the shooter than the stick." is one of the most misused, incorrect and oft stated string of words in the shooting sports, especially in the competitive disciplines.
Simple proof is I don't know that because I know otherwise. Regardless of the size of an area on a target one can aim fire his rifle into, the larger the area on target his shots will be distributed in because the rifle and ammo inaccuracies add to the area one can fire a rifle into.
More important, the more accurate the hardware is, the better the feedback to the shooter is. The shooter will learn faster with an accurate representation of what he's doing in aiming, pulling the trigger and judging corrections for wind. Poor accuracy with the rifle and bullet tell far too many lies on how the shooter's doing.
Last edited:
reynolds357
New member
I think one myth in rifles is that "expensive = accurate." There are smiths out there who build rifles as accurate as the big names that dont charge an arm and leg for their work. You have to have a good scope, but you can compete and win with an economical rifle.
Rainbow Demon
New member
I'm not a 1,000 yard shooter. To find that much open space here you'd have to shoot from one mountain top to another, across a lake, or down the median strip of the interstate.
A friend who's a pretty fair gunsmith, who used to build countersniper and entry weapons for LEO, got into long range shooting in a big way. I learned a bit about the subject from listening and studying the custom long range rifles he was building.
A great barrel in a suitable chambering will do you no good if the ammo isn't suited to the purpose. Bullet design being the first factor.
Low drag bullets, boat tails in particular, allow the bullet to remain supersonic all the way to the target, this avoids transonic buffering or at least minimizes its affect, and reduces affect of cross winds.
Flat base bullets may and often are, more accurate at closer ranges (600 yards or less) than a boat tail of the same weight.
On the otherhand.
The old timers of pre WW1 did some excellent long range shooting with long heavy flat based round nosed bullets that most wouldn't consider suited to the purpose these days, and at rather modest velocities barely breaking 2K fps at the muzzle.
The 168 gr .30-06 AP bullet was considered pretty darn accurate at any range. The core was boat tailed but enclosed in a copper alloy cap seated in the base so it was effectively a flat base bullet, the steel core and copper plug did make this bullet much longer for its weight than other bullets in its class.
Still low drag boat tails at jacked up velocities seem to win out. With recent interest in 1,200 yard matches these are almost manditory.
There are boat loads of suitable actions out there, if properly set up.
My friend liked to "blue print" actions. Major work done was in using a diamond coated wheel mounted in a bushing that mimicked the barrel shank, my friend used actual cut off barrel shanks from shot out barrels, to true up the locking lug seats in the receiver ring. The bolt lugs were then hand smoked and stoned for equal bearing and lapped in place. First proof round then finished up the mating of those surfaces. This seldom required removal of more than one thousandth of an inch from either surface, not enough to compromise a properly carburized layer.
There are a number of factors governing flight of the bullet, which are seldom noticed at shorter ranges.
Spin Drift is an example.
The bullet spins at very nearly the same rpm at one thousand yards as it did at the muzzle, but because velocity has now fallen off greatly the effect of spin drift increases the further out the target.
A prime example of this effect is the .30-06 fired from the 1903 Springfield.
A little understood phenomena was discovered. When the bullet left the muzzle there was a very slight but measurable jump to the left of the bore line.
Since the Springfield rifling has a right hand twist spin drift worked to off set this jump by guiding the bullet ever so gently to the right.
Bullet path and bore line converged at around 600 yards, after which spindrift guided the bullet more and more to the right of the bore line. So spin drift had only a beneficial affect up to six hundred yards.
PS
I believe the slight jump to the left was due to less support on the right hand side of the receiver due to the clearance for ejection to the right.
This sort of flex is far more noticable with bolt actions that have rear lock up, usually cured by a front sight base off set to the left. When rear lock up and left hand twist are combined, with muzzle jump (bullet throw) and spin drift working together to send the bullet to the left of the bore line, as with the Lee Enfields, the off set of the front sight base is very noticeable.
So I'd suggest only right hand twist barrels, unless you are using a lefthand action with ejection to the left.
A friend who's a pretty fair gunsmith, who used to build countersniper and entry weapons for LEO, got into long range shooting in a big way. I learned a bit about the subject from listening and studying the custom long range rifles he was building.
A great barrel in a suitable chambering will do you no good if the ammo isn't suited to the purpose. Bullet design being the first factor.
Low drag bullets, boat tails in particular, allow the bullet to remain supersonic all the way to the target, this avoids transonic buffering or at least minimizes its affect, and reduces affect of cross winds.
Flat base bullets may and often are, more accurate at closer ranges (600 yards or less) than a boat tail of the same weight.
On the otherhand.
The old timers of pre WW1 did some excellent long range shooting with long heavy flat based round nosed bullets that most wouldn't consider suited to the purpose these days, and at rather modest velocities barely breaking 2K fps at the muzzle.
The 168 gr .30-06 AP bullet was considered pretty darn accurate at any range. The core was boat tailed but enclosed in a copper alloy cap seated in the base so it was effectively a flat base bullet, the steel core and copper plug did make this bullet much longer for its weight than other bullets in its class.
Still low drag boat tails at jacked up velocities seem to win out. With recent interest in 1,200 yard matches these are almost manditory.
There are boat loads of suitable actions out there, if properly set up.
My friend liked to "blue print" actions. Major work done was in using a diamond coated wheel mounted in a bushing that mimicked the barrel shank, my friend used actual cut off barrel shanks from shot out barrels, to true up the locking lug seats in the receiver ring. The bolt lugs were then hand smoked and stoned for equal bearing and lapped in place. First proof round then finished up the mating of those surfaces. This seldom required removal of more than one thousandth of an inch from either surface, not enough to compromise a properly carburized layer.
There are a number of factors governing flight of the bullet, which are seldom noticed at shorter ranges.
Spin Drift is an example.
The bullet spins at very nearly the same rpm at one thousand yards as it did at the muzzle, but because velocity has now fallen off greatly the effect of spin drift increases the further out the target.
A prime example of this effect is the .30-06 fired from the 1903 Springfield.
A little understood phenomena was discovered. When the bullet left the muzzle there was a very slight but measurable jump to the left of the bore line.
Since the Springfield rifling has a right hand twist spin drift worked to off set this jump by guiding the bullet ever so gently to the right.
Bullet path and bore line converged at around 600 yards, after which spindrift guided the bullet more and more to the right of the bore line. So spin drift had only a beneficial affect up to six hundred yards.
PS
I believe the slight jump to the left was due to less support on the right hand side of the receiver due to the clearance for ejection to the right.
This sort of flex is far more noticable with bolt actions that have rear lock up, usually cured by a front sight base off set to the left. When rear lock up and left hand twist are combined, with muzzle jump (bullet throw) and spin drift working together to send the bullet to the left of the bore line, as with the Lee Enfields, the off set of the front sight base is very noticeable.
So I'd suggest only right hand twist barrels, unless you are using a lefthand action with ejection to the left.
You're right Bart- gotta stop using that adage. Poor way of saying that an accurate platform can't make a marksman out of a lousy shooter.
It's just logical that being able to rule out the "hardware" when interpreting shooting data/results leaves the shooter. When you've got two or more variables, like anything else in statistical analysis, you're screwed.
It's just logical that being able to rule out the "hardware" when interpreting shooting data/results leaves the shooter. When you've got two or more variables, like anything else in statistical analysis, you're screwed.
sc928porsche
New member
You don't have to be a race driver to enjoy driving a Ferrari, and you don't have to have a sports car to learn how to drive in competition but it helps. If the kid wants to be able to score at 1000 he might as well have the right equipment.