Jump to content

VarmLR

Members
  • Content count

    925
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About VarmLR

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.referencefidelitycomponents.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Gloucester
  • Interests
    Shooting,
    Hill Walking,
    Loud Harley Davidsons ("another" Mid life crisis!)
    Music & Hifi

Recent Profile Visitors

513 profile views
  1. Scope Calibration

    Hmmmm...I'd like to think that at the top tier, QC was better than that Gluv but I honestly wouldn't know. The feedback to the author of that test suggests that many of the scopes on there when individually tested by owners did match quite closely, which is what you might expect given the same design, construction and quality control applied in manufacture. Not always the case of course, but if nothing else it may be a reasonable indicator of the ballpark for the scopes listed. No app can account for large variations in repeatability though. 3% out on repeat tracking tests wont have much relation to a particular scope performing as designed (calibrated), ie if the scope was designed to deliver 60moa total travel but in fact delivers 59.5moa (1% calibration error) by design, that counts for little if it can't repeat that tracking every time. The calibration from the factory and turret design may be true to within 1% but entering that into your app isn't much good if on one pass, it matches the 1% and on the next swings to 3% for the same test and so-on, hence repeatability has to be the more important gauge because any calibration error can be compensated for. Lack of repeatability cannot.
  2. Scope Calibration

    There is of course a short cut for some of us, insofar as many scopes that we use have already been tested (using Horus calibration targets). See the "Mechanical Precision Test" section in this article: http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/08/13/tactical-scopes-mechanical-performance-part-1/ My own scopes, luckily seem to have fared very well, with perfect scores on 1st and half a click on 2nd adjustments which is as far as I adjust them anyway (ie max 15 MRads). I haven't tried mine out against a tall target but may do out of interest to see if I get the same result sometime. The big shocker from the test above seems to be the March scope. That may well be down to a faulty scope as it's hard to believe any precision scope would do so badly!
  3. Scope Calibration

    It's a mute point but I wonder how many people would sell their scopes if they found that tolerance was perhaps 3 to say 5% on a tracking repeatability test, something for which calibration tests are of little use. I would be more inclined to check tracking repeatability V's calibration as the latter is something that I worry about only once I knew that tracking was repeatable.
  4. Lyman Gen 6 - views from a loading bench!

    Making life easier when it comes to reloading is a good thing. I will run some further tests on the load cell accuracy by comparing it with a calibrated one that I use professionally for setting up delicate devices involving tiny loads. My standard will be a scale that measures to thousands of a grain. Edit: Not sure how relevant anything over a 1/10th of a grain is given that many BR shooters seem to load by volume. I think that rather than get too anal about 1/10ths or 1/100ths come to that, I'll keep an eye on SD/ES as that is more relevant in terms of results for LR shooting precision.
  5. Lyman Gen 6 - views from a loading bench!

    Don't know if they've changed them since first introducing them, but mine only takes 3 minutes and it's ready to use.
  6. Lyman Gen 6 - views from a loading bench!

    Good review Catch-22. A friend uses the Chargemaster and had similar (minor) issues but said that his main gripe was that it threw over regularly so he adapted it with some straws used as a makeshift reducer, and now it seems to work well. I was pleasantly surprised at just how precise the Gen6 scales were, with other scales showing a variance of no more than between .05 to 0.1gr max, but most within the 0.05grain accuracy. That's more than accurate enough for me as I've never believed that one kernel over or under makes much, if any difference. Then again, I'm no BR shooter. Case consistency is to me more important than squeezing out the nth degree accuracy on scales, so the Gen 6 ticks all my boxes, takes up hardly any room and best of all doesn't seem to drift (at least I've not detected any yet), unlike earlier versions. There's a fair few discounted Gen 5's doing the rounds and whilst they do offer some enhanced functionality (that I would never use) they also use the older electronics. I guess all scales will suffer a little from drift over time, but in context to charge, these later versions seem to have cured all the early gremlins. One of the issues with many electronic scales is the plastic bodies. They can become charged quite easily with static and this apparently causes drift issues with some electronics. A quick wipe down with plastic friendly window cleaner should keep the surfaces static free. It was a toss-up between the Target Master or the Gen 6, but as I've never had an issue with the mechanics of hand trickling, I saw little point as long as my thrown charges were close enough. It's the time advantage and the amount of hassle and space that the Gen6 dispenses with that won the day.
  7. I've resisted getting entangled in electronic scales and loaders of various sorts and for years have used RCBS beam scales of one type or another, in combination with a trickler. However, as I'm loading anything up to 300 monthly now, it was becoming rather tiresome to do the whole thrower/beam scale/trickler thing and have to have a screen and camera to get the best from the scale's precision. Lots of workbench space and very time consuming. I have always heard more of the negative side of electronic scales and loaders and the better ones have always cost more than I'm willing to spend to weight out a simple charge, but I finally gave in and bought a Gen 6 to try. I now don't know why I didn't do this years ago....except that it wasn't available years ago (a good enough reason!). Last night I had about 60 6.5 cartridges to load of varying charges for load development work. As this was the first use of the Gen 6, I tested the odd charge on some beam scales and every one tested was bang on the money. In 60 charges, only 2 or 3 were over by about 0.1 grains (I used a reducer in the dispensing spout as I was using RS62 stick powder). Charge time was shorter than expected, varying between 15 and 20 seconds. This saved me perhaps 40 minutes or more over my traditional method and the accuracy and repeatability was almost faultless. The Gen 6 takes up very little bench space, was ready to use from switch on after a three minute warm up, was easy to charge, use and clean. As precision seems pretty good and consistency excellent, I can thoroughly recommend this to anyone else on the brink of making a decision to go that route. It seems to have everything that the Charge master Lite does at a fraction of the cost.
  8. Comparator D400 to suit: 223 Winchester Super Short Magnum 243 Winchester 243 Winchester Super Short Magnum 260 Remington 270 Winchester Short Magnum 7mm-08 Remington 300 Savage 308 Winchester 35 Remington It's new and unpackaged but I was sent the wrong one, being wrongly told that it was fine for 6.5 CM which it isn't...that one should be C.375 (take note Mr "business seller" ;-) ). Rather than send it back to the seller and be stung for return postage to change it I'm offering it here for £8 delivered which is a saving of about £4 from anywhere else.
  9. Blackhawk Sportster Pivot AND traverse 9-13" bipod in excellent condition. Less than a year old and one of the best of this Harris-type of bipods with quick pull legs for full extension and easy locking of each leg from the prone position allowing rapid set up on uneven surfaces or slopes. Solid, well made bipod, not the usual rubbish. Identical to the one below, bought from Dauntsey Guns last year. Price on their website lists these now at £99. Yours for £55 which is a bargain for something which looks like brand new. Only selling as I have bought an FTR bipod for one of my range guns.
  10. Fluke

    Good shooting Chris! What was the bullet and load used for those shots out of interest?
  11. I was taught some years ago how to keep a proper data book and range card used to sketch terrain for an area of interest, key points, ranges, dead ground, compass direction, elevations, prevailing winds, location of things like roads etc etc. It had things like drop data, and other allowances marked on separate pages . I see no use for such card data for recreational shooting unless to map a large area of land for something like LR vermin control where identifying features and ranges helps for acquiring shots more rapidly if one is out without a rangefinder, and the distances to key points is already by virtue of the range card work, already known. You can seldom though get enough data at longer ranges for any great precision to cover everything you may need in such cases, so although useful, just carrying a rangefinder and anemometer and using a ballistic app to get on target first shot is more useful. However, I still keep a data book for reloading and calibration data for my app. I also keep a record of rifle data; Load development data for each bullet/cal/powder, and keep key cartridge data in case field measurements are needed in the event of any issues. I also record ES/SD for each new batch of ammo (usually when renewing powder or primers etc). It is also useful to keep data on bullet tolerances between batches. Some bullets vary a lot between base to ogive and if loading 10 thou off and have loaded one perhaps not checked from cartridge head to ogive, then you could be in for a nasty surprise, so this data is useful when load developing, even if just checking consistency of difference bullet models. Range data is limited to recording weather conditions, and DOPE for the range/bullet/load being shot so that I have a record of how such conditions might affect elevation/drift. I also frequently record MV for each batch of ammo and for weather conditions that vary by 5 degrees or more so that I can refine powder sensitivity data between batches. Probably overkill, but it does enable you to look back and learn from each outing and each load development. I still see no real use for a military type range card unless you are in the military and need it for terrain and target acquisition planning. However, different folks have different outlooks and needs and it is always interesting to learn what others do.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy