Optimum scope magnification @ range

[gbal]

Horses for courses as they say while the open sight user may be at a disadvantage with a 5" target at 1000yds the reverse may be true if the high mag user had to use the large aiming mark (without an x ring)

 

Te disadvantage is extereme-the aperturist can't see it at all,so can't shoot.

 

The high mag holds on the bottom of the aiming mark very precisely,having clicked up appropriately,so POI is the xbull.

 

Horses for courses,absolutuely,and all credit for skill,including doing it the hard way.

But with a tennis ball at 1000 ,the aperture sight is a non runner!

gbal

[kent]

Te disadvantage is extereme-the aperturist can't see it at all,so can't shoot.

 

The high mag holds on the bottom of the aiming mark very precisely,having clicked up appropriately,so POI is the xbull.

 

Horses for courses,absolutuely,and all credit for skill,including doing it the hard way.

But with a tennis ball at 1000 ,the aperture sight is a non runner!

gbal

So is the scope by design (hitting such a target by design) other than fluke in reality so subject is over as far as I am concerned.

[gbal]

So is the scope by design (hitting such a target by design) other than fluke in reality so subject is over as far as I am concerned.

yeah fluke,by design-what an oxymoron.

 

Have a look at long range shooting records.

Been an awful lot of flukes.

Almost all shot by good shooters who do it quite often.

All of them shot by hi mag scopes.

All flukes

 

Gbal

[kent]

yeah fluke,by design-what an oxymoron.

 

Have a look at long range shooting records.

Been an awful lot of flukes.

Almost all shot by good shooters who do it quite often.

All of them shot by hi mag scopes.

All flukes

 

Gbal

Your mixing up BR records for groups with hitting a small target by design, that's a massive cavernous difference - Go and shoot it and gain some first hand experience! Nobody can shoot tennis balls by design at 1000 yds with any rifle and scope with any degree of certainty. Grouping five off a well adjusted rest and a top grade rig and tuned ammo (solely hitting paper) is an entirely different skill. (the paper is quite large) a sheet of A4 might not see any group measured

[gbal]

Your mixing up BR records for groups with hitting a small target by design, that's a massive cavernous difference - Go and shoot it and gain some first hand experience! Nobody can shoot tennis balls by design at 1000 yds with any rifle and scope with any degree of certainty. Grouping five off a well adjusted rest and a top grade rig and tuned ammo (solely hitting paper) is an entirely different skill. (the paper is quite large) a sheet of A4 might not see any group measured[/quote

 

I would agree that very very few shooters can make first shot hits on 1/2 moa targets at distances beyond say 500,and certainly 1000 yards.I have some experience of both types of shooting.If you can shoot a 5 shot 5 inch group at 1000 yards in BR,you have a fairly good chance of a hit on the tennis ball,"simply'" by clicking your scope appropriately.If you look at 1000 yard BR results you will see that an A4 sheet would be more than ample to cover a lot of groups shot,but not all of course,especially factory grade rifles in the less appropriate chamberings. Competition result are usually published on this site,so anyone who disputes this can check first.These are all of course shot by hi mag scopes.I d not deny that under special conditions-quite large aiming mark,some TR aperture shooters do admirably well,a point you continually do not address,but is the essential point,but your

your comments are more appropriate to them.They cannot see the tennis ball.

I could addd in tactical shooters etc etc-those who shoot at small targets at distance overwhelmingly shoot hi mag scopes.End of,unless you can produce some decent evidence that shows otherwise.There is no dentying that the hi mag users certainly exist and do well-the records etc are public evidence that this is so.You cannot continue to ignore this,and claim the opposite,and retain any credibility.

The move from precision(small groups) to accuracy (hitting a small target) is essentially one of scope correction clicks.Not at all difficult.Can you really seriously maintain without a shred of evidence,and despite the vast amount to the contrary,that if someone has shot a 5 inch 1000 yard group,they would not be able to click onto a tennis ball in the backstop say,and hit it -not every shot,but to keep to the point,rather more often than someone with only an aperture sighted rifle?

To deny this seems to me an unwarranted discrediting of the skill of long range hi mag precision rifle shooters.

What evidence -if any-supports such a criticism-I mean evidence,not your opinion,which others can judge on it's merits,or otherwise.

 

For what it is worth,if any shooter is going to hit a tennis ball placed at any unknown distance in excess of 750 yards,my mouth and money is on someone with a hi mag scope-they will do it,and some within a few shots.I doubt that any other sighting equipment will prove competitive

Simple evidence-people use scopes!!

Do correct me if I am mistaken in this fundamental evidence and experience based view I have about long range shooting at rather small targets-I could probably save quite a lot on scope expense,and be genuinely enlightened about shooting. TR apertures are admirable,let me repeat,but not for the above challenges.

Gbal

[sonic]

I do not dispute hi mag is needed for a tennis ball at 1000 yds. But think you missed my earlier point.

Take a large circle of the size used for open sights but without the X bull ie; 5' black circle.

shoot at this with both high mag and open sights.

I'm confidant that peep sights will be easier to hold a group with.

Put the 5" X ring back on the scope takes the advantage back.

[gbal]

I do not dispute hi mag is needed for a tennis ball at 1000 yds. But think you missed my earlier point.

Take a large circle of the size used for open sights but without the X bull ie; 5' black circle.

shoot at this with both high mag and open sights.

I'm confidant that peep sights will be easier to hold a group with.

Put the 5" X ring back on the scope takes the advantage back.

Sorry,I think I did answer this,but glad at least there seems no dispute about the hi mag ,small target issue.

 

My answer was this: with a large circular target,some of it black-it matters not what the black diameter is-the hi mag shooter holds rather precisely with his cross hair/dot tangentially on the bottom of the black(or top/side)This can be done really very precisely with a hi mag-and is just an extrapolation of what 100BR shooters do.That gives a very precise aim point.To hit the bull,the scope is simply clicked up/down/r or l as appropriate.

 

Why would this be less precise than an aperture-it really is no different from the process of shooting sub 1/2 moa groups at a 1/2 moa aiming mark.The human eye is pretty good at such things-one reason the aperture is OK-but for our 1000y shots the cross hair just kisses the bottom of the black circle,or the target dot is the lower circle of an 'figure/digit eight ",wih the bigger black circle on top

 

I don't have to claim this is better than when using a 1/2 moa aim disc,just that it remains superior to an aperture,or at least no worse.Outside of target shooting,of course,the size of the target is extremely relevant-there are no 5 foot vermin,most are pretty small,more in the one moa ball park,and very few are circular black on white!

Do we want to add in low light conditions? If so,most hi mag scopes are variables....

 

It's a relatively free choice world,but so far,I am not selling any of my hi mag scopes for any long range shooting.....and I doubt the site will be flooded with them either....does anyone shoot aperture,with the evidence it is superior-interesting,challenging,retro whatever...but actually better (broken lenses don't really count,unless you show apertures don't break,and can do the job -on small targets at very long range.I do have an aperture sight,can't see much use for it other than specific competitions where it is all that is allowed.)

 

Gbal

[kent]

Its like wrestling with a pig in mud this, suddenly it comes to you that the pig enjoys it! No you wind all you want the conditions will likely change enough in the time it takes to calculate and dial to put you off such a small target as a tennis ball (hits are then luck), why would a bench shooter shoot fast (coz he wants as close as he can get to the same conditions) hitting tennis balls is more to do with luck than design at 1000yds groups is to do with repeatability. Look at what 1mph shift does at 1000 yds. Once you get on to multiple shoot and dial, your going to hit something - but again if it were that easy to "stay on" then V bulls at 1000 would be a very common occurannce towards the middle stages of F-class. Its doubtless a scope is easier that's why v-bull size alters between the two. My point is and remains "sight picture" is the most relivent, in relation to that which you are shooting at., thick or thin reticule/ peep sight or scope.

 

 

recording only groups on a section of A4 might see few if indeed any recorded on the day. Give everyone ten sighters, it matters /helps little. Like I say go and shoot it

[gbal]

Its like wrestling with a pig in mud this, suddenly it comes to you that the pig enjoys it! No you wind all you want the conditions will likely change enough in the time it takes to calculate and dial to put you off such a small target as a tennis ball (hits are then luck), why would a bench shooter shoot fast (coz he wants as close as he can get to the same conditions) hitting tennis balls is more to do with luck than design at 1000yds groups is to do with repeatability. Look at what 1mph shift does at 1000 yds. Once you get on to multiple shoot and dial, your going to hit something - but again if it were that easy to "stay on" then V bulls at 1000 would be a very common occurannce towards the middle stages of F-class. Its doubtless a scope is easier that's why v-bull size alters between the two. My point is and remains "sight picture" is the most relivent, in relation to that which you are shooting at., thick or thin reticule/ peep sight or scope.

 

 

recording only groups on a section of A4 might see few if indeed any recorded on the day. Give everyone ten sighters, it matters /helps little. Like I say go and shoot it

 

What you say about wind is quite correct.Unfortunately for your case, it applies equally to the aperture sight user.I am happy to amend my assertion to say that if 5 shots are fired rapidly at a tennis ball at 1000 yards,the hi mag scope user will fare better than the aperture sight user.I think we can add the 'open sight 'user to that too.I will admit I have never looked through the TRspotter scope,so maybe those hi performance aperture systems offer something?...oh,don't tell me they are actually hi mag scopes...I wonder why..?

The claim that ten sighters matter little to long range shooters is I think,unlikely to sound plausible to ANY shooters at longer distances,and almost all are much more likely to agree with the alternate statement that without sighters all long range shooters are "severely handicapped "("Rubbish" one expert has said).(I include seeing bullet splash as sighter,for field shooters).

 

All pigs are not equal.

However,perhaps we can find some common dry ground by accepting that the most important thing is indeed the relation of the sight picture to the target;and that this tautology is nowhere seen so clearly as in the very widespread advantage of the variable hi mag scope over the aperture sight system.

 

O(i)K?

gbal

[kent]

What you say about wind is quite correct.Unfortunately for your case, it applies equally to the aperture sight user.I am happy to amend my assertion to say that if 5 shots are fired rapidly at a tennis ball at 1000 yards,the hi mag scope user will fare better than the aperture sight user.I think we can add the 'open sight 'user to that too.I will admit I have never looked through the TRspotter scope,so maybe those hi performance aperture systems offer something?...oh,don't tell me they are actually hi mag scopes...I wonder why..?

The claim that ten sighters matter little to long range shooters is I think,unlikely to sound plausible to ANY shooters at longer distances,and almost all are much more likely to agree with the alternate statement that without sighters all long range shooters are "severely handicapped "("Rubbish" one expert has said).(I include seeing bullet splash as sighter,for field shooters).

 

All pigs are not equal.

However,perhaps we can find some common dry ground by accepting that the most important thing is indeed the relation of the sight picture to the target;and that this tautology is nowhere seen so clearly as in the very widespread advantage of the variable hi mag scope over the aperture sight system.

 

O(i)K?

gbal

 

Could struggle with this forever please don't continually twist what I say to mean something else and continue what has become pointless and frankly downright confusing now