Triffid

The Sightron 6-24x50 currently on sale at OW is a real steal in my opinion:

https://www.opticswarehouse.co.uk/sightron-siii-ss-6-24x50-lr-sfp-ir-moa-2-tactical-turret-1-ir-rifle-scope

Illuminated MOA reticle, 1/4" clicks, 100 minutes of elevation, good quality glass.

BUT as you noted it won't correct the parellax below 40 yards. So probably not a scope for a .22 unless your into long-range .22 shooting of course!

I've just checked with an SIII 8-32x56, which has nominally the same parellax range. At below 40 yards the parellax error is bad - the scope will easily focus to below that range, but the position of the reticle on the target will move dependent on your head/eye position behind the scope. So at 20m I can easily introduce 50mm of error by changing my head position, dropping down to about 10mm at 30m and disappearing at 40m. 

I've heard that it's possible to re-parellax a scope by changing the position of the objective lens, but I suspect that might invalidate your guarantee. Paul Burke in Birmingham might be able to do that for you, he's very good with scopes.

https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/adjust-objective-lense-on-a-side-focus-scope-to-reduce-minimum-distance.4005049/

Triffid

While researching for a new long-range scope, I came across this site, which has some useful information on Primary Arms (and lots of other manufacturers).

https://sageratsafaris.com/primary-arms-optics/

For what it's worth, my conclusion so far which has included side-by-side comparisons of S&B, IOR, Sightron & March scopes and looking at these against the many online reviews (Utting, the DLO etc) is that optics is a very personal field, what one person likes another hates. So I'd try before you buy if you can. It also depends alot on what your use is, so I probably wouldn't expect much in the way of low-light performance from that scope if you're out rabbitting at dusk.

Triffid

Hi.

Please can you tell me what model it is and what reticle it has.

Thanks

Triffid

Interesting thread for me as I'm currently saving up to get a quality scope for trying my luck at a mile. Both S&B PM2 and Kahles K are on the list . . . so thanks for posting your opinions.

Apart from Richard Utting, has anyone done back-to-back comparison of these scopes with the IOR range?  

Triffid

I'm in the same position as Nocrimp, just an evening or so behind in completing the wiring.

Everything came from AliExpress who I haven't used before, but worked well.  The circuit boards came via air-mail and arrived within a week. The PSU came via ship (I assume) and took about a month.

Like Nocrimp says the power supply is the most expensive bit. I've got a 36v 480W adjustable one

￡ 37.60

 input AC 110/220V 480W output 0-5V 12V 24V 36V 48V 60v 80V 120v 160V 220v Adjustable DC voltage switching power supply

14 hours ago, Scrumbag said:

That is a very cool resource!

I am hoping to have a set of  loads and sight settings that go from "Mild to wild" with the .44 mag.

So a cast bullet load for plinking and a 1,700ftlb load which is all deer legal in England.

Scrummy

I've always used Alliant 2400 for my full power loads. Works really well and I've never seen the need to change. Full whack stuff can be a little uncomfortable though!

Triffid

8 hours ago, Scrumbag said:

Hi folks,

I'm also starting to play around with 44 mag and cast bullets out of a lever action.

I have had some OK results with Unique but I find it difficult to measure conistently unless you trickle and weigh each charge. (Also if I try and charge through the belling die it seems to stick in te die body no matter how I try and "de-static" it)

I was wondering about my Titegroup as is a ball powder might be more conistent volumetrically? Or would GM3 be better?

Scrummy

I've been loading .44 for the best part of thirty years . . .

There's lots of info on loads here: http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm. My standard used to be 8gn of Unique, until I discovered Maxam PSB2+ which is significantly cheaper. 10gn of this works well for me and is more accurate than Unique. 

I've never thought it necessary to trickle-up - I leave that to precision rifle loads. Instead I use a Lee Autodisk powder measure and accept that it's +/- 0.2gn; at 25m it won't make any difference. If you're having static problems, the get some powdered graphite and run a little through the measure.

Triffid

I'll tell you something that's not f'ing wise.

That's to announce at 4pm that Lockdown v3 starts the next morning . . .

Triffid 

Not the NRA's fault.

The NRA range manager ring me up at 19:00 yesterday evening to say they were closed today. They do what they can based on the information provided to them.

This is just BoJo making it up as he goes along. No Planning. No Impact Assessment. No Comms. Pathetic.  

It's perfect weather here. It would have been a great morning's shoot.

Triffid

There's a Sightron SIII 8-32 on sale here for £550, including mounts.

I've got this model scope on my 6.5CM and I use it to great effect out to 1000 yards on Stickledown. I liked it so much I got a second one to put on my .308.

Triffid

I'm astounded that an eagle would take on an animal that size. But you can see that it's quite a risk for the eagle, with the battering it gets.

Triffid

I'm in the same boat.

My 6.5CM RPR has a 20 minute rail built in. I have a Sightron scope with 80 minutes of elevation in it. So that give me about 60 minutes, but Strelock says I need about 80 to hit the mile.

I've just bought one of these from OPW as a cheap way of getting there. But I fear it's going to be more expensive than that . . .

https://www.opticswarehouse.co.uk/utg-super-slim-20-moa-elevated-picatinny-mount

Triffid

Forgive me if I've mis-understood some of your posts above, but my impression was that you are happy to go along with some of the proposals. And you have done so in some of your response to the consultation. 

Yes, on the face of it, the requirement to produce your FAC when buying bullets & brass doesn't seem that unreasonable or onerous to legitimate holders. But (and to use yet another cliche) this is death by a thousand cuts to our sport. Like I said in my first post, to me the wording could infer that your FAC ammunition allocation includes un-assembled components. Irrespective of the final wording we know from past for that there are some Police forces (the Powers that be) with an anti-gun agenda. And these forces choose to interpret the legislation following this agenda in the absence of statutory guidance from the Home Office.  

There are four facets to this consultation. In none of them is any actual evidence of a problem provided, just speculation. In each of the four facets there is existing law which provides control over the aspect, so additional controls just add un-necessary additional offences (Badgers "Speeding in a Red Car", "Speeding in a Blue car" etc). But at the same time they make life that bit harder for us legitimate shooters.

So what if you had to store your .338 at an RFD? So what if you could no longer buy bullets in excess of your ammunition holding?  So what if people can no longer run minature rifle ranges, So what if air air guns have to be locked up in a gun cabinet? You might accept these in the short term, but I'll tell you exactly what will happen in the future.

Shooting will be strangled.

Triffid

Pops,

If you can't see that 'the powers that be' have got their sights firmly set on taking your .338Lap away from you, then you do indeed need to 'get your coat'.  Please excuse all the cliches.

Triffid

With the American product liability laws, I don't think Sig had too many alternatives but to do an immediate recall, then sort the problem out later.

Triffid

I see various issues with this. Two particularly come to mind regarding the last few posts on the thread.

1. I think that ALL additional firearms controls must be fought tooth-and-nail. We have long passed the thin end of the wedge position in the UK and any further controls just represent the thick end passing through, which will eventually just lead to us losing our firearms by incremental controls. In the pre-able to the Consultation, it admits that UK firearms controls are amongst the strictest in the world, but then cannot take the next logical step to demonstrate that these controls have made firearms crime go away. Because patently they haven't. Instead the government is just proposing more and more controls, which will only impact on the legitimate shooters, because the criminals don't care a fig.

2. Specifically with the potential control on cases and bullets the wording really concerns me here. It doesn't say 'manufacture of unauthorised ammunition'. It says 'unauthorised quantities of ammunition'. So if you have 250 rounds on your FAC, that means you can only have 250 bullets, 250 primers, 250 cases and enough powder for 250 rounds; any more that this would allow you to manufacture 'unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition'.  

Triffid

.22 Short Rifle surely

Paul Burke is your man for all problems scope related. He has put a new reticule in a a Pecar scope for me and replaced a cracked internal lens on a Fox Scope.

I'll pm you his details.

Triffid 

19 hours ago, Andrew said:

I doubt if you'd see that in the real world of actual shooting.~Andrew

You might well be right, it's using the results from one computer model (Quickload) as the input into a second (Shooter ballistic app). The chronograph will soon tell!

However I'd like to get my extreme spreads down. And as charge weight variation is within my control, it seems like one of the more straightforward ways of doing this.

Triffid 

Ah, thanks. I'll give that a go. I've got lots of data to compare it with.

Triffid

Nice shooting.

I've Googles the AutoDrum toothbrush mod, but cant find anything, so please tell more. . .

I'd really like to get the Autodrum to be more consistent and I've done quite extensive trials using different baffles and throwing techniques. But using N140, the best I can manage is a 0.5gn extreme spread (charge weight 44gn, n=20). Which models to about 25fps difference in MV using Quickload. Which models to a 9" vertical spread at 1000X using Shooter ballistic app.

Triffid

9 hours ago, meles meles said:

Hmmm, so if we were to turn up with a less dangerous rifle, chambered in, say, 8.58 x 69mm ?

Or how about a 33 Nosler?

I don't think that it's anything to do with the safety area. There are other calibres and chamberings with ballistics on a par with the .338 which are permitted simply because they are not .338. And the .338 itself fits within the HME bracket at Bisley (assuming 250gn at 3,000 fps).

So therefore the .338 must be specially dangerous.

Triffid

13 hours ago, meles meles said:

Why the prohibition on .338" ?

Because they are 'Specially Dangerous'. Like Brococks . . .

Triffid

An interesting exercise . . .using a ballistic app (Shooter in my case)

For the NRA 7.62 Zero card and assuming its calibrated for the GGG ammunition (Sierra 155 bullet at 2805 fps muzzle) drop at 1000X is 36.5 MOA. 

Using the NRA supplied 6.5CM ammunition (S&B 140gn bullet {G1 0.491} at 2657fps muzzle velocity) drop at 100X is 38.0 MOA.

So the CM ammo is predicted to be 15" low if you use the 7.62 1000X Zero target for setting your scope. 

As Pete says, near enough.

Triffid