TattooedGun

Bit late to this, hope you got it sorted.

I never liked mounting rings to 11mm dovetails - never seemed enough meat across the length of the ring/mount to have a good solid hold. What I did on my 1813 and on our club Match 54's was add a contessa rail [https://www.opticswarehouse.co.uk/contessa-picatinny-rail-anschutz-54-0-moa] which used significantly more mounting surface (the whole length of picatinny rail) to the 11mm rail to provide a good solid mount, which was tightened up top to tighten it perpendicular to the top of the action - then use more substantial picatinny/weaver mounts to attach the scope to said rail.

I know you said this wasn't your ideal approach above, but I have found it significantly more forgiving on our club rifles with regards to knocks, and have had no bother whatsoever with longer range shots.

Would definitely suggest this method, if you're still having issues with your setup.

Example of this setup on our club rifle:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B4ZyVLZAmEW/

On 15/01/2018 at 6:33 PM, Danpd said:

Interesting to see the process. Thank you for putting the videos together.

 

No problem! Thanks for the feedback

On 15/01/2018 at 7:56 PM, fourtyvoats said:

Excellent videos. Interesting that the conclusion emphasises what we all know and sometimes do not want to acknowledge, that you, the shooter, are the most important variable in the entire framework.

Thanks for the feedback appreciated
I agree! It is often the hardest thing to blame ourselves rather than our tools, but when you take out as many variables as possible it only goes to show that sometimes we need to work on our technique as opposed to our equipment.

2500 is the smallest amount that they will supply when batch testing ammunition.

Ever wondered how Eley Batch test ammunition for your match rifles?

Finding the best batch of ammunition to match your barrel/chamber.

I go through the process at Eley's Test Centre in Minworth and filmed the process and talk through the results that were garnered.

More experienced shots may well have been through this process before, but some of you may find it interesting.

http://blog.stegough.com/batch-testing-22lr-rimfire-ammunition-eley-uk/

It's my first time trying to "vlog" on a topic, so I apologise for waffling maybe more than I should.

Shocking angle, but the only photo I have of it on my phone...

Still saving for the appropriate glass, but it's got an 8x56 Klassik S&B scope, Phoenix Bipod, Evo mod, Leupold QR Mounts, and is chambered in .308.

Want to get out more with it, but just moved house and renovations is taking all my time and money.

The other rifle is a No. 5 in .303 bought late last year.

I purposely made the article simpler and avoided the alternative Mil measurements such as milliemes (circle/6400) and the Red Army's adoption of expanding the 600 unit circle into a 6000 unit one (as it has nothing to do with milliradians as its origin). I also omitted decigrades, Gradians and a number of other angular measurements.

It gets complicated to explain all of them, especially when you don't really understand much of any of them.

Further to your request on NATO 6400 adoption of millemes, the direct comparison units would be as follows:

1 NATO 'Mil' is 0.98171875 that of a true Milliradian.

To try and put that in perspective. There is less than 2% discrepancy between Nato and True.

At 100 meters that's 10 CM True mil vs 9.817 CM NATO - A 1.83mm discrepancy.

Which equates to 0.183mm discrepancy per click.(.1 MIL Click) Or 0.0915mm per click (.05 Mil Clicks)

At 1000 meters that's 1 meter True vs. 98.17 CM NATO - A 1.83cm discrepancy.

Which equates to 1.83mm discrepancy per click.(.1 MIL Click) Or 0.915mm per click (.05 Mil Clicks)

As mentioned above, not sure most people would be able to tell in the real world.

As far as I know there a few sights, such as the March scopes, that are actually graduated in NATO mils. Not that any of us could really tell the difference in the real world!

Shuggy, I have taken on board the information you have given me, and learned a little in the process. Many thanks.

I have updated the article appropriately. Hopefully these few word changes make the intention clearer and don't perpetuate incorrect understanding of Radians as Metric Units.

Radians were first described in 1714. The metric system was introduced in 1795.

 

Radians did not become an official SI unit until 1980. Minutes are also a recognised unit within the SI system.

 

Therefore it is not really correct to refer to Mils as a metric system. The Grad or Gon is the metric system of angle.

I didn't refer to Mils as a metric system, I referred to it as being considered the metric equivalent to MOA which is considered the imperial measurement of angle.

My point really is that when using Millirads along side the metric system it forms an extremely powerful and easy to understand and convert scale for working out angles at distance. More so than when being used with Imperial units, due to the flexibility of the Metric system.

Of course it is not limited to being used only with the metric system, but seems to work much more elegantly when it is.

Since the article is primarily to get a basic understanding on the subject but not go completely in depth on the matter, I accept that my personal understanding on this subject at this depth is lacking, perhaps I didn't put across the above intention of the article in the way that I had hoped.

There appears to be a problem with your maths on the Understanding MOA article? 2MOA @ 100 yards = 16 clicks with 1/8MOA click value not 18

So there is, fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out

Concentrated on the complicated stuff, messed up on the easy stuff...! D'oh!

I posted a few weeks ago a couple of articles which may, or may not be of any use to some of you guys.

I've always been an MOA shooter, so getting my head around Millirads was somewhat of a headache, however after I "got it" i decided to try and word it in an easier to understand article than those I had been reading.

To understand what a Milliradian is (Shortened to Mil) then : http://blog.stegough.com/understanding-milliradians-mil-milrad/

Once you've got that an want to see how Mils relate to Mil-Dot Scopes then : http://blog.stegough.com/understanding-the-mil-dot-reticle/

Hopefully this helps someone. I dare say a lot of you guys that shoot all the time will already know it, but certainly one for the novices, and those that shoot MOA but want to know more.

Not too sure about the back stop for that shot??

 

T

Yeah, especially with the documented history of over penetration that the RG 7.62 blanks have...

Oh BTW Tattooed Gun do you actually have tattoos or are they just blanks where tattoos could be?

Nah, they're the stick on ones out of chewing gum packets....

Just goes to show that once you've found a blank that suits your rifle stick to it.I was lucky and found a factory blank that was so good it even beat the fabled "one hole group"

Gotta love those no-hole groups...

If there are any forthcoming blank firing competitions can the venue and course of fire be given as I would like to take part in this new and exciting form of shooting.

I imagine they'd be called re-enactments.

The beauty of the blanks I fired were that they were very consistent, I'd recommend RG blanks, although the '06 RG blanks were better than the '93 blanks. Though the difference was negligible. They all missed in the same place...