Author Topic: Help before I go insane (Updated) (Read 12137 times)

Antlershed · « **on:** July 13, 2009, 07:23:30 PM »

When we went out shooting at 970 yards yesterday my scope was maxed out at 103 clicks, and Jeremiah was only at 84 clicks on his scope. We both sighted in at 200 yards. He could go all the way to 106 clicks of adjustment on his scope. The only difference on our scopes is his is the 6.5-20x50 Conquest and mine is the 4.5-14x50 Conquest. So, why would he still have 22 clicks of adjustment left and me maxed out, shooting the same bullets?

Steve C · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:20:57 PM »

How many clicks up from the bottom range is each scope when sighted at 200? Maybe the difference at distance is the difference that you start with at the sight in point.

Antlershed · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:28:09 PM »

Quote from: Steve C on July 13, 2009, 08:20:57 PM

How many clicks up from the bottom range is each scope when sighted at 200? Maybe the difference at distance is the difference that you start with at the sight in point.

Why would we be 19 clicks different? And, if we are both dead on at 200, why would it take my scope 103 clicks and his only 84 to be on at 970? I'm not too concerned about mine maxing out at 106 and his at 103, as I am the 84 vs 103. I can't make it make sense...

Antlershed · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:32:21 PM »

I'm not sure how many clicks up from the bottom each one is, but I was wondering that as well.

At 970 yards each click equals 2.425", so if we are both dead on at 200 yards, he is adjusting his scope 203.7" while I am adjusting mine 249.7". The only thing I can think of is that my gun somehow got knocked off and isn't on at 200 anymore (haven't shot 200 since that day), but I don't know how it would have got knocked off. We were out shooting 200 yards friday evening.

luvtohnt · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:38:24 PM »

I don't know much about scopes, but could the difference in power cause this?

Brandon

Bob33 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:43:52 PM »

Maybe your scope really "maxed out" at 84 . Do you know for sure the last 19 clicks actually moved the point of impact?

Also, it is assumed that the clicks on each scope move point of impact the same amount. That assumption may not be true.

Curly · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2009, 08:59:39 PM »

Have you chronoed your loads? Maybe his barrel is a little faster?

woodswalker · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2009, 09:11:56 PM »

unless both scopes were centered AFTER sighting in and you knew how many total clicks of adjustment you both have, you have no real data.

to get a baseline you both need to know how many TOTAL clicks you each have from bottom to top...and how many off center you are when sighted in at 200...

THEN you can compare the scopes.

Loads...have you chronographed your loads? from each gun? If not you could be several hundred fps different ....which WOULD matter at 900+ yards.

ONLY after you have nailed the variables can you start looking at scope adjustment variability.

A

littlebuf · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:17:01 PM »

with a 4.5x14 how the hell could ya see 970 yards any way? were ya shooting on faith

jeepasaurusrex · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:25:54 AM »

Before sighting in a scope, I put it in V-blocks and rotate it while looking through it at a spot on the wall. I adjust the cross hairs to they do not rotate in an eccentric. Then I know the scope zero'd out. Was this done on the scope in question?

Antlershed · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:34:11 AM »

What do you mean you adjust the crosshairs? The windage and elevation? What does that do since once you start sighting in you will be moving them around anyway. Not sure what you mean by zeroed out either since the scope wouldn't be on the rifle at that point.

HUNT · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2009, 11:48:30 AM »

The difference between the two could be the click position that it took to zero at 200 yards. The height of the crosshair vs the bore (ring height among other variables) could be the difference....

JackOfAllTrades · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:29:21 PM »

Reading this thread.. What Woodswalker, Hunt and Littlebuff said, went through my mind.

Quote

with a 4.5x14 how the hell could ya see 970 yards any way? were ya shooting on faith

Quote

The height of the crosshair vs the bore (ring height among other variables) could be the difference....

There could be several factors in scope design for that power rating, objective or tube diameter and the turrets installed. If the rifles, mount and height of scope rings are not identical, then the relationship for the center of the scope to the center of the bore will not be the same, so you may have the same amount of clicks for elevation, as you burned some of them up before you got to 200yd zero. (If his scope sits higher than yours, then he will have used less clicks getting to 200yd zero 'from bottom' than you will have.)

I say this, since you did not indicate total amount of click adjustment from bottom to top. I assume you're counting from zero to top.

I'll bet though, that since his scope is of higher magnification,that his turrets are different. You might want to contact the scope manufacture.

-Steve

andrew_12gauge · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:34:14 PM »

Quote from: luvtohnt on July 13, 2009, 08:38:24 PM

I don't know much about scopes, but could the difference in power cause this?

Brandon

I was kind of thinking the same thing if hes on 20X and you are on 14X couldnt the difference in field of view make up for the difference in how much adjustment you would need to make? Just wonderin dont blast me too hard

jeepasaurusrex · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2009, 01:46:54 PM »

Zeroing out your scope prior to installation ensures the scope windage and elevation nobs are centered so you are not starting way off to one side and having to adjust back, eating up available clicks. Something else you may want to try is putting a shim under the scope tube on the back mount. That will free up some clicks for longer range shots.

Steve C · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:07:29 PM »

Not every pair of rifles are centered exactly with relation to several things. The barrel alignment with the receiver in each rifle may well be different for just one thing. This means that the two rifles may have different adjustments to zero at 200 yards. So maybe your rifle winds up 36 clicks up from the bottom of the scope range when you are zeroed. Maybe your friends rifle is only 18 clicks up (for example only) from the bottom of the elevation range when zeroed. If both scopes have the same amount of total elevation adjustment, your friends rifle will therefore be able to sight in at a longer range than yours.

Powder has nothing to do with this provided there is enough of a particular charge in each rifle to drive the bullet the same speed.

Different bullets and hence different ballistic coefficients will begin to show up that far away too. I assume you two are also shooting the same bullet at about the same velocity.

Also check the specifications and see if there is a different amount of elevation in the higher powered scope to begin with. Maybe Zeiss reasoned the 16x might be used at longer ranges and built the scope accordingly.

Antlershed · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2009, 06:28:34 PM »

Quote from: woodswalker on July 13, 2009, 09:11:56 PM

unless both scopes were centered AFTER sighting in and you knew how many total clicks of adjustment you both have, you have no real data.

After we sighted in at 200, we “reset” our turrets to 0. I can understand if I am adjusted 18 clicks more than him at zero, but that shouldn’t mean that it takes me 18 more clicks from zero to be on at 970. It would mean that I am 18 more clicks from the bottom, but not zero. We are shooting the same bullet, loaded with the same powder/charge, and the same OAL.

Quote from: littlebuf on July 13, 2009, 10:17:01 PM

with a 4.5x14 how the hell could ya see 970 yards any way? were ya shooting on faith

The scope is a 4.5-14x50, not a 4.5x14. 14 power is plenty at 970 yards.

Quote from: JackOfAllTrades on July 14, 2009, 01:29:21 PM

There could be several factors in scope design for that power rating, objective or tube diameter and the turrets installed. If the rifles, mount and height of scope rings are not identical, then the relationship for the center of the scope to the center of the bore will not be the same, so you may have the same amount of clicks for elevation, as you burned some of them up before you got to 200yd zero. (If his scope sits higher than yours, then he will have used less clicks getting to 200yd zero 'from bottom' than you will have.)
I say this, since you did not indicate total amount of click adjustment from bottom to top. I assume you're counting from zero to top.
I'll bet though, that since his scope is of higher magnification,that his turrets are different.

Both scopes have the same rings and bases. The only thing is his scope is a little longer, which I was wondering if that could have to do with it at all. Scope tube diameters are the same, turrets are the same. Both scopes are 1 click = ¼” at 100 yards.

Quote from: jeepasaurusrex on July 14, 2009, 01:46:54 PM

Zeroing out your scope prior to installation ensures the scope windage and elevation nobs are centered so you are not starting way off to one side and having to adjust back, eating up available clicks. Something else you may want to try is putting a shim under the scope tube on the back mount. That will free up some clicks for longer range shots.

So, if your scope has 100 total clicks of elevation and 100 total clicks of windage adjustment (labeled 0-100 for the sake of this example), you are essentially setting your scope to the 50th click on each so the crosshairs are centered, correct (which would be the zero of the scope)? I don’t see how this does anything other than sight in the scope so that it is closer to being sighted in once it is on the gun. If your gun is dead on when the elevation is at the 52nd click (from the bottom), and the windage is on the 53rd click (starting from one side), how would it matter if you started at 50 and 50, or 99 and 3…its still going to end up sighted in at 52 and 53.

Maybe I should have been more clear. His scope was adjusted 84 clicks from zero (not the bottom), and mine was adjusted 103 clicks from zero (not the bottom)

Huntboy · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2009, 06:46:33 PM »

I think what they are trying to tell is that there is a factory setting of zero, when you started sighting
in your gun how far did you move the turrets. So for instance say each scope has a total of 100 clicks
in order for you to sight in @ 100 yds. you go up 10 and R 5. Your friend sights in his rifle and his elev. is on, he"s already gained 10 clicks on you.

Antlershed · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2009, 07:00:58 PM »

Quote from: Huntboy on July 14, 2009, 06:46:33 PM

in order for you to sight in @ 100 yds. you go up 10 and R 5. Your friend sights in his rifle and his elev. is on, he"s already gained 10 clicks on you.

I get that, but if we reset out turret knob to zero after we sight in at 200, at this point it shouldn't matter how far from the bottom you are for what I'm asking, you are on at 200. Why would it take 84 clicks from that point to be on at 970 with one scope and 103 with the other? That's what I'm trying to understand. I realize there is a VERY good chance we wouldn't be the same clicks from the bottom when initially sighted in (hence the reason he can go 106 clicks from zero and I can only go 103).

Curly · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2009, 08:01:47 PM »

I still think your buddy's rifle is launching his bullet at a higher velocity than yours. At 970 yards, a little bit more velocity is going to make a significant distance, right?

Antlershed · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2009, 08:47:50 PM »

Right, I just wouldn't think that two identical senderos would differ that much in velocity.

Jamieb · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2009, 06:35:40 PM »

Antlershed, PM comeing.

Wanttohuntmore · « **Reply #22 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:56:30 PM »

It's amazing how different the velocity can be between rifles. Are the loads identical as well? Same brass, sizing, cut, seating debth, components? At 1000 yds, the difference will show itself, and 18 clicks is easily possible at 1000.

Antlershed · « **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:31:22 PM »

Yep, the same press and dies is being used for all the rounds and we are shooting the same load. We are going to run them over a chrony this weekend to see how much different they are.

Thanks for all the help guys, and sorry if I sounded like an ass with some of my posts.

Antlershed · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:51:21 PM »

Ok, a little update....

I decided I wanted the 6.5-20x50 Conquest for the extra magnification. So, for the sake of trying to make everything the same, just to see how different it would be, I mounted the new scope so it would be the exact same forward and backwards on the rifle as Jeremiahs. So, for a little rundown...both guns are Senderos, both scopes are Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50, and they are both mounted with the same rings and bases.

Took it out shooting today, and I'm about ready to get rid of the Zeiss and go for a USO.

When I zeroed at 200 yards, I was almost out of height adjustment. I only had 32 clicks of height adjustment left (out of 176 total from top to bottom), which is way worse than the previous scope (it had 103 clicks left after being zeroed at 200).

Again, Jeremiah's scope is zeroed at 200 and has 106 clicks left (out of 192 total). Not sure why they don't have the same amount of total clicks from top to bottom, but that is VERY low on my concern list right now. We ran our guns through the chrony, and my gun is only shooting 50fps slower.

addicted · « **Reply #25 on:** July 20, 2009, 01:44:14 AM »

sell your sould for a schmidt & Bender. it's worth it

JoshT · « **Reply #26 on:** July 20, 2009, 04:35:58 PM »

Dude... you need to check your bases... something is wrong there. My guess is somehow the rear base is sitting lower than the front one... that's causing the scope to be pointed at an angle away from the bore. This is the reverse of what you want... a lot of guys that shoot in the 800-1400 yard range prefer bases with a 20MOA cant to them... Back to Front. If this is the case... and there's a significant difference in height between the bottom and top rings, you could be kinking the scope a little and causing the adjustments to not work properly... hence, your different "come-ups" at 970 than Jerimiah's rifle.

You could also have the bases on backwards... or the wrong bases... or the rings on backwards. Or, the rear/top of the receiver could be sitting higher than it should... or there's something under the base. I can't believe it's the scope... once yes, twice? NO. New rings/bases might be the order of the day. Get the same ones, put the ones you currently shoot back in the box... and take them back, to me... there's obviously something wrong with them.

Also... I was telling Jerimiah that the "clicks" should be very similar between the two rifles... if one is 200fps slower... it could be 3-4 minutes (or 12-16 "clicks") difference at 1k. A "click" is a "click"... regardless of where the reticle is in relationship to it's range of movement... that doesn't have anything to do with why he needed less vertical adjustment than you. You have something out of whack...

Magnification has nothing to do with this problem.
Where the reticle is in relation to its range of movement has nothing to do with this problem.
The lenght of the scope tube has nothing to do with this problem.

Antlershed · « **Reply #27 on:** July 20, 2009, 05:57:47 PM »

Thanks Josh. I'm gonna do some checking and measuring on it tonight. I'm using the Leuopold Dual Dovetail rings and bases. Are the rings front and rear specific? I know the bases are because the front one is more curved on the bottom because of where it sits, correct? I looked into getting angled bases to fix it, but the only ones I found were the one piece rails, and I'm not sure I like that for this gun.

bucklucky · « **Reply #28 on:** July 20, 2009, 06:03:09 PM »

I'll give ya $600.00 for your set up Brent

Antlershed · « **Reply #29 on:** July 20, 2009, 06:23:39 PM »

Quote from: bucklucky on July 20, 2009, 06:03:09 PM

I'll give ya $600.00 for your set up Brent

Almost.

buckhorn2 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 20, 2009, 06:48:40 PM »

If you have questions but don;t know the answer call zeiss and tell them they should be able to answer your questions. I know with my leopold 6.5 by 20 all I had to do was e-mail them and they had a tex guy write me right back with any information I needed I know stuff like that can drive you nuts.

Antlershed · « **Reply #31 on:** July 20, 2009, 06:52:46 PM »

I called Zeiss this morning and all she told me to do was buy angled bases.

JoshT · « **Reply #32 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:17:18 PM »

I'm not a big fan of the DD rings/bases, I know a lot of folks like them though. As you turn the rings in a lot of wierd stuff can happen... and ain't none of it good. I just put Warne rings/bases on my Sendero last week... I had to adjust the scope about 2" left and 1" down from the factory center to zero the rifle. I've always had excellent luck with Warne and Tallys... other than that, my results have varied.

Antlershed · « **Reply #33 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:20:07 PM »

If I have a level on the top of my barrel, and a level sitting on top of both bases, should they both be level at the same time? Pretty sure I know the answer....

Jeremiah P · « **Reply #34 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:23:08 PM »

Quote from: JoshT on July 20, 2009, 08:17:18 PM

I'm not a big fan of the DD rings/bases, I know a lot of folks like them though. As you turn the rings in a lot of wierd stuff can happen... and ain't none of it good. I just put Warne rings/bases on my Sendero last week... I had to adjust the scope about 2" left and 1" down from the factory center to zero the rifle. I've always had excellent luck with Warne and Tallys... other than that, my results have varied.

What bases would you recommend with the 20 moa cant in them?

Antlershed · « **Reply #35 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:23:58 PM »

Quote from: Antlershed on July 20, 2009, 08:20:07 PM

If I have a level on the top of my barrel, and a level sitting on top of both bases, should they both be level at the same time? Pretty sure I know the answer....

Never mind. My results are varying too much.

JoshT · « **Reply #36 on:** July 20, 2009, 08:49:35 PM »

Quote from: Jeremiah P on July 20, 2009, 08:23:08 PM

What bases would you recommend with the 20 moa cant in them?

Don't know... never used them... I've got over two full revolutions left on the elevation turret of my Mark 2... that's 30+ minutes... should get me out to around 1300 yards... that's a might further than I really need to be shooting.

If I were going to buy some, I suppose the nightforce two-piece would be the one I'd look at. I just can't love the one-piece bases.

Jeremiah P · « **Reply #37 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:30:07 PM »

Yeah I don't really like the one piece, it seems that most are a picanny rail set-up, not sure I like that either?

Jamieb · « **Reply #38 on:** July 21, 2009, 01:35:56 PM »

When I'm trying to get some more elevation and weight isnt a issue then I'd use a rail with 20 MOA. When I want to save a little weight then I use Burris bases and rings with the plastic inserts. Midways site is down right now so I'll put up a link latter.

JoshT · « **Reply #39 on:** July 21, 2009, 01:45:11 PM »

Good call on the Burris stuff... I forgot about the Signature rings with the inserts, that would work well in a DD type set-up.

Jeremiah P · « **Reply #40 on:** July 21, 2009, 02:10:21 PM »

Quote from: Jamieb on July 21, 2009, 01:35:56 PM

When I'm trying to get some more elevation and weight isnt a issue then I'd use a rail with 20 MOA. When I want to save a little weight then I use Burris bases and rings with the plastic inserts. Midways site is down right now so I'll put up a link latter.

I found them on midway, site seems to be working. So my question is do you just buy the same size rings as are currently on your gun or bigger so that the shims will fit?

Jamieb · « **Reply #41 on:** July 21, 2009, 02:10:52 PM »

Here it is.http://www.midwayusa.com/eshoppingcart.exe/quickcat?SaleItemID=429390

Antlershed · « **Reply #42 on:** July 21, 2009, 02:29:00 PM »

I think i might just go with the burris stuff and be done with it. The 20 moa should get me out to about 1150

JoshT · « **Reply #43 on:** July 21, 2009, 02:38:26 PM »

Quote from: Jeremiah P on July 21, 2009, 02:10:21 PM

I found them on midway, site seems to be working. So my question is do you just buy the same size rings as are currently on your gun or bigger so that the shims will fit?

Buy the same size... they're set up to use the inserts that come with the rings, which I believe are only 10 MOA... if you want to get to 20 MOA you may need to pick up the extra shim kit.

News:

Advertisement

Author Topic: Help before I go insane (Updated) (Read 12137 times)

Advertisement

Quick Links

Recent Topics