And in a stalking context, having just dragged yourself along on your belly for a couple of hundred yards to get within range of the stag of a lifetime, and then cautiously slid your rifle over a clump of heather while keeping as low a profile as possible, the last thing you want to be doing is poking your head up in the air in order to get a glimpse through your scope. Otherwise a glimpse is all you're ever likely to get.
Why height over bore does not matter
- Thread starter User00040
- Start date
I doubt it. But a few inches might.And half an inch will make all the difference
Haa haa. "Answer it with your Kestrel" eh ? From someone who sells Kestrels.
Plenty of online solvers, or apps, which do just the same or better, except I suppose the top model with Applied Ballistics baked in.
PS: he was talking nonsense about how complicated it is to measure sight height (not "bore height" whatever that might be). And suggesting instead just using your thumb to guess it.
It couldn't be easier. Measure objective diameter. Halve it. Measure barrel diameter where the objective sits above the barrel. Halve it. Measure gap between objective and barrel. Add the three numbers. That's your sight height. Doesn't need to be perfect, sure you might have a slanted rail making a tiny difference, besides the optical axis of your scope might not be dead centre, particularly if you have adjusted elevation away from the middle.
Want to know when your scope is optically centred ?
Simple. Rig up ideally a pair or V blocks, or just a one piece scope mount with the tops removed.
Screw it onto a tripod, or hold it in a vise, whatever, something steady, then point it at a precise target. Zero it in on that, then rotate it around. V blocks best for this, for full rotation without the turrets getting in the way. If the aim point describes a circle it is not in line with the tube. Adjust, repeat etc until it is precise. That's your optical centre.
Whilst you are there, experiment with the vertical and windage tracking, repeatability, and influence of one over the other. You might like to think that they are independent, i.e. you can move it around in a square box. Sorry, that's not how it works. Its a circle, not a square. Once you are dialled in away from the optical axis , say you have some something with ballistic turrets and like to dial for range, the more you reduce the amount left for windage. That's even assuming that your scope actually tracks, i.e. that the cross hair vertical is precisely aligned with the turret movement, so doesn't shift a little sideways.
I can, and , do, do this with any new or s/h scope, as well as having an optical boresight collimator which can show me just how bad the scope tracking and repeatability might be. Also usually getting me bang-on for the first shot. Bought as an experiment, ISTR £10 at a gun show from the second hand bin. I like it.
OK you have now messed up your previously zeroed scope. So put it back to where it was and try again. I am almost sure that you will find that the optical centre is no longer aligned with the tube axis. And that your windage adjustment has become constrained.
Simple. Rig up ideally a pair or V blocks, or just a one piece scope mount with the tops removed.
Screw it onto a tripod, or hold it in a vise, whatever, something steady, then point it at a precise target. Zero it in on that, then rotate it around. V blocks best for this, for full rotation without the turrets getting in the way. If the aim point describes a circle it is not in line with the tube. Adjust, repeat etc until it is precise. That's your optical centre.
Whilst you are there, experiment with the vertical and windage tracking, repeatability, and influence of one over the other. You might like to think that they are independent, i.e. you can move it around in a square box. Sorry, that's not how it works. Its a circle, not a square. Once you are dialled in away from the optical axis , say you have some something with ballistic turrets and like to dial for range, the more you reduce the amount left for windage. That's even assuming that your scope actually tracks, i.e. that the cross hair vertical is precisely aligned with the turret movement, so doesn't shift a little sideways.
I can, and , do, do this with any new or s/h scope, as well as having an optical boresight collimator which can show me just how bad the scope tracking and repeatability might be. Also usually getting me bang-on for the first shot. Bought as an experiment, ISTR £10 at a gun show from the second hand bin. I like it.
OK you have now messed up your previously zeroed scope. So put it back to where it was and try again. I am almost sure that you will find that the optical centre is no longer aligned with the tube axis. And that your windage adjustment has become constrained.
I'm on the hunt for a big'un this summer, just so I can post a photo!I remember the last time you used inches to describe the size of a horse fly!
I am sure that he is infinitely more experienced than me. In the "Military Field". He is even a "consultant". But in what way ? Maybe in how to use a Kestrel, user interface maybe, but I rather doubt that he knows much about the technicalities. As seems to me blindingly obvious from his totally naïve vid.
As am I a Technical Consultant and preferred supplier to ... Not in his speciality, but not entirely unrelated either. Whether he knows better than me, I would not presume.
Now, the sacred Dr Brian Litz, he of Applied ballistics, Berger hybrid bullets et al, is not necessarily at the top of his game anymore.
A few years ago Hornady took on some bright spark, (un-named) who developed their 4dof alternative. (four degrees of freedom) I've studied the white papers and it is very interesting. Not sure where that is going yet (sometimes these things that are in the head of one genius are at the fate of how that person progresses).
Both these things require extensive doppler radar testing of specific bullets to do their best. If you aren't using one of their characterised bullets, well, you won't get such precise (at least on the Kestrel screen) results.
Hornady are making a good play at this, testing not only their own bullets, but many others. To be frank, if they choose to apply their mind, and their extensive resources to this, they could blow away the competition with a superior offering. But they only started in 2016, so it might still look like early days yet.
Nevertheless Kestrel are interested enough to make a Kestrel with Hornady 4dof inside, rather than Applied Ballistics. Demand outstrips supply.
This thing: Kestrel 5700 Ballistics Weather Meter with Hornady 4DOF
I don't expect that Mr Todd Hoonet (Military field consultant to Applied Ballistics) will be making any comparison with Hornady 4dof or rational argument about that.
Competition is good.
Quite what applicability any of this has to do with deer stalking, well, OK but ?
Last edited:
Haha, it took me all weekend to work out what this meant. You should put that in the jokes section.
What he says! You can debate the maths of scopes, ballistics and cant all day long, but I think its also important that a rifle feels natural and 'points', almost subconsciously once you have determined the shot is safe. A lot of shots have an element of time pressure (e.g. when you bump a roe and it stands looking at you for 3 seconds, taking a follower, or red hind culling).
Can’t believe this thread still has legs but then we’ve not got as far as aesthetic considerations yet!
K
K
Control yourself
This will get the Op’s juices flowing as it’s a Sako:
K
K
Umm... No.
If you're not adjusting the scope or shooting long range, then that doesn't matter either. If the rifle is slightly canted when zero'ed, then the cant is account for with the windage zero. If your zero is set for 100yds, then out to 300yds you're not going to see an appreciable amount of drift from the cant.
Just a reminder that a lot of you hold onto a misguided belief:
I'll appropriate this verse to make my point-
Romans 11:25–26a:
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited...
(I only refer to information that supports my opinions
)
I'll appropriate this verse to make my point-
Romans 11:25–26a:
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited...
(I only refer to information that supports my opinions
)Just a reminder that a lot of you hold onto a misguided belief:
I'll appropriate this verse to make my point-
Romans 11:25–26a:
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited...
(I only refer to information that supports my opinions
That vid doesn't show anything, other than what happens to your group if you tilt the rifle a measured 2 (or 5) degrees one way or the other. The effect would be the same if you had no scope at all.
Having said that, there's no getting away from the fact that high mounts are ugly, clumsy and impractical, and their use should, at the very least, be a hanging offence.
Again with the debunking of a false premise...nobody said that a high scope would affect accuracy which was the OP contention...just practicality.
And nobody has said a high scope exaggerates cant...it just indicates it better.
Alan
And nobody has said a high scope exaggerates cant...it just indicates it better.
Alan
Last edited:
You know enough to know that 'nobody' is a false premise in this instance.
No one, ever in the history of Earth, has argued that low mounted scopes are somehow more accurate?
See above... will have to start charging consultation fees on here soon...
I suppose it depends on how you're shooting, and with what. Most clip-on NV sights are set to be 1.3"-1.5" high, and so, your scope needs to be on the same plane. Another reason is just positional. Cranking the head over and up onto the stock can induce strain, as well as compromise recoil management. Hence why so many long range guns have high mounts; it gets the head up into a more natural, relaxed position, moves the stock lower into the body (also shortens the LOP of pull considerably) to better manage recoil to see impacts through the scope during/after recoil. For hunting that may not be as big a deal, but for tactical applications, where a follow up shot may be needed, or a second target engaged, being able to manage recoil is very important....and requires a higher than traditional, set of rings.
How many people have you heard argue that straight faced?
Argue that it has advantages maybe, but more accurate?
Alan
Similar threads
