rifle optics ... what you "see," and what you don't "see" ...

to the rifle range, to see how my new load for my model 98 mauser in 7mm remington magnum is going to shoot at longer ranges.  for years i have shot a standard load consisting of a 175 grain nosler partition at about 2900 fps, +/- 25 fps or so, from my model 70 winchester.  the new load for the mauser is a 130 grain sierra matchking (bthp) at a little over 3100 fps or so, in the winter weather.

speaking of which, it was about 34 degrees f. when i got to the range, low dark clouds & little light, a couple inches of new snow on the ground, and a steady wind of 5 miles an hour or so from the south.  i was pretty bundled up, underwear, wool shirt & sweater and duck parka, but even so i wasn't "toasty" until i got a balaclava over my mouth and neck, and under my fleece beanie.  then, i could go a while with my gloves off, but, without it, my hands cooled almost as soon as the gloves came off.

this does have a little to do with the shooting, as shooting into the wind, my eyes watered so badly that with the small scope on the one rifle, i could barely see the target at 400 yds.  and, not to mention, shooting in thick woolen gloves, ... , bad for trigger control, and hard to hold a cold rifle.

the target is scientifically crafted, the outline 12" serving plate being scribed onto a sheet of cardboard, with a 5" saucer plate scribed into its center.  an envelope from one of the myriad bills i get & ignore monthly serves to outline a white "cross" in the middle of all this, the arms 4.15" wide.  the net effect is four pie shaped segments outlining an inner circle.

i shot two rifles, a model 70 w/ a leupold 2.5x8 power scope which i have had nearly 25 years, and a model 98 mauser with a fixed 2.5 power scope, the rifle built about ten years ago before my economic collapse, which i am just getting up and running as time and a little scraped up here & there will allow.

now, the target subtends 3 minutes of angle at 400 yards.  in the fading light, shooting the model 98 with the 2.5 power scope, with my eyes tearing, i could barely see the target, it being just little tiny lumps at the edge of the cross hairs.  three shots landed well below the point of aim, in a straight line at 7 o'clock measuring some 8".  not so hot, but, in real life terms, an aim point at the top of the nose would have resulted in the high shot landing nipple high just to the right of the breastbone, and the bottom shot not doing the outside lobe of the liver very much good.

i had a very difficult time aiming, as i just could not see enough of the target to shoot.  in actuality, i kind of was using a patch of snow above and behind the target standard as an aiming reference.

after having gone to the target and marked the first three shots, i used the model 70 winchester, known by all my hunting camp as "old tilly" to shoot at that same target, old tilly being equipped with the 2.5x 8 power leupold.  now, with the scope set on 8 power, i could see the outline of the inner ring of the target, though not the white at its center.  the "crescents at the outside were clearly visible, and i was able to aim "from the inside" of the target," the 12 inch circumference which was well outside the dimension subtended by the reticule/cross hairs.

this time, using the same ammo, consisting of a 130 grain sierra boat tail hollow point in front of 61 grains of hodgdon 4350 (h-4350), i was able to shoot a group measuring 4.4" inches center to center from the most distant bullet impacts.  in real terms, using the same bridge of the nose as an aiming point, three shots, an inch or so either side of the breastbone, nipple to nipple.

now, poor old tilly still "shoots," amazingly enough, because the leades in her barrel rifling have been severely eroded, (just as the rock under niagra falls flows upriver, yard by yard, every year), but she is not as accurate as the newer rifle.  but, old tilly has the more powerful scope sight, while the more accurate rifle has a sight out of the parts bin, and a cobbled together set of mounts and rings that don't "match," in any sort of technical sense.

yet, the new rifle is by far the more accurate rifle at 100 yards, because the little scope is not such a handicap close in.  i cannot see much with it, but, i can see enough to figure out what i am looking at, and, more importantly, for.

but, at 400 yards & using the little scope i cannot see enough to figure out what i need to figure out in order to point the rifle accurately.  i can, by contrast, see enough to understand what the rifle is pointing at using the 8 power setting on the 2.5 x 8 variable.

in the final analysis, i want to be able to hit relatively small targets at from 7 to 800 yards.  it is apparent that the 8 power setting on the 2.5 x 8 power variable will not allow me to do this, assuming that the load i am developing is capable of shooting a minute of angle to that distance, e.g., that being about an 8.5" circle at 800 yards.  to even see a "target" at that distance in the same manner and of the same image in my present scope, this day, would require that target to be 24" in diameter.  and, even at that size, i would be hard pressed to discern enough detail inside the target to figure out a very good, and, repeatable hold.

so, it's up the power ladder, as pertains to rifle scope optics.  the problem with that, is, of course, a matter of expense.  high power, higher quality scopes, just cost more.  so, the next day that presents shoot-able weather, it is back to the range, to try and figure the greatest range at which my present optics give me any field utility.

john jay @ 01.16.2011

p.s.  i will tell you a little secret.--  the "circle" is absolutely the hardest target to hit.  the "rectangle" shape is far far easier to hit.  think about it.  a circle twelve inches in diameter has a lot less surface area than a rectangle, say "12 x 18" by dimension: the circle is approximately 113 square inches, while the rectangle is 216 square inches.  and, the key, is that the rectangle, even if small in the visual image in the scope sight, has enough stuff sticking out away from the reticule/intersection of the cross hair, for you to figure out "where the gun" is, even if you cannot "see" all the surface area of the target.

so, the next target will be a solid 12"x18" rectangle on the cardboard.  with an 8.5" circle at its top, made from the circumscribed rim of a soup bowl.

high tech.  doncha love it!!  laughing.

Comments

[BrockTownsend]

Good article and thanks. A 98 Mauser used to be my groundhog rifle. Wish I still had it.

[sDee]

Interesting post John Jay. Your information on 6.8 loads got me thinking about a long gun which is now done, with a 5.56 upper. (6.8 upper to come later.)

So, now I am learning the lingo and shopping for a 5 to 300yd sight solution. I'll try the Millett DMS 1-4X 24mm. It has an illuminated red dot in a donut which should work for two eye open target acquisition.

Not too expensive. At 4X, the "dot in donut" is a 1 MOA dot in a donut-shaped ring. The ring has an inside diameter of 10 MOA and outside diameter of 12.6 MOA. Those should provide a useful gauge for rough range finding.

[john jay]

brock:

pretty interesting rifle, the model 98.

just looking over frank de haas's book on rifle actions, the chapters on the mauser models 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96 and 98.

starting with the 91, they were all pretty good rifles, and he just kept working at it until he got it right.

to my mind, there is one thing that sort of proves just how good the model 98 was/is. and, that is, john moses browning never tried to improve or best it.

i think browning must have looked at the rifle, and said, what's the point? how do you make perfection better?

the 1903 springfield is "derivative," and the models 54 & 70 winchester just warmed over springfields.

the only guy who had another mousetrap, and a damned good one, was james paris lee, of the lee metford fame, and his was a far better rifle than most give sufficient credit.

maybe you could get your rifle back?

john jay

[john jay]

sDee:

a person cannot have too many ar-15 uppers.

the millet sounds interesting. i went the eotech route, which was pretty interesting.

i found the dot very useful, up to about 300 to 350 yards, shooting gongs and the like. the .223 is flat enough shooting so that to that range, you don't have to do much "ranging."

just point it.

i don't know what you do with the dots much past that range.

do you have a flat top w/ a rail? if you do, you might want to pony up for one of those trick little on & off like a jiffy mount, so that you can get the dot off, and a scope on, as quickly as possible.

i spent the night making a target for my scopes, so that i can get a feel for five hundred yards.

my 7mm round has a more or less dead on at 300 yards in the 98, and the shots at the 400 yard target discussed in the post landed 9 to 10 inches below the point of aim, without any adjustment of the scope. (they are about 2.5" inches high at 100 yards, i am thinking about 4 to 4.5" high at 200, though i've not shot that. it's just a kentucky windage sort of deal right now, as i get a feel for the way the bullet flies.)

i am thinking, looking at some old sierra reloading manual tables at the back of the 4th edition (50th anniversary edition), pp. 820 to 821, that without changing the sight settings the 130 grain sierra should strike the target at 500 yards about 30" below the line of sight.

remember, a pretty much dead nuts "zero" at 300 yards.

that make's the load pretty flexible, and should make it pretty flexible right out to 500 yards.

think of it. less than 3 feet of drop (vertical component/vector) over 1500 linear feet of travel (horizontal component.)

that's lick your finger, stick it in the wind sort trick.

according to the trajectory table i am looking at, "point blank range computed for 5.0 inches above ... line of sight", it gets plenty tricky after that, so much so that only a scope with a trajectory adjustable turret is gonna do you much good to & out past 600 or so.

s='s 1/2 attraction of gravity x's time squared. you just don't beat that.

so, for instance, at 1000 yards, the load i am fiddling with would probably have nearly 300 inches of vertical drop with a 300 yard zero ... that's 25 feet. of course, if you are standing on the ground, shooting more or less level, you've "run out of ground" a long time before that. laughing.

the point is, when you have to elevate the rifle to get there, you need the science that shooters are now using. you have to be able to establish distance to target within a gnat's eyelash, you have to know the wind, and you have to know the trajectory of the bullet in order to dial in the "clicks" to elevate the barrel.

it's all pretty fascinating, and i am just getting my feet wet. i'll have to go slow, and figure ways, because i cannot just "buy" my way there w/ all kinds of toys and gizmo's.

but, that's what makes it fun.

john jay

p.s. the rifle barrel never gets elevated like an artillery piece. not even way out there.

if you get a hold of hatcher's notebook, there is a chart on minutes of angle elevation to reach way out there.

minutes. not degrees.

have fun, sDee.

it's all fun. and, next, reloading. laughing.

[Alex Galletti]

This is not just about pointing and shooting, but also about discipline and knowledge of any gun that you are handling. Whether it's a rifle, a magnum, a long gun or a small gun, there should be a sense of responsibility of the effect of what you're doing. You truly are a gun enthusiast.