I'll admit that I probably have more time and ammo on my hands than most people. However, these days, I don't think that's such a bad thing. But, after shooting all my life, I took notice of something that has much more effect on long-range shooting than I gave it credit for. To begin with, I sometimes spend an inordinate amount of time at trying to do things with a gun that most people would call a total waste of time. But, I think that this is how you learn things.
Last week, I was running some ammo through my .22 long rifle gun, and learned that I really could hit a 20"plate at 500 yards with my setup. But, even under zero wind conditions, it was incredibly hard to do compared to 300 and even 400 yards. What was most obvious, was my groups (if you can call them that) looked tall and skinny like this:
The above is six hits out of ten shots. (The mark close to the 6-o'clock position is two hits.)
Now, at 300 yards on a 12 inch plate, I can keep them all on the plate and grouped pretty close to the middle between 1 and 2 MOA. At 400 yds on a 16" plate, it gets worse. But, at 500 on the 20" plate, it usually doesn't get any better than what you see here. But, then it occurred to me: that bullet at that distance is coming down at such a down angle, maybe close to 60 degrees. If true, the intersection of the bullet and the plate probably looks more like this:
This would explain a lot when it comes to the compounded difficulty of hitting targets at extremely long ranges. According to this scenario, I'm trying to hit 40 percent less target area than what actually appears in my scope. Here are my shooting parameters:
.22 Long Rifle
Bullet Weight: 40 grain
Muzzle Velocity: 1200 fps
BC: 138
Distance: 500 yards
Zero distance: 50 yards
Holdover: 26 mills with scope mounted on a 20 MOA rail
I invite any comments on this from others who aren't as ballistically challenged as I am. This is obviously food for thought.
Last week, I was running some ammo through my .22 long rifle gun, and learned that I really could hit a 20"plate at 500 yards with my setup. But, even under zero wind conditions, it was incredibly hard to do compared to 300 and even 400 yards. What was most obvious, was my groups (if you can call them that) looked tall and skinny like this:
The above is six hits out of ten shots. (The mark close to the 6-o'clock position is two hits.)
Now, at 300 yards on a 12 inch plate, I can keep them all on the plate and grouped pretty close to the middle between 1 and 2 MOA. At 400 yds on a 16" plate, it gets worse. But, at 500 on the 20" plate, it usually doesn't get any better than what you see here. But, then it occurred to me: that bullet at that distance is coming down at such a down angle, maybe close to 60 degrees. If true, the intersection of the bullet and the plate probably looks more like this:
This would explain a lot when it comes to the compounded difficulty of hitting targets at extremely long ranges. According to this scenario, I'm trying to hit 40 percent less target area than what actually appears in my scope. Here are my shooting parameters:
.22 Long Rifle
Bullet Weight: 40 grain
Muzzle Velocity: 1200 fps
BC: 138
Distance: 500 yards
Zero distance: 50 yards
Holdover: 26 mills with scope mounted on a 20 MOA rail
I invite any comments on this from others who aren't as ballistically challenged as I am. This is obviously food for thought.
