New rifles shoots 14 mils low

[Deleted member 113831]

@Jack Master

The barrel is bent.
The End.

 

[jbell]

If Jack Master is the guy in the video who is claiming he can "fix" a bent barrel by hitting it on a piece of wood back to its condition before it was bent then I will stand by my thoughts. Maybe he isn't an idiot but what he is claiming about straightening the barrel is completely idiotic.

Is straightening a barrel a real thing, absolutely. Does it make a barrel straight, no doubt. But will it produce the same results as if the barrel were straight to begin with, unequivocally no. Maybe this isn't his claim, but it is certainly how it's presented.

Further more he never took a measurement of the barrel with anything than his eye and finger. If your going to make a claim like he is you had better be able to back it up with correctly measuring and thereby showing the results as opposed to "it's perfect, trust me".

At least in this one example this guy in the barrel straightening video is a hack at best and this video should be viewed as entertainment not instructional.

 

[jbell]

I just realized Jack Master is the OP not the clown in the video. My sincerest apologies Jack for even starting to confuse you with the clown straighting barrels.

 

[hlee]

As far as the guy in the video....that's Clay Smith...a very well known flintlock builder. He doesn't just believe his own shit....he knows it.

Clay Smith? It says that it is Randy Selby. And, yes, this is the same guy that said that the 6.5 creedmoor was/is/and always will be a shit cartridge...

 

[Mauser06]

Clay Smith? It says that it is Randy Selby. And, yes, this is the same guy that said that the 6.5 creedmoor was/is/and always will be a shit cartridge...

Yep..you're absolutely right.....my mistake. I didn't click on it. Read the title and had a brainfart.... Clay Smith is "The Grumpy Gunsmith of Williamsburg" on YouTube. My brain thought that was him....Idk who Randy is....lol.


I do NOT condone the bending of centerfire rifle barrels...I just know that's how we get our flintlock longrifle barrels to shoot where the sights are centered. Completely different steel and application.

 

[264win]

Very likely the problem with OPs friends rifle is a bent and/or out of center barrel. This is hard to detect when looking through the bore, but if the barrel has a downward bend toward the muzzle, It would explain the results.
Sometimes this can be seen using a straight edge on the outside of the barrel

 

[LeftyJason]

Could the rail be installed backwards? Was it a 20 MOA or level rail?

14mils = 47.3 moa. Def not a backwards rail.

 

[Jack Master]

Update.
Well I was hoping to see this rifle at our weekly "gun night fun night" tonight but the fella the owns it was exposed to the pandemic and could not come. Might be a couple weeks before he comes around again.

 

[wade2big]

Update.
Well I was hoping to see this rifle at our weekly "gun night fun night" tonight but the fella the owns it was exposed to the pandemic and could not come. Might be a couple weeks before he comes around again.

Lol. He just didn’t want to see you if he is using the fake pandemic as an excuse.

 

[mick243]

Has its muzzle velocity been checked?
has the bore diameter been confirmed?

what is the possibility that the barrel has been incorrectly manufactured, eg its supposed to be a 6.5, if it actually has a 7mm bore then its MV will be way down and the promos will drop like stones

 

[Jack Master]

Has its muzzle velocity been checked?
has the bore diameter been confirmed?

what is the possibility that the barrel has been incorrectly manufactured, eg its supposed to be a 6.5, if it actually has a 7mm bore then its MV will be way down and the promos will drop like stones

We have not gotten far enough to check MV. I did think about mic-ing the bore but didn't get a chance to do that. I did double check the barrel marking that it is a 6.5 creed. When I see the rifle again I plan to mic the bore just to check.

 

[Jscb1b]

Turn the rifle over, sand bag the hell out of it. Shoot it and see if the POI is 50" high.

 

[NWnewguy]

I think I read through the whole thread and I don't think I saw the most likely reason. Back when I had to give handies to shoe salesmen just to get enough money to eat, I used to shoot Savages. They weren't always pretty, but they usually shot pretty well, even if they wouldn't eject a spent round.

Savage has, over the years, made round and flat back actions. This means that there are two types of scope bases. If you use the flat back bases on a round back action or vice versa, it ends up being so far off that you can't even get it on paper. You would think that it would be pretty obvious, but honestly, if you don't know it's a possibility than you really don't look there.

Could also be that Savage shipped out a floater.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I think I read through the whole thread and I don't think I saw the most likely reason. Back when I had to give handies to shoe salesmen just to get enough money to eat, I used to shoot Savages. They weren't always pretty, but they usually shot pretty well, even if they wouldn't eject a spent round.

Savage has, over the years, made round and flat back actions. This means that there are two types of scope bases. If you use the flat back bases on a round back action or vice versa, it ends up being so far off that you can't even get it on paper. You would think that it would be pretty obvious, but honestly, if you don't know it's a possibility than you really don't look there.

Could also be that Savage shipped out a floater.

He was able to bore sight it. What you are describing would preclude that.

 

[NWnewguy]

He was able to bore sight it. What you are describing would preclude that.

How did he bore sight it?
The look down the bore method?
If it was a laser than I'd give that some credence, but the looking method, depending on the range could look good when it isn't.

I'm not saying what I described is definitely it, but I've seen it at a public range before. Person was totally confused and was blaming the gun, the stock, the barrel and the scope.

 

[Jack Master]

@NWnewguy Read here

Thanks DJL2. I feel like we had a good bore sight. We bore sighted 2 other rifles that day and both were on 8.5x11 paper at 100 yards first shot. Thanks or the info on the bore axis to receiver. I think its something down this route as well.

@357Max
we didn't use a laser or tool. We took the bolt out of the action. Looked through the rifle action and barrel to aim it at the target (on sand bags). Then, without moving the rifle looked through the scope and adjusted the cross hairs onto the target. This is a traditional bore sight. checked it and re-checked it and it was on point.


Now you're getting my point. The bullet didn't even make it to the target that was 2 feet off the ground. The bullet hit the dirt at 60 yards. (5 feet low)

 

[ma smith]

He was able to bore sight it. What you are describing would preclude that.

Theres some debate about that boresight, IMHO.

AFAIK the only way your bullet is 48 inches off at 100 yds is the bullet left the barrel pointed away from the target. Or, it left on the corerct flight path and fell apart ballistically before it got there. 22lr drops 12 inch per 100yd and anything faster is dropping less unless BC is non-typical.

A correct boresight shouldn't have a miss exceeding full value gravity AFAIK.
(or sombody please explain this if I am mistaken)

 

[wade2big]

There is less room for error when bore sighting down the barrel at a close distance. I usually look at something 25-35 yards away or so. I will take my first shot near this distance as well and make a rough adjustment to have POI lower than the point of aim. 2nd shot at 100 and you will be close.

Bore sighting down the barrel at 100 yards is a crap shoot, but it wont cause the bullet to hit the ground at 60 yards. Something seems fishy about this story as something would have to be terribly and visually present to cause such a problem. I would have to see it happen with my own eyes to believe any of it. I can hip shoot a damn rifle and do better.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Well fuck, dude....you such swell, why don’t you pull out your check book and buy the guy a rifle and scope you approve of.

still doesn’thelp resolve why this rig is 14 mils low at 100 yds.

Well he is correct.

Buys one of the cheapest worst designed Bolt action rifles with a long history of failure
Buys a low brand chincese import junk scope
Buys no name Chinese junk 2 piece base
Buys no name Chinese junk rings

Wonders why results are less than optimal. If you cant afford atleast decent quality then you can't afford this game. Thems is the breaks.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

You know? Deer hunters buy cheap rifles and cheap scopes and cheap rings every year, and still manage to get their scopes dialed in (enough) at 100 yards to put a deer on the ground. If we get resolution on this, it will be something that is face-palm stupid...

Oh, and to those laughing at barrel bending, start at 3:05...

When you look at the actual success rates across different states and regions/GMUs, Rifle season success rates tend to be from 5%-50% based on tags.

So there are more people NOT getting big game than there are putting game on the ground. There are alot of people who miss due to poor equipment.

Want to be poor and hunt? Get a open site 30-30 and learn to put every shot on a pie plate at 75 yards. In the eastern half of the country that is more than enough. Cheap scopes and rings serve no purpose other than wasting money and frustration.

Out west? Hard to be poor and hunt out here.

 

[Baron23]

Well he is correct.

Buys one of the cheapest worst designed Bolt action rifles with a long history of failure
Buys a low brand chincese import junk scope
Buys no name Chinese junk 2 piece base
Buys no name Chinese junk rings

Wonders why results are less than optimal. If you cant afford atleast decent quality then you can't afford this game. Thems is the breaks.

Let's stay off the shifty gear choices because is shouldn't effect the barrel sending rounds 14 mils low from bore sighting.

Well, as the warm humanitarian that you appear to be, perhaps you would like to break out your check book and upgrade this guy?

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Well, as the warm humanitarian that you appear to be, perhaps you would like to break out your check book and upgrade this guy?

Perhaps your friend should better prioritize his life and make better choices.

Cheap gear is cheap for a reason.

 

[ACard]

When you look at the actual success rates across different states and regions/GMUs, Rifle season success rates tend to be from 5%-50% based on tags.

So there are more people NOT getting big game than there are putting game on the ground. There are alot of people who miss due to poor equipment.

Want to be poor and hunt? Get a open site 30-30 and learn to put every shot on a pie plate at 75 yards. In the eastern half of the country that is more than enough. Cheap scopes and rings serve no purpose other than wasting money and frustration.

Out west? Hard to be poor and hunt out here.

Not to be obtuse or argumentative but do those statistics take into account the number of people that have to buy a hunting license to varmint hunt (that incidentally comes with 5 deer tags like in my AO) but do not deer hunt?

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Not to be obtuse or argumentative but do those statistics take into account the number of people that have to buy a hunting license to varmint hunt (that incidentally comes with 5 deer tags like in my AO) but do not deer hunt?

I think most states require a tag or a big game licence..although some on the east coast where deer is very plentufull include deer with their general hunting licence. The point is states that track hunter sucess rates ( and rifle season tends to be worst season for hunting vs the rut archery/muzzle) more people skunk out than fill their tag.

I know i have missed deer due to bad equipment when i was younger. That will never happen again. My misses will be due to me.

 

[SporterII]

I bought a new savage with a heavy barrel. The receiver was tweaked. I believe it laid over in transit. The heavy barrel had momentum. It stopped and the end of the receiver could be, on close inspection, tweaked up at 12:00. It bent the receiver which is just a tube.

 

[wade2big]

I think most states require a tag or a big game licence..although some on the east coast where deer is very plentufull include deer with their general hunting licence. The point is states that track hunter sucess rates ( and rifle season tends to be worst season for hunting vs the rut archery/muzzle) more people skunk out than fill their tag.

I know i have missed deer due to bad equipment when i was younger. That will never happen again. My misses will be due to me.

In Texas deer tags are part of the hunting license. Waterfowl is an endorsement. Many bird hunters dont fill their deer tags because they dont deer hunt. The percentages mean nothing.

 

[JeffLebowski]

Perhaps your friend should better prioritize his life and make better choices.

Cheap gear is cheap for a reason.

I see why you’ve been banned in the past. Believe it or not, there are working class people that hunt and shoot.

 

[hlee]

When you look at the actual success rates across different states and regions/GMUs, Rifle season success rates tend to be from 5%-50% based on tags.

So there are more people NOT getting big game than there are putting game on the ground. There are alot of people who miss due to poor equipment.

Want to be poor and hunt? Get a open site 30-30 and learn to put every shot on a pie plate at 75 yards. In the eastern half of the country that is more than enough. Cheap scopes and rings serve no purpose other than wasting money and frustration.

Out west? Hard to be poor and hunt out here.

Big game animals are not magical, and you can get close enough to them to take them with a bow. (But, now you really are talking expensive .) Those failure rates are mostly due to hunters that didn’t go, didn’t shoot what they saw, or didn’t see anything. No doubt there are misses included, but I’d bet most that are not successful, are not successful due to reasons other than actual shooting.

My first rifle was a marlin 30-30 topped with a Bushnell Sportsview 3-9 scope, in no-name rings. Dial? That’s soap, right? Out to 150? No problem. Beyond that? Get closer. Still have the rifle and the scope and the rings, though the rifle is set up for its original iron sights now.

But, my only point in bringing up hunters and cheap gear is that lots of hunters are able to achieve hunting level accuracy/precision with cheap gear (pie plate at 100 always seems to be the bench mark...?) 15 mils is way off of hunting level accuracy, which to my mind, puts the problem beyond the purview of typical “cheap gear.” Gross user error, cork-screwed barrel, something else?

But yeah, living in Texas and hunting “out west,” it’s hard to be poor...

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Even the most rudimentary half assed bore sight isn't going to be 14 mils low at 100 yards, and the OP has history on this sight bearing witness that he is no idiot.

Even Savages aren't shitty enough to be 14 mils low at 100 yards with a good bore sight. Hell, the Germans were making ersatz rifles while the Russians were pounding down the gates of the city that don't shoot that badly. Stop being obtuse fuck sticks.

Even cheap chinese junk scopes aren't bad enough to be 14 mils low at 100 yards with a good bore sight. Yeah I know, fuck China, but if it was that broken it would be plainly obvious. If it was that broken, there would likely be shit rattling around inside. You wouldn't even be able to move the crosshairs well enough to bore sight it in the first place.

You fuckers are retarded.

 

[Jscb1b]

Has he shot it upside down yet?

 

[CrabsandFootball]

Big game animals are not magical, and you can get close enough to them to take them with a bow. (But, now you really are talking expensive .) Those failure rates are mostly due to hunters that didn’t go, didn’t shoot what they saw, or didn’t see anything. No doubt there are misses included, but I’d bet most that are not successful, are not successful due to reasons other than actual shooting.

My first rifle was a marlin 30-30 topped with a Bushnell Sportsview 3-9 scope, in no-name rings. Dial? That’s soap, right? Out to 150? No problem. Beyond that? Get closer. Still have the rifle and the scope and the rings, though the rifle is set up for its original iron sights now.

But, my only point in bringing up hunters and cheap gear is that lots of hunters are able to achieve hunting level accuracy/precision with cheap gear (pie plate at 100 always seems to be the bench mark...?) 15 mils is way off of hunting level accuracy, which to my mind, puts the problem beyond the purview of typical “cheap gear.” Gross user error, cork-screwed barrel, something else?

But yeah, living in Texas and hunting “out west,” it’s hard to be poor...

I bow hunt elk and bear. In one of the hardest places to bow hunt in the US.

Even great hunters who spend a week out at a time in the bush get skunked. It happens.

The states that report succes rates based on tags where you know someone is out there trying is telling.

WhitetailDeer in most of the country is hardley even hunting. It should be called harvesting. Not much harder than walking out into a field and shooting a cow. Sit in a stand and wait. They are as plentifull as cockroaches in the eastern us. Grew up hunting all over and in some states you could take 32-40 deer a year if you hunted every season and bought additional tags as a resident. I grew up with deer in the yard every morning, even took a few out of my window with a bow and shotgun growing up.

You are right alot of them are successful. But alot of them arent, which is the point.

Poor gear is reposoble for x% of failures.

Wise men know this hence why they use quality gear with a very low % of failure.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

In Texas deer tags are part of the hunting license. Waterfowl is an endorsement. Many bird hunters dont fill their deer tags because they dont deer hunt. The percentages mean nothing.

You know its possible to decipher information from states that limit tags vs a free for all? Collate that data and you start to see corelations.

If you think the percentages mean nothing then you dont understand what you are reading.

 

[Jackomason]

there are a few videos from the savage factory of them hand straightening barrels. I've also seen a few savages shoot amazing bad and Ive also seen worse preformance from their customer service.

nothing got under the base when it was installed? or did it come installed?

Im leaning towards a screwy barrel.

 

[CrabsandFootball]

The truth is, which has already been mentioned a bunch of times is if you throw a bunch of junk parts together, you will get poor results.

Couple that with less than expert users and they don't know what they don't know.

Usually when numbers are that far off, its the optic or some funky mounting. Unless he was using the cheapest of the cheap chineesium bases and rings, they should at least be in the ballpark.

I boresighted 4 new rifles/optics yesterday. Threw them in a tripod and took all off 45 minutes to get them all dialed in. Later this week they are all getting zeroes. No issues other than a 300WM that I ended up with 23mils in a 30moa base of usable elevation with a LRHS. Got a feeling it may not print the same but we shall see.

A $275 Thompson Center Compass is guaranteed to shoot MOA. I have yet to see a $350 Howa not be able to shoot MOA with good ammo/shooter. $450 Tikka's are absolute hammers despite a thin barrel that heats up fast. There are plenty of cheap guns out there but there aren't many decent cheap guns out there. Same for optics, rings, bases, ect. If you are going to go cheap, you better go right.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

The truth is, which has already been mentioned a bunch of times is if you throw a bunch of junk parts together, you will get poor results.

Geezus, you ain't gonna quit are you?

 

[Tokay444]

My money is on .270 or 7mm bore etched 6.5CM at this point. It’s happened.

 

[spife7980]

My money is on .270 or 7mm bore etched 6.5CM at this point. It’s happened.

Not a bad thought. Shit has to happen to be off 14 mils lol

In any case if it still is bad in the factory stock when the bud gets over the rona I would send it back.

 

[Ksracer]

Even the most rudimentary half assed bore sight isn't going to be 14 mils low at 100 yards, and the OP has history on this sight bearing witness that he is no idiot.

Even Savages aren't shitty enough to be 14 mils low at 100 yards with a good bore sight. Hell, the Germans were making ersatz rifles while the Russians were pounding down the gates of the city that don't shoot that badly. Stop being obtuse fuck sticks.

Even cheap chinese junk scopes aren't bad enough to be 14 mils low at 100 yards with a good bore sight. Yeah I know, fuck China, but if it was that broken it would be plainly obvious. If it was that broken, there would likely be shit rattling around inside. You wouldn't even be able to move the crosshairs well enough to bore sight it in the first place.

You fuckers are retarded.

Thank God. Somebody finally said it.

 

[MikeLaFollette]

So a buddy bought a new factory (cheap) rifle and put it in a mdt chassis. We tried to zero it this weekend but the rifle shot 14 mills low from our bore sight and the scope can't adjust far enough to put poa at poi.

1. Bore sight was throught the barrel. I have done enough to usually get on paper right away, or at least hit the 4'x4' target board at 100yds.
2. Changed scopes just to bouble check. Same result.
3. Tried 2 factory ammunitions. Same result.
4. Double checks mdt chassis seating is correct. At all looked good.
5. Tried new shooter. Same result.

Shot from a stable bench with bags.

Any suggestion on what to try? Have you ever seen this happen and what could be the issue?

I think he is taking it back to the gun shop he bought it from and it will likely go back to the factory.

Did your friend buy scope mounts that have an MOA to them. If so could they be mounted backward?

 

[Travelor]

I made High Master with my Savage 6BR at 600 yards. I have other Savages (.223 and .308) that shoot wonderfully.

Talking Savages down is WRONG in my opinion and show an as--h---e attitude.

 

[supercorndogs]

I bow hunt elk and bear. In one of the hardest places to bow hunt in the US.

Even great hunters who spend a week out at a time in the bush get skunked. It happens.

The states that report succes rates based on tags where you know someone is out there trying is telling.

WhitetailDeer in most of the country is hardley even hunting. It should be called harvesting. Not much harder than walking out into a field and shooting a cow. Sit in a stand and wait. They are as plentifull as cockroaches in the eastern us. Grew up hunting all over and in some states you could take 32-40 deer a year if you hunted every season and bought additional tags as a resident. I grew up with deer in the yard every morning, even took a few out of my window with a bow and shotgun growing up.

You are right alot of them are successful. But alot of them arent, which is the point.

Poor gear is reposoble for x% of failures.

Wise men know this hence why they use quality gear with a very low % of failure.

How is them Quigley scopes working out for ya? You forgot to mention your bench press max and numbers of years spent working concrete.

 

[Jscb1b]

Change it's name to crabs and banhammer.

 

[Memberberries]

This thread derailed pretty hard. Hunting tags in Oklahoma are for different for bucks or does, I buy both in case I see a spectacular buck but I try to fill my freezer with does. I can guarantee that a large number of Oklahoma hunters buy 2 tags with the intent of shooting 1 deer.

OP, I would expect the new rings to make a difference but if the problems not fixed you could measure them and the height of the base to rule those out. I'd swap a different proven optic on to double check but my money is on the rifle needing a trip back to savage. Maybe try to measure the bore as another sanity check if you can.

 

[Jackomason]

I made High Master with my Savage 6BR at 600 yards. I have other Savages (.223 and .308) that shoot wonderfully.

Talking Savages down is WRONG in my opinion and show an as--h---e attitude.

yeah, youre right. definatly nothing wrong here.

OP, your firends gun is now good to go.

 

[Jack Master]

or somebody please explain this if I am mistaken

That's the point. The bore sight should at least hit the 4x4 target board. This makes me think something else major is wrong.

nothing got under the base when it was installed?

Nope. we checked all this.

Did your friend buy scope mounts that have an MOA to them. If so could they be mounted backward?

Nope. flat 2 piece bases. and we measured the bases and rings to make sure they were not sloped.

I would expect the new rings to make a difference but if the problems not fixed you could measure them and the height of the base to rule those out. I'd swap a different proven optic on to double check but my money is on the rifle needing a trip back to savage.

How will rings change the fact the bore site down the barrel was 14 mils off?

You all seem to be missing the point. We changed scope, rings and basses to a quality setup and we still got the same results. This eliminated the scope and scope mounting from being the issue. From the bore site the barrel is pointed a the target but the impact is 14 mils low. How can the barrel be pointed at the target but the impact be 14 mils low? Yes, we bore sighted other rifles that day and each of them were on paper at 100 yards first shot. Not my first rodeo.

One thing we though about doing was loosening the barrel nut and turning the barrel out 1/4 turn. This will mess up the head spacing but if the rifle shoots 14 mils to the right we know its a barrel issue.

 

[Jack Master]

The truth is, which has already been mentioned a bunch of times is if you throw a bunch of junk parts together, you will get poor results.

Couple that with less than expert users and they don't know what they don't know.

Usually when numbers are that far off, its the optic or some funky mounting. Unless he was using the cheapest of the cheap chineesium bases and rings, they should at least be in the ballpark.

The real truth is: More people use $29 bases, $39 rings and $99 scopes than anything else, and they do just fine with it. 15 million US hunters a year, How many of them do you think used a cheap setup? (most of them) How many of them are "experts".(few) They are not shooting a PRS rig but damn it sure does work. Get off your shit pile of a horse.

Perhaps your friend should better prioritize his life and make better choices.

Yep. Not having spina bifida would be a great choice. Not averaging 3 surgery's a year would be a great choice. Not having parents that are broke trying to keep you alive would be a great choice.

Not having an ass online judge them for whom they know nothing about would be a great choice.

The purpose of this forum is to help fellow shooters. Not be a prick. Go be rich on another site, or give some actually useful advice, if you think you have some. (my guess is you don't)

 

[Diver160651]

That's the point. The bore sight should at least hit the 4x4 target board. This makes me think something else major is wrong.


Nope. we checked all this.


Nope. flat 2 piece bases. and we measured the bases and rings to make sure they were not sloped.


How will rings change the fact the bore site down the barrel was 14 mils off?

You all seem to be missing the point. We changed scope, rings and basses to a quality setup and we still got the same results. This eliminated the scope and scope mounting from being the issue. From the bore site the barrel is pointed a the target but the impact is 14 mils low. How can the barrel be pointed at the target but the impact be 14 mils low? Yes, we bore sighted other rifles that day and each of them were on paper at 100 yards first shot. Not my first rodeo.

One thing we though about doing was loosening the barrel nut and turning the barrel out 1/4 turn. This will mess up the head spacing but if the rifle shoots 14 mils to the right we know its a barrel issue.

That's the point. The bore sight should at least hit the 4x4 target board. This makes me think something else major is wrong.


Nope. we checked all this.


Nope. flat 2 piece bases. and we measured the bases and rings to make sure they were not sloped.


How will rings change the fact the bore site down the barrel was 14 mils off?

You all seem to be missing the point. We changed scope, rings and basses to a quality setup and we still got the same results. This eliminated the scope and scope mounting from being the issue. From the bore site the barrel is pointed a the target but the impact is 14 mils low. How can the barrel be pointed at the target but the impact be 14 mils low? Yes, we bore sighted other rifles that day and each of them were on paper at 100 yards first shot. Not my first rodeo.

One thing we though about doing was loosening the barrel nut and turning the barrel out 1/4 turn. This will mess up the head spacing but if the rifle shoots 14 mils to the right we know its a barrel issue.

Bore sighting 100 yards away or even close probably isn' going to reveal the bend in the barrel, especially when you are not looking specifically for it.

Remember we are just trying to center up the image in the barrel using the shadows around the image in the bore; if the image was a tiny bit of an eclipse you'd not even notice, at least I would not.

I've sighted hundreds of times like Jack Master at 100 yards, it works if your barrel is straight every time. Just like reticle ranging were two similar-sized items at the same exact range can look drastically different in size due to angles and go undetected, you'd have to imagine so could looking through a bent tube.

Make two fists with a hole through them, and put the hands together making a long tube. While looking through them bend them just a few thousands. Even knowing what to look for you'll be surprised how much you need to move them to detect the issue. I left my right hand Kinda open so you get the idea that I am making a tube.

Don't recommend putting it into another stock, fuck with the action screws, bed it, having reversed bases etc. That's all silly talk at 14 mils.. he should just send the rifle back.

Jack Master - you've shown a lot of class in this thread.

 

[hlee]

No one has asked, how does it group?

And, here’s your fix, at least conceptually...

Nightforce 1-Piece 50 MOA Picatinny-Style Scope Base Remington 700

Designed to exceed Military specifications, these steel mounts from Nightforce are tested for unfailing, repeatable performance. Bases are constructed...

www.midwayusa.com

 

[CrabsandFootball]

The real truth is: More people use $29 bases, $39 rings and $99 scopes than anything else, and they do just fine with it. 15 million US hunters a year, How many of them do you think used a cheap setup? (most of them) How many of them are "experts".(few) They are not shooting a PRS rig but damn it sure does work. Get off your shit pile of a horse.


Yep. Not having spina bifida would be a great choice. Not averaging 3 surgery's a year would be a great choice. Not having parents that are broke trying to keep you alive would be a great choice.

Not having an ass online judge them for whom they know nothing about would be a great choice.

The purpose of this forum is to help fellow shooters. Not be a prick. Go be rich on another site, or give some actually useful advice, if you think you have some. (my guess is you don't)

How many of them miss game? How many have issues and don't even know they do, due to ignorance.

Most of the hunters I know use pretty good gear. Its called education. Cheap gear costs you game and is a waste of time and money. Experience is the best education.

A cheap setup is not repeatable, hence anecdotal experiences are just that.

We live in the USA. The greatest nation in the history of the planet with the most opportunity for someone to be successful in the history of the planet.

Everyone has a bunch of excuses why they didn't do this or that or can't.

I wasn't throwing shade, just pointing out this is an expensive hobby, and if you want to do it right its even more expensive. Trying to play budget long ranger is a losing battle as anyone who has been doing it for a long time can attest. This is a reason all the cheap crap gear has been replaced with quality more expensive gear as they gain more experience.

It would be better to save and sacrifice for better quality gear than to roll the dice on cheap Chinese junk that is unreliable. Cheap gear is the most expensive gear because you will always have to buy twice. The cheap shit and then the good shit. Buy the good shit first and save yourself the headaches.

Its why you don't see someone with an AI and ZCO/Sphur making threads how their zero is 14 mils off.

 

[hlee]

But you do see these threads...

Why is my scope slipping in my spuhr mount?
Stripped threads in my spuhr mount, now what?
My Spuhr mount cracked

Just three that I’ve seen recently.