Gunsmithing The zero problem from hell continues...

#51
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

It's obvious to me, after reading this thread for the first time, that it's your base to receiver alignment, you have correctly eliminated everything else.

It sounds like either the base is NOT a 20MOA OR the front and rear of your receiver does not have the proper heights from the center of your bore.

Eliminate the base question first (which you are) and if it is OK, you will have to shim and bed the base to the specs you want.

Good luck, Brad
 
#53
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Karl2U</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Seems this may in fact be your issue, rezero start @ 50 or 25yds and <span style="font-weight: bold">regardless of where bullet hits Dial down</span>Remember you want to correct to Point of impact not POA, shoot me a pm if you need further clarification </div></div>

Forgive me, maybe I've not done this enough, but when your poi is below you poa, how is dialing more "down" going to do anything but make the poa lower in relation to the reticle?

If you boresight, take a shot with the rifle solidly rested and it hits low/right, if you adjust the poa to match the poi without movinf the rifle you will be dialing "up" and "left" into the scope to get the reticle to move down and right to match poi........
 
#54
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Guys, your different method of zero doesn't make any sense to me.

For one, it won't solve my problem, because after boresighting, my 100y zero was already nearly at optical zero- it was only a few clicks to get to the center. Your method wouldn't suddenly get me my lost 20 MOA!

Secondly, I can't geometrically see how your method works. I'm using my two index fingers pointing forward, one representing the scope, one the bore, and as far as I can tell, there is only one way to get them to align using clicks- the scope has to move in the opposite direction you want the bullet to go, i.e. TOWARD the bore. This is obviously why scopes cant down- to ensure your bullet is going further UP.

Let's reduce this to one dimension to make it easier. Say only my windage is off when I'm zeroing. Let's say the impact is 5 inches left from bullseye. No matter how I move my "fingers", the scope needs to get closer to the bore. My goal is to have both overlap. So the scope needs to move 5 inches to the left (i.e., moving the *impact* five inches to the right). Now both are on top of each other. There is absolutely no way I can see moving my scope finger to the *right* to get things better aligned. When two lines have to meet, and you can't physically move one of the lines, the other only has one direction to go- closer to it. Unless I'm missing something here..

Thanks

 
#56
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Its called the one shot scope aligment. It is in many magzines and books.Shoot at a paper bulleye,dead center. Okay the scope is dead centerd on the paper bulleye,but the barrel is out of alignment,says,6 inch let and 1 inch down.Hold rock steady,still with the scope centered on the paper bulleye and the barrel is aligned with the bullet impact,BRING the scope crosshairs over the the bullet impact, therefore ailgning both barrel and scope. Next shot should be dead on. However as you stated,was only a few clicks off,as you brought both the scope and barrel inline,should't made a whole lot of difference. Hope this make sense!
 
#57
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Dude. What are you talking about? "BRING the scope crosshairs over the bullet impact" Do you realize you are effectively talking about the same exact thing- that bringing the impact to the crosshairs and the crosshairs to the impact achieve the same identical outcome??? I think you're confused in that the method you're describing is merely another way to do the same, but a little quicker as you are moving the crosshairs to a known hole as opposed to moving the next shot closer to the crosshairs. Get out a sheet of paper and draw some diagrams. There is no magic way to reverse scope movement to establish a zero!
 
#59
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Harold is taking about the zero to POI technique visual technique. This technique is where you vise your gun, shoot, and then move the rifle until crosshairs are on the bull. Then carefully move the crosshairs to the center of your group/shot without moving the rifle.


It should make no difference here.
 
#60
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

I don't understand how it would make a difference anywhere- see posts above for why. It seems to me another method to achieve the exact same thing as adjusting POI to POA.

Lol on your sig, btw
smile.gif
 
#62
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Yes, but Karl2U seems to infer that using that method, one can use the "down" adjustment to correct a low hit, leaving more "up" elevation in the scope. If your hit's low, you HAVE to use "up" elevation to correct it, wether POA is brought to POI, or POI is brought to POA, no two ways about it.

Interested to hear about the base when Marty gets it.
 
#63
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Yep. I don't think Marty will report much- he'll probably just send me a new one as requested, which is fine by me. From what I gather 20 MOA is awfully hard to see with the naked eye (ok ok, 20 MOA inclination, not over 1000 yards
wink.gif
), so I expect examination will not yield much. Who knows?
 
#64
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

I offered my insight take it for what it is, i,m betting Marty will find nothing wrong with base

Installing new one will leave you with same issue

Sit,s on hands

Good luck

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If your hit's low, you HAVE to use "up" elevation to correct it, wether POA is brought to POI, or POI is brought to POA, no two ways about it.
</div></div>

Your joking right???
 
#65
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HateCA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Loosing windage in your scope can be caused by barrel bore run-out and where it ends up when it's tongued to your action. It's not always the scope base holes, in fact most of the time it's not. The bore run-out can affect both windage and elevation at the same time.

If you have ever seen a factory barrel, and some customs for that matter, spin in a lathe and have the bore indicated true you would see what I'm talking about.

It appears you are having issues with what is going on with your set-up. I would suggest you send the entire package to someone who can take a look at the entire thing and give another opinion.

Wanting or having your scope to be set at or near mechanical zero after being mounted to a rifle, and a factory rifle at that, is an unrealistic goal.

This is not to sound like a dick but if it's been back and forth to Remington there just may be something your are not seeing or are understanding.
</div></div>

Why is this thread still active, I think you nailed it.
 
#67
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Why is this thread still active, I think you nailed it. </div></div>

If base doesn't solve it, sending it all to someone is indeed one of my next steps.
 
#68
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bear458</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The slope on a 20 MOA base is easy to see. Easier to measure, should be close to .030 </div></div>

Due to the already unequal height of the floor pieces, it's not that easy to see. If the two ends that meet the metal of the receiver were equally high/shaped, then I could try to observe it.
 
#69
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Try a 30 MOA base. Also, I have seen as much as 8" at 100 difference just from changing loads, so it should not come as a shock that a rifle scope will not be in the middle of its adjustments when it is sighted in. I understand needing all the adjustment you can get up and down because you may not have enough adjustment to reach 1000, but when you are talking about needing over 20 moa of windage your talking something like shooting at 1000 yards with a 30 MPH wind. I'll stay home that day
 
#70
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Yeah as I've said I've given up on the windage owing to everything I've read here and on my arfcom thread linked above- it's just normal.

As for going for even *more* cant to try to solve this, as I wrote in one of the other responses: "I got a bug - well aware it's one - where I want this shit working like it's supposed to and am willing to trade peace of mind for finally finding the culprit." I don't want to be walking around with a 45 degree downard sloping base
smile.gif
. When others are getting 60 up and 20 down with the same equipment I have, the detective in me just takes over.

Re: ammo, I've fired 168 and 175 SMK and 168 and 175 Black Hills. If it doesn't work with that ammo, why, this is a game I just don't want to play anymore
wink.gif
 
#71
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Karl2U</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If your hit's low, you HAVE to use "up" elevation to correct it, wether POA is brought to POI, or POI is brought to POA, no two ways about it.
</div></div>

Your joking right??? </div></div>

Not at all.......

You cannot correct a low hit by dialing "down" on your elevation turret. "up" on your turret lowers the line of sight through the reticle in relation to the bore, raising muzzle towards the line of sight, therefore raising the impact. Dialing "down" into any scope I've got makes the POI go down in relation to the POA.

Or I've completely lost my marbles and have only zeroed scopes and made hits at distance all these years by dumb luck.........
 
#72
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Yeah I keep trying to get them to use their fingers or two pencils pointed forward
smile.gif
I sincerely hope they understand that "moving POI to POA" isn't moving anything mechanically in the rifle. There is only one direction guys- scope axis moves to meet bore axis. When you move POI to POA, you're actually just changing the scope's aim point, thus when you "reposition" on the bullseye, the bore and scope are now much more aligned. That's it. Christ I can't believe I'm explaining this
smile.gif
. Alright, enough of this on this thread!
 
#73
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

All,

As alluded to by another here earlier, it appears, that since no action has solved the problem, the axis of the bore may not be in-line with the axis of the receiver, or the barrel may simply not be straight
 
#74
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All,

As alluded to by another here earlier, it appears, that since no action has solved the problem, the axis of the bore may not be in-line with the axis of the receiver, or the barrel may simply not be straight </div></div>

that is exactly what is going on. at least the last portion of the bore is not on the same axis as the receiver. the bullet is leaving the muzzle on a downward path.

i doubt remington would fix this. you will need to have a smith time the barrel to the receiver so the last portion of the bore is facing up when torqued onto the receiver.
 
#76
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All,

As alluded to by another here earlier, it appears, that since no action has solved the problem, the axis of the bore may not be in-line with the axis of the receiver, or the barrel may simply not be straight </div></div>

But what you are telling me then is that I got two separate action/barrel assemblies that are out of whack in the EXACT SAME WAY, producing the exact same zero? As I've stated before, I'm not ruling anything out, but I doubt Remingtons could be that bad. To reiterate, this is what's in front of us:

Numbers designate which one it is (first or second)

(1) Remington 700 action/barrel, (1) Leupold Mark 4, (1) Badger 20 MOA Base, (1) rings (TPS) = 40 MOA up, 45 down

(2) Remington 700 action/barrel, (2) Leupold Mark 4, (1) Badger 20 MOA Base, (2) rings (Badger) = 39 MOA up, 46 down

So you really think it was f'd up the exact same angle??

This is why I'm sending in the Badger base for replacement- it's the only untested variable. After that I will try a different brand scope and switching the front and rear rings, as if that'll do anything
wink.gif


EDIT- just to make sure I'm not some sort of jamoke here with the installation, this is my process:

Base goes onto receiver, 15 in/lbs. using my Weaver.
Rings go onto base, pushed down and forward on the base as I tighten, 65 in/lbs.
Scope goes onto rings
Level scope with the action using the level-level-level
Tighten top caps to 15 in/lbs.
Remove bolt
Bore sight by aligning scope to bore view
Shoot - On paper
Shoot - Zero

I don't know what could be wrong here. Also, if you respond about this process, please only do so with something major- try to avoid suggestions like "lapping the rings" or "getting windage adjustable rings" which either don't help my problem or should not even nearly account for my lost 20 MOA of elevation
wink.gif

 
#77
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigBrother</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All,

As alluded to by another here earlier, it appears, that since no action has solved the problem, the axis of the bore may not be in-line with the axis of the receiver, or the barrel may simply not be straight </div></div>

But what you are telling me then is that I got two separate action/barrel assemblies that are out of whack in the EXACT SAME WAY, producing the exact same zero? As I've stated before, I'm not ruling anything out, but I doubt Remingtons could be that bad. To reiterate, this is what's in front of us:

Numbers designate which one it is (first or second)

(1) Remington 700 action/barrel, (1) Leupold Mark 4, (1) Badger 20 MOA Base, (1) rings (TPS) = 40 MOA up, 45 down

(2) Remington 700 action/barrel, (2) Leupold Mark 4, (1) Badger 20 MOA Base, (2) rings (Badger) = 39 MOA up, 46 down

So you really think it was f'd up the exact same angle??

This is why I'm sending in the Badger base for replacement- it's the only untested variable. After that I will try a different brand scope and switching the front and rear rings, as if that'll do anything
wink.gif


EDIT- just to make sure I'm not some sort of jamoke here with the installation, this is my process:

Base goes onto receiver, 15 in/lbs. using my Weaver.
Rings go onto base, pushed down and forward on the base as I tighten, 65 in/lbs.
Scope goes onto rings
Level scope with the action using the level-level-level
Tighten top caps to 15 in/lbs.
Remove bolt
Bore sight by aligning scope to bore view
On paper
Zero

I don't know what could be wrong here. Also, if you respond about this process, please only do so with something major- try to avoid suggestions like "lapping the rings" or "getting windage adjustable rings" which either don't help my problem or should not even nearly account for my lost 20 MOA of elevation
wink.gif

</div></div>

O.K.. I missed the experiment with a second rifle, which would indicate a problem with scope mount/scope rather than the rifle.
 
#78
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">O.K.. I missed the experiment with a second rifle, which would indicate a problem with scope mount/scope rather than the rifle. </div></div>

No worries, believe me I know how confusing this can get
wink.gif
 
#79
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Base goes onto receiver, 15 in/lbs. using my Weaver.
Rings go onto base, pushed down and forward on the base as I tighten, 65 in/lbs.
Scope goes onto rings
Level scope with the action using the level-level-level
Tighten top caps to 15 in/lbs.
Remove bolt
Bore sight by aligning scope to bore view
On paper
Zero ??????????

Per the above, Are you actually shooting the gun and zeroing, your not just Bore sighting????


 
#81
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

If the base checks out okay, and your mount holes have been confirmed to be inline with the centerline of your action, the problem is definitely with barrel/receiver alignment or barrel runout. To this end, I would have a smith index the barrel to correct the windage problem, then shim and bed the base to achieve whatever angle compensation you want in order to land the proper adjustment in your scope.

-matt
 
#82
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

I just checked my 308 scope. with a 20moa base, zeroed at 100 I have 18 moa down and 32 moa up with a Nikon Monarch 5.5x20. I haven't worked up a load yet so I don't know my drop, but this most likely won't get me much past 800 yards. Good news is that I can only shoot to 600 on local range. If I need to shoot father I'll get a 30 MOA base.
 
#83
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Yet again, another test case where the 20 MOA base has done its job. Could you do me a favor and tell me what your optical zero is? You can find this by either doing the spin test (first vid here) :

http://usoptics.com/index.php?page=instructions

Or by using a hand mirror - place it flush against the objective bell (make sure any scope caps are off), in a well lit room, and get the true reticle and the reflected reticle to line up. Then tell me how much up/down you have from there.

If you're willing to do this, I really appreciate it.
 
#85
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Thanks- be sure to give me both your 100y zero and your optical zero. And yes, I realize at this point this is purely academic :), I'm just curious to gather as much anecdotal evidence as I can.

Also- what action/barrel?
 
#86
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

alright brother, here are the numbers (in MOA)...

actual zero
30.5 down
83 up
61 left
53 right

optical zero
54 down
64 up
45.5 left
62 right

Mk4 4.5x14
USO base
Mk4 rings
700P, factory tube
 
#90
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

hell i dunno. i didn't look real closely at mine, i just put the side with the port cut out on the ejection port side and started setting screws.
 
#94
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So is the base off and on its way back to Marty or are we gonna talk about it forever? </div></div>

Yes it is.
 
#95
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Hey question, while I wait for my base- this thread here:

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1050095&gonew=1#UNREAD

has some interesting info. Do you think I can run this same test with a sheet of paper? That is, screw in one side of the base once I get it and see if a sheet of paper fits in the other between base and action, then reverse? Will this let me know if my base is being torqued like the OP there?
 
#97
Re: The zero problem from hell continues...

Update- got a new base from Badger..drumroll....... No change.

At this point my suspicion turns to the scope. I took the entire assembly into the gun store where I bought it, and, as they are very cool people, they let me try mounting the whole system on one of their new Rem SPS's. So base, rings, and optic went onto a new rifle, with a different stock, etc. etc. Practically same zero.

At this point, we can officially rule out any shenanigans on Remington's part. They have dutifully sent me new action/barrel assemblies, and both on those and an entirely different Remington rifle, the zero is identically messed up. No way it's barrel timing or action torquing.

My attention turns again to the Leupold. I recall how on an AR it lost even more elevation. What I don't get is how it's losing so much elevation when its optical zero is pretty standard. In any case, I've sent into a 'smith to take a look at the whole thing. I want someone with way more spare parts lying around than me to pull the scientific method here
smile.gif


Oh also, I don't want adjustable rings because I don't wanna put uneven force on the scope tube.

Will keep you updated,
BB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Typical windage adjustments needed when zeroing rifle?
Replies
10
Views
479
db2000
db2000
c3guns
Can't get scope to zero low enough with 20MOA rail
Replies
16
Views
675
6.5SH
6
A
Gunsmithing Checking rail alignment
Replies
1
Views
234
mick243
M
DanUSMC
Rifle Scopes Scope riser on a prs rifle? i have an eye relief problem
Replies
23
Views
588
AznTactical
AznTactical
R
Will 20 MOA scope base affect optical clarity of scope if sighted in at 100 yards?
Replies
19
Views
1K
xsn10s
xsn10s
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts