-
Hunting the sub in "sub-MOA"
-
OK, I finally got over the flu long enough to get out to the range and test the new recoil lug. To sum it up, I'd have to say that I can't tell any appreciable difference. I've got my Witt Machine clamp-on muzzle brake installed, now. I'll make another range trip to test that before making any further adjustments to try and improve my accuracy.
I went back through all my old targets and started capturing my range data into a spreadsheet for analysis of my shooting, after the fact. My average group size has improved from about 1.36″ on my first range trip to about 1.1″ on my last visit. I've also noticed that I have fewer “bad” groups (>=1.5″) and more “good” groups (<=0.625") as time goes on, even though it is hard to see a great deal of improvement in my average group size from one range visit to the next. I've ordered some Hornady Match and SuperPerformance Match ammo to test on my next range trip. In the mean time, I'll be trying to think of another improvement I might be able to make in my shooting technique.
-
Eureka!!! I've found it! I would never have guessed that adding a muzzle brake would have improved accuracy. Reduce recoil, sure, but improve accuracy, too? It did both!
OK, so the first 3-shot group of the day was way off target, but a nice 0.5″ group. The second group was a 0.625″ group at the exact same POI shift. I dialed it back to zero and shot 13 more 3-shot groups by the end of my range trip. My average group size was about 5/8″, and my worst group of the day was just 1.25″ (and that one was a called flyer, as I broke position)! That is most definitely sub-MOA, my friends! Kudos to Witt Machine!
http://wittmachine.co/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=180Now, in thinking about how the muzzle brake is having such a beneficial effect on precision, I have a couple ideas. I'd like to hear your ideas and/or experience, as well. The first notion is that it somehow reduces barrel whip by adding mass out on the end of the barrel. I suppose it has to change the harmonics of the barrel, somehow, right? Another idea has to do with the fact that it does reduce muzzle jump. (It still jumps too much on the bench for me to see the impact at 100 yd., but it does jump less than before.) I would have thought the bullet was long out of the barrel before the gun leapt off the bench from recoil, but maybe it imparts some movement before the bullet is ballistic? And finally, there is the psychosomatic theory–I expect it to shoot softer so I bucked/flinched less. Let me hear your stories.
I think I'm about ready to begin my learning curve beyond 100 yd, now.
-
Good to hear your sorting it out…in my experience a muzzle brake didn't effect group size much, but point of impact change was about 2″.
You should be able, with proper hold, to see the bullet impact through the scope. That helps you keep the rifle and yourself in the same position, shot after shot.
-
Muzzle brakes and suppressors often have a beneficial effect on group size. Not always of course but just like tuners they change the harmonics of the system. Keep em tight and a proper brake adds a lot of benifit aside from noise.
-
Yes, Ericbc7/airfoil, I was pleasantly surprised to achieve the improved results with the addition of the muzzle brake.
It is clear, though, that I'm not quite “done” with learning/tweaking my rifle, yet. (or with tweaking the rifleman 😉 I was doing some dry practice in the Appleseed manner, and it became apparent to me that my “check weld” was something more akin to a “jaw weld”. I had been using a strap-on padded cheek rest, but it clearly was insufficient to consistently place my eye into the optical center of my scope (Weaver Tactical 3-15x50mm). So I have installed a Southwest Precision Kydex adjustable check rest to get the height that I require. It, no doubt, improves my consistency in sight alignment, but on my first range trip with it, I noticed (too late!) that it had been slipping as I was shooting. The hollow Tikka stock seems to just flex all the more as I tighten the screws on the cheek rest. I'm pondering some additional post-installation modifications to get it to stay put.
One additional thing that I confirmed at my last range trip is that my eye is positioned too far back to achieve the correct sight alignment (or eye relief) such that I eliminate all scope shadow. So I took my scope down and reinstalled it, yesterday. Hopefully I'll get my desired sight alignment without having to stretch my neck forward, as much.
One additional finer point that I am still struggling to master is parallax. As much as I think I understand the concepts, I am still struggling to eliminate (perceived?) parallax. I went back to Google University, last night, and I watched the several Youtube videos that attempt to address this topic. One takeaway is that to properly assess parallax, it is important to be able to keep the rifle absolutely motionless while moving your eye up-down or side-to-side. I really need to get my SteadyRest out, again, to help me better make that assessment. But what is really puzzling, to me, is that the reticle doesn't seem to move with up-down eye movement, but it moves dramatically with side-to-side eye movement. In fact, it seems to move as much as +/- 1.5″ (at 100 yds) from one side of the ocular to the other. My understanding of the physics says that shouldn't be so. So I will focus (pun not intended 😉 on that topic some more on my next range trip.
-
Hi
It might also be worthwhile holding the gun with different amounts of 'grip' , on my rifle , using a bipod the lighter the touch I have , the better it shoots , If I start pulling it into my shoulder too much and then loading the bipod it shoots crap , it might be worth a try , good luck anyway , and don't let it get you down -
Larken, it sounds as though you are describing what I've heard called the “artillery hold”. Perhaps that technique is worth a try on a future range trip.
I appreciate the encouragement. I guess I came off sounding kinda negative? I sure didn't mean to. I'm actually enjoying the learning process! I am incrementally exposing faults with the gun and/or faults with the shooter, and every time I go to the range, I intend to learn something new. As in most things that I undertake, I am very detailed and painfully slow. I always have been that way. But I do persist, and I certainly will in this case, as well. I'm having too much fun not to! Thanks for your advice and encouragement!
-
Hi you could also try and improve your trigger pull (if it needs it ) , load the gun with a snap cap (plastic dummy round) position yourself ready to shoot , the get somebody to balance a coin on the end of the barrel, then slowly pull the trigger without the coin falling off , it worked for me and it can be done,
-
Birddog, I have the same scope as yours (blackhawk version but identical). First, focus your reticle till crisp. Then adjust parallax according to your range (100 yards in your case). Your parallax should not be noticeable.
-
Hi, Alex! I see you already found my thread! (And I just now posted in yours and referred you to mine.)
Based on my discoveries since my last range trip, I have made some additional adjustments on my rifle.First, I felt the eye relief wasn't optimal, so I removed and remounted my scope to bring it about 3/8″ closer to my eye. Now I get a good, crisp, black border around my FOV at all but the very lowest magnification (and that only for the standing position, where my cheek weld is slightly different than prone/bench). Additionally, I needed to keep my Southwest Precision Kydex cheek rest from slipping, so I did some post-installation engineering changes to pin it in place. (If anyone is interested in details, I can post procedures and pictures.)
Today's range trip was instructive. First, I continue to shrink my overall average group size for 3-shot groups (~0.7″). I know! I posted previously that I averaged about 5/8″ (0.625″), but on that trip I fired only 3 types of ammo, all match grade stuff. On this trip, I mixed in several different loads, some of which has not, historically, been among my best performers. So I believe that my trend of improvement is still intact.
And speaking of different ammo types, I noticed something else interesting over my last two range trips. I had bought some Winchester SuperX 150 gr Power Point and Remington 150 gr Core-Lokt SP ammo–your typical Walmart deer loads–to try in this gun, and these things just don't perform in this rifle! Moreover, it is interesting that, while all my match ammo began shooting dramatically better after the installation of my muzzle brake, these two deer loads now shoot worse still! The Winchester shoots just comically bad (2 1/8″ to 4 5/8″)! I can't begin to explain why “the best got better and the worst got worse”, but that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!
And then there's that parallax thing. I'm still puzzling over that. Before I shot any groups, at all, I went back and addressed my reticle focus, first. Then I adjusted my objective to get a crisp image of my target (at highest magnification). And then I bobbed my head up and down to check for parallax and made some final adjustments to eliminate parallax. Even so, moving my head left-to-right causes significant shift in sight picture, regardless what else I might do. With my scope, it is significant. I'd estimate +/- 1.5″ from one side of the exit pupil to the other. Even more dramatic was the scope that my buddy was shooting. (I recall that it was a Nikon scope, but I didn't get the exact Model.) His scope exhibited the same behavior, namely no apparent parallax with up-down movement but literally from one side of the target to the other (about 8″) when moving my head side-to-side across the exit pupil. This phenomenon does NOT make sense, to me! If the reticle and the target are in the same focal plane, it shouldn't matter which direction (vertical or lateral) the eye moves; it shouldn't change the apparent alignment of the reticle with the target! But it does! I think I'm going to post this on additional fora to see if I can find an optics wizard who can offer an explanation for this observation.
-
Hi if you reduce the magnification of the scope the error will reduce even just back it off a little will make a big difference at the higher magnification, also I don't know the make of you scope but on the lower to middle range it can be more of a problem, on long range I use a nightforce scope and at maximum magnification I cannot see any error which will still be there but the quality of the optics make it unnoticeable , there is a resone why top end scopes cost , you pays your money and you takes your choice
-
Check out this video that explains parallax.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ziKTDIMCig
I think your muzzle brake may be helping with accuracy because of the reduced recoil and increased rigidity. I shot 90 rounds today and my first 30 were my lower charges and they all shot 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch 3 shot groups.
-
Alex, I had seen this video, previously, but I did watch it, again, tonight. They do provide a useful description and demonstration (e.g. eye, thumb [reticle], and target) of parallax that makes the whole concept easier to grasp. I found the discussion of the magnitude of possible error due to parallax (I had to study the chart [at 6:07] very carefully to grasp what they were showing) very helpful. And isn't really all that bad at hunting ranges and game-sized targets. But for longer distances and for target work, it can contribute to overall inaccuracy.
Thinking about the demo, irrespective of whether the image and the reticle are in focus in the same plane, or not, if the shooter is extremely careful to place the eye in the center of the eyepiece, parallax error can be eliminated, anyway, right? IOW, proper sight alignment! (Step 1 in Appleseed's Firing the Shot)
I found another quote from a forum on SnipersHide that was helpful to consider:
It's important to note, that up-down movement and side-to-side movement of the head should result in you seeing the exact same amount of parallax error(assuming you moved your head the same amount in each direction). If not, that is the optical error in the system and can not be corrected.
To correct image path induced parallax ALWAYS start at infinity and turn down. If you over shoot, you cannot just go back up a little bit, you must start over at infinity.
I had to experiment with this at home, so I got out my SteadyRest and some wedges so that I could essentially make the SteadyRest behave as a gun vise. I have a limited FOV from my upstairs office, so I aimed my (empty!) rifle at a chimney hood about 100-140 yds away. As advised, I started at infinity, and at maximum magnification (15X) and I found that the target was already in the best possible focus (I could see heads on screws) at infinity. Bobbing my eye up-down, I could see parallax. So I dialed it back until I no longer noticed the reticle moving off the target with up-down eye movement. The focus dial was pointing about 150 yds, which is pretty darned close to my estimated distance! At this point, I moved my eye side-to-side. And to my great surprise, I witnessed very little parallax. During my last range session, it seemed very noticeable. Though still, there was some noticeable parallax with side-to-side motion, even with my gun in a vise. Which led me to consider whether this falls into the category of what the fellow from SnipersHide mentioned above about “optical error in the system”. Also in the video, the guy from Leupold mentioned something about some movement due to “curvature of the lens” that could not be avoided. It sounds like this is what I have been noticing at the range with my particular scope. Note also that most of what I am noticing is occurring only at the outer limits of my exit pupil, anyway.
This leads me to question whether my step #1 to adjusting the scope–adjusting the focus of the reticle using the eyepiece–has been done correctly. I think this is where the condition of my eyesight is playing a detrimental role in this whole debacle. I have been finding step #1 really really hard to accomplish with much confidence. I have become extremely presbyopic (far sighted). In fact, I have made several marks on my eyepiece where I think my reticle is in proper focus. Like The Highlander, “there can be only one!”. Perhaps if I can manage to get step #1 done right, maybe I'll begin to notice that the point in my side-focus adjustment that brings the image into sharp focus will begin to approximate more closely the point at which parallax seems to vanish. I'll keep working at it until I figger it out!
-
You could purposely shoot with your eyes on the edge of your reticule to see just how much of an error you actually get. I think I might just try that myself.
-
Hi guys, just had time to scan the posts but here is my routine:
I focus the crosshairs on a blank wall, I crank the scope to high power and focus the object with the parallax adjustment. If the target is in focus, eye position is minimally influential.
Log in to reply.