[b1rdd0g]

It will likely be a few more weeks till I get my scope back from Vortex and have an opportunity to provide another range report. But in the mean time, I ran across an article in American Hunter (NRA periodical November 2014) on the Weatherby Mark V Ultra Lightweight RC (i.e. Range Certified) in .270 Wby. Mag. In this product review, the author propounded upon the good the bad and the indifferent about this rifle, as usual. What I thought most telling, though, was the data he shared on the accuracy results. With 3 different types of ammo, he shot average 3-shot groups of 1.45″, 1.06″, and 0.99″ at 100 yards from sandbags. He mentions his best group 0.66″ and worst of 1.91″, also. This just about perfectly describes my current experience with this Tikka T3 in .308 Win.

I had to chuckle for two reasons: this rifle retails (MSRP $2400) for about 4X what I paid for my Tikka T3 Lite SS, and while he is getting paid to do this, he doesn't seem to be shooting any better than I am!

So this made me wonder: do I have any right to hold any higher expectations for my 100 yard groups? I'm positive I was able to shoot a same hole group at 100 yards with my previous Tikka T3 in .270 Win. And I'm pretty sure that I've read others on this forum who would claim to be able to do much better than this on a regular basis. So what say you? Would you buy that rifle?

[b1rdd0g]

David, thanks for posting your experiences with your Zeiss scope. You didn't mention at what range you shot your ram? BTW, I applaud your decision to limit shots on wild game beyond your proven ability to make a clean kill.

I opted for the Vortex 4-16×50, however, I don't really expect to do much hunting. I am having issues with focus and parallax, so I've sent my scope in for service, already. Nice folks out there at Vortex! I hope that they come through for me, in terms of service after the sale. I found the 1 mil knobs and clicks were distinct and adjust spot on as proven out by “shooting the box”. IMOHO, I think the lighted reticle will make up for any issues with reticle size at low power and/or low light conditions. But if I can't see my target in sharp focus, I will doubtless regret my decision to go with Vortex. I'll be updating my own posts on these subjects, shortly.

[b1rdd0g]

I've got two threads that seem to be converging, now. Rather than update both threads, I'm going to try posting a link to my other thread here:
https://tikkashooters.com/public_html/general-discussion/hunting-the-sub-in-'sub-moa'/

[b1rdd0g]

Well, I went to the range today. I had removed the “nubbins” from the inside of the factory synthetic stock in hopes that those might have been introducing some unhealthy harmonics. I can now slide a dollar bill as far as midway up the chamber bulge in the barrel. But, alas, it seemed to have made no discernible difference.

My average 3-shot group size is still just in excess of 1 MOA. I had 2 groups out of 7 that were <1 MOA, one about 5/8" and another about 7/8". I had a couple poor groups of >=1.5 MOA. This is disappointing, to say the least. After I put this .308 away, I got out my AR and shot comparable groups using a tactical CQB scope with a 4.5 MOA aiming dot!

I did one thing differently, today. On my previous trips, I was shooting at 8X magnification. On this trip, I used the full 16X magnification for every group that I shot. I also found that this enabled me to more easily find “sharp” focus with the side focus knob, though I still cannot get the target in sharp focus at any point of my parallax adjustment. Based on this fact alone, I am going to send the scope back to Vortex for evaluation.

I did notice something else that puzzles me. I did a lot of dry fires between live round groups, today. And I frequently noticed the reticle “jump” at the falling of the firing pin. The only explanation I've ever thought possible for this was shooter error. But after today, I'm not so sure! I'm not dragging wood. I'm pulling straight to the rear with the pad of my finger. I'm trapping the trigger to the rear after the break. And I'm following through by “calling my shot”. (I am an Appleseed IIT, and that's how we roll!) I've done this countless times in sling supported prone position, standing, and kneeling. And I've never seen anything like this. It is as if the image of the reticle superimposed on the target is suddenly replaced with another image wherein the two are no longer superimposed. The image seems to change instantaneously. That's the best way I know how to explain it. And it didn't happen on every dry press, but I'd guess 1-in-3 would be about what I recall. I'd appreciate any suggestions as to what might cause this to happen. Keep in mind that I'm shooting either off sand bags and a rear bag or else from my rifle rest, so even with “bad form”, I shouldn't be able to move the rifle in such a dramatic way. But there is something going on there. I've just got to figure it out!

[b1rdd0g]

The Adjustable Objective is strictly for dialing out parallax error.  It's not suppose to be used for focus.  As Jacob Bynum says “Focus is a byproduct”

Using the name Jacob Bynum as my search parameters, I was able to discover that he is a shooting instructor. Sounds like a fella could learn a great deal in one of those classes! As far as how to use the side focus knob, the Vortex Riflescope manual saith:

• Focus the reticle (paraphrased)–did that
• “Turn the side focus knob until the target image is as sharp as possible. The yardage numbers referenced on knob should closely match the actual yardage to the target.”
• “Check for parallax error by moving your head back and forth while looking through the scope. The focus is correct if there is no apparent shift of the reticle on the target. If you notice any shift, adjust the focus knob slightly until all the shift is eliminated.”

I guess what I'm trying to understand is the proper procedure for parallax adjustment. JB says focus is but a “byproduct”, but my manual spells out a procedure. And the procedure starts with bringing the target into sharp focus.

What I've observed, thus far, is that:

• my target never does come into “sharp” focus
• the preponderance of the focus range (~50-500) is about equally “focused”
• it takes me a really long time and a lot of twiddling to find a point at which (if ever!) the parallax error has been adjusted out
• when I believe that I've finally found a point where the parallax error is gone, the numbers

do not match (not even close, really) the known distance at which I am shooting

I spoke to Vortex Customer Care about this, and they seem to think that the parallax adjustment on my scope is not functioning correctly. Really nice folks out there! As I've been led to believe, it appears they are going to take good care of me on this issue.

I intend to take the rifle to the range one more time to see if I've made any improvement in my precision by removing the “nubbins” from the Tikka synthetic stock. While I'm at it, I'll continue to try and figger out the parallax adjustment a little better. Baring any last minute epiphanies, I guess I'll be taking it off and sending it back. I'll update this post after my next range visit.

[b1rdd0g]

I don't see much difference in parallax inside 600 yards

Robert, do you have this same scope? If so, are you saying that your experience is the same as mine? Are you able to bring the target into “sharp focus” using the side focus knob? When you shift your eye position slightly (either side-to-side or up-and-down), do you see the reticle move in relation to the target?

[b1rdd0g]

Personally I've never had any factory ammo shot consistent sub 1 moa groups. My .308 T3 shoots 1/2 moa groups with home loads but that took a while to get the load developed.
Might be worth loading your own

My expectations are somewhat skewed, I suppose. My first Tikka T3 was identical to this one except the caliber which was .270 Win. With that rifle, I could consistently shoot same-ragged-hole groups with Winchester Super X Power Point ammo from Walmart. I just sold that rifle, too 😉  I suppose that I might have to get started loading my own recipes, someday, but I'm just not ready to start that learning curve, yet. It will be a couple weeks before I get another chance to visit the range, but when I do, I'll see what effect, if any, removing the twin nubbins from the fore stock might have. I also plan to acquire some additional factory loads with 175 gr bullets of various types. On my first trip out with this rifle, I tended to get tighter groups with the only ammo I have loaded with that heavier bullet. (Nosler Match Grade 175 gr SMK HPBT)

[b1rdd0g]

Have you adjusted the “fast focus” or “eye-piece” focus?  That's the part near your eye that should bring your reticle into sharp focus. 

Yes, I employed the “fast focus” eye-piece to focus the reticle. I am extremely presbyopic (or far sighted), so I doubt that the average shooter who picks up my rifle would find the reticle in sharp focus for them. But I don't think that has anything to do with bringing the target into focus. There is print aplenty on my targets to focus on if I were only able to do so.

[b1rdd0g]

As the OP in this thread, I now have some updates. I got my rifle back from CDI Precision. They installed new bottom metal so that I can use the 5 and 10 round AI mags. And I got my new scope, a Vortex Viper PST FFP 4-16×50. (Previously had a Zeiss Conquest 3-9×40 with duplex reticle) Of the two potential accuracy issues discussed previously: the “nubbins” on the fore stock and the loose action screws, I decided to address the latter, first, while leaving the former as I received it from the factory. I reasoned that I should only change one factor at a time, else I might forever wonder which (if either) factor was the more important.

I am unhappy to report that, on the whole, my results are unchanged. Granted, I am just learning the ins and outs of this new scope, but I haven't tried to do anything dramatic, yet–I'm still just shooting 3 shot groups bench supported at 100 yards. Most of my 3 shot groups are in the 1-1.25″ range. I did have one at about 5/8″ and another about 3/4″. What is galling, though, is that I truly believe that I should be able to produce hole-on-hole groups with this rifle/scope combination. And several times, I had two shots one atop the other followed by an “outlier”.

I have now removed the “nubbins” so that the barrel is completely free floated. After my next range visit, I'll update this post, again, with my results. If this modification doesn't resolve my issue, I'm uncertain what else I could do.