# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Security & Defense >  High-quality, low-cost precision rifle rig

## GuerrillaXXI

I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there for those who might want to have a good, accurate, sniper-worthy bolt-action rifle but might not have a lot of money. While the following set-up isn't _dirt_ cheap, it's a hell of a lot less than a custom rifle and high-end scope, and nearly as good. This will allow more people to get into the precision shooting game, which is definitely a good thing.

(Note: I do not work for any of the following companies, nor do I have any stock or other financial interest in any of them. I'm just giving my opinions based on years of research and experiences. Others can certainly do their own research to see if what's said below really does match up with the "word on the street.")

*Rifle:* Something from Savage's Law Enforcement line (e.g., the 10FP or the Precision Carbine). .308 Win is recommended, or maybe .300 Win Mag if you want more power and range but much less barrel life. Try to get one with an Accustock. These rifles are famous for their out-of-the-box accuracy. Expect to get groups well under 1" at 100 yards with any of these rifles and match-grade ammo. As an added bonus, it's a lot easier to change the barrel on a Savage than it is on most other bolt-action rifles. The rifle's cost should be roughly $800, depending on the model.

*Scope:* SWFA Super Sniper in 10X, 16X, or 20X. These can be had for $300-$400 and are well-known among .50 BMG shooters for holding up well even to the massive recoil of that cartridge, which is infamous for eating expensive scopes. They are extremely rugged, and the quality of the glass is excellent. I've heard it said that there's essentially no difference in optical clarity between a SS scope and a high-end scope costing many times more except in very low light and/or at ranges past 600 yards.

*Scope mount/rings:* Larue probably makes the best quick-detachable mounts. Badger Ordnance is highly regarded for their fixed mounts. These mounts aren't as cheap as a lot of others, so this is where you'll probably be forced to pay more (maybe $200 or so). But with all the money you'll save on the rifle and optics, it will be worth it. Scope mounts need to be very rugged, so this isn't the place to cheap out.

Anyone else have opinions on this?

----------


## phill4paul

Honestly, my advise is just buy something you can afford. And a lot of ammo. And practice with it. A lot. There is a bloody legacy of iron sights killing other humans. Jerry Miculek can damn near squeeze off as many rounds on a single-pull as an automatic. Practice makes perfect. Imperfect practice is wasted time.

----------


## tod evans

Range I like 22-250.....flat-n-fast.

Close in 45-70 lever w/iron sights.

Shooting big bullets is fun but the damage a 22-250 will do really is amazing.

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

> Honestly, my advise is just buy something you can afford. And a lot of ammo. And practice with it. A lot. There is a bloody legacy of iron sights killing other humans. Jerry Miculek can damn near squeeze off as many rounds on a single-pull as an automatic. Practice makes perfect. Imperfect practice is wasted time.


No argument there. But less money spent on incredibly expensive rifles, scopes, etc., means more money available for ammo and practice. That's another benefit of the set-up I mentioned, even for those who are pretty well-off financially.

----------


## Intoxiklown

Is there a "zero distance" people recommend for scope sighting? 250 yards? 300 yards?

I recently traded an AR15 for an AK-76 (I preferred to give up some accuracy for the power and durability of the AK series):




And I have a Kimber Stainless Ultra Carry II .45 ACP I bought for a close quarters, easy to conceal and handle pistol:




However, I have come acros a good deal on a Browning BAR .300 MAG rifle I am probably going to get, just in case I want to reach out and touch someone. But I don't know crap about scopes, so your post is very helpful.

----------


## osan

oops

----------


## osan

The FP is an excellent rifle, particularly for the money.  One of the greatest bang-for-the-buck deals going.  Right on about the bedded stock, too.

The scopes I am not familiar with, cannot comment.

As to rings, again you are on the money.  Tack driving rifle will not drive tacks if the gunsight is not properly fixed.  Cheap rings are worse than good iron sights.  Possibly a lot worse.

Good post.

----------


## osan

> Range I like 22-250.....flat-n-fast.
> 
> Close in 45-70 lever w/iron sights.
> 
> Shooting big bullets is fun but the damage a 22-250 will do really is amazing.


Depends on the target and the purpose.  Deer - OK.  Large game - not so OK.  Large DANGEROUS game - all you will succeed in doing is getting their very much unwanted attention.  Hardened human targets, no good.  For the latter you want lb-feet of energy so that if you do not penetrate a vest, you knock the living snot out of him in any event.  A home invader who has proven serious enough to armor himself is indeed very dangerous to anyone he faces.  Ref. the boys in N. Hollywood a few years back in case you think it is not possible.  You do not want to face hombres like that with a pea shooter, but rather with serious knock-down force.  

I am a big fan of express calibers, 375 H&H being the least among them, preferring perhaps 470 Nitro Express and up shooting, e.g. 400 gr Barnes solids.  Even with armor, getting whopped by a slug coming at you with, say, 5000 lb-ft of energy is going to slow you way down and may even kill you without penetrating the body.

Caliber needs to be well matched to target and purpose.  Flat shooting avails one nothing if the bullet will not take the target down.  Slow and curvy is as dandy good as otherwise if you can put the projectile on target, the latter being equally bad if you cannot.

Always bear in the forefront of you considerations in making such choices what the ultimate purpose is.  From there one can list and prioritize the requirements for achieving the goal and from those the choice of instrument.  That is the hierarchy that will serve one best, especially when the targets know how to shoot backsomething one should want to endeavor to best ensure does not happen.

----------


## osan

> Is there a "zero distance" people recommend for scope sighting? 250 yards? 300 yards?


100 yards is a common standard, but any distance will do depending on the gun sight and what it is you are trying to accomplish.

For example, if you are using a simple dot reticle on a 32x scope for 1000 yard bench shooting you are going to zero at 1000 yards because you are aiming for ultimate accuracy at that range.  You do not want a mil-dot affair and fiddling with the elevated graduations.  You want to put the hairs precisely on the center of that tiny target and have at it.  If you are scout/sniper milling about in the woods or in Afghanistan shooting at moving targets at constantly changing ranges, the requirements are completely different.  You will usually zero at the range you believe will be most commonly encountered and adjust your sight picture to match conditions for range and windage.  Simple in theory - not so easy in practice.




> However, I have come acros a good deal on a Browning BAR .300 MAG rifle I am probably going to get, just in case I want to reach out and touch someone. But I don't know crap about scopes, so your post is very helpful.


Good semi-auto rifle.  How much?

----------


## tod evans

I've shot the 375 Weatherby mag.....Large game? Hell the way that thing kicks it'd stop a Cummins.

I agree bigger stops better, for many years the ol' M1 in 30-06 was all most anybody hunted with unless you were lucky enough to hunt rhinos or elephants.

Here in the sticks most shots at deer are taken in underbrush well under 100yds and the 45-70 has proven itself time and again with its ability to plow through both sides of the rib cage AFTER tearing through a sapling. A Marlin 1895 is fairly inexpensive and pretty much idiot proof, light for the punch it packs and cartridges aren't an arm and a leg like Weatherby ammo is.

Lots of folks like to load up on supposed "man-killers", easily converted semi-autos with big mags....and that's fine if you like shooting at a range or at targets but for hunting a person is wise to talk to local old-timers.....Prong-horn hunting in the mountains is way different than white-tail hunting in the Ozarks.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Good semi-auto rifle.  How much?



He's in a bind financially, so he's willing to take $300 for it. I don't think the gun has had 100 rounds through it.

I'm thinking it'd be best to zero the scope on it around 300 yards, maybe even 400 yards.  Because, the AK is absolutely brutal up to 250 yards or so. It's only around the 300 yard mark the accuracy of it starts getting difficult. I guess maybe it's my coon ass roots, but I feel if I'm going to use a weapon built for distance, I should equip it for distance. Because honestly, if I even remotely think I am going to be using a rifle with an averag target distance of 100 yards, I'm going to use the open sights on an assault rifle instead of increasing aim time with a scoped weapon.

I've only had the AK for a few months, but I'v put around 15,000 rounds through it, and one thing I've learned, is 100 yards and closer, that is a nasty damn rifle. Far superior to the 5.56 weapons so popular. I've tried to make it jam, lol...and I can't.

----------


## osan

> He's in a bind financially, so he's willing to take $300 for it. I don't think the gun has had 100 rounds through it.


Unless it is trashed, as in unsafe to shoot, BUY IT.  A good BAR is well worth 2x that price.

If you do not buy it, I will find you and murder you for unforgivable stupidity. 

Seriously, a BAR in 300 Winmag in decent condition for that money is a steal.




> I'm thinking it'd be best to zero the scope on it around 300 yards, maybe even 400 yards.


22-250 hurls a SMALL slug.  I would not want to be on the wrong end of it at any range, but if the goal is a clean, one-shot kill on anything larger than, say, a coyote, I might start thinking otherwise.





> Because, the AK is absolutely brutal up to 250 yards or so. It's only around the 300 yard mark the accuracy of it starts getting difficult.


I regard AKs as strictly suited to close-quarters use.  Full-auto AKs are essentially useless as anything but instruments of suppression and noise making.  I am a big fan of ARs as they are far and away more accurate and may be chambered for a pretty wide variety of cartridges including 300 Whisper and 458 Beowulf.  Overall, these are very versatile, precise, and reliable.  I will also say that under full-auto fire the M16 is a very stable weapon, vis-a-vis the AK which pulls heavily to the left because of the way the brake is made.  7.62x39 does hit harder than 5.56, but if I'm going that route, I'd rather 7.62x51, which hits a whole hell of a lot harder at distance than the smaller Russian round.




> I guess maybe it's my coon ass roots, but I feel if I'm going to use a weapon built for distance, I should equip it for distance. Because honestly, if I even remotely think I am going to be using a rifle with an averag target distance of 100 yards, I'm going to use the open sights on an assault rifle instead of increasing aim time with a scoped weapon


.

Different strokes and all that.  It's all good so long as you are able to put lead on target.

----------


## mrsat_98

http://www.chuckhawks.com/17HMR_rifl...cy_results.htm

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

The big advantages of the AK are reliability and durability in the harshest conditions. Otherwise, the AK is really not optimal. I own an AK myself (a "marksman" variant) and love it, but it still wouldn't be my first choice. 7.62x39 is one of the easiest rounds to stop with the latest body armor and helmets, and a typical AK isn't accurate enough to shoot around armor (though my heavy-barreled AK is an exception). 7.62x39 is also heavy ammo in comparison with the superior 5.56 NATO.

For a lightweight semi-auto, the ideal round is still probably .308 or .30-06 with AP rounds. If you can't get AP or solid brass bullets for those, then 5.56 with steel core M855 ammo is the way to go. M855 doesn't have great terminal ballistics, but that's better than having your rounds bounce off the enemy's helmet or ballistic goggles. The .458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf with solid brass bullets are also very nice and are arguably superior to 5.56 at close range, though mag capacity is limited.




> http://www.chuckhawks.com/17HMR_rifl...cy_results.htm


A .17 HMR might be good for harvesting small animals for food. But I sure wouldn't want to take one into combat.

----------


## mrsat_98

> A .17 HMR might be good for harvesting small animals for food. But I sure wouldn't want to take one into combat.


High-quality, low-cost precision rifle rig

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

> High-quality, low-cost precision rifle rig


It may be those things, but do you really think a .17 HMR has sufficient power and range for fighting purposes?

----------


## Intoxiklown

I disagree about the AK to AR comparison. For an assault weapon, you want reliability. It doesn't matter how much more accurate a weapon is, if you have to clean it every 60 rounds, you won't last long against someone who can keep slinging lead at you.  I agree and fully understand the loss of accuracy when compared to the AR, but assault weapons aren't  built for pure distance shooting really. They are designed for combat, and are supposed to be agile to allow you the best of all worlds. The AK is the only one I've seen cover all spectrums, and give that dependability. Put it this way, I can take a shoe string with some knots in it, coat it in gun oil, pull it through the ejection port out the through the barrely, and she's ready to fire again. The AR design cannot do that.

I will be honest though, I am seriously thinking of purchasing a HK-416, as from their demos, they seem to offer all the pros of the M-16 and the AK series all rolled into one. 

And yeah, I talked to 'ole boy tonight, and am picking up the .300 tomorrow. I am a Browning man myself anyway, as all my shotguns are Belgium made (two Sweet Sixteens and one Light Twelve), so my affinity for the Browning firearms already had me wanting to anyways. 

I will say, if penetration is a fear of the 7.62x39 mm, then why would you downgrade to a 5.56? The AK round is basically a short version of the .308 round. Unless you are saying you plan to use accuracy for round placement? In my opinion, if you're in a position where you're having to use an assault rifle agaisnt men wearing body armor, you won't have time to take cherry shots, and need to be as hard hitting as possible.

----------


## GuerrillaXXI

> I disagree about the AK to AR comparison. For an assault weapon, you want reliability. It doesn't matter how much more accurate a weapon is, if you have to clean it every 60 rounds, you won't last long against someone who can keep slinging lead at you.


Only 60 rounds? No way, my friend. I typically shoot 400 rounds through my AR during a typical practice session without any cleaning. Much of this is rapid fire that gets the barrel and action really hot. I've never had a single malfunction in thousands of rounds ranging from 1993 Spanish mil-surp to brand new match hollowpoints. A properly-made AR, while not as bomb-proof as an AK, is still extremely reliable. Magazines for the AR used to be a real weak spot, but now there are some really tough mags out there, like the Magpul PMags.

Here's an example of what a properly-made AR can endure without cleaning:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=95136

And speaking of bomb-proof, check out this torture test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBcV2Nb2Wo

The critical point here is that not all ARs are created equal. Some manufacturers put out "hobby guns" that aren't made to military standards and just aren't as likely to hold up under heavy use. Other manufacturers make the real deal, and some make stuff that's _better_ than what the military gets. Some of the best manufacturers include Larue, Noveske, Daniel Defense, Bravo Company, and Colt. There are other high-end manufacturers out there that aren't as well-known.

Note that this is also true of the AK. Some are very well made. Others are crap that won't hold up. Mine is Russian and is as durable as a hammer, but some makes are just clumsy copies.

One weakness of the AR is that some of the parts are "wear items" that need to be replaced every so often. But these tend to be cheap and very easily replaced (e.g., extractor springs). It's easy to keep a lot of them handy.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that the AR is as durable as an AK. I just think it's durable enough that its other advantages outweigh the durability of the AK.




> I agree and fully understand the loss of accuracy when compared to the AR, but assault weapons aren't  built for pure distance shooting really. They are designed for combat, and are supposed to be agile to allow you the best of all worlds. The AK is the only one I've seen cover all spectrums, and give that dependability.


You're right that most assault rifles aren't built for pure distance shooting. But distance shooting is arguably what anyone who's outnumbered and/or outgunned should be trying to do, with close-quarters shooting under those circumstances reserved for emergencies only. Think of Charles Whitman (not that I condone his killing of innocents). How long would he have lasted with all those people firing at him if he'd been within 50 yards of them? The AR out-ranges the AK and is accurate enough to aim around body armor, especially if a "designated marksman" type of AR is used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Marksman_Rifle

There is much to be said for being able to hit a 4-inch diameter target at 400 yards while also being able to dish out rapid fire at close range as a last resort. This is the sort of versatility that a good AR (not necessarily in 5.56) and good ammo can provide. The AK is for close range only, unless you're lucky enough to have one that's unusually accurate (and they are out there).

One option for those who prefer the AK in a SHTF situation might be to keep the AK in their hands for close range encounters while carrying a lightweight bolt gun in a backpack for long shots.




> Put it this way, I can take a shoe string with some knots in it, coat it in gun oil, pull it through the ejection port out the through the barrely, and she's ready to fire again. The AR design cannot do that.


You can still do that with an AR. As noted above, its lack of reliability is a myth born partly from its teething problems in Vietnam, and partly from low-quality commercial copies.




> I will be honest though, I am seriously thinking of purchasing a HK-416, as from their demos, they seem to offer all the pros of the M-16 and the AK series all rolled into one.


I'd humbly recommend against that. Piston ARs are a solution to a non-problem. If you can afford an HK-416, your money would be much better spent on something like a Larue Stealth or OBR. (I'm looking very hard at an OBR in .308 myself. These are getting rave reviews from everyone who fires them.)




> I will say, if penetration is a fear of the 7.62x39 mm, then why would you downgrade to a 5.56? The AK round is basically a short version of the .308 round. Unless you are saying you plan to use accuracy for round placement? In my opinion, if you're in a position where you're having to use an assault rifle agaisnt men wearing body armor, you won't have time to take cherry shots, and need to be as hard hitting as possible.


How much penetration you get depends on the bullet and the material you're trying to shoot through as much as on the cartridge.

Because of its high speed and small diameter, 5.56x45 penetrates body armor better than lead-core 7.62x39 does. This is especially true of the widely-available M855 (or XM855) steel core NATO ammo. Even .308 doesn't penetrate body armor as well as 5.56 NATO unless you have steel core 7.62 bullets (e.g., M61), which are hard to find nowadays. For example, there are lightweight polyethylene hard plates out there that can stop 7.62 NATO (lead core) but not 5.56 NATO (steel core M855). The newest military helmet is also made of polyethylene and is designed to stop 7.62x39. Thus, I'd take the 5.56 versus body armor every time, unless I had a plentiful supply of TRUE armor-piercing rounds for my AK or .308.

Where the bigger bullets do better than the 5.56 is against glass (like auto windshields) and many common building materials. But I care more about armor than about those things.

----------


## oyarde

Love a BAR . As far as zeroing a rifle , 100 yards is fine for small caliber , but when I was a young fella , usually picked 250 meters.

----------


## Kotin

Ruger mini 30's are sweet cause they are 7.62x39 and I would say more accurate than an Ak( from personal experience only) 

I love mine.. Though I would replace the iron sits with the m-14 sights.. Ak47 open sights are some of the best and easiest to use truth be told..

----------


## pcosmar

> High-quality, low-cost precision rifle rig


Both of those are relative,  But for a good balance, I like the Ruger Scout Rifle. (but haven't really checked one out)


I think it is a nice balance of several factors.

----------


## Intoxiklown

> Only 60 rounds? No way, my friend. I typically shoot 400 rounds through my AR during a typical practice session without any cleaning. Much of this is rapid fire that gets the barrel and action really hot. I've never had a single malfunction in thousands of rounds ranging from 1993 Spanish mil-surp to brand new match hollowpoints. A properly-made AR, while not as bomb-proof as an AK, is still extremely reliable. Magazines for the AR used to be a real weak spot, but now there are some really tough mags out there, like the Magpul PMags.
> 
> Here's an example of what a properly-made AR can endure without cleaning:
> 
> http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=95136
> 
> And speaking of bomb-proof, check out this torture test:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBcV2Nb2Wo


I was speaking figuratively. Point being, the AR design is simply not as reliable for endurance firing as the AK. There is no disputing this fact. I fired MANY version of this weapon while in the Army, and they all are epic fail at reliability when it comes to this. Bear in mind, I've put thousands of rounds through an AK without cleaning it, and the only reason I did clean it finally, was because it just was wrong not to. The weapon itself never performed anything less than perfect.




> The critical point here is that not all ARs are created equal. Some manufacturers put out "hobby guns" that aren't made to military standards and just aren't as likely to hold up under heavy use. Other manufacturers make the real deal, and some make stuff that's _better_ than what the military gets. Some of the best manufacturers include Larue, Noveske, Daniel Defense, Bravo Company, and Colt. There are other high-end manufacturers out there that aren't as well-known.
> 
> Note that this is also true of the AK. Some are very well made. Others are crap that won't hold up. Mine is Russian and is as durable as a hammer, but some makes are just clumsy copies.


All my references are made from experience with military grade M-16s, M4s, and commercial AR builds.




> One weakness of the AR is that some of the parts are "wear items" that need to be replaced every so often. But these tend to be cheap and very easily replaced (e.g., extractor springs). It's easy to keep a lot of them handy.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that the AR is as durable as an AK. I just think it's durable enough that its other advantages outweigh the durability of the AK.


Another thing you're not addressing is the interchangability of the AK series. I can take parts from a Russia made AK, parts from a Chinese made AK, and parts from a Ukrainian AK, and have a "Frankenstien" weapon that just won't quit. The AR series cannot say the same, due to tolerances.




> You're right that most assault rifles aren't built for pure distance shooting. But distance shooting is arguably what anyone who's outnumbered and/or outgunned should be trying to do, with close-quarters shooting under those circumstances reserved for emergencies only. Think of Charles Whitman (not that I condone his killing of innocents). How long would he have lasted with all those people firing at him if he'd been within 50 yards of them? The AR out-ranges the AK and is accurate enough to aim around body armor, especially if a "designated marksman" type of AR is used:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Marksman_Rifle
> 
> There is much to be said for being able to hit a 4-inch diameter target at 400 yards while also being able to dish out rapid fire at close range as a last resort. This is the sort of versatility that a good AR (not necessarily in 5.56) and good ammo can provide. The AK is for close range only, unless you're lucky enough to have one that's unusually accurate (and they are out there).


I can give you a shot group inside a quarter at 250 yards open sights with the AK. And I'm sorry, but very, very rarely is combat at those ranges. If you are engaging targets at 400 yards consistently, then using an assault rifle of any kind is foolish. Because all you're doing is giving your position away. And if you're holed up in a place where that is not an issue, trying to pick targets out instead of trying to get your rear out of there is inviting disaster. Almost all combat takes place within 100 yards and closer. 




> One option for those who prefer the AK in a SHTF situation might be to keep the AK in their hands for close range encounters while carrying a lightweight bolt gun in a backpack for long shots.
> 
> You can still do that with an AR. As noted above, its lack of reliability is a myth born partly from its teething problems in Vietnam, and partly from low-quality commercial copies.


This is simply not true. The later A2s as well as the M4s have the same issues. It is a design flaw. The only reason NATO forces don't use the AK is because the 7.62x39mm is considered an inhumane round. There are reasons that pretty much the rest of the world use it.




> I'd humbly recommend against that. Piston ARs are a solution to a non-problem. If you can afford an HK-416, your money would be much better spent on something like a Larue Stealth or OBR. (I'm looking very hard at an OBR in .308 myself. These are getting rave reviews from everyone who fires them.)


The HK-416 is a far superior weapon the to AR and AK both. They have done tests where no matter what they did, the HK was pumping rounds out like a champ, while the M4 was blowing up. You can expect to see American SOG using the HK soon. 




> How much penetration you get depends on the bullet and the material you're trying to shoot through as much as on the cartridge.
> 
> Because of its high speed and small diameter, 5.56x45 penetrates body armor better than lead-core 7.62x39 does. This is especially true of the widely-available M855 (or XM855) steel core NATO ammo. Even .308 doesn't penetrate body armor as well as 5.56 NATO unless you have steel core 7.62 bullets (e.g., M61), which are hard to find nowadays. For example, there are lightweight polyethylene hard plates out there that can stop 7.62 NATO (lead core) but not 5.56 NATO (steel core M855). The newest military helmet is also made of polyethylene and is designed to stop 7.62x39. Thus, I'd take the 5.56 versus body armor every time, unless I had a plentiful supply of TRUE armor-piercing rounds for my AK or .308.
> 
> Where the bigger bullets do better than the 5.56 is against glass (like auto windshields) and many common building materials. But I care more about armor than about those things.


Ok, I had to get with a friend of mine at Campbell on this before I started running my mouth. Military grade body armor won't stop an AK if it misses the trauma plates, unless at extreme distances, and even then, you are talking massive blunt force trauma. The plates will stop them, but they will as well the 5.56. However, the sheer power of an AK round will knock the guy down regardless, and most likely break some ribs to boot. Law Enforcement aren't known to use the same grade body armor as military forces, unless you want to talk SWAT. 

Where are you getting this stuff?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

This thread gives me rifle envy.

----------


## twisted

don''t have an inaccurate autorifle as your main gun, and you wont have to resort the the great danger of having only a bolt action when sniping. What you WANT is a sound suppressed autorifle, then you don't NEED to fire from long range, and you can hit A LOT MORE people, and conceal your gear on the way in and out of the "hide" you fire from, too. High value targets are not found in the boondocks, and hitting a few grunts aint worth the trouble. you gotta take it to the "big boys', and that means 100m shots at men who have body guards and are hittable only as they move from vehicle to buildings, and vice versa.

----------


## twisted

An M4 can easily and reliably hit men at 1/4 mile, if it's set up right. A 24" match upper receiver and barrel drops right onto any AR lower, and it's not a gun, so it can be mailed to anyone. The M4 breaks into 2  concealable "halves" in 5 seconds, with the popping of 2 pushpins, and can be reassembled and fired in 10 seconds or less. Simply leave the rd in the chamber, and leave the loaded mag in the lower receiver. A 24" 223, using 75 gr Hornady polymer tipped sp's, still has  500 ft lbs left at 500 yds, the same as a 6" 357 revolver has left at 50 yds. So taking deer at 500 yds with the 223 is just as feasible as at  50 yds with the 357 pistol, IF you can hit them at the greater distance, that is. :-) Realistically, an M4, with the Nosler Partition softpoint, for deep penetration and good expansion, is just as good a deer rifle as the 30-30 lever action ever was, with the caveat to avoid the shoulder bones. The 24" 223, using 77 gr bthp's (which do feed from the mag) makes the combo quite feasible as a 700 yd sniping rifle. 7" more of OAL, adding the sound suppressor, does make the gun a bit awkward, so me, I'd settle for a 20" barrel and a limit of 500 meters, if I bothered with more range/gear than the basic scoped M4, that is. I wouldn't so bother, btw.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

springfield armory m1a scout or loaded

----------


## osan

> Seriously, a BAR in 300 Winmag in decent condition for that money is a steal.


Did you ever buy it?

----------


## Matt Collins

Cheap Chinese scopes which are pretty good for the money -

http://dx.com/s/scope

----------


## youngbuck

> *I can give you a shot group inside a quarter at 250 yards open sights with the AK.* And I'm sorry, but very, very rarely is combat at those ranges.


I agree with essentially everything in your post, but there is no way this is true.  Even the most well made AK on the market is not capable of this kind of precision.  Inside 10", yes.  Inside a quarter, hell no.

 And I have very accurate Bulgarian AK with a milled receiver, an Ultimak gas tube/rail, and various high quality, high dollar optics, and have used it out to 300 yards on many occasions.

----------


## Tpoints

> Both of those are relative,  But for a good balance, I like the Ruger Scout Rifle. (but haven't really checked one out)
> 
> 
> I think it is a nice balance of several factors.


let me know when you do, I'm in the market

----------


## AFPVet

> I've shot the 375 Weatherby mag.....Large game? Hell the way that thing kicks it'd stop a Cummins.
> 
> I agree bigger stops better, for many years the ol' M1 in 30-06 was all most anybody hunted with unless you were lucky enough to hunt rhinos or elephants.
> 
> Here in the sticks most shots at deer are taken in underbrush well under 100yds and the 45-70 has proven itself time and again with its ability to plow through both sides of the rib cage AFTER tearing through a sapling. A Marlin 1895 is fairly inexpensive and pretty much idiot proof, light for the punch it packs and cartridges aren't an arm and a leg like Weatherby ammo is.
> 
> Lots of folks like to load up on supposed "man-killers", easily converted semi-autos with big mags....and that's fine if you like shooting at a range or at targets but for hunting a person is wise to talk to local old-timers.....Prong-horn hunting in the mountains is way different than white-tail hunting in the Ozarks.


Even with factory loads, the .45-70 is around the same power as a 12 gauge slug... definitely nothing to sneeze at; while, handloaded, it can get damn close to .458 Win. Mag levels.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 100 yards is a common standard, but any distance will do depending on the gun sight and what it is you are trying to accomplish.
> 
> For example, if you are using a simple dot reticle on a 32x scope for 1000 yard bench shooting you are going to zero at 1000 yards because you are aiming for ultimate accuracy at that range.  You do not want a mil-dot affair and fiddling with the elevated graduations.  You want to put the hairs precisely on the center of that tiny target and have at it.  If you are scout/sniper milling about in the woods or in Afghanistan shooting at moving targets at constantly changing ranges, the requirements are completely different.  You will usually zero at the range you believe will be most commonly encountered and adjust your sight picture to match conditions for range and windage.  Simple in theory - not so easy in practice.
> 
> 
> 
> Good semi-auto rifle.  How much?


I would never zero a rifle at 100 yards, the drop comps would be impossible at longer ranges.  The Army specifies a BZO at 200 yards, and the Marines specify a BZO at 300 yards.  All my rifles are zeroed at 300 yards.

A 300 yard zero is not going to hurt your aim anywhere inside of point blank range.

5.56 NATO:

M855 20" barrel MV 3100fps 300 yard zero

25 yd impact is 0.22" above point of aim
50 yd impact is 1.71" above point of aim
75 yd impact is 2.94" above point of aim
100 yd impact is 3.9" above point of aim
150 yd impact is 4.98" above point of aim
200 yd impact is 4.8" above point of aim
250 yd impact is 3.21" above point of aim
300 yd impact is 0" above point of aim

Maximum variance is at 175 yards, with the impact being 5" above the point of aim.

7.62x51 NATO

M80 21" barrel MV 2700fps 300 yard zero

25 yd impact is 0.62" above point of aim
50 yd impact is 2.43" above point of aim
75 yd impact is 3.91" above point of aim
100 yd impact is 5.06" above point of aim
150 yd impact is 6.27" above point of aim
200 yd impact is 5.94" above point of aim
250 yd impact is 3.91" above point of aim
300 yd impact is 0" above point of aim

Maximum variance is at 175 yards, with the impact being 6.31" above the point of aim.

If I am not mistaken, the Army set their BZO at 200 yards with the 7.62 round

M80 21" barrel MV 2700fps 200 yard zero

25 yd impact is 0.12" below point of aim
50 yd impact is 0.94" above point of aim
75 yd impact is 1.69" above point of aim
100 yd impact is 2.09" above point of aim
150 yd impact is 2.14" above point of aim
200 yd impact is 0" above point of aim
250 yd impact is 3.5" below point of aim
300 yd impact is 8.86" below point of aim

Although this gives you less variance inside of PBR (Point Blank Range) your 300 yard impact is enough off to make point of aim point of impact a little dicey.

Everybody agrees that the M855 from a 20" barrel is a round with an extremely flat trajectory.  To illustrate my earlier point about a 100 yard zero...

5.56 NATO:

M855 20" barrel MV 3100fps 100 yard zero

25 yd impact is 0.75" below point of aim
50 yd impact is 0.25" below point of aim
75 yd impact is 0.01" above point of aim
100 yd impact is 0" above point of aim
150 yd impact is 0.88" below point of aim
200 yd impact is 3.01" below point of aim
250 yd impact is 6.56" below point of aim
300 yd impact is 11.68" below point of aim

Even with a ridiculously flat round like the M855 from a 20" barrel, the 300 yard range from a 100 yard zero is near a full foot low.

Now the standard .308 (7.62x51 NATO) when zeroed at 100 yards becomes neigh on impossible

7.62x51 NATO

M80 21" barrel MV 2700fps 100 yard zero

25 yd impact is 0.64" below point of aim
50 yd impact is 0.1" below point of aim
75 yd impact is 0.13" above point of aim
100 yd impact is 0" above point of aim
150 yd impact is 1.3" below point of aim
200 yd impact is 4.16" below point of aim
250 yd impact is 8.7" below point of aim
300 yd impact is 15.1" below point of aim

Bear in mind that ALL of this is at what the infantry calls "Point Blank Range" for a combat rifle.  Once you get out to a longer range...for instance the M80 with a 100 yard zero

400 yd impact is 34.21" below point of aim
500 yd impact is 63.22" below point of aim

Of course, marksmen are taught to adjust sight settings to account for range.  One reason I like 300 yard zeros is that the sight adjustments are a lot simpler (more consistent)  You don't have to remember that some are up and some are down, they are all rear sight down.

----------


## tod evans

> Even with factory loads, the .45-70 is around the same power as a 12 gauge slug... definitely nothing to sneeze at; while, handloaded, it can get damn close to .458 Win. Mag levels.


Never loaded my own ammo for it....interesting..

It'll knock down anything living in the Ozarks with factory loads..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I can give you a shot group inside a quarter at 250 yards open sights with the AK.


A quarter is just under an inch.  One inch at 250 yards is one third of one MOA.  World class marksmen shoot between 1MOA and 3/4 MOA.  Olympic world champions shoot around one half MOA.  I call bull$#@!.

----------


## tod evans

> A quarter is just under an inch.  One inch at 250 yards is one third of one MOA.  World class marksmen shoot between 1MOA and 3/4 MOA.  Olympic world champions shoot around one half MOA.  I call bull$#@!.


Been shooting my whole life and at 300yds I'm glad for a fairly tight dinner plate..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Been shooting my whole life and at 300yds I'm glad for a fairly tight dinner plate..


Given unsupported firing positions (_NOT_ bench rest shooting) certified "Rifle Expert" is defined as a 4MOA or under shooter, and so must contain their groups within 12" at 300 yards.  A Platoon Designated Marksman will be between 8" and 10" at 300 yards.  A Scout Sniper will be between 6" and 8" unsupported at 300 yards.  Cut all of those groups roughly in half for supported positions (hasty bench rest), or by a little better than 3/5 for a full bench rest.  That would put a professional scout sniper around 2" groups at 300 yards from a full bench rest.

----------


## tod evans

> Given unsupported firing positions (_NOT_ bench rest shooting) certified "Rifle Expert" is defined as a 4MOA or under shooter, and so must contain their groups within 12" at 300 yards.  A Platoon Designated Marksman will be between 8" and 10" at 300 yards.  A Scout Sniper will be between 6" and 8" unsupported at 300 yards.  Cut all of those groups roughly in half for supported positions (hasty bench rest), or by a little better than 3/5 for a full bench rest.  That would put a professional scout sniper around 2" groups at 300 yards from a full bench rest.


Guess I'd pass muster then

----------


## Aeroneous

> Is there a "zero distance" people recommend for scope sighting? 250 yards? 300 yards?


The Air Force had us zero at 25 yards, the theory being that the bullet would be at the same height at both 25 and 300 yards due to gravity and the curve of the bullet.  As someone else mentioned already though, you should zero the rifle for whatever distance you plan on using it at.

----------


## pacelli

Seriously informative thread, subscribed.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Air Force had us zero at 25 yards, the theory being that the bullet would be at the same height at both 25 and 300 yards due to gravity and the curve of the bullet.  As someone else mentioned already though, you should zero the rifle for whatever distance you plan on using it at.


That's...not exactly.  I know that's what they _said_, but the short range zero is just to put you on paper for a long range zero.

In the Marines, we put our rifles on the 200 yard sight setting (8/3-1) and then did our short zero at 36 yards.  

The 25 yard short zero was developed by the Army to establish a rough 200 yard starting point when the common battle round was the 7.62 NATO.  The 25 yard short zero is basically obsolete with the 5.56, but has been retained by the Army and the Air Force based on inertia alone.

With the 5.56 a 25 yard zero cowitnesses with 263 yards
With the 7.62 a 25 yard zero cowitnesses with 216 yards

With the 5.56 a 36 yard zero cowitnesses with 192.5 yards
With the 7.62 a 36 yard zero cowitnesses with 155 yards

When you zero an M-16 at 25 yards, you have a 263 yard zero, not a 300 yard zero.  That is probably considered "close enough" for USAF security when the impact variance is only a couple inches high or low, and chances of engaging past 200 yards are somewhere between slim and none.

data...

M855 20" barrel MV 3100fps 25 yard zero
Impact at 200 yards is 2.86 inches above point of aim
Impact at 250 yards is 0.79 inches above point of aim
Impact at 300 yards is 2.86 inches below point of aim

M80 21" barrel MV 2700fps 25 yard zero
Impact at 200 yards is 0.84 inches above point of aim
Impact at 250 yards is 2.46 inches below point of aim
Impact at 300 yards is 7.61 inches below point of aim

M855 20" barrel MV 3100fps 36 yard zero
Impact at 200 yards is 0.3 inches below point of aim
Impact at 250 yards is 3.17 inches below point of aim
Impact at 300 yards is 7.61 inches below point of aim

M80 21" barrel MV 2700fps 36 yard zero
Impact at 150 yards is 0.17 inches above point of aim
Impact at 200 yards is 2.2 inches below point of aim
Impact at 250 yards is 6.25 inches below point of aim
Impact at 300 yards is 12.16 inches below point of aim

----------


## Pericles

Slight correction - the Army battlesights at 300m, the idea being the line of sight intersects flight path of the M193 round at 25 and 250 meters. For the M855 round, the Army uses same procedure as the Marines with the A2 - zero with sight turned back one click from 300m at a 25m zero target.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Slight correction - the Army battlesights at 300m, the idea being the line of sight intersects flight path of the M193 round at 25 and 250 meters. For the M855 round, the Army uses same procedure as the Marines with the A2 - zero with sight turned back one click from 300m at a 25m zero target.


I promise you that the Marines zero at _36_ yards with 8/3-1 on the rear sight.  Not 25 yards.

----------


## AFPVet

I remember those old iron sights lol... made me glad we went with the new optics  It makes it so much easier when you don't have to mess with all of the adjustments... until the battery goes lol.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I remember those old iron sights lol... made me glad we went with the new optics  It makes it so much easier when you don't have to mess with all of the adjustments... until the battery goes lol.


Yeah, so glad that such batteries will be easy to come by in the PAW. 

Actually, I've been thinking about putting a regular old glass non-electric 2x7 scope on the AR.  2x shouldn't hamper acquisition very much at near ranges, and 7x is more than enough at 500 yards.  But my eyes aren't what they used to be, and I'm starting to drop rounds pretty bad at 500.

----------


## Pericles

> I promise you that the Marines zero at _36_ yards with 8/3-1 on the rear sight.  Not 25 yards.


25m = 27 and one third yards and the Army goes one click up on M855 for the 350m setting:

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> 25m = 27 and one third yards and the Army goes one click up on M855 for the 350m setting:


The M855 from a full sized M-16 A2 20" barrel at 3100 fps precisely co-witnesses at 36yd and 200 yd.  one click back from 300 yards is 200 yards.  8/3-1 is 200 yards.  

If you zero at 36yd with sights on 8/3-1 (200 yard sight setting) then your round will impact 0.3" low at 200 yards.  Then you click up to 8/3 and zero at 300 yards proper.

A 25 yard zero with M855 co-witnesses just under 265 yards.

I promise you I'm not guessing about this.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

USGI M855 62gr penetrator green tip

Calibre: 5.56mm
Weight: 62gr
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.301 G1
MV: 3100fps

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I understand that the M4 has a lower muzzle velocity because of the short barrel, but I never touched an M4 in the Marines, nor do I know the proper MV to verify the path of the M855 on a ballistic chart.

Bear in mind that if your ballistic coefficient is off it can dramatically effect your plot.

----------


## Pericles

> I understand that the M4 has a lower muzzle velocity because of the short barrel, but I never touched an M4 in the Marines, nor do I know the proper MV to verify the path of the M855 on a ballistic chart.
> 
> Bear in mind that if your ballistic coefficient is off it can dramatically effect your plot.


MV on the M4 is 2600 fps - each inch of barrel costs about 100 fps.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Here is the chart for a 36yd zero with M855 from a full size A2.

Bear in mind that one click back from the 300yd sight setting IS the 200 yard sight setting.

It wouldn't make a lick of sense to zero on the 200 yard sight setting if the trajectory co-witnesses at 300 yards.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> MV on the M4 is 2600 fps - each inch of barrel costs about 100 fps.


With that, I can calculate the heck out of it...

Here is the same chart for M855 from the M4 (2600fps) zeroed at 25 yards...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I note that a 25 yard zero *does* co-witness with 200yd from the M4, so it makes sense that the M4 zeroes with 8/3-1 at 25 yards.

See the previous chart for evidence that a 36 yard zero co-witnesses with 200yd from the full sized barrel M16

----------


## Pericles

Also good discussion here: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=65679

The other sight, marked 0-2 (the Army calls it the low visibility sight - which makes no sense) will zero at 200m if the rifle has been properly zeroed with the other sight.

----------


## Athan

> Honestly, my advise is just buy something you can afford. And a lot of ammo. And practice with it. A lot. There is a bloody legacy of iron sights killing other humans. Jerry Miculek can damn near squeeze off as many rounds on a single-pull as an automatic. Practice makes perfect. Imperfect practice is wasted time.


Right... but for new users with a precision rifle will be more encouraged to learn about range finding, windage, and drop aspects which is actually a good thing to know.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Marines zero at 300 also, the short range zero is just to 'get on paper.'  Once you are zeroed at 36yd (M16) or 25yd (M4) you verify your initial zero at 200, and THEN you click back up to 8/3 and perfect your BZO at 300 yards proper.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Also good discussion here: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=65679
> 
> The other sight, marked 0-2 (the Army calls it the low visibility sight - which makes no sense) will zero at 200m if the rifle has been properly zeroed with the other sight.


The only time we were allowed to use the gigantic site was night firing with gas masks on.    And that was only if we couldn't use the regular rear sight, and the Marines who had to go to the huge one were made to feel like blind fools for doing it lol.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

It appears that the primary calculation difference here is sight height.  Calculating for the full 2.6" you would indeed co-witness to 300yd, BUT to do that you want to put your rear sight on 8/3 not 8/3-1

M16 at 36 yd:



M4 at 25 yd:

----------


## Pericles

> The only time we were allowed to use the gigantic site was night firing with gas masks on.    And that was only if we couldn't use the regular rear sight, and the Marines who had to go to the huge one were made to feel like blind fools for doing it lol.


With the round going a good 9 inches above line of sight, something needs to be done for intermediate range - if not the "idiot" sight, then adjusting the zero distance is a good idea - but the drop at distance is astounding.

----------


## JVParkour

> It appears that the primary calculation difference here is sight height.  Calculating for the full 2.6" you would indeed co-witness to 300yd, BUT to do that you want to put your rear sight on 8/3 not 8/3-1


What does this all mean? I get the general concept of MOA and how you can adjust your scope to varying distances by clicking it, but what you are talking about is some sort of iron sight adjustment? Is this feature only on M16s and not commonly found on AR15s? 

Just trying to understand. Thanks!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What does this all mean? I get the general concept of MOA and how you can adjust your scope to varying distances by clicking it, but what you are talking about is some sort of iron sight adjustment? Is this feature only on M16s and not commonly found on AR15s? 
> 
> Just trying to understand. Thanks!


OK bear with me because I've just had to deal with a burgeoning civil war in the NC Liberty movement and I'm three sheets to the Crown Royal black right now, but I still think I can clarify this.

MOST AR-15's have A2 sights.  


The knob on the _side_ controls windage, or the left to right strike of the round.  The knob _below_ controls _elevation_, or the up-down strike of the round.  In the image I posted you see the number "10" which means 1000 yards - mind you this is an aftermarket sight so the number "10" does not exist on most AR-15 rear sights.

His is how it normally works:



OK, now look at the next image:



Do you see the "8/3" on the knob?  One click counter clockwise (as looking from above) is 8/3-1

The 8/3 setting is 800 or 300 yards.  300 near bottom, or 800 near top.  Assuming a 360 degree rotation of the knob.

Near the top, 8/3 is the 800 yard setting.  near the bottom, 8/3 is the 300 yard setting.

Go one click lower than the 300 yard setting and you are at "8/3-1" which is the 200 yard setting.

Fo TWO clicks lower than the 300 yard setting and you are at "8/3-2" which is the 100 yard setting. In fact, 8/3-2.5 is generally "bottomed out."

The same sights are normally on the M-16 AND the AR-15

Thing is, if you get "MOA" you are already way, way beyond many hard core rifle marksmen in knowledge, because MOA is THE KEY.

If you 'get' MOA everything else follows from that.

This is what I am most grateful to Appleseed for is expounding MOA.  We didn't get MOA in the Marines.  We got the unsupported positions, we got the "point of aim - point of impact" that most riflemen done get, we got a lot of stuff in the Marines but we didn't get MOA.  IMHO MOA is the KEY to understanding rapid zero and sight adjustments.  Once you "get" MOA everything else falls in line.

The M-16 and AR-15's with A2 sights are juuuust about 1/2 MOA per click of WINDAGE (side knob) and elevation (bottom knob) should be EXACTLY 1/2 MOA.

I hope that answers the question. If not let me know.  Like I said I am 3 sheets to the wind after having to put down a civil war, so I barely know what I am doing right now lmao!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What does this all mean? I get the general concept of MOA and how you can adjust your scope to varying distances by clicking it, but what you are talking about is some sort of iron sight adjustment? Is this feature only on M16s and not commonly found on AR15s? 
> 
> Just trying to understand. Thanks!


ALSO - scopes are normally 1/4 MOA per click.  There are scopes that are different, but that is the NORMAL scope, 1/4 MOA per click.

1 MOA = 1" at 100 yards precisely.  1MOA = 2" at 200 yards precisely.  1MOA = 3" at 300 yards precisely and so on.

1MOA = 8" at 800 yards.  12" at 1200 yards.  29" at 2900 yards etc.  283 inches at 28,300 yards. Precisely.

----------


## AFPVet

> Yeah, so glad that such batteries will be easy to come by in the PAW. 
> 
> Actually, I've been thinking about putting a regular old glass non-electric 2x7 scope on the AR.  2x shouldn't hamper acquisition very much at near ranges, and 7x is more than enough at 500 yards.  But my eyes aren't what they used to be, and I'm starting to drop rounds pretty bad at 500.


I do have a big bag of those little watch batteries for my M68... should last awhile  

There ya go. Those old scopes are cheap and you don't have batteries to change

----------


## jllundqu

I've got to go with the Remmy 700 here...

Great quality, out of the box accuracy, rugged and customizable...trigger issues notwithstanding 

For under a grand, you can have the 700 in .308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, with scope and trimmings.... definitely my pick for the long gun.  Mind you my max range to shoot at is 500 yards.  I can hit much deeper than that, but it makes no sense whatsoever to practice out to more than 500 unless you are a trained sniper.  I hunt, so 500 yrds is the absolute MAX I will shoot a live target.  My sweet spot is -300.  Anything out to 1000 yards or more is just a cruel game of pinball...

----------


## tod evans

Where are you hunting? Here in the sticks 100 yards is actually a long shot and most deer are taken under 30..




> I've got to go with the Remmy 700 here...
> 
> Great quality, out of the box accuracy, rugged and customizable...trigger issues notwithstanding 
> 
> For under a grand, you can have the 700 in .308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, with scope and trimmings.... definitely my pick for the long gun.  Mind you my max range to shoot at is 500 yards.  I can hit much deeper than that, but it makes no sense whatsoever to practice out to more than 500 unless you are a trained sniper.  I hunt, so 500 yrds is the absolute MAX I will shoot a live target.  My sweet spot is -300.  Anything out to 1000 yards or more is just a cruel game of pinball...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Where are you hunting? Here in the sticks 100 yards is actually a long shot and most deer are taken under 30..


Well, that's really anywhere where there is an abundance of trees.  You will never make 500yd unless you are in massive clearings/plains like middle America "flyover country."

I think in Montana/Wyoming there is the potential for 500yd shots on things like elk/caribou but you have to be crazy good at that range.  Well, with a scope I can do 6-7" at 500yd so I can just barely make a 500 yd elk/caribou shot.

But around HERE?  Yeah...no.  100yd is as far as you get.  too many trees in the way to get any further.  I can do 3" at 100yd on irons so I don't actually need a scope to...hunt...around these parts.  At 30yd like you say I am around 1 inch groups so I wouldn't even have to _chase_ a wounded animal because the head shot would be most reliable.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I've got to go with the Remmy 700 here...
> 
> Great quality, out of the box accuracy, rugged and customizable...trigger issues notwithstanding 
> 
> For under a grand, you can have the 700 in .308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, with scope and trimmings.... definitely my pick for the long gun.  Mind you my max range to shoot at is 500 yards.  I can hit much deeper than that, but it makes no sense whatsoever to practice out to more than 500 unless you are a trained sniper.  I hunt, so 500 yrds is the absolute MAX I will shoot a live target.  My sweet spot is -300.  Anything out to 1000 yards or more is just a cruel game of pinball...


My pride and joy is my Remmy 721 bolty in .30-06

rested I can get sub 1" at 100 yd.  unsupported however I am more like 3.5" at 100 yd.  

for everyone practicing marksmanship, bear in mind that in a PAW situation you won't have a bench rest.  Better dial in your unsupported positions.

----------


## klamath

> Well, that's really anywhere where there is an abundance of trees.  You will never make 500yd unless you are in massive clearings/plains like middle America "flyover country."
> 
> I think in Montana/Wyoming there is the potential for 500yd shots on things like elk/caribou but you have to be crazy good at that range.  Well, with a scope I can do 6-7" at 500yd so I can just barely make a 500 yd elk/caribou shot.
> 
> But around HERE?  Yeah...no.  100yd is as far as you get.  too many trees in the way to get any further.  I can do 3" at 100yd on irons so I don't actually need a scope to...hunt...around these parts.  At 30yd like you say I am around 1 inch groups so I wouldn't even have to _chase_ a wounded animal because the head shot would be most reliable.


Check out some of the videos on this site Gunny. I believe one of the bears was taken a 750 yrds. It isn't hype as I have seen the full length videos as I have a special inside deal to get the videos and I have hiked a lot of the mountains there with Sean.
http://www.mthuntingguide.com/successstories.htm

----------


## tod evans

I've had this fasination with big-bore pellet rifles for the last couple of years...haven't got one but am definitely interested, almost zero cost to shoot=free groceries!

seen these? http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Dragon...Air_Rifle/2500




> Well, that's really anywhere where there is an abundance of trees.  You will never make 500yd unless you are in massive clearings/plains like middle America "flyover country."
> 
> I think in Montana/Wyoming there is the potential for 500yd shots on things like elk/caribou but you have to be crazy good at that range.  Well, with a scope I can do 6-7" at 500yd so I can just barely make a 500 yd elk/caribou shot.
> 
> But around HERE?  Yeah...no.  100yd is as far as you get.  too many trees in the way to get any further.  I can do 3" at 100yd on irons so I don't actually need a scope to...hunt...around these parts.  At 30yd like you say I am around 1 inch groups so I wouldn't even have to _chase_ a wounded animal because the head shot would be most reliable.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Check out some of the videos on this site Gunny. I believe one of the bears was taken a 750 yrds. It isn't hype as I have seen the full length videos as I have a special inside deal to get the videos and I have hiked a lot of the mountains there with Sean.
> http://www.mthuntingguide.com/successstories.htm


Good stuff! 

Tho I consider the 'portable bench rests' they like to use almost like cheating. 

Well enough for hunting specifically to harvest food, but practice for survival in a SHTF PAW not so much.  Combat firing you don't get much in the way of supported firing positions, much less bench rests.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I've had this fasination with big-bore pellet rifles for the last couple of years...haven't got one but am definitely interested, almost zero cost to shoot=free groceries!
> 
> seen these? http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Dragon...Air_Rifle/2500


Yikes!  a .50 cal airgun!   679fps isn't bad, subsonic so quiet.  I'd be interested in a grainweight and a ballistic coefficient so I could calculate ballistics out to ranges.

I like the idea of easily minted ammo.  Any bulletmaker from the civil war would probably fabricate a good enough pellet.  I also like the idea of the quiet operation.  I'd be interested in the impact energy at 75 yards, which you could only figure with grainweight and ballistic coefficient.

----------


## klamath

> Good stuff! 
> 
> Tho I consider the 'portable bench rests' they like to use almost like cheating. 
> 
> Well enough for hunting specifically to harvest food, but practice for survival in a SHTF PAW not so much.  Combat firing you don't get much in the way of supported firing positions, much less bench rests.


Easy there... I made the tree mounted rifle rest Installs in 30 seconds. If you are reaching out 500-700 yards 30 seconds is a wise investment in time.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Easy there... I made the tree mounted rifle rest Installs in 30 seconds. If you are reaching out 500-700 yards 30 seconds is a wise investment in time.


I agree it's great for hunting.  If you are hunting just for hunting sake I say go for it.  if you are hunting to practice for combat, well then people don't move like critters.  I'm all for a hasty bench rest when your only goal in hunting is taking food.  I advise against bench rests when the goal of hunting is to practice for the ZA/PAW/SHTF.  Closest thing to a bench you get in combat is a rucksack in the prone.

----------


## osan

> Well, that's really anywhere where there is an abundance of trees.  You will never make 500yd unless you are in massive clearings/plains like middle America "flyover country."
> 
> I think in Montana/Wyoming there is the potential for 500yd shots on things like elk/caribou but you have to be crazy good at that range.  Well, with a scope I can do 6-7" at 500yd so I can just barely make a 500 yd elk/caribou shot.
> 
> But around HERE?  Yeah...no.  100yd is as far as you get.  too many trees in the way to get any further.  I can do 3" at 100yd on irons so I don't actually need a scope to...hunt...around these parts.  At 30yd like you say I am around 1 inch groups so I wouldn't even have to _chase_ a wounded animal because the head shot would be most reliable.


I've always laughed when I have heard all the macho talk about the 800 yard shot "they" took a deer with.  Consider the realities of this.  Even if you are sufficient marksman, and I would say that by far most hunters are not even close, unless you drop the target where it stands, you are going to have a hell of a time finding it.  I will add that it is irresponsible, not to mention cruel and disrespectful of life.  Twenty, thirty... maybe fifty yards is what feels right to me.  The day I take a 500 yard shot at dinner will be a day when starvation looms menacingly over my life and that of my family.  That is what it would take for me to take such a shot.

Any long distance shooting I do has but two purposes: the sport aspect as one might find with bench shooting, and as training to drop _human_ targets in the event the day ever comes.  Nothing more.  If I develop decent skills and the day comes my circumstance is sufficiently dire to drive me to shoot deer at such ranges, I will be grateful for the skill, but I would not take such shots under less severe conditions.  My reverence for anything that lives and the moral position it places me into would preclude my ever taking such shots unless "forced".  I have nothing to prove to anyone, nor do I find long range kills in any way impressive when taken under "normal" circumstances.  These are therefore outside of my personally set boundaries of proper behavior.  I begrudge nobody else the practice, though I confess the urge that rises within me to beat such people rather savagely about the head and shoulders with iron bars when they take such shots and succeed only in grotesquely maiming a creature that posed them no threat and deserved better treatment and consideration.  I find such acts despicable in the fifth sigma.

Finally, some people tend to forget that when you romp 500 yards out to gather up your kill, after field dressing, you will likely have to drag or carry the carcass 1/4 mile back to where you took the shot, and perhaps further to get back to your vehicle.  These little details appear to escape the less clued-in hunter.

----------


## tod evans

Always wanted to go prairie-dog shootin' just for the sport.....Never have.




> I've always laughed when I have heard all the macho talk about the 800 yard shot "they" took a deer with.  Consider the realities of this.  Even if you are sufficient marksman, and I would say that by far most hunters are not even close, unless you drop the target where it stands, you are going to have a hell of a time finding it.  I will add that it is irresponsible, not to mention cruel and disrespectful of life.  Twenty, thirty... maybe fifty yards is what feels right to me.  The day I take a 500 yard shot at dinner will be a day when starvation looms menacingly over my life and that of my family.  That is what it would take for me to take such a shot.
> 
> Any long distance shooting I do has but two purposes: the sport aspect as one might find with bench shooting, and as training to drop _human_ targets in the event the day ever comes.  Nothing more.  If I develop decent skills and the day comes my circumstance is sufficiently dire to drive me to shoot deer at such ranges, I will be grateful for the skill, but I would not take such shots under less severe conditions.  My reverence for anything that lives and the moral position it places me into would preclude my ever taking such shots unless "forced".  I have nothing to prove to anyone, nor do I find long range kills in any way impressive when taken under "normal" circumstances.  These are therefore outside of my personally set boundaries of proper behavior.  I begrudge nobody else the practice, though I confess the urge that rises within me to beat such people rather savagely about the head and shoulders with iron bars when they take such shots and succeed only in grotesquely maiming a creature that posed them no threat and deserved better treatment and consideration.  I find such acts despicable in the fifth sigma.
> 
> Finally, some people tend to forget that when you romp 500 yards out to gather up your kill, after field dressing, you will likely have to drag or carry the carcass 1/4 mile back to where you took the shot, and perhaps further to get back to your vehicle.  These little details appear to escape the less clued-in hunter.

----------


## klamath

It will be a cold day in hell before casually talk about taking a _human_ target down at over 500 yards yet talk about feeling bad about taking a deer down at that range.

----------


## JVParkour

Thanks for the explanations! Very helpful. What is going on with the NC liberty people? I live in NC, so I am just curious.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thanks for the explanations! Very helpful. What is going on with the NC liberty people? I live in NC, so I am just curious.


1) a 2013 convention route is in the works
2) a Citizens Constitutional Caucus is setting up (first meeting December 1) to advise the General Assembly on constitutionality of bills
3) Greg Brannon for US Senate 2014

(for starters)

Also, for liberty people near me, I am carving out a 200 yard rifle range to teach our people how to shoot rifles effectively.

----------

