Money where my mouth is

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

Money where my mouth is

#1 Postby Tony Z » Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:19 pm

edited 15/11/05
Last edited by Tony Z on Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

#2 Postby Tony Z » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:05 pm

edited 15/11/05
Last edited by Tony Z on Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2697
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

#3 Postby bruce moulds » Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:51 pm

tony zed,
did you use a different sigt setting for each group, have a sighter target, or just luck a condition change when you returned to the original target?
bruce.

AlanF
Posts: 6985
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#4 Postby AlanF » Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:35 pm

Tony,

What was the reason for the 30 minute break? I agree that 10 shot groups tell you much more than 5, but I'm wondering how much of the windage spread is due to a change in conditions before and after the break.

Alan

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#5 Postby Tony Q » Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:40 pm

Bruce, I know what your saying mate but iv done similar with strings of 3 shot groups fired alternately at five 1” disc targets. I shoot 5x3 then add 2 shots to each group to bring them up to 5 shot. I then add 5 shots to each group to bring it up to 5 x 10 shot groups.

There are reasons why i do this, but all i need to say is the data gathered from enlarging a 3 shot group to a 5 shot group and then to a 10 shot group all tell a story.

I normally do this kind of work at 6am when the conditions at the range are always very still.


Tony Z

This basically confirms what I have said all along that shooting form a pedestal is technically and inherently more accurate because of the additional influences the bipod places on the performance of the rile.

So you have proved a point and a point that I personally have had many unkind posts directed at me because I uttered the same findings from my own personal experience and experimentation.

In other words I was told by some that my findings were ‘rubbish’ and it makes no difference what you shoot of. This of course was in reply to my comments that FS should be shot of a bipod only as a pedestal rest can produce better results.

So again I will take this one step further and reclaim that FS should only be TR or Factory varmint style or similar rifles and shot of a bipod. If its too hard to outlaw pedestal rests then there should be no BR or Tracker stocks or any modifications that follow those design principals permitted in FS.

All this means is that you have a choice of hundreds of rifle/stock configurations but whatever you have its shot of a std F Class bipod or similar. It is not as some have posted restricting or limiting what can be used in FS, its allowing freedom to not have to keep adding things to compete against rifles that should be in FO.

So Tony Z do the same experimentation with 2 different stocks attached to that omark action and shot of a pedestal rest, a std TR or varmint stock and then again with a BR and Tracker stock.

And then post your findings. I will be very curious to see if they match our results.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#6 Postby Tony Q » Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:45 pm

Alan ..

The windage spread is all relevant to all the alternate groups shot, yes I would say the groups would be smaller if they had been shot at the same time .. but the difference is applied equally to all groups.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Guest

#7 Postby Guest » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:38 pm

ed
Last edited by Guest on Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#8 Postby Tony Q » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:51 pm

G'day Matt

I agree and i have seen free recoil bipods shot of hard level mats giving no difference between that and a pedistal rest. A normal std F Class bipod gives slightly better results over a harris but i would consider them to be very small.

The main dif is the std F Class bipod allows a constant hieght at the rear and allows the front to be wound up or down, a harris requires the rear to be constantly moved up or down.

So, a std F Class bipod could give better shot to shot concistancy but again it a small gain.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

#9 Postby Tony Z » Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:37 am

edited 15/11/05
Last edited by Tony Z on Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2697
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

#10 Postby bruce moulds » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:57 pm

tony zed,
so how is it that there are 2 different points of impact?
bruce.

Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

#11 Postby Tony Z » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:29 pm

edited 15/11/05
Last edited by Tony Z on Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#12 Postby Tony Q » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:53 pm

Tony Z I understand your method in why you shot the groups the way you did as its similar to the way I develop my loads or equipment.

However I see more and more reference to Benchrest shooting in these posts. I know some are referring to techniques learned or developed but I cannot understand why its relevant to FS.

Am I on my own here in saying that FS is not, nor should be, influenced by Benchrest rifles, equipment or techniques to the point that we are using said gear. As you all know I view FS as something between Fullbore and Field 'Target' rifle with the simplicity of restricted gear and caliber, a modern version of FB if you like. I do not see it as another form of FO or another form of belly bench gun.

Thats its main attraction ... simplicity!

Just my thoughts … again :lol:
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Tony Z
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:02 am

#13 Postby Tony Z » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:44 pm

edited 15/11/05
Last edited by Tony Z on Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#14 Postby Tony Q » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:45 pm

And your entitled to it Mate.

And I understand any hesitance in getting into a debate over equipment types, but I will again clarify four important points.

1. We are all long range target shooters.
2. There is no point having two classes shooting the same gear.
3. FS should remain as simple as possible using unmodified gear.
4. FO is the experimental class and can use modified gear within the limits.


In other words … we are all the same when it comes to what we love and do. But if you want to experiment past a certain point then play in Open class.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Guest

#15 Postby Guest » Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:11 pm

ed
Last edited by Guest on Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trevor Rhodes and 8 guests