M14 Forum

yellowthunder

I've been watching the Magpul training video "Precision Rifle" and the training given was by Todd Hodnett. Now I don't know much about rifle accuracy just yet and I don't know much about Mr. Hodnett but he sounds like a huge authority in the long distance shooting community. There was some things that were said that confused me from what I've learned and read in the past. Here's the four things that stuck out the most to me:

"buy one good quality scope and good quality rings (i.e.:Larue Scope rings) for all rifles instead of buying lower quality scopes for each and every rifle you own."

"20x magnification is optimal for long distance shooting"

"Copper guilding is good for accuracy. If the guilding is removed, you have to build it up again to reaquire accuracy."

"it doesn't matter if the scope is absolutly square with the rifle, what matters is the scope is level with the earth." (This is why he recommends a bubble on the scope itself)

What are some of your opinions on these thoughts? I like the idea of buying one scope to rule them all, I think 20x magnification is a great idea for target shooting but I don't know if it's good for combat or hunting due to field of view, I thought copper guilding degrades accuracy and I agree that the scope should be level with the earth but I hear quite often that the rifle has to be square with the scope as well.

I learned about parallax which probably explains one of the major reasons why my shot's are wide so I need to work on my cheek weld, but I don't think my scope has provisions to correct for it. I have a Trijicon Accupoint. I'm going to continue with using my scope for the next 2 weeks till I leave for Kuwait, but when I get back I'm plan to start a new build and it will be a traditional M1A so I can get into traditional Marksmanship.

Thanks for the help everyone!

f1fanatic

"it doesn't matter if the scope is absolutly square with the rifle, what matters is the scope is level with the earth." (This is why he recommends a bubble on the scope itself)


Well, I am far far from being an expert. But it seems to me if the scope is divergent in any angle from the angle of the barrel that disparity will increase with distance. And that's not even math, it's simple geometry. That being said, more guns are having MOA built into their mounts/rails. Meaning the scope is slightly tipped down toward the muzzle. Since the trajectory of a bullet is in an arc the scope conceivably has more usefulness at greater distances. The falling trajectory of the bullet is more in line with a negative MOA mount, if I am using my terms correctly.

I think I know just enough to be dangerous to myself.

yellowthunder

They did have a broken scope senario where each person took their scope off and passed it to their left to the next person. Travis Healy made a comment saying that the scope he mounted is not square and that it appeared to be canted. Despite that they were able to engage targets at one mile!

M21guy

I tell you what. Squeeze off a well placed round with your scope level, and then cant it right or left. What you'll see is a degree of variance in your POI downrange. Combat accuracy isn't too bad, but for precision it makes a world of difference. I'm glad I have an internal level bubble in my scope.

20x is about all I'd ever put on a practical rifle. At 15x you get quite a bit of mirage, but on some days you can make use of 20x. I choose 10x with my USO. 10x had been used for years in the USMC for the M40 rifles, so I figure that was all I needed. Being I built the M21 with LE in mind, I know for a fact most LE shots are quite close. I wanted huge field of view and fast target acquisition.

Copper fowling I don't know. My rifle hasn't been cleaned in a while and my groups this last weekend where not that great. My very fist shot from a cold bore was excellent though. A 2" shoot-n-c at 300 yards and I placed the bullet touching the eraser sized center bulls-eye. 20x my a**. (LOL) I think there comes a point where a bore needs to be cleaned, but there is a sweet spot where the bore has just enough fowling to be great.

Spend the coin on optic and rings. I wasn't completely sure I needed a 2500 scope and 200 dollar rings on my rifle, but the quality is quite good. Often I found myself buying larger magnification scopes just to try and see something and found they bomb on the higher end of their magnification. So I when I went lower magnification and a higher end scope I was amazed at just how much more I can see. Deer hunting this year. With my Leupold binos I could not make-out little birds in the trees 1000 yards out. I could however see them with the USO and tell you their species. And then the rings. I have Badger rings on mine. They are very nice. I've never had anything that nice before. Solid, precise, and repeatable. Nice stuff for the demanding marksman.

Pick and choose, but choose wisely. There are many good options, but few are excellent. And to what degree of excellence really depends on the shooter, his needs, and just how far you are willing to go.

TexIndian

On the copper fouling: In the civilian long-range shooting world (that's all I know about), it is considered a general truth that a rifle shoots best after the barrel is a bit fouled - maybe 5-10 shots worth. Of course, you reach a point where the fouling gets so bad it starts to degrade accuracy and must be cleaned. I've never seen anyone clean their bore in the middle of a match, no matter how many shots are involved.

I'm going through the 'one scope' deal right now, just because I recently bought some new guns and can't afford high-dollar scopes for each one yet. It was a PITA at first because I had to adjust the scope every time I swapped it to another gun, but I've learned that with a LaRue mount the adjustments stay the same every time (or really, really close). There is one advantage I've already come to realize - it sure helps to be intimately familiar with your scope instead of having to remember how the adjustments differ from one scope/brand to the next.

My only issue with powerful magnifications is that it make mirage that much more of a problem. I have one Leupold scope that goes to 20X, but I prefer the Swarovski 3-18X.

yellowthunder

What Mr. Hodnett was saying was 20X is optimal because you can see through the mirage easier and it helps with detecting wind changes. He said years ago he thought 16X was it. but since then he feels that 20X is the best power.

M21guy

Adding magnafication to mirage makes it worse.