The video is from Vortex's Facebook page. They put together a rifle that for under $1k is getting hits on steel at 1k. I know it's not anything you would use for any of the classed shooting disciplines, but there are a lot of people that just want to ring steel at different distances. I found it interesting none the less.

https://www.facebook.com/vorte...s/10155448248845758/

Not bad, except they conveniently left out the $320 Atlas PSR bipod and $900 Omega can from their budget. But if looking at rifle and optics alone yes I get their point.

They were using a Ruger American. One of my grandsons has one in .308, we hit steel with it at 600 yds without much problem at all. Worst headache with it is wind down on the far end. 6.5 Creedmor might make that less of an issue.

There's no doubt that value-line Ruger rifles can hit targets a long ways out. The Creedmoor ammo really helps. The shooter must be up to the task for consistent results. And let's not forget how much a suppressor helps in recoil reduction.

They're using what appears to be a full-sized IPSC target -- roughly 2 MOA wide by 3 MOA tall. Not a small target by any means, but not overly generous, either. Using a 9 power scope is doable, but not optimal. Honestly, that's pretty impressive if he was getting consistent hits with that optic.

He stated 32.5 MOA elevation to get on target. With my rifle and the same ammo at 4,000' density altitude, it takes me 26.7 MOA to get 1,000 yards. I can't imagine that in summer temps anywhere in the USA their DA is much less than that. That must be a seriously slow barrel on the Ruger, assuming the scope is tracking properly. Something seems wonky.

He stated 1.5 MOA windage to get on target, then he later stated the "wind may have calmed down a bit". That translates to 3 mph at the start, dropping off later. In my neck of the woods we call such conditions -- "The wind is broken." It's a boatload easier to hit targets with when we have virtually no wind correction. Where do I sign up for 3 mph or less wind?

All in all, a decent demo which shows it doesn't take a Fort Knox bank account to impact steel at 1,000 yards. Their equipment isn't the right tool for consistent results, in challenging conditions, during competition, and over the long haul. But it can result in that satisfying "ting" from steel.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
He stated 32.5 MOA elevation to get on target. With my rifle and the same ammo at 4,000' density altitude, it takes me 26.7 MOA to get 1,000 yards. I can't imagine that in summer temps anywhere in the USA their DA is much less than that. That must be a seriously slow barrel on the Ruger, assuming the scope is tracking properly. Something seems wonky.

Are you using a long range scope rail? The rifle in that video is using a rail with no added elevation.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
Are you using a long range scope rail? The rifle in that video is using a rail with no added elevation.

I have a 20 MOA rail on my rifle. The rail allows me to shoot at longer distances before my scope runs out of elevation adjustment.

A rail doesn't change how much elevation is required to attain a given distance. When we talk about the MOA required to get to a given distance, it's from our sight-in zero -- which would normally be 100 yards for this general type of rifle.

Putting that 32.5 MOA elevation for the Ruger & 6.5 Creed into perspective:

With my 308 Win, elevation required for 1,000 yards at 4,000' DA:
32.7 MOA for Hornady 168 AMax
35.7 MOA for FGMM 175
35.5 MOA for FGMM 168

I've been dabbling with my 3-gun rig at slightly longer ranges lately.


500-600 is pretty doable.

REALLY falls apart around 700. I haven't even attempted farther than that.


5.56 doesn't really have the legs for it, but it is fun to play.


I'm considering a Grendel upper. With kids and work commitments right now, PRS isn't in my nearby future.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Putting that 32.5 MOA elevation for the Ruger & 6.5 Creed into perspective:

With my 308 Win, elevation required for 1,000 yards at 4,000' DA:
32.7 MOA for Hornady 168 AMax
35.7 MOA for FGMM 175
35.5 MOA for FGMM 168

What's your barrel length? The Ruger is only 22". The Ruger precision is 26", and I know some shooters go with an even longer barrel at 1k.

I watched the video and I fail to see what the big deal is. There really didn't seem to be any wind at all and he was hitting an IPSC-size target at 1000 yard with a 6.5 CM. So, big deal.

Magnification is not critical for hitting that target at 1000 yards, and we know the 6.5CM is an awesome cartridge designed specifically for long range shooting and it did what it's supposed to do. Imagine that.

Service Rifle competitors have been able to get high scores with .308 and higher still with .223 rifles with iron sights for a very long time at 1000 yards. Having someone hit an IPSC target a few times with a 6.5CM and a 3-9 scope, pales in comparison.

But then again, the video was really about keeping the price of the rig under $1000, excluding the suppressor and bipod, etc. It is a testament to Ruger's hammer forged barrels that a $350 rifle does it just fine. This video is much more a commercial for Ruger than for Vortex.

Like fritz however, I'm a little surprised at the come-ups that the shooter needed to get to 1K with a 6.5CM. With my 210gr .308 bullets, I need around 30MOA to 1000yards from 100 yards, depending on temperature and humidity at our range 100ASL. I do have a 34inch barrel, but it is 210grain of bullet. Why he needed 32+MOA is surprising.

Let's talk magnification. For the purpose, hitting an IPSC-size target at 1000 yards, you don't need huge amounts of magnification. When I dropped out of Service Rifle and started up with what was to become NRA-sanctioned F-class a few years later, I was using an AR-15 with a 24 inch barrel shooting the 75gr A-Max, topped by a 2.5-10X Nikon. I didn't now anything about LR shooting with a scope and I was the only F-TR shooter at the club. All the other F-class guys were shooting Open with the then-darling 6.5-284 barrel burner. All I did was contribute money to the winners. But at that range, I was not falling off the target and I was in the black virtually all the time. Then I cranked up the barrel to a 26 inch and changed the bullet to the 80gr JLK and learned how to do hold-offs and stuff on the target and things improved rapidly. When the NRA rolled out their new itty-bitty F-class centers, I had to increase magnification on the scope. When your X-ring is 0.5MOA you need to be able to see it to hit it.

Yes, the .223/5.56 does have the legs but you have to give it good shoes; proper bullet, proper MV. Things the 6.5CM has right out of the box.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:
What's your barrel length? The Ruger is only 22". The Ruger precision is 26", and I know some shooters go with an even longer barrel at 1k.

I have a 26" Bartlein barrel. With a can I get 2820 fps MV. Cut that down to a 22" and maybe the MV will be 2720 with a can. At 2720 fps, JBM predicts 29.0 MOA to 1,000 yards.

Backing down by trial and error, MV of 2,590 fps requires 32.5 MOA to 1,000 yards. That's crazy slow MV from a 22" barrel -- probably something that can be attained with a decent barrel somewhere between 16" and 18" long.

It's nothing new, it's just that technology is making it a lot easier for less talented people to do.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Putting that 32.5 MOA elevation for the Ruger & 6.5 Creed into perspective:

With my 308 Win, elevation required for 1,000 yards at 4,000' DA:
32.7 MOA for Hornady 168 AMax
35.7 MOA for FGMM 175
35.5 MOA for FGMM 168

What's your barrel length? The Ruger is only 22". The Ruger precision is 26", and I know some shooters go with an even longer barrel at 1k.

The Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor is 24".
I picked one up to see what the fuss was all about and quickly sent it down the road. Accuracy wasn't the main issue I encountered. My main issues with the rifle were speed and the rear stock. I had to run close to max pressure to get acceptable speeds out of my RPR. I thought the barrel would speed up some after a few hundred rounds but that wasn't the case. The rear stock is also designed to use a monopod and being as shallow as it was, didn't play well with any of my rear bags lending to some vertical stringing issues.

quote:

Originally posted by swage:
The Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor is 24".
I picked one up to see what the fuss was all about and quickly sent it down the road. Accuracy wasn't the main issue I encountered. My main issues with the rifle were speed and the rear stock. I had to run close to max pressure to get acceptable speeds out of my RPR. I thought the barrel would speed up some after a few hundred rounds but that wasn't the case. The rear stock is also designed to use a monopod and being as shallow as it was, didn't play well with any of my rear bags lending to some vertical stringing issues.

I don't shoot off a rear bag so that aspect of the stock design doesn't bother me.