quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nickelsig229:


I suspect your primary issue is attempting to break shots between heart beats. Honestly, attempts to do this are primarily only done by talented highpower competitors, when they're using an arm cuff so tight that it almost cuts off circulation.
If you hold your breath, you will feel your heart beat.

Smallbore competitors, also.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
I suspect your primary issue is attempting to break shots between heart beats. Honestly, attempts to do this are primarily only done by talented highpower competitors, when they're using an arm cuff so tight that it almost cuts off circulation. IXNAY heart beat timing. I suspect you're trying to rapidly snap the trigger in the 1/4 second or so that heart muscles are paused. Just breathe in steady cycles, don't hold your breath, break the shot in the 2-3 second window of a respiratory pause. Press the trigger straight back, so the sights aren't disturbed by the trigger press.

If you hold your breath, you will feel your heart beat. And it will pound harder the longer you hold your breath. Rifle instructors have told me that our eyes also start to flutter almost immediately after holding our breath. We don't generally notice it, because our brains compensate -- but essentially this fluttering messes with our ability to keep crosshairs on the point of aim.

Allow me to offer a slightly different take that is, in concept, almost the same thing... My experience comes from 10+ years teaching basic pistol shooting/handling to cops.

Targets such as the one in question are often associated with the shooter trying to 'force' the gun off at an exact moment... which is pretty much what Fritz is saying. I simply remove the 'heartbeat' moment from the scenario, because the 'why' doesn't matter. In my world, when I see that target I ask the shooter what they were doing when the gun discharged... They usually say some version of "pulling the trigger" or something like that.

I then offer that their primary focus when actively firing the pistol is to 1) maintain the sights on their desired point of impact while 2) squeezing the trigger as smoothly as possible (and for most of my 'students', smoothly goes hand in hand with slowly).

I explain that I want them to almost be surprised when the gun 'goes off' because they were so focused on their two main jobs... again, sights on target and squeezing the trigger ever so slowly/smoothly.

They often counter with "we need to shoot fast"... Yes, and that will come later. A fast miss isn't all that useful. Smooth is fast. Fast is smooth. Just ask Barney Fife

In reality what is happening is the shooter tried to break the shot off in the exact moment that they perceive their sights on target. The problem? That sudden yank on the trigger results in gun-movement and then scattered targets.

So I stress again...
1) sights on target is the primary job
2) Smoothly squeeze the trigger until it fires

This strategy almost always helps tighten groups.

One of our instructors uses an analogy that I really like when it comes to helping people understand how slowly (again, smoothly) to press the trigger. Paraphrased below:

"Imagine you are driving down the road in your car doing 65 mph. I want you to increase your speed to exactly 66mph. Then exactly 67mph. Then 68mph. The gas pedal is the trigger and your finger is your foot. Add one MPH of speed to your trigger until the gun goes off."

And it works. It really does.

When I'm trying to be precises my mindset is "sight on target... press press press press...." until it finally breaks.

Am I the best precision shooter in the world? Nope, nowhere close. Just started with rifles. But I CAN put 5 rounds into a single hole from 5 yards with most Glocks, P320s and even my classic P Series.

1) Sights on target
2) Slow smooth trigger press until the gun goes bang.
3) Observe bullseye hit

Got some more trigger time today. Before I left to shoot I pulled the Bore Snake through the rifle 3 times. Frankly, that’s the only “cleaning” this gun has ever had. Two images files below. I fired 12 groups of 10 rounds at 50 yards, give or take a yard. As usual, I utilized the front bipod and my smallish rectangular rear bag.

First target has 8 groupings. I started at the top left, then moved to the right, completing the row, before moving down to row two. That pattern continued throughout the session, including on the second target.



Second target with 4 groupings. Middle row center was the last grouping of the day.



As you can see, things started out much rougher than the last few outings. I’m not sure what caused this. It took about 60-70 rounds before things settled in a bit, but mostly still not as good as I had done in previous outings. Any thoughts on that? I did notice that the groupings that are better I actually fired a bit faster, taking less time to settle the crosshairs on the red aim point.

As has been the case, this is all CCI Standard Velocity ammo. I have other (higher quality) stuff on hand now, but not a ton, I thought perhaps it was best to keep practicing with the CCI SV as I have a good supply of it and I feel like I have a lot more practice to do before shooting the higher grade stuff. It feels like it would be a waste. As far as what I currently have on hand, I have some CCI Green Tag, CCI Pistol Match, SK Semi-Auto, SK Match, SK Standard Plus, Eley Match, Eley Precision, Eley Outlaw, Eley Club, Eley Target, Wolf Match, and Wolf Match Extra… only one box of each.

Today I was at a place where I could have shot 100 yards but after shooting a few groups at 50 I really didn’t have the confidence to move to 100, especially with those targets. The red aiming point is only 1/4” square as it is, and it is pretty much completely obscured by the crosshairs on my scope at 50 yards.

So, that leads me this question: is my 3.5-10 Bushnell inadequate to shoot at further distances given this style of shooting? Do I need the higher power and perhaps finer crosshairs? I imagine this scope would be fine for hunting something like rabbit or other small creature, but if my goal is to get MOA groups at 100 yards, and at some point beyond, am
I asking too much of this $85 scope?

Finally, my groups are prettt consistently high and left… that seems like a zero issue? Should I adjust my scope down and right 4-6 clicks if I want to be zero’d at 50 for now? It is 1/4 MOA per click.

EDIT: ok, one more discussion point… reviewing the groups again it seems clear that “the moon and stars aligned’ far better on groupings 7, 8, and especially 10. Each one has 7 or 8 shots at MOA, but with a couple flyers. Are those flyers an ammo issue? Or a me issue? Hard to be sure, I suppose. But it does seem, if one discounts the flyers (whatever the reason they happened) that the rifle IS capable of 1 MOA, right? That’s hopeful.

Some thoughts.

If I were in your situation, I’d be at the point of trying to focus on and eliminating variables, and because you have a variety of higher quality ammo types, that’s where I’d start. Based on my own experience with a factory 10/22 and CCI Standard Velocity ammunition as shown in my first post on page 1, and even though I was handicapped by a max 7× scope, it may be that your CCI SV is limiting your results. If you switch to a higher quality type and you suddenly get better groups that would pretty much prove that that’s the case.

I don’t have much experience with the issue myself, but conventional wisdom among many 22 LR shooters on YouTube is that when switching ammo types, it’s important to fire some number of initial shots with a new type to “season” the barrel with its particular type of lubricant before expecting most precise results. Some people think that five shots is enough, but others feel that 10 or even more are necessary. At the same time, though, it’s generally believed that that’s not really necessary if switching among ammunition types by the same manufacturer, e.g., all by Eley.

Marksmanship techniques have been discussed already, but one important factor is developing the ability to “call” your shots. That means noting where the sights are when you press the trigger and whether you did anything different with a shot that doesn’t go where you think it should have. If it’s just where the crosshairs were, that’s one thing, but if the crosshairs were where you wanted them to be and the shot is way off, then there are two possibilities.

One is the mundane possibility that it was the fault of the gun/ammo. Something that’s apparent from watching many videos of skilled shooters using firm rests and high quality guns and ammo is that “flyers” are still possible. That’s one reason why we fire lots of groups: to learn how consistent the gun and ammo combination will be.

The other possibility of why a shot doesn’t go where we thought it should is shooter error, and that’s the other thing we need to develop the ability to detect in ourselves. I won’t get into how I shoot “combat” handguns, but something that has been taught for generations is that when we’re striving for maximum precision with a rifle the technique is to minimize our wobble area (gun movement), and then nothing more should change than the movement of our finger that’s pressing the trigger.

As a practical matter that’s easier when shooting from a steady position like the prone, or even better from a proper bench rest. But even then, any tensing of the body or “snatching” at the trigger can throw things off, something I still see in my own shooting far too often, but I also know when I’ve done something wrong, and that’s part of calling the shot as well as knowing where the crosshairs were when the shot broke.

All that is something I’m relearning for myself these days. My current 22 LR drills involve shooting at relatively small targets standing or kneeling and using just a tripod for support as I posted in another thread. That’s not as unsteady as shooting from a position without artificial support at all like kneeling or offhand, but there’s still a lot of movement. I must therefore focus on minimizing reticle movement on the target (it can’t be eliminated) and then just pressing the trigger smoothly with good follow-through (pinning the trigger to the rear). Follow-through helps ensure smoothness and reduce the tendency to yank the trigger when it looks like the crosshairs are where we want them to be.

The other variables in your shooting besides marksmanship and ammunition are your rifle and scope.

Although top precision rifle shooters (and even some wannabes) spend huge amounts of money on their scopes, having a top tier or even much better scope than you have is for two primary and one secondary reasons. The first primary reason is to have the best glass and other optical features to include enough magnification to help find and aim at small, distant targets under difficult “seeing” conditions. That’s not an issue shooting at 50 or (usually) even 100 yards, and especially not with proper targets. The second is the mechanical ability of the scope to “track” properly and consistently when dialing large adjustments time after time to engage targets at different distances. Again, though, for your type of shooting that’s not an issue.

The secondary reason about what scopes we use is the features of the reticle. If it doesn’t permit precise aiming with the target you’re using, you’re already at a disadvantage. The reticles of the scopes I have on my precision 22 LR rifles permit me to precisely aim at targets as small as 3/16" on a side at 50 yards. For that purpose I usually have the magnification set to at least 20 power to help minimize aiming errors. If we can’t aim at exactly the same place every time, we can’t expect exactly precise results no matter how good everything else is.

But if we can’t change the reticle or scope, using better targets can help a lot. I just watched a video of a shooter checking his zero at 100 yards from a bench rest. Although he was reportedly an experienced precision rifle competitor and evidently had a good rifle and ammo, he was shooting at the typical black bull’s eye “splatter” targets that are so popular and the view through his scope camera even with the limited resolution of a video made it clear that he wasn’t aiming at the same place for every shot. And his mediocre groups showed it.

If your reticle obscures the middle of your targets, I recommend trying something like the ones I posted on the first page.
https://www.precisionplustarge...om/hiviztargets2.htm

Even if you can’t see the center of the target, the diamond shape makes it possible to more precisely center a crosshair reticle. And although I like the Mountain Plains targets for convenience, if you have the capability of printing Word documents, homemade ones are almost as good, like these. (If you have a color printer, blue is better than black for contrast with the crosshairs.)








The final variable that’s probably limiting your ability to get better groups is the rifle itself. Yours is a decent setup, but there are many that are better. If you use better ammo and a better scope or targets, are confident of your marksmanship abilities, and you still get disappointing results, then it’s the rifle. Although with top quality components the 10/22 platform can be very precise, bolt action guns are usually better. Something to consider, though, without looking at a different rifle is to replace the barrel with a better one, and that’s easy with the Ruger. I have an old Ruger 77/22 that now sports a Lilja barrel and it gives me very good results even with SK Standard Plus ammo. It’s not as good as Lapua Center-X out of my Winchester model 52E target rifle, but it gets shot a lot more than the Winchester.

I haven’t researched barrels for the 10/22, but I know there good offerings available.
Plus, if you want a scope that’s probably better overall for your purposes, and especially shooting at 100 yards and beyond, I constantly see online reviews of decently-priced offerings that would be an improvement for several reasons. A maximum of 10 power magnification is not bad, but even with better targets, more power can help as well.

Anyway, a long dissertation, but perhaps some of it will be of help.

quote:

Original wisdom posted by sigfreund:
Some thoughts.

Thank you sir, as usual your words are very thought-provoking and helpful.

I do have the desire for a better scope… but it’s not in the budget now. I have done a fair bit of reading about scopes for this purpose and the leading contender, based upon reviews and specifications in light of price/value is the Bushnell Match Pro ED 5-30x56. With an LE discount it is under $700. However, it probably won’t happen this year, and that’s ok.

Your post encourages me to break out the higher grade ammo and see what happens.

I can see the argument for a better grade rifle, but it seems clear to me that that isn’t the logical next step either. Ammo is an easier and cheaper variable to work on.

Ok that topic, I have 50 rounds of each type, though I don’t have a box of each type I want to test. Is it advisable to fire off all 50 rounds of each box to make an assessment (which would equate to multiple range trips) or just do 20ish rounds of each, for now, to try and get all done on the same day? Is 2 10-round groups sufficient to get an idea of what round seems to work best for me?

And I see your point on target type. A diamond makes so much sense that it saddens me that I didn’t realize it before. Being able to use the corners to align the reticle would really help deal with a mostly obscured aim point with my current scope. I’ll probably make up my own targets based on that theory… should be easy enough.

Thoughts on making some scope adjusts based on my most recent groups? Down and right a few clicks?

Your targets on page 2 are no longer visible to both my computer and cellphone, so I can't make comparisons between shooting sessions.

CCI Standard generally performs fairly well for many firearms. The other ammo you list are all quality types. Every barrel is different, so it's hard to say how they will perform. The true match ammo types generally require an exacting and tight chamber, with a precision barrel to perform best. Given your 10/22 is not a true match rifle, you may or may not see much accuracy benefit from more expensive ammo. But generally, WTF non-shooter-induced flyers will decrease by going to match ammo -- for almost every rifle. I suspect one of the Wolf types should do well. Or they all might do well. I suggest 5 round groups for evaluating different ammo types. This smaller group size will better tell if switching ammo types affects POI and accuracy.

I also recommend staying with 5-round groups going forward, again to assess consistency. Get up off your rifle between each group. Walk around a few steps. Reposition the rifle. This better indicates if you can get your body, the rifle, your gun supports, your cheek weld, and your eye location in proper & consistent position.

Given the noticeable differences among targets, I recommend staying with CCI Standard until your groups become more consistent in size and location (as compared to POA).

If you try targets at 100 yards, understand that the POI should be around 7 inches lower than your point of aim, assuming you don't adjust scope turret elevation.

Your scope currently isn't well zeroed for 50 yards with CCI Standard. Assuming you had no wind, and assuming your shooting fundamentals are better reflected in target #2, you might consider moving the windage turret 1/4 to 1/2 MOA right -- then see what occurs on paper. Elevation is high -- maybe start with 4 clicks (1 MOA) down, and see what occurs. You might need more than 4 clicks down.

I have not looked through your model of scope. The price tells me that optical clarity won't be the best. But it might be fine. Higher magnification generally helps with shooting for tiny groups, but it isn't everything. Optical clarity is more important IMO. I've competed on steel targets with a Nightforce SHV 4-14x scope to 200 yards and beyond, and didn't feel all that compromised with its moderate magnification levels. Understand that the SHV is Nightforce's so-called entry-level scope, so it isn't a $4k Hubbell telescope wannabe.

It's hard to say if your 10/22 is 1 MOA capable. Maybe here and there, at 50 yards, especially with the right ammo for your rifle. "Flyers" are part of shooting. Eliminating flyers is done by most shooters, but in reality every impact counts. Now when a rifle/ammo/sights/shooter becomes so consistent that almost every group is a bughole, then an odd impact in the next county can be thrown out -- that's a true flyer.

I suspect your rifle is not consistently 1 MOA capable at 100 yards or more. Nothing really wrong with that, as a 10/22 can be a total hoot to shoot. It's just not a megabucks Anschutz target rifle.

I am by no means an expert but I have a 10/22 with a simple Tasco 3-9 on it.

The parallax error with that particular scope is significant. If your eye is not exactly aligned with the center of the scope, the crosshair "wanders" relative to the target, and consequently, your shots land off your intended point of aim.

Since you say that better glass is not in the budget right now, do a little test. Align your rifle on your bags, and get a sight picture. Then roll your head side to side just small amounts, and look for the amount of movement of crosshair relative to your aiming point. This will give you an idea of the amount of variability you are dealing with, and help you to understand where, exactly, your eye needs to be for repeatable accuracy.

The point about parallax is a good and important one, and which I hadn’t thought about because the parallax of my precision rimfire rifle scopes can be adjusted down to ~10 yards.

According to the Bushnell site, the scope you linked has a minimum parallax distance of 100 yards. At longer ranges its being fixed at that distance doesn’t matter much, but it can matter at closer ranges. As ArtieS points out, if our eye isn’t directly in line with the center of the scope and the target isn’t at the distance the parallax is set for, any misalignment can cause the point of aim to be off from where it appears to be.

Although it obviously varies among individuals, the prone position is uncomfortable for me to assume and maintain, and if there’s going to be any misalignment of eye and scope it will be then. The test ArtieS describes is worth conducting. Even if it turns out that eye placement isn’t that big of a deal or you don’t have any problem with a good prone position, just knowing for sure can be worthwhile as a variable that can be eliminated.

I can’t (and don’t) give recommendations about the Bushnell scope you’re thinking of, but I did notice that the parallax is adjustable and can be set as close as 15 yards. Other moderately-priced scopes I’ve seen reviewed online will focus as close as 10 yards. Either limit will be more than good enough for most shooters, but I actually have a drill with targets as close as 12.5 yards.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
... I suggest 5 round groups for evaluating different ammo types. This smaller group size will better tell if switching ammo types affects POI and accuracy.

I also recommend staying with 5-round groups going forward, again to assess consistency. Get up off your rifle between each group. Walk around a few steps. Reposition the rifle. This better indicates if you can get your body, the rifle, your gun supports, your cheek weld, and your eye location in proper & consistent position.

How may 5-round groups would you think is a good place to start to evaluate the best performers of a new ammo type? 3? 5?

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Given the noticeable differences among targets, I recommend staying with CCI Standard until your groups become more consistent in size and location (as compared to POA).

Roger that. More practice... almost always a good idea.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Your scope currently isn't well zeroed for 50 yards with CCI Standard. Assuming you had no wind, and assuming your shooting fundamentals are better reflected in target #2, you might consider moving the windage turret 1/4 to 1/2 MOA right -- then see what occurs on paper. Elevation is high -- maybe start with 4 clicks (1 MOA) down, and see what occurs. You might need more than 4 clicks down.

Thank you, I was looking for confirmation on this.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
It's hard to say if your 10/22 is 1 MOA capable. Maybe here and there, at 50 yards, especially with the right ammo for your rifle. "Flyers" are part of shooting. Eliminating flyers is done by most shooters, but in reality every impact counts. Now when a rifle/ammo/sights/shooter becomes so consistent that almost every group is a bughole, then an odd impact in the next county can be thrown out -- that's a true flyer.

I suspect your rifle is not consistently 1 MOA capable at 100 yards or more. Nothing really wrong with that, as a 10/22 can be a total hoot to shoot. It's just not a megabucks Anschutz target rifle.

To sum it all up: keep practicing!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The point about parallax is a good and important one, and which I hadn’t thought about because the parallax of my precision rimfire rifle scopes can be adjusted down to ~10 yards.

According to the Bushnell site, the scope you linked has a minimum parallax distance of 100 yards. At longer ranges its being fixed at that distance doesn’t matter much, but it can matter at closer ranges. As ArtieS points out, if our eye isn’t directly in line with the center of the scope and the target isn’t at the distance the parallax is set for, any misalignment can cause the point of aim to be off from where it appears to be.

Although it obviously varies among individuals, the prone position is uncomfortable for me to assume and maintain, and if there’s going to be any misalignment of eye and scope it will be then. The test ArtieS describes is worth conducting. Even if it turns out that eye placement isn’t that big of a deal or you don’t have any problem with a good prone position, just knowing for sure can be worthwhile as a variable that can be eliminated.

I can’t (and don’t) give recommendations about the Bushnell scope you’re thinking of, but I did notice that the parallax is adjustable and can be set as close as 15 yards. Other moderately-priced scopes I’ve seen reviewed online will focus as close as 10 yards. Either limit will be more than good enough for most shooters, but I actually have a drill with targets as close as 12.5 yards.

I must have linked the wrong scope, then... I know, for certain, I can adjust the parallax down to at least 20 yards on my current scope as I recall distinctly dialing it into 25 when I was shooting up in the mountains last week. I remember because it was marked for 20 and 30 yards so I was able to dial the focus right in the middle when I set up my target at 25.

I will try the experiment suggest by Artie, though.

That all being said, I think I found a way to upgrade my scope in the next month or so.... well, scope OR rifle, but not both. I found a few items in the garage that I can sell off without missing so I'll have about $700 to utilize without affecting our budget... I can get the Bushnell Match Pro ED, OR I could upgrade to something like the Ruger Precision Rimfire... It seems like the scope might make more sense right now.

But really, I just need and want to practice more. I have several thousand rounds of the CCI Standard Velocity. I can keep shooting for a while. At an average of 150 rounds per month I'm good to go for a while., though I wish I could bump it up to at least weekly.

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
How may 5-round groups would you think is a good place to start to evaluate the best performers of a new ammo type? 3? 5?

If your shooting fundamentals are sound, the group sizes & patterns will tell you. The first group after switching ammo may not indicate much, as the barrel begins to settle down to a different load. Once the groups become consistent with each other, probably 2 or 3 groups will weed out the bad ammo types. Determining which ammo type is the best of the best may take a few more groups.

Getting up and off the rifle between groups means that you must reposition. This exercise should be done with CCI Standard before going to your other ammo options, to confirm that you can shoot consistently with any one type of ammo. This goes hand in hand with the parallax discussions above. Regardless of parallax settings, keeping your eye in the center of the scope's eyebox prevents a lot of POI variation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: fritz,

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
... I suggest 5 round groups for evaluating different ammo types. This smaller group size will better tell if switching ammo types affects POI and accuracy.

I also recommend staying with 5-round groups going forward, again to assess consistency. Get up off your rifle between each group. Walk around a few steps. Reposition the rifle. This better indicates if you can get your body, the rifle, your gun supports, your cheek weld, and your eye location in proper & consistent position.

How may 5-round groups would you think is a good place to start to evaluate the best performers of a new ammo type? 3? 5?

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Given the noticeable differences among targets, I recommend staying with CCI Standard until your groups become more consistent in size and location (as compared to POA).

Roger that. More practice... almost always a good idea.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Your scope currently isn't well zeroed for 50 yards with CCI Standard. Assuming you had no wind, and assuming your shooting fundamentals are better reflected in target #2, you might consider moving the windage turret 1/4 to 1/2 MOA right -- then see what occurs on paper. Elevation is high -- maybe start with 4 clicks (1 MOA) down, and see what occurs. You might need more than 4 clicks down.

Thank you, I was looking for confirmation on this.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
It's hard to say if your 10/22 is 1 MOA capable. Maybe here and there, at 50 yards, especially with the right ammo for your rifle. "Flyers" are part of shooting. Eliminating flyers is done by most shooters, but in reality every impact counts. Now when a rifle/ammo/sights/shooter becomes so consistent that almost every group is a bughole, then an odd impact in the next county can be thrown out -- that's a true flyer.

I suspect your rifle is not consistently 1 MOA capable at 100 yards or more. Nothing really wrong with that, as a 10/22 can be a total hoot to shoot. It's just not a megabucks Anschutz target rifle.

To sum it all up: keep practicing!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The point about parallax is a good and important one, and which I hadn’t thought about because the parallax of my precision rimfire rifle scopes can be adjusted down to ~10 yards.

According to the Bushnell site, the scope you linked has a minimum parallax distance of 100 yards. At longer ranges its being fixed at that distance doesn’t matter much, but it can matter at closer ranges. As ArtieS points out, if our eye isn’t directly in line with the center of the scope and the target isn’t at the distance the parallax is set for, any misalignment can cause the point of aim to be off from where it appears to be.

Although it obviously varies among individuals, the prone position is uncomfortable for me to assume and maintain, and if there’s going to be any misalignment of eye and scope it will be then. The test ArtieS describes is worth conducting. Even if it turns out that eye placement isn’t that big of a deal or you don’t have any problem with a good prone position, just knowing for sure can be worthwhile as a variable that can be eliminated.

I can’t (and don’t) give recommendations about the Bushnell scope you’re thinking of, but I did notice that the parallax is adjustable and can be set as close as 15 yards. Other moderately-priced scopes I’ve seen reviewed online will focus as close as 10 yards. Either limit will be more than good enough for most shooters, but I actually have a drill with targets as close as 12.5 yards.

I must have linked the wrong scope, then... I know, for certain, I can adjust the parallax down to at least 20 yards on my current scope as I recall distinctly dialing it into 25 when I was shooting up in the mountains last week. I remember because it was marked for 20 and 30 yards so I was able to dial the focus right in the middle when I set up my target at 25.

I will try the experiment suggest by Artie, though.

That all being said, I think I found a way to upgrade my scope in the next month or so.... well, scope OR rifle, but not both. I found a few items in the garage that I can sell off without missing so I'll have about $700 to utilize without affecting our budget... I can get the Bushnell Match Pro ED, OR I could upgrade to something like the Ruger Precision Rimfire... It seems like the scope might make more sense right now.

But really, I just need and want to practice more. I have several thousand rounds of the CCI Standard Velocity. I can keep shooting for a while. At an average of 150 rounds per month I'm good to go for a while., though I wish I could bump it up to at least weekly.

I would definitely NOT recommend the ruger precision rimfire - in my group of dedicated 22 long range precision shooters, a good number of people have tried them - All but one needed to be returned to the factory for serious function or accuracy issues, one multiple times.
Starting with a base 10/22,some bang for your buck options are:
Heavy match barrel (some pretty decent ones in the $200 range)
A stock to accommodate the HB. ( a magpul at around $125 does it)
A ruger box trigger at sub $100

Scope:
Economy - athlon ffp 4-24 with target turrets ( I got mine years ago for around 300 might be closer to 400 now)
Arken scopes are also well regarded as a budget scope

Before this gets out of hand in a thread whose comments I’m trying to follow:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
That's right. Nested quotes.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...540010015#6540010015

And to be clear, I’m not referring to separating and quoting any number of individual prior comments to address them specifically as thumperfbc did (and which is useful), but rather to quoting an entire section and then referring to only a small part of it.

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
I would definitely NOT recommend the ruger precision rimfire - in my group of dedicated 22 long range precision shooters, a good number of people have tried them - All but one needed to be returned to the factory for serious function or accuracy issues, one multiple times.
Starting with a base 10/22,some bang for your buck options are:
Heavy match barrel (some pretty decent ones in the $200 range)
A stock to accommodate the HB. ( a magpul at around $125 does it)
A ruger box trigger at sub $100

Scope:
Economy - athlon ffp 4-24 with target turrets ( I got mine years ago for around 300 might be closer to 400 now)
Arken scopes are also well regarded as a budget scope

Thank you, I was wondering earlier what the other options are in the realm of that type of rifle, and how the Ruger ranks amongst them.

I think when that times come (different rifle time... and I'm not in a hurry to get there, really) I'd rather keep the 10/22 intact and buy a complete rifle of appropriate make/model to take over. I read a lot of suggestions for a CZ 457... but again, I don't think that is the path I want to head down.

Short term plan is to just practice more. Secondary to that, if some plans fall in place, would be a glass upgrade.... combined with more practice.

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
Short term plan is to just practice more.

Definitely.

Not only does practice have the obvious benefit of improving skills, I was reminded just today that problems and their causes become more apparent with practice.

I was shooting another session using a reduced size target with my 77/22 at 50 yards and the erratic impacts I was sometimes getting were giving me fits. I finally decided I was putting too much cheek pressure on the stock riser with the tripod support I was using and things improved when I deliberately reduced the pressure. The problem with that was it wasn’t a completely natural and relaxed position, so what to do?

Duh: Lower the cheek riser. It’s not a quick-adjustable type and I had to loosen the securing screws and push the riser down a bit, but I immediately noticed an accuracy improvement. I’ll have to keep experimenting and practicing, but I believe it’s definitely going to help. All that may be obvious to shooters like fritz, but it was sort of an epiphany for me that probably wouldn’t have occurred if I hadn’t been shooting as much as I have lately.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I finally decided I was putting too much cheek pressure on the stock riser with the tripod support I was using and things improved when I deliberately reduced the pressure.

Duh: Lower the cheek riser. It’s not a quick-adjustable type and I had to loosen the securing screws and push the riser down a bit, but I immediately noticed an accuracy improvement. I’ll have to keep experimenting and practicing, but I believe it’s definitely going to help. All that may be obvious to shooters like fritz, but it was sort of an epiphany for me that probably wouldn’t have occurred if I hadn’t been shooting as much as I have lately.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I fought excess downward cheekweld pressure for a few years. It wasn't until I carpooled to matches in other states with one of the best shooters in the region that "we" (aka he) figured it out. I changed the buttstock on my AR15, raised scope heights on my bolt actions, and started using a lighter "cheek brush" instead of a firmer "cheek weld". My biggest challenge is throwing shots high, but at least it's less often now from prone. However, I still have some challenges with shooting from barriers.

I had a brief late-day shooting session today. I felled trees and move logs earlier in the day, so I was less than fresh when shooting time came. My back and neck muscles were tired, and it took a great deal on concentration to avoid a heavy cheek weld.

It’s good (I guess ) to know I’m not the only one who has dealt with the excessive cheek pressure issue, but perhaps I’m learning. Today I had a short drill with my 308 Win Tikka TAC and I decided in advance to see if lowering the cheek rest might help with the occasional anomalous high impacts I get during that exercise when shooting from the prone and with a tripod support.

I pushed the rest down enough that I still had definite contact with my cheek, but no real downward pressure. And lo and behold: all four shots at 110 yards and all six at 200 yards went where I wanted and expected them to go. That was a very limited test and I have had successes like that in the past, but today’s results were nevertheless very encouraging.

Went out again today… really feel like I just need a lot more practice. Everything felt inconsistent today. I started with a sheet of red dots as suggested by a member here, 2 rounds per dot. I used it as warm up and to make some adjustments to the scope.

Then I started in with some new targets I made a few weeks ago, something a bit different that I thought would be easier to focus on, and I did like them. Here is the first page of groups. (If the picture doesn’t show I’ll fix it when I’m done driving in a little bit)

]

A couple pretty decent groups and a couple of what are probably the worst groups I’ve shot on this short journey. I kept shooting after this, 200 rounds total today, and it certainly didn’t get better than this. The rest of the targets look much the same… some good, some not so good, mostly meh.

As usual, this was 50 yards with CCI Standard Velocity. I tried to pay particular attention to both how much pressure I was exerting on the stock from my cheek and my hand, as well as being very particular and careful with placement of my eye to try and keep it in the right spot. I did the “slight movement” test and could see the crosshairs shift… and I noticed it seemed to shift about the same distance as my “flyers” are landing. That’s a good lesson.

I am struggling to find the best repeatable prone position as well as the method of using the rear bag… the struggle continues. I’ll find something that works best someday. I realize could get better results using a large front bag/cradle and larger rear bag, but part of my goal is achieving the best accuracy while keeping equipment to a minimum. I don’t want equipment that won’t easily fit in my range bag.

Will just keep practicing. Probably another 2 weeks before I can go again. A bit of a frustrating session for me, but at least the weather was beautiful this morning. 63 degrees and partially cloudy.

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
I am struggling to find the best repeatable prone position as well as the method of using the rear bag… the struggle continues. I’ll find something that works best someday. I realize could get better results using a large front bag/cradle and larger rear bag, but part of my goal is achieving the best accuracy while keeping equipment to a minimum. I don’t want equipment that won’t easily fit in my range bag.

In the top 3 rows of targets I see more horizontal variation than vertical variation. Were you shooting in windy conditions, or was it relatively calm?

Your POI was generally similar in the top 3 rows, but was lower in the bottom row. Do you recall changing anything for these final targets?

Body & rifle position might be an important thing to work on for awhile. Also, what kind of bipod are you using? A primary challenge with shooting from a bipod is "bipod hop" -- a momentary shift in the bipod's position during the recoil cycle. This hop tends to move the sights slightly off target. To counter this, many shooters place a small forward pressure on the bipod, which is generally known as loading the bipod. With this technique, the natural rearward movement of the rifle during recoil does not change the contact of the bipod's feet to the ground. Now a 22lr rifle produces very little recoil, but there still is some recoil -- although likely less than 1 foot-pound of force. Also, the rifle buttstock should be firmly held against your shoulder pocket, so there is minimal rearward movement of the rifle during recoil.

It can be a challenge to load the bipod and keep the buttstock firmly against your shoulder without imparting unnecessary muscle influence on the rifle. You don't want to be straining muscles to do this, as muscle straining will impart vibration and positional changes into the rifle. As one rifle instructor told me, your body should essentially be dead meat behind the rifle, but supporting it as best as possible.

Also with a bipod -- your body should be lined up with the rifle and the target. Spine should be parallel with the rifle bore. A line drawn between each of elbows, shoulders, hips, and feet should be 90 degrees from rifle bore.

Kudos for working through accuracy challenges with minimal rifle support equipment. This is how a person develops marksmanship skills. You could go the easy route (accuracy wise) of buying and using a boat load of heavy mechanical supports, which isolate you from the rifle. But then it's not really you that's managing the shooting process -- outside of the initial trigger press, you're just along for the ride.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
In the top 3 rows of targets I see more horizontal variation than vertical variation. Were you shooting in windy conditions, or was it relatively calm?

It was pretty calm, maybe a few mph and mostly back towards my position from the target position. I’m confident the variation is me.

quote:

Your POI was generally similar in the top 3 rows, but was lower in the bottom row. Do you recall changing anything for these final targets?

I think I was getting tired of the prone position and shifting around more trying to get comfortable and steady. I also remember it was more of a struggle to keep my eye in the right position and had more trouble with the parallax then earlier in the session.

quote:

Body & rifle position might be an important thing to work on for awhile. Also, what kind of bipod are you using? A primary challenge with shooting from a bipod is "bipod hop" -- a momentary shift in the bipod's position during the recoil cycle. This hop tends to move the sights slightly off target. To counter this, many shooters place a small forward pressure on the bipod, which is generally known as loading the bipod. With this technique, the natural rearward movement of the rifle during recoil does not change the contact of the bipod's feet to the ground. Now a 22lr rifle produces very little recoil, but there still is some recoil -- although likely less than 1 foot-pound of force. Also, the rifle buttstock should be firmly held against your shoulder pocket, so there is minimal rearward movement of the rifle during recoil.

It can be a challenge to load the bipod and keep the buttstock firmly against your shoulder without imparting unnecessary muscle influence on the rifle. You don't want to be straining muscles to do this, as muscle straining will impart vibration and positional changes into the rifle. As one rifle instructor told me, your body should essentially be dead meat behind the rifle, but supporting it as best as possible

I’m not sure about the bipod. It was packaged with rifle. It appears to be a Harris 1A2-BRM, or at least very similar. Dumb question time: the bipod should be mounted so it folds forward, right? I get what you’re saying that the recoil can move the point of POA/POI, but by the point recoil happens the projectile is already on the way downrange.

I get the “loading” thing, but the rifle is so light I’d think the bipod will just slide forward without a ledge or something to hold it in place. I fire sure need to work on the consistency of body position. I know that varied a lot.

quote:

Also with a bipod -- your body should be lined up with the rifle and the target. Spine should be parallel with the rifle bore. A line drawn between each of elbows, shoulders, hips, and feet should be 90 degrees from rifle bore.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Any picture/diagram to show it?

quote:

Kudos for working through accuracy challenges with minimal rifle support equipment. This is how a person develops marksmanship skills. You could go the easy route (accuracy wise) of buying and using a boat load of heavy mechanical supports, which isolate you from the rifle. But then it's not really you that's managing the shooting process -- outside of the initial trigger press, you're just along for the ride.

Yes, that seems to be the best course of action. I know a sturdy rifle mount would get better accuracy, and show me what the rifle is capable of, and that WOULD be interesting and useful information… but the tiniest of groups isn’t my goal… my goal is that I can produce small groups with the bipod and a small, easy to carry around sandbag. For me, shooting has always been about functional skills, something they could be useful in “the real world” at some point. I might be able to borrow a heavy rifle rest to help figure out what the rifle can do AND what ammo I need to use after I outgrow the CCI SV, but ultimately I want to be able to hike around with a rifle and hit small targets at a distance using a bipod and a small support bag.

At least for now.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thumperfbc,

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
Also with a bipod -- your body should be lined up with the rifle and the target. Spine should be parallel with the rifle bore. A line drawn between each of elbows, shoulders, hips, and feet should be 90 degrees from rifle bore.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Any picture/diagram to show it?

I will try to answer in stages. First pic is from a Rifles Only course. Here's Nicholas Irving (ex-Ranger Sniper) working with a student on proper prone position. The student's position is pretty close to text book, although for some folks his leg spread is a little wide to be comfortable. Spine is in line with the rifle bore, but maybe 6-7 inches left. Draw a line between right & left elbows, between shoulders, between hips, between knees, between feet -- that line is 90 degrees from the rifle bore. Every part of his body allows the rifle's recoil to go straight back. Now the student is using a 300 WSM, so there's a bunch of recoil here. Actually enough recoil that he dropped out of class because of a sore shoulder after 2 days, but that's a different story.



Here's a pic of me in a 2-rifle precision steel match, shooting a 6.5 Creedmoor. I'm in a great position (spine aligned with rifle, rest of body square to rifle) and I shot this stage pretty well. The only issue here is that I tend to have my toes pointing down onto the ground, rather then splaying them outward to each side. That comes from decades of ski racing, where it has been ingrained to keep both feet parallel and pointing forward.