Better MOA at longer ranges??????

[Guy Miner]

I know the theories, but the only time I've actually seen this is with my own shooting in competition, and that was purely me.

We'd be having some kind of "sniper" or "precision rifle" competition. The first portion was always a cold bore shot at 100 yards. Then usually a group at 100. And a group at 200. And a group at 300...

I was competitive at 100 yards.
I'd blow the 200 yard line. Usually somewhere mid-pack or worse.
I'd clean up at the 300 yard line.

Brought home some 1st place awards from the 500/600 yard & meter stages. And usually did well at 600 yards. But 200? Sheesh...

Honestly never figured out what my problem was at 200 yards, but I just couldn't shoot a real tight group there.

Now if we were shooting offhand, or rapid fire at 200? Oh, I did just fine. But a tight group from prone at 200? Nope. Not usually. Shooter error, and I never did get that fully resolved.

Guy

 

[Charlie-NY]

It is impossible for group size to shrink over distance. That would require a bullet to correct its divergence on its own, it's just not possible. But ................... finding a load that prints groups that diminish in MOA is fairly common.

 

[FOTIS]

OK let me rephrase.

The groups do NOT follow standard MOA as in 1"/100 yds...2"/200 yds 3"/300 yds etc. Instead, you get this.

let's say you get 1.2" at 100 is it possible (has anyone seen this?) to get 1.7" at 200 and let's say 2.5" at 300----just an example.

 

[Dwh7271]

Simple answer from me; yes.
I have a rifle that benched, bagged, set up correctly imo consistently shoots 3/4" at 100 no matter what I concentrate on but is an inch at 200 and then stays at 1/2 moa to 400. Extrapolated, it should be 1 1/2 but is better.
Can I explain it? Nope. Sorry!

 

[DrMike]

Simple answer from me; yes.
I have a rifle that benched, bagged, set up correctly imo consistently shoots 3/4" at 100 no matter what I concentrate on but is an inch at 200 and then stays at 1/2 moa to 400. Extrapolated, it should be 1 1/2 but is better.
Can I explain it? Nope. Sorry!

My experience as well. I offer no explanation, only observation. Consequently, it is one rifle with one load. Do I observe this with multiple other rifles and/or loads? Nope.

 

[FOTIS]

That is what I meant

 

[1100 Remington Man]

My own experience is my .264 Win Mag shoots just around 1 inch groups at 100 yards but at 300 yards 3 three groups average 2.44 inches, with 120gr Nosler BT
My 6mm Rem at 100 yards does around 7/8 inch at 100 yards and 2.25 at 300 yards. With both Sierra 85gr BTHP & Hornady's 100gr BTSP I have yet to try my Nosler 95gr BT.
My take parallax is of no factor my 6mm is a Weaver Scope set at 100 yards and my .264 Win Mag I had Set at Leupolds Custom shot to 200 yards, truth is if you have the same stock hold and head tight to stock parallax is non existent problem and you should be able to do this off the bench, field shooting no.
I think the difference is cross hair size and width and at longer range I use a 300 yards target that lines up the crosshairs of the scope. I print these targets off from 6mmbenchrest.com for what's its worth.
I think the difference is how well I am seeing the target and for what's it worth my . 264 Win Mag has 4.5x14 and my 6mm Rem 3x9 power scopes. I do think if I had 20 power one could shoot smaller groups, buts that's not what I hunt with and I want to shoot what I hunt with.
Let's be honest here when hunting I'm shooting at a target the size of a 5 gallon bucket's lid.
For what's it worth for hunting I prefer 300 yards for sighting in because at 100 yards it looks centered but at 300 I always need a slight adjustment for left or right of center on calm days, so I consider that the true test for me.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

my 6.5 Gibbs will average 1/4 Moa @100 running a 140 Berger at 3180 fps, It has shot a group of .04 Moa at 750, but that is not consistently repeatable.
RR

 

[Ridge_Runner]

My own experience is my .264 Win Mag shoots just around 1 inch groups at 100 yards but at 300 yards 3 three groups average 2.44 inches, with 120gr Nosler BT
My 6mm Rem at 100 yards does around 7/8 inch at 100 yards and 2.25 at 300 yards. With both Sierra 85gr BTHP & Hornady's 100gr BTSP I have yet to try my Nosler 95gr BT.
My take parallax is of no factor my 6mm is a Weaver Scope set at 100 yards and my .264 Win Mag I had Set at Leupolds Custom shot to 200 yards, truth is if you have the same stock hold and head tight to stock parallax is non existent problem and you should be able to do this off the bench, field shooting no.
I think the difference is cross hair size and width and at longer range I use a 300 yards target that lines up the crosshairs of the scope. I print these targets off from 6mmbenchrest.com for what's its worth.
I think the difference is how well I am seeing the target and for what's it worth my . 264 Win Mag has 4.5x14 and my 6mm Rem 3x9 power scopes. I do think if I had 20 power one could shoot smaller groups, buts that's not what I hunt with and I want to shoot what I hunt with.
Let's be honest here when hunting I'm shooting at a target the size of a 5 gallon bucket's lid.
For what's it worth for hunting I prefer 300 yards for sighting in because at 100 yards it looks centered but at 300 I always need a slight adjustment for left or right of center on calm days, so I consider that the true test for me.

this is totally incorrect, parralex means a lot, have saw it too many times, as does a level when you start extending the range. your example of having a slight l/r variance at 300 is because your scope is not level, and there is no way you can tell if its level or not unless you either plumb a target that has a vertical line which is visible through the scope or you have a level on your rifle, this is fact!
RR

 

[kraky1]

I have been schooled by some people much much smarter than me that bullets do not fall asleep as they go down range.
I accept their Brilliance over mine!
But I have seen and understand and believe in groups getting smaller MOA wise as you go further out.

 

[1100 Remington Man]

Parallax Max error per Leupold when I had my scope adjusted.
200 yards adjusted to 0 all values in inches.
300 yards max error .4
400 yards max error .8
500 yards max error 1.2
600 yards max error 1.6
700 yards max error 2.0
800 yards max error 2.4
This data is what Leupold gave me from their Parallax calculator.
Also if you have a good cheek weld on stock you most likely will not have anywhere near the max parallax error.
In a hunting rifle like mine and shooting in the field I don't get to worked up about Parallax on Big Game Rifles. I am more concerned about the wind.
Yes a rifle has to be level and scope true. When mounting scope I hang a weight on a string and line up my crosshair, then check on range.
Can Parallax be a big deal yes on a target rifle or Praire dog rifle Yes on big game and the size of the target I don't worry about it, I just want a good stock weld with my cheek like when shooting off the bench, I worry about the wind.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

yes, crosshairs need to be plumb, but plumb reticle is worthless in the field unless you have a level on your rifle, there is no way possible that you can look at a game animal in the scope and know your holding the rifle level without actually having a level, have tried thousands of times shooting from a bipod with rear support, level them best I can by eye, than look at the level, 98% of the time its way off.
RR

 

[Ridge_Runner]

also, while I'm sure leupold is correct, what parallax does is makes your reticle look like its where is supposed to be but it aint, so if your not holding where you think you are you will also add that measurement times range to the error. and if your shooting a rifle that shoots 1moa at 800 yards, then the absolute best you can do is somewhere in a 10.4" circle if you are in fact holding where you want to hit, which most of the time is not the case, your eyes think that its right but with excessive parallax its merely an optical illusion. that was the most difficult thing for me to get down when I started shooting at extended range, but after seeing what to look for it has become second nature. I once had a guy on my rifle who could shoot very well but never shot a deer at long range, we found one at 787 yards, I instructed him how to set the focus prior to the shot, he missed 3 times, I got on the rifle set the focus and told him to try again, he connected the next shot.
RR

 

[longrangehunter]

I'd say what you're referring too is linear vs. non-linear grouping.