Medb wrote:This is an area that I'm not overly familiar with, and I was never very good at maths.
I've been trying to get into shooting 22lr at longer distances 200-500 yards, just mainly for some cheap fun, not doing any serious competitions. And I have my setup which I built for this following advice from various articles and discussions on the subject. The issue is with my setup I only have a small amount of elevation adjustment before I presumably am hitting the end of it's adjustment range. My scope is in MRAD with 0.1 mil adjustments and I can only dial up 2.7 mils from my 50 yard zero before hitting the wall. This means I can't even dial up the necessary amount for 200 yards and I have to use a holdover, and I can only just reach 300 by using a 9mil holdover and dialing up the full amount with HV ammo.
I realize what I am describing is totally normal for long distance 22lr shooting, but with my setup I thought I would have more adjustment range then I am getting.
My setup is as follows: Rifle is a CZ 457 with 24" barrel in a MDT ACC chassis, 30 MOA Area419 scope base, Sphur sp-5001 30mm/1.18" height 0 moa mount, scope is a Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50 FFP MRAD with 36 MRAD/125 MOA worth of total travel.
Is it really just a case of me needing to add even more height to the base/mount? I see the company that makes the 30moa base I am using also offers a 50moa version. If I were to just swap to that base and add 20 more MOA will that give me more room to dial up adjustments? and if so will I end up losing my 50 yard zero as a result since I only have 2.7 mils/9 MOA of adjustment currently?
What about if I were to change the height of the rings, what effect would that have on things? If I got lower rings, or higher rings which would give me more adjustment room? I'm totally confused
Any members who engage in this sort of long range .22lr shooting, or those that are more familiar with the finer points of scope height adjustment that could offer me any insights would be greatly appreciated.
bladeracer wrote:According to Vortex you should have 125-minutes of elevation, have you got the 30-minute rail the right way around?
https://vortexoptics.com/vortex-razor-hd-5-20x50-riflescope.html?vortex_reticle=828
You should be able to zero at 50m and still stretch out past 500m with 125-minutes of elevation.
What was the reasoning behind the FFP scope?
straightshooter wrote:Melb
For the sort of ranges you are contemplating the attached table might help.
It is for standard velocity ammunition. HV will offer little or no advantage.
The most important point to understand is the projectile, due to time of flight, will be very wind affected.
For example, at 400 yards with a 10 mph cross wind you will need to adjust about 13 minutes.
So in order to have that amount of adjustment available in your scope, irrespective of what you might think the scope specs tell you, the elevation adjustment will need to be approximately centered due to the inherent mechanics of the adjustment system which is a limitation of most scopes. Also the scope will have to had to have been accurately centered for windage initially so as to have maximum available adjustment in either direction.
This isn't the province of most inexpensive scopes.
You might consider investigating scopes with true wide elevation and windage adjustment ranges to avoid frustrations in your endeavour.
Good luck.
on_one_wheel wrote:I get out to 100m with the. 22 without adjustment when lining up with this part of my reticle (see arrow)
This might help if you have a similar reticle
Alternatively you could look at a cheap mil dot scope or something similar.
bladeracer wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:I get out to 100m with the. 22 without adjustment when lining up with this part of my reticle (see arrow)
This might help if you have a similar reticle
Alternatively you could look at a cheap mil dot scope or something similar.
The problem with holdover is cant. If you are holding a meter over your target at 200m, even one-degree (or 60-minutes) of cant each side of vertical in the reticle adds 72mm of lateral spread to your group (by quick mental calculation).
on_one_wheel wrote:bladeracer wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:I get out to 100m with the. 22 without adjustment when lining up with this part of my reticle (see arrow)
This might help if you have a similar reticle
Alternatively you could look at a cheap mil dot scope or something similar.
The problem with holdover is cant. If you are holding a meter over your target at 200m, even one-degree (or 60-minutes) of cant each side of vertical in the reticle adds 72mm of lateral spread to your group (by quick mental calculation).
True....
straightshooter wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:bladeracer wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:I get out to 100m with the. 22 without adjustment when lining up with this part of my reticle (see arrow)
This might help if you have a similar reticle
Alternatively you could look at a cheap mil dot scope or something similar.
The problem with holdover is cant. If you are holding a meter over your target at 200m, even one-degree (or 60-minutes) of cant each side of vertical in the reticle adds 72mm of lateral spread to your group (by quick mental calculation).
True....
The effects of cant have little to do with holdover as such.
Think about it.
Whether you adjust the reticle center to be on point of aim or considerably above point of aim there is no physical difference in positioning of the scope tube in relation to the barrel bore.
In general, the effects of cant are exacerbated the higher the line of sight is above the line of the bore.
Larry wrote:Blade is talking about cant differently to the accepted definition. He is talking about front to back inclination cant is the scope not having the horizontal axis of the scope in relation to the gun as per one wheels picture above.
straightshooter wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:bladeracer wrote:on_one_wheel wrote:I get out to 100m with the. 22 without adjustment when lining up with this part of my reticle (see arrow)
This might help if you have a similar reticle
Alternatively you could look at a cheap mil dot scope or something similar.
The problem with holdover is cant. If you are holding a meter over your target at 200m, even one-degree (or 60-minutes) of cant each side of vertical in the reticle adds 72mm of lateral spread to your group (by quick mental calculation).
True....
The effects of cant have little to do with holdover as such.
Think about it.
Whether you adjust the reticle center to be on point of aim or considerably above point of aim there is no physical difference in positioning of the scope tube in relation to the barrel bore.
In general, the effects of cant are exacerbated the higher the line of sight is above the line of the bore.
bladeracer wrote:Larry wrote:Blade is talking about cant differently to the accepted definition. He is talking about front to back inclination cant is the scope not having the horizontal axis of the scope in relation to the gun as per one wheels picture above.
Cant simply means out of plumb (not vertical), sloped or leaning, it is not a reticle-specific term.
Larry wrote:bladeracer wrote:Larry wrote:Blade is talking about cant differently to the accepted definition. He is talking about front to back inclination cant is the scope not having the horizontal axis of the scope in relation to the gun as per one wheels picture above.
Cant simply means out of plumb (not vertical), sloped or leaning, it is not a reticle-specific term.
I know what cant is and what you wrote "Ring height has no effect, you need to cant the scope up at the rear." is not strictly cant. But it is the solution to this guys problem.