Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters "25 Yard sight-in and Related Myths"

So what you're saying is, you're certain you can make a 300 yard shot not having shot at 300 yards all year long?

The question was 400 yards, by the way.

I didn't read the article, but I'll give my opinion on it. Wait...no, I won't, because then I'd be espousing about a subject matter upon which I'm am ignorant of the primary published document in question. But...i'm going to find the article and read the darn thing. I've been suspect of the "1.5" above the bore" assumption for years without knowing how to properly measure it on MY rifles. So, lacking such precision figures, I, like any trogolodyte that seeks to kill animals at long ranges, actually set up targets at ranges such as 100 yds, 200 yds, 300 yds, 400 yds, and so on and sight in for the range I want to be dead-on. Then I'd shoot the closer targets and note the trajectory. Kind of bassackwards, but it worked. Now I'm sending in a Leupold for an M1 turret to see if I can figure out this the sophisticated way...

I learned to sight in from Jack O'Connor. My dad had kept a copy of Outdoor Life from 1960 (forget the month) where Mr. O'Connor's column was titled "Sight in at 25 Yards." That article did two things for a 14 year old boy in the early 70s: 1) taught me about how line of sight and line of bore are two different things, and a little physics regarding trajectory, and 2) that I should, without doubt, confirm my sight-in at 100 yards and farther if possible. O'Connor's advice was pretty sound for the time, and I think it taught lots of folks besides me about the basics of trajectory. It certainly explained the problems with a dead-on sight-in at 100 yards, and how such a sight-in took away much of the flat shooting advantages of modern rifles. But like the 1960 advice to change points and plugs every 12000 miles, it just isn't current! Too many things have changed. But that's what we have our modern gunwriters for, and I again learned a lot about trajectory and sight-in from the last Rifle magazine!

The challenge with the really long shot without confirmation is variability in BC claims. If it is accurate, you can predict the path with great accuracy - if you use enough care.

I'm very curious. Do any of the readers reload and if they do do they use a reloaders guide and if so which one? Or do they use more than one? If there are reloaders and they do use the manuals do they believe the charts that are in them? Do they believe the trajectory figures stated in the book? If they do use and believe these figures then how do they use them in conjunction with sighting in? I have been reloading for over 60 years and shooting a little longer. I went to gunsmith school 60 years ago so it's probably changed somewhat since then. I have evolved ,over the years , arather simple method of sighting in a rifle. First I use a LaserSyte that inserts in the muzzle to project a dot on the wall in my den wall which is about 20 feet from my chair. I adjust my scope to spot on to this dot. Then I take it to the range and try at 25 yds usually or the shortest range they have a position for. I am usually on the paper and close to the bullseye. I then adjust up slightly and shoot at 100 yards. After I get an acceptable group at 100 yds I adjust sight up dependent on the ballistic tables for the load I am using. Usually to hit an inch or so ABOVE center on the 100 yd target. This is of course dependent on the tables for this load. I then fire a group to verify the adjustment and I am through. I never fire at any longer range as I have arthritis and just plain don't want to walk down that far to get the targets. I have made 8 trips to Africa and killed most all of the game they normally offer and rarely shot over 100 yards. When I did I had no problem taking the animal I was hunting. I would never take a shot over 300 yards as I can hardly SEE that far much less judge that distance and the wind. My experience has been that of 60 years of practical experience no matter what any article says by any expert. It works for me so why change it. I would imagine it works for the majority also so they use it. I can only remember 2 long shots taken in Africa,one at a Wildebeest and One at an Oribi. The Oribi was at 340 paced yards and slightly up hill. I actually hit him too far back and the tracker finished him with his knife. I miscalculated the wind big time and the uphill threw me off also. I was using a 30-06. The other shot was at 300 yards and the Ph said it was 200. I held for a heart shot which should be spot on for my sight in. I actually hit exactly where I should have for 300 yards. The number of inches low was exact. I broke the front right leg which enabled us to finally get him. The rifle was a 375 H&H. Both rifles were sighted in at 100 yards to hit a little high as I normally do.

For the longest time i would sight in at 25, check at 100 yards and go hunting. I didnt know no better, it was what my dad taught me growing up. When i started shooting long range and messing with ballistics and chart was when i realized the error of my ways for such a long time. What an eye opener it was to learn how high i really was at 200 yards.
Now i sight in at 25, adjust at 100 based on ballistic charts and go have fun busting rocks and hitting steel at various distances. Sometimes i have seen the charts be off a tad but a tad at 500 yards can be enough to miss so busting rocks and steel way out there helps a ton. My buddy's 7 mag has taken more deer beyond 500 yards than i care to discuss. If i had set it up like i used to at 25 yards back in the day there would be plenty of misses and my butt kicked lol.
25 yards to me is a good start but it should be checked as you move back to make sure your ballistics are spot on, not close.

Kique

And velocity. A couple of friends and I were shooting gongs at 1000 yds last week and one guys data from his iphone app wasn't working out just right. We played with it a bit and it's pretty amazing the amount of drop difference 25 fps muzzle velocity will make at long range. His program called for 31.5 moa of elevation and it was actually taking 32.5. Playing with the numbers we saw that 25 fps of muzzle velocity changed the elevation about 1 MOA at 1000 yds. He lowered his velocity 25 fps in the program and it matched up. We figured he chronographed his load in hotter weather and the cold lowered his velocity a little bit. It made quite a difference way out there.

It could also be the "app" waa correct and the scope wasn't quite precise
It stil comes back to variables, and none of these numbers are anything other than educated guesses.

I suspect just as many are wounded by "yahoos" that THINK they know what they are doing, and therefore take long range shots they shouldn't.

And you pretty much ignored the last sentence in my remarks.
In much of the country 100 yds is a long shot and most deer are killed at less than 200

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think if a hunter carefully sights in a 2800-3200 fps round at 100 yards, and keeps it around 1.75-2 inches high at 100 to avoid those mid-range high misses, they are pretty safe to shoot out to 300 yards. Hold on to a little over 200 yards, and a little high from there out to 300 yards. If you keep it under 300 yards,I think there is less chance of missing that way than even the most carefully plotted trajectory used by a long-range shooter....cause there can be a lot of wind goblins when you shoot way past 300 yards. One man's opinion; let the criticisms fly. I know I opened myself up to them, and I can take it. By the way, I have a 300 yard range, and use it. But not everyone does, and I've always found my actual trajectories to be close to what I predicted from a 2" high 100 yard sight-in out to 300 yards, but from there on out, not so much.

I ran some numbers on a load I use in my 7 mag

It shows it being .45" low at 25 yds, +2.35 @ 100, and dead on @ 250
That's with a 1.5" scope height

If I change the height to 1.80", the numbers become
.18 low @ 25yds (difference of .27), and +2.17 @ 100 yds (difference of .18) with the same 250 yd zero

So the largest difference is still only about 1/4 inch

That's for a 120 gr Ballistic Tip at 3100 FPS

I know those numbers are very close to actual performance since it's been fired at all those distances.

If it crosses at 25 and again at 225 to 275 depending on what your shooting. Then why can't an average shooter deduct that it'll be way high in the middle? Pretty simple. On a sde note. hres what typing in rea time looks like bcause of all he pphhucking ads on tis site. I aint buyig what their sellng anyway... hate it

I would like to read it also. If the name of the magazine is in this thread, I did not see it. But if I knew the name of it, I would go out today and buy it.

That takes the guesswork out. Also allows you to actually shoot at the ranges you'd shoot in the field, which is, when you think about it, something everyone who contemplates shooting at a particular distance ("I'm good out to 300") should practice.

Also, if you're responding to the posts I made earlier, the question was whether the other poster would shoot at an elk at 400 yards with a rifle he'd only shot at 100.

He still hasn't answered, and the first question was not directed at JoelKDouglas.

"Rifle" March 2014. No. 273. Page 42.

Smokepole, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

I thought I answered the 400 yard question by saying I wouldn't shoot at any animal further than 275 or 300 yards if conditions weren't perfect. Not having practiced to "x" distance would dictate I wouldn't take a shot of "x" range (400, 500, whatever), because conditions weren't perfect.

As to 275/300, I'll make the example even more extreme. I am a Wyoming resident. I am active duty. Say I were stationed in Korea for a year, or deployed to Afghanistan for a year, arriving back home just in time (with an elk tag in my pocket) to go hunting. Would I forego hunting (with a normal range of 275-300 yards) because I hadn't shot my hunting rifle in a year? I'll let you answer that for yourself.

I also strive to take closer shots, typically moving my legs, using both the terrain and the wind to my advantage when possible. But out west there are some pretty big meadows.

Joel, thanks for the response. I'm not trying to be argumentative either, I just take exception to the "if they can" part of the following:



Because "if they can" go hunting, then they can also check the zero of their rifle to make sure it's where they think it is. I've never been on a hunting trip where I didn't have the opportunity to check my zero.

Just the way I see it, but if I want to be proficient at a specific distance, I need to not only make sure where the POI is at that distance, but also shoot a fair amount at that distance. If I never get the opportunity to shoot at 300 or 400 or 500 yards, then I'm not going to start with an animal in my sights.

POI is one thing, but what about accuracy? How do I know the accuracy of a rifle at 300 or 400 if I never shoot it at 300 or 400? What about my ability to hit what I'm aiming at from different positions that I might use in the field?

Sure, zeroing the old reliable .270 an inch-and-a-half high at 100 and counting on it to be near zero at 200 will not get you into trouble very often, under most circumstances. But it might if you extend that range, and lots of people do.

And to use your example of being gone a year, I'm not trying to tell you what's "ethical" or "unethical" and I haven't used those words here. For my own purposes, the issue would be pretty easy to resolve. As I said above, I've never been on a hunting trip where the situation precluded me from finding a place to shoot, putting up a target, and confirming my zero. And if I hadn't shot a particular rifle in a year, that's what I would do.

Good Article, it got me thinking about iron sights mounted right on the barrels of my rim fires and how it seems you don't need to compensate for elevation with a .22 out to 75 yards or so. I don't use ballistic programs on my computer, but I have a range in an area with moderate temps so I go practice.

I have never been a fan of big optics, and this article gives me some comfort that my fixed 4X's and small 1.5 to 6 variables are good choices for game.

Even on our ranch there are shooting lanes that stretch 500 to 600 yards, and back east (there is no land west of here) we see game miles away. Long range shooting is a skill no hunter should dismiss.

I always shoot at 25 yards.

But I bore sight by eye, not by tool, at 100 or 200, get the gun zero'd there, then zero it exactly where I want it to be... and then walk it out to 600 or beyond, and back up to 25 and record the data, and make my ballistics chart.

Shooting at a distance that you never have confirmed, whether close or far, simply for me is unethical.

If for some reason I can't get paper at 100, then I'll move up to see whats up. Generally even if I miss paper at 100, you can see the dust from teh hit and realize which way you need to go.

If I knew that everywhere I went, I"d have no intervening brush to worry about, I'd likely often run irons or nothing more than 6x fixed.

But I've gotten in binds with stuff not being able to see if the shot is clear, but in 10x binocs see its clear or not, but the game moves...

Hence I"m back to using a bit more X for my hunting guns. Not that you can't make the shots, but in the field wihtout a bit more X I've missed seeing vines and such... it cost me a deer with a deflection with a 0X red dot at about 80 yards. Shot was gravy. The vine I hit that deflected and broke the front leg low out of the chest... that was a sucky day...

On an oats field with nothing in the way however... I do love irons or low X scopes