so if you are shooting at 1000yds and it calls for 53.8 inches of elevation, that is equivalent to 5.38 inches of elevation at 100yds correct? I have in the past just shot with holdover reticles out to about 600 or so, but got a couple of guns that I want to try to take out to 1k on my farm.........not new to shooting but the long range things is a somewhat new area for me, as is turret twisting.

I suggest you use a program like JBM. While the first time getting all the inputs done may be a bit daunting your reward will be
turret twist outputs in the form of MOA or Mil-Rad

http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj-5.1.cgi



one input that might be difficult is true barometric pressure that accompanies altitude. To help you along:

2000 27.80
3000 26.82
3500 26.33
4000 25.84
4500 25.37
5000 24.90
5500 24.43
6500 23.57
7500 22.71
8000 22.23
9000 21.27
9500 20.79
10,000 20.31

The is second column to right of distance will show you how much to twist the turret. Some of the amounts for MOA are not possible as the typical MOA turret in set in .25 increments. Simply round up or down to nearest increment.

You will need to know the velocity and TRUE BC of the bullet. If there are any discrepancies with the POI at distance IMO you are better off tweaking velocity than BC.

No....with an assumed 100 yard zero, it's 53.8" high at 100 yards to be on at 1K.

I plan to shoot the ranges from 100 out to 1000 and develop the actual drops from shooting. I am just asking that the multiplier of the turret is equivalent to the range compared to 100 yds....I.E. @200 yds, one inch of adjustment for 100 yds will be 2 at 200, 3@300, 4@400 so on an so forth out to 1k.....so 1 inch of adjustment at 100 yds is 10 inches of adjustment at 1000 yds....is that correct?

so there is not multiplier to the elevation turret? if the turret says 1/4 inch @ 100 yds, isn't that equivalent of 1 inch of travel at 400? or 2.5 inches at 1000?

No multiplier.....

Stop thinking of inches and clicks. Think only of MOA(or mil).

Run the ballistics on JBM in MOA. In simple terms w/ a Leupold scope, when it says 23.75 MOA to be on at 1K, dial in 23 full numbers and 3 more clicks, and shoot.

Yes, you're right. But I'm with aalf- the sooner your stop thinking in terms of inches and clicks, the better. If your scope uses MOA increments, then think about MOA only, and that will be consistent regardless of what distance you're shooting. So your data might be something like 200 yards- dial up 1.5 MOA, 400 yards- 6 MOA, 1000 yards- 28 MOA, etc. No need to complicate things with conversions, multipliers, etc.

But the scopes I have are inch adjustments....and inches and MOA are not a direct correlation though correct?

Correct. Doesn't sound like a scope that will lead to success or confidence for LR shooting. What scope are you using? Using the wrong scope will only lead to frustration. It's well worth having an appropriate scope when getting into this game.

They are the Nikon Prostaff 7s. one is a 2.5-10 and the other is a 4-16. The andjustments seem to be good and accurate as far as what testing I have done on them but again this is all new to me as far as the turret twisting.

I had a couple of Vortex Vipers...one the HST and the other the HS-LR, but honestly they kind of sucked to me optically.......the Nikons are clearer to me

For a few hundred bucks, I'd suggest you pick up a SWFA SS 10x to learn on. I started getting into LR shooting about 15 years ago when Leups, B&L 4200, Burris FFII w/BP, Monarch w/BDC, Conquest w/RZ600, etc, were all I had to work with. The only reliable scopes I knew about at the time were $1500+, which was outside of my university student budget. The Nikons I've played with have either immediately or eventually let me down in the mechanical department. It's extremely frustrating when you're trying to learn the physics of ballistics, wind, scope mechanics, etc, when you don't know if you're missing because of the scope, or because you've made a mistake. We are extremely fortunate these days- scope manufacturers are catching onto the fact that we want scopes that work, not just scopes with clear glass, so we've got several mechanically-reliable options in most every price range.

You also need to stop worrying about how clear your Nikon is and use a scope with a real turret. Jordan's spot on.

aalf shoots a little longer range type stuff too....grin

Just in time....I had a drone headed your way........bigger grin....

I don't have a problem spending money on good glass(that doesn't necessarily mean most expensive to me) and can afford it, so its no big worry to me honestly. How are the SWFA variables comparing to the fixed powers? Ill probably get thru our deer season with what I have and rework the scopes over the winter.

You have been given good advice. I'll just add this: when I got a Jeep, my buddy described Jeep ownership as "Finacial sodomy, plus joining a cult!".... LR shooting is like that.

Couple suggestions.... run a Tall Target Test at 100 yards on your existing scopes. That will tell you lots about your scopes mechanically, and plus that, help wrap your brain around the math of it. Look for things like the actual POI drifting left or right relative to the vertical stadia.... windage changes when you've only dialed elevation.... failures to repeat (big groups) as you dial between shots.... Etc. Maybe what you have is awesome and will do the job! One way to find out.

This is a pic of such a test I ran years ago. I was dialing 4 MOA between every shot. See the error in windage at 8 MOA? That scope still sufficed to kill steel plates to 900 or so and a deer at 600, but that's not ideal.



(Please note that this is really more of a "medium target test".... and that I was not super-rigorous about it. You can get as geeky as you want with these tests. However, even simplified ones as above can tell you a LOT in the early going. )

A similar test on my Swaro 3-10 revealed that the mechanical tracking was not true to the vertical reticle stadia. As I dialed in more elevation, holding the reticle plumb to the plumb-line on the target, the POI drifted off to the right, to where it was about 1.5 MOA off in windage at 16 MOA of elevation, if memory serves. Other than THAT, it tracks and repeats pretty well! But that's a big deal. This is a very messy target as I was running a similar test on another scope. It was never meant for public consumption, but I'm including it so you can maybe see what I'm trying to say here. 1000 words and all that.

The variables are great, too, and will easily get you to 1000 if you're using good bullets at reasonable speed. If budget isn't a limitation, then also consider the Bushnell LRHS and DMR/ERS, Nightforce NXS, and Vortex Razor Gen II. There are also other good options, but the price goes way up. Size and weight vary among the options, so you'll have to take all that into consideration for your specific rifles and uses, but all of those options have proven to be mechanically robust.

Yes, inches/100yd and MOA are directly linearly correlated. At 100yd, 1 MOA equals approximately 1.047". If your turret adjustments are 1/4" @ 100yd per click then your scope adjustments are (1/1.047)/4 MOA per click which is ≈0.239 MOA per click.

The advice to start thinking in terms of MOA [or mRADs] is good advice. If you know your bullet's muzzle velocity [MV] and ballistic coefficient [BC], you can use any good ballistics calculator to compute a table of MOA drop vs range for a given scope zero range [usually 100yd]. The BC is fairly easy to look up. The MV can be measured with a chronograph or some other device or alternatively can be calculated by most ballistics calculators using the actual measured drops at several distances for a given bullet and BC.

As Azshooter mentioned there are numerous other inputs to ballistics calculators that you will need to know or estimate such as absolute barometric pressure [that is actual station pressure - not corrected sea level pressure usually reported by weather services], temperature, humidity [although this is not very critical - 50% is a good compromise], crosswind velocity and direction component, scope sight height above the bore, target inclination angle, etc. and if you are serious about shooting to 1000yd things like barrel twist rate, firing azimuth, latitude, etc. start to become important. Also don't overlook range estimation errors.

The advice from Jeff O to perform a tall target test to measure scope adjustment tracking is definitely good advice if you intend to dial turrets for distance correction. These scope tracking factors [SF] can also be inputs to some ballistics calculators or you can just manually correct the ballistics calculator tables drops and windages for the SF. If you are shooting out to 1000yds, you should also consider some sort of anti-cant level to insure that your rifle hold is correctly aligned to the vertical to reduce cant error. Another factor to keep in mind is the available scope elevation adjustment for shooting to longer ranges - some scopes will not have enough adjustment available and you will need to add additional hold-over or install scope bases/rings/mounts which have a built-in elevation for long range shooting.

Think fast- 28.65 MOA correction, what do you set the scope to?

I think he was asking if IPH and MOA were equivalent.

No aalf, that's not correct, if you read his question. If the dope is 53.8 inches of elevation for 1,000 yards, that's 53.8 at 1,000 not at 100. Dialing for that elevation does put you 5.38" high at 100, as bryguy was suggesting. The scope dials an angular measurement; converted to inches that is multiplied by distance.

I'm assuming you know this but misunderstood the question. I'm responding because your answer appears to have confused the OP.

I'm also assuming he pulled that 53.8" number out of the air though, because I'm not sure what he'd be shooting that only needs 53.8" at 1,000. Maybe that's what threw you off, because the number was unrealistic?

Jordan and aalfs points were/are drop that dumb chit conversion click inch crap and dial/think in moa or mils. Who cares about pie are square and 1.00482357 and all that jazz. Get load info enter into your program dial to given number for the distance and shoot. Make adjustments as needed....in moa or mil.

But aalf really does need to get his chit together. He only shoots out to 4700 yards when the cows are out of the way

I was confused by the question myself concerning the 53.8" figure, but I was thinking more along the lines of what the hell takes that many inches (MOA) to get to 1K?

It sort of depends upon how you get the 28.65 MOA elevation correction. If it is coming from a mobile device doing the ballistics calculation in the field, just use that device to do the division to convert from MOA to clicks. If it is coming from interpolation of a ballistics table, just include another column for clicks and do the interpolation in terms of clicks instead of MOA - I do this with all my ballistics tables. I don't print a range card consisting of the raw table output by the ballistics program - I transfer that data to a custom formatted spreadsheet which also calculates and includes a SF corrected clicks column for the elevation and windage corrections and I print that spreadsheet as my range card. Some ballistics calculators allow you to specify your scope click units [Applied Ballistics Mobile and Strelock Pro Mobile come to mind] and include the elevation and windage in clicks as part of their firing solutions. This problem is no different than having to correct for your scope tracking factor [SF] as determined by a tall-target test. Some ballistics programs incorporate the SF into their firing solutions. This SF correction can also be exploited to automagically perform the desired conversion between MOA and clicks like the one you posed above. The click-to-MOA conversion factor above can be incorporated as a multiplier factor [0.955 in the case above] to any actual SF as determined by a tall-target test and specifying this adjusted SF to the ballistics calculation program and that the scope in this case has a turret adjustment of 1/4 [0.25] MOA per click. Then the clicks correction determined by the ballistics calculator would correctly match the MOA correction it calculates.




Yes it could be that's what he meant - I answered the question he actually asked .

Basically:


@100 yds 1" = 1 moa or 3.6" = 1 mil

@500 yds 5" = 1 moa or 18" = 1 mil

@1000 yds 10.5" = 1 moa or 36" = 1 mil

I will let you all fill in the blanks. Too much typing for me.....

Agreed. So, clarification for the OP with a more realistic number - if the dope is 300" at 1K, dialing for that is equivalent to 30" at 100 yards.

The scope adjustment is an angular measurement (mils, moa, or whatever), so the actual holdover in inches does multiply with distance.

I'm quite familiar with correction factors and ballistic software I was being facetious to prove a point- skip the lengthy math conversions and start with the simplified version, buy a scope that adjusts and tracks correctly in MOA or mils.

A tall target test and the use of the correlated adjustment correction factor is a smart move with a reliable scope, but it's a waste of time with a scope that may pass the test today, and tomorrow have you chucking it off a cliff...

Correct

Correct.

This question has NOTHING to do with a bullet's trajectory. Take your scope off your rifle, attach it to a sturdy tripod and establish a point of aim (POA) reference. Observe, and measure, POA change at 100 yards. Then observe/measure the same POA change at 1000 yards. Assuming the scope adjustments are linear, the POA change at the target will be 10x, just like you state.

Seriously???

I will let you tell the campfire what is wrong with your post. Too little typing (2 words) for me...

Uhh, other than maybe I should have stated 5.25" = 1 moa @ 500 yds. I am not seeing it.

Why don't you tell us.......

Will these scopes require and 20MOA (or greater) base to reach 1K or do they have enough internal adjustment for these ranges?

Bob

Not sure how anyone is supposed to answer that with no mention of chambering or bullet, velocity, etc.

They do have a lot of internal adjustment. I still use a 20 moa base....

I would use a 20moa base for the simple reason I want the reticle near the center at the range I plan to shot.

Bob,

Some have greater adjustment range than others, but they all have enough to get a regular .308 Win with 155 Scenar at 2820 fps to 1000 in SAC. I certainly prefer to use a canted rail to get more usable adjustment out of that range, but in most cases it won't be necessary out to 1k.

Thanks Jordan and others. I'm just beginning the build of my designated "long range" rifle- a 26 Nosler and I'm in the planning stages and acquiring stages at the moment.

I've got the barrel, action, and a 4.5 x 14 Leupold that I plan on having a CDS made up for my load when I have a chance to chrono it after assembly. The scope issue has me a bit concerned so I'm double checking my assumptions by reading as much as I can on this and other forums for the moment.
Still need to decide on a decent stock, but I have a real hankering for building myself a nice wood stock out of one of the English walnut blanks I've picked up over the years.
At the moment, my long range limitation has been around 600-650 yards but I would like to stretch that out just a little bit. So far, my .338 WM, .300 H&H Improved, and .270 have been the choices, but the new rifle will hopefully be my "everything" rifle once built and I will start thinning down the herd a little. ( I know, blasphemy).

I know enough about turret twisting to be dangerous (to game) but a little more practice will take care of that.

Bob

Yeah I realized you were jesting . I was just taking the opportunity to let the OP know that non-standard click adjustments can be folded into the SF so that the clicks calculated by a ballistics calculator will correctly match his scope's clicks. I totally agree with you about making sure that you have a good quality scope with accurate and repeatable tracking [especially accurate return to zero] is paramount if you are going to dial turrets for long range shooting. It will certainly save a lot of frustration.

ONLY because I love you Bob.

Going Reupold 4.5-14x is a huge concession on all levels,with no brightside to the equation,in zero retention,tracking,repeats or friendliness. That of course is being rather charitable to boot. Hint.

Had yet another fail miserably,not long ago.

4.5-14X Reupold Neither Warm Or Fuzzy

This with a rifle that'll easily shoot high .2's/low .3's.




Anywhoo...CDS is a sad joke,as it is akin to buying an expensive clock that doesn't keep time and then having a "Custom" face put on it,so it REALLY doesn't(CAN'T) keep time. CDS does nothing to innards and is simply lipstick for outtards. Them facts is bitter pills for many.

BDC's are a cruel joke and happiness can only be arranged with a clockface that is in synch with it's innards. Stay MOA or MIL and forget the fluff. Hint.

You need a 10X MQ on a Winny 52,to get your mind right and to connect dots. Physics applied to same,will crossover to all other chamberings/boolits and if you ain't careful,you might even add some Wind Skeelz.



Everything Below Zero Is USELESS

550yd+ '54 Attack

You never cited a proposed projectile,twist rate,COAL latitude,throat geometry or receiver for the pending build,but hopefully all jive. The 10X windshield alone,will grant opportunity that the 4.5-14X simply cannot,especially when talking atmospherics(wind). SFP is a goodly hurdle there,BDC's do no favors and Reupold has no reticle that begins to come close to the MQ. If only for starters and yet again. Hint.(grin)

This Is Funny Too

Long story short,it's tough way to do bidness by purposely painting yourself in the corner,at the start. Slow your roll,look at the big picture and let facts work for you.

Snag a 10x MQ,mount it on a 52,gun it for a day after a phone call to me and if you ain't dazzled...I'll buy it from you and toss you a $20 cookie for tryin'. While I've MOA/MOA Fixed Fhuqkers too,as well as MOA/MIL's,the MQ steals the show and don't exceed 10X.

You've been led to water..................















(Addendum: 6x MQ is THE answer)

You retain the etched 10 Mils of ele and 5 Mils of wind,gain brightness,a leetle extry erector travel and a schit load of Utility.

I'm happy with 6X wayyyyyyyyy past the 1000yd line..................

Larry,
I've been having the same thought process since I started this process and I may have to turn this scope into a range tester for now until I decide what direction to go. I have a little time as the barrel/action will go out for marrying in the next few weeks.

For just plain range shooting like you're doing, the 10X would be fine, but for hunting in the wide open and forests of Eastern Oregon I need the versatility of a variable glass. You don't use the 10X hunting those little blacktails in the brush, do you? The 4.5 x 14 fits my needs if not the reliability, so what do you recommend in that range that would trip my trigger. I've been looking at some of the listings in the $1K range and around like the Nightforce and a few others, but have to do some research.

Have to find a better range for the 52's and 40X to stretch their legs. Then some better glass if necessary. All our coast range spots are growing over and the few left are getting more crowded every day. Wish I had the access to shooting spots you have...

Anyhow, PM me your Phone # and we'll talk, It's been awhile.... besides, I'm just a couple years from retiring and need someone to steer me to some decent fishing up there....

Bob

So are you guys running the side focus models or just the plain jane ones? wanna go ahead and order em today and roll on with it.

Try the 3-9x42 HD SWFA W/Milquad. This scope is awesome!

Plain Jane...

Anyone tried this model yet?

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-3-15x42-Tactical-Rifle-Scope-P62238.aspx

With my old eyes, I like all the magnification I can get within reason.

Bob

well 2 of the 10x42s are headed my way.....we shall see how they work out on the Savages I have.

Aside from hardware factors, I recommend the 'Shooter' ballistic app for your phone, as well as the 'Rigid' level app. Once you get the stuff entered on your load, Shooter is nice and fast.

A nice feature of Shooter is that it will let you put a correction factor in for your scope. If, for example, your scope's adjustments are not 1/4 MOA, but actually only 98% of a 1/4 MOA, that makes a difference.

In my limited experience, it is common to have a ballistic program calculate drop and find it to be consistently off what you experience in the field. If this occurs, you have to fudge velocity or some other variable until things match. The best thing to do is figure out in terms of % what the error is and correct it. Shooter lets you do this.

Similarly, there can be very slight errors in rangefinders and chronographs, but probably not as commonly as in scope internals. Each of these things will cause disparity with ballistic programs.

Folks with better gear, or who are just better shooters/loaders, may not experience this. Of course, if your scope is not consistent in the error, this is meaningless.

Really though, all the advice in the world will only get you started, or get you better faster. One simply has to put a lot of rounds down range and experience how successful their gear is.

Probably too late, but I like side focus.

Bryguy I was just about to suggest the SHOOTER app too, and I believe it might have been Talus who put me onto it...

Reason being I've only gotten into the LR stuff the last 18-24 months myself and its a good easy LR app to help get your head around some of this stuff.

There might be better apps - dunno - but for a relative newcomer I found it very good.

If you have iOS, Ballistic:AE is where to start and stop, when it comes to ballistic calculator software. It does everything so far cited, and a bunch more.

You tried Applied Ballistics? It has become my favorite. But i like AB as well, and shooter.

This

Yeah, I have AB too. It's good, and has some advanced features, but I prefer Ballistic:AE by a mile.

Thanks. Good drum.

I've AE...but JBM cain't be whooped,as math is math.

Main thing is to feed good data in,to yield good data out and then to simply gun come-ups. I've zero interest in digital dope as a mainstay and want hard data scribed on all my stocks/ocular caps. I'd rather shoot,than fiddle fhuqk buttons.

Lotsa folks are occupied with finding reasons not to shoot,which is the antithesis of my approach,as an insatiable curiosity compels me to stretch things daily. You'll never learn more,than when on the trigger and dabbling less than favorable conditions is a Fast Track too.

A GOOD 22LR laden with a 10X MQ housing lotsa "up",is a crash course in what do what,as trace/impact are easily resolved and dots literally connect themselves. Was talking to a pard yesterday,who's come Hunting/Fishing with me a coupla times and went Custom Rifle CRAZY after the first visit and he stated that his Annie 54/75MOA Bob railed 10X MQ is his favorite rifle of all...and I savvy the appeal.

Gunning a 22LR at 500yds+++ is more than a buncha fun and the learning curve transitioned from that AO,makes all things centerfire a fhuqking breeze.

That's where AE is handy,as it's nice to have dope broken down to 5yd increments,when gunning a 22LR at the 700yd+ line,beings the comeups are so sizeable in sucha small distance shift.

Just might have another one to bolt together,when I get home.............(grin)

JBM is the ballistics computer that AE uses.

Yep, when using AE you're getting JBM.

Agree with Stick about having hard data printed off or hand written and affixed to every rifle for field use. Though I do like to use the digital version when practicing, so as to thoroughly enter real-time inputs and factor any output variations, confirmed by putting bullets on target, into my dope. If I have time and the luxury in the field, I often open the app to get an exact firing solution, but the chart is on the stock/ocular cap for quick reference, or in case it's too cold for the phone to turn on

Yup, dats the truth.

and now we know where all that 22 ammo was going...

22 upgrade time

How does Ballistic AE work on a Droid? I've got Applied Ballistics now and it's gone haywire on me.

It doesn't. Unfortunately, iOS only. AB for Droid is pretty darn good, from what I understand. You might want to message Doc Beech for help with the app: [email protected]