i'm going to throw this out here for your consideration and to solicit your presumably better-informed opinion. the following is what i think i know: (cure dunning-krueger)
y'all have seen my struggles to get accuracy from my chinese m14 clone. some of it is my vision. at this point i have 2 options, first of which is to get a smaller rear sight aperture which increases the visual depth of field. while doing so impairs target rapid acquisition, this will make it easier to focus on both distant target and front sight, so that they're not such fuzzy blobs. since i don't expect anyone to shoot back, not a big deal. this is very doable, a smaller national match aperture costs around $20, and is an easy swap.
the second would be to go ahead and install the scope mount and scope i already have. this would definitely solve the blurry vision question, but has issues of its own. once installed and zeroed, scope mounts typically do not take kindly to removal and reinstallation, often requiring re-zeroing. also there's the question of eye alignment. the scope sits higher than the iron sights, and often an add-on cheekpiece is desirable. cheekpieces are available for $20 to $40, though care is required in selection to get the proper fit and attachment method.
so what do you suggest? start with one and if that's satisfactory stop, if not, go to the other? both? there's a hardware show coming up this week...
* I had to edit the title. It was driving me nuts *
Last Edit: Feb 6, 2020 22:38:23 GMT -7 by Admin Czar
Post by desertbikes on Feb 4, 2020 20:47:30 GMT -7
Yeah, I mighta put that more tactfully, or not. Don't count on a scope to clear up your vision. No offense but it sounds like you could use a bit more info on how to use a scope. But crockman is right. First lets talk about your eyes. And don't say you don't need glasses
would help if i could tell the difference between "gg" and "cc" in the title. I DON'T NEED GLASSES, DAMMIT! now that that's out of the way, yes, i'm a scope newbie. there's a focus ring on my big osprey scope but i haven't messed with it much. there's a hrdware exposition in town thsi weekend, hoping to pick up more ammo but the weather is ugly for the next week so no range trip for a bit. i already wear reading glasses(to read), not that that matters, but the issue here is depth of field, not distance vision.
would help if i could tell the difference between "gg" and "cc" in the title. I DON'T NEED GLASSES, DAMMIT!
Here's an interesting statistic - 90% of men over 50 need glasses. 10% are in denial
So you only wear reading glasses? How far away from your face do you figure a scope will be? With that rifle you'll need big eye relief. Maybe 3-4"? I don't recall right now how much one kicks. But here's the thing - Scope aren't made to fix your vision, only magnify a target.
The most common mistake guys make with a scope is using the ocular adjustment to focus the target. In fact, it's only used to focus the reticle. Point the scope in the sky or at something very light & only look at the reticle. Get it focused. Now turn the scope on a target at least 50 yards away. Turn the objective to 50 yards. If the target is fuzzy, it's you. Try the same thing at 100 yards. If you can cheap & use the objective bell to focus, then fine, But you'll have to do the same thing at whatever distances you calibrate. 100 yd target may have to be turned to 120 or 150 to be clearly focused. Or just turn it to infinity & learn to shoot with the power setting at a fixed power, Most people just turn it all the way up.
As far as the scope being mounted above the barrel, so are your iron sight. Bullet have a ballistic arc. They rise then fall. there are tables to figure out where it's "flat", that is to say, it's at the same hight as when it left the barrel. I think a 150 gr .308 was 150 yrds but I'd have to check that. So, you can zero the scope at 150 yards then compensate using mil dots, or knowing what the difference is between the center crosshairs & where the crosshair meets the lower post. That gap between the post is also used for range-finding. i.e. a 48" object that fills the gap between the posts means the target is 100 yards away. That's just an example.
I'll find a link to one of the better scope manuals. Some guys say they don't like mildots because the dots cover the target (have seen that on forums). That simply mean the dude has no idea how to use the scope.
Mounting is critical as well. it must be absolutely level & parallel to the bore. That may not be possible with your rifle. Start with an in-bore laser to make sure the frickin thing is bored straight. Some of the issues you've had have alway made me wonder if the bore was misaligned.
Once you have a round dialed in, don't expect a fifferent brand or bullet weight to target the same way. You'll either have to compensate or re-zero the scope & yardage marks. Some manufacturers even sell scopes or turrets for specific rounds. That's enough for now. I want to compare the Nikion & Leupold manuals again. FYI - I read one a couple times a year. Adjustable parallax (objective or side focus) can be great or really mess with your day. I quit using them on powder burners. For brush/woods hunting you're better off with a 32mm objective & see-through mounts for the iron sights. Ok Ill stop now. Now!
i'm going to order up the smaller NM rear sight aperture and see how that works out. also, a friend is snding me some fancy match ammo, which should help too, and there's a hardware exposition here tomorrow, i'll look for 7.62 dies for my press.
the GI rear sights on the 14 are essentially the same as on the garand. standard is .06?, and NationalMatch sights come in .059 and .052 or something like that. there's also a hooded variety. i'm eyeing a non-hooded rear aperture from sarco, marked NM but sarco doesn't say wow big the aperture is, so i'll see what they send. same story with the front sight, different sizes. supposedly the smaller blade and aperture improve resolution for distance shooting but impair target acquisition in "adverse" conditions. here's an interesting website i just found www.ammogarand.com/rearsightparts.html
desertbikes: "...we control the audio. We control the video...for the next hour we will control all you see and hear on, The Outer Limits!"
Jun 3, 2020 7:02:09 GMT -7
lurker: sportsman's guide. thanks, maybe they sell the rifle powder i need. lowes won't have it.
Jun 2, 2020 12:26:49 GMT -7
Admin Czar: The gig is up. Yes, we're just a pawn, a shill for, The Man. That's why we have one million members...oh wait.
Jun 2, 2020 10:11:16 GMT -7
tomcat65: Haha! According to my view of this site, it's owned by Lowes and The Sportsman's Guide. Why is my ad blocker not working?
Jun 2, 2020 5:49:03 GMT -7
lurker: yeah, come and hang out now and again.
May 31, 2020 19:26:10 GMT -7
Admin Czar: Hope you sign up Skamper!
May 31, 2020 18:39:02 GMT -7
Admin Czar: No it's not. The ads you see are driven by cookies in your browsing history & advertiser preference. ProBoards gets the ad money. Site "owners" get nothing & have no control.
May 31, 2020 18:38:10 GMT -7
skamper: is this site owned by bikesdirect.com? Their ad is at the top of ur page where a site banner is normally found.
May 31, 2020 11:52:36 GMT -7
desertbikes: If there's something beyond worm food, it's bigger than our meager minds can comprehend. Dr. Chumley in Harvey: "Fly specks, fly specks! I've been spending my life among fly specks while miracles have been leaning on lampposts at 18th and Fairfax!"
May 29, 2020 19:58:40 GMT -7
lurker: i am an atheist. always been one. whole notion is silly. i won't know for sure until i die, and only if i'm wrong, because if i'm right i won't be knowing or doing much of anything (i'd say decomposing, but the plan is cremation) we'll see. or we won't.
May 28, 2020 12:26:27 GMT -7
desertbikes: Philosophers & physicists are rarely right, but never in doubt.
May 28, 2020 7:49:18 GMT -7
desertbikes: And for the record, Richard Dawkins is an arrogant prick too. He's part of the in-your-face atheist crowd whose religion IS literally, Atheism. Again, it take a huge amount of faith to presume you have all the answers.
May 28, 2020 7:48:04 GMT -7
desertbikes: I've got nothing against religion. How some sects of the major 3 faiths conduct themselves is another story. The bottom line tho, religion is faith, & you can't reason with faith. If God were proven, faith wouldn't be required. Poof! No more religion
May 24, 2020 12:05:37 GMT -7
lurker: DB, you want to start a religion thread i'll be right there but i suspect we'd just agree and that would be boring.
May 24, 2020 9:39:58 GMT -7
desertbikes: Yeah, misplaced anger aside, the devout Christians, while well-meaning, became the most annoying. Almost like they're picking that time to proselytize and know better than you what's beyond death. Truth? Life's a demolition derby. Wear a frickin helmet.
May 24, 2020 7:03:45 GMT -7
desertbikes: Thanks for the words guys. I don't say much to the ones left behind. Everything sounds like platitudes. A few days after my dad died, I wanted to throttle the next person that said, "I'm sorry for your loss" or, "they're in a better place now".
May 24, 2020 6:53:00 GMT -7
tomcat65: Those whose children are terminally ill, pay a huge price for our lessons in the value of life. For some, it's more than they can bear. In the end, the lesson changes. Favor is also not fair. God's gonna God, People gonna be human. Blessings on your family
May 23, 2020 7:09:58 GMT -7
desertbikes: The cousin died. At least she's not in pain anymore. A hospice always says how the person died peacefully. What else would one expect when the patient is pumped full of adivan & morphine.
May 22, 2020 14:50:10 GMT -7
lurker: there's a lot of death going around lately. yes, some of it is we're getting older, and the people we know are getting older too. lost two acquaintances myself in the last week or so. it seems especially unfair when it takes children.
May 20, 2020 12:02:22 GMT -7