• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Acceptable Zero for new RPR in 6.5

Thanks Minshooter...and I assuming you watch the reticle move to the point of impact as you click. I have in the last couple of years just measured the point of impact as precise as possible from center of the target, and then adjust the 1/4 clicks but not looking through the scope. I guess my issue before was keeping the rifle steady and not moving it.

Yeah, mine too. It is an okay method if you have a way to hold the rifle rock-steady while you are dialing (I usually don't) and if you are off by a lot. If I am off by a couple of MOA or less I am just going to measure the amount on the target and then dial that number of clicks. I try to always have some reference on my targets for measuring.
 
There is a difference between a good zero and 1/4” groups. You can shoot a 1” group but as long as the shots are centered over your zero point you are ok.
Agree completely. To put it into perspective, if you can consistently shoot one inch groups exactly centered around your 100 yard aim point, you are never more than 1/2" off target at that range. Statistically, this means that even at 1,000 yards you are not more than 5 inches from your aim point. Now of course far more goes into the equation to skew that. Wind, parallax, mirage, minor powder differences, inconsistent hold, poor bullet seating, too much caffeine....
 
The reticle in the scope is a great reference for measuring.
So is the grid of 1" squares commonly seen on targets shot at 100 yards, or the 1"-diameter Shoot-N-C dots I use at 300 yds, or the 4" orange "dots" I stencil onto the steel at 600 yards, etc.

I believe the OP said 200 yards is as far as he is likely to shoot. Using the target as his ruler will work just fine, if he uses the right target.

Now, if you just Sharpie a black dot on a big piece of paper, that is a little different story.
 
But the reticle, especially the one he has, is faster and no need to worry about trying to convert inches to moa. Read it like a ruler and adjust. Simple, accurate and fast.
 
But the reticle, especially the one he has, is faster and no need to worry about trying to convert inches to moa. Read it like a ruler and adjust. Simple, accurate and fast.
None of my target scopes are FFP, so it isn't "faster" unless I happen to be set on the power that is synched to my turrets.

But even with the scope on my midrange (600 yd) rifle, that is usually on max power so it is, in fact, synched to the turrets, I still will not use the reticle if I have a reference on the target.

And as a practical matter, there is no difference between one inch and one MOA.
 
None of my target scopes are FFP, so it isn't "faster" unless I happen to be set on the power that is synched to my turrets.

But even with the scope on my midrange (600 yd) rifle, that is usually on max power so it is, in fact, synched to the turrets, I still will not use the reticle if I have a reference on the target.

And as a practical matter, there is no difference between one inch and one MOA.

At 100 yards that may be true but move out and one MOA is not one inch. Past 100 and you are doing math converting the inches to MOA.

And just trying to help him out and learn his gear and how to make life easier when getting zeroed or even making correction adjustments if not shooting at exact 100 yard distances or not on paper. OPs scope is FFP and seeing as he is and with the reticle he has he can make it easier and faster on himself then having to have grids on his targets.
 
I said "as a practical matter." Yes, 1 moa is technically 10.47" at 1,000 yards, but the idea of worrying about that (almost) half-inch discrepancy at that distance is laughable. I'm all about keeping it simple but telling newbies that "1 moa is not 1 inch" is unnecessarily technical and counter-productive.

I spend a LOT of hours every week on shooting ranges and I seldom see a target that does not have some kind of reference grid on it, whether it be 1" squares or 2" squares. I use rows of concentric 1/2" and 1" circles for shooting at up to 200 yards. And for most longer range targets (such as F-class) the circles are in MOA, which makes it ever easier -- if I am half the diameter of the 10-ring low, I just need to dial up two clicks. I certainly know how to use my reticle to tell me how many clicks off I am, but I almost never do that because it is a waste of time.
 
Of course if you are on something like your F Class target and hit in a spot you know is a certain distance from center then it's easy but there are times when that is not happening or not shooting those targets. I use 1/2" and 1" targets also for accuracy testing or zeroing but means nothing to me as if I need to move I just read the reticle and move. I don't shoot targets on exact distances all the time and use FFP so just easier to use the reticle. Good to know different ways to skin the cat.

And that little .047 adds up and teaching new shooters the correct info is a better way to go as if they do for some reason run data in inches and then just transfer to MOA they will miss. Say you needed 400 inches at 1000 yards and they just put 40 MOA on. Well 400 inches at 1000 yards is not 40 MOA but 38.2 MOA so they just shot 18" over the target.
 
And that little .047 adds up and teaching new shooters the correct info is a better way to go as if they do for some reason run data in inches and then just transfer to MOA they will miss. Say you needed 400 inches at 1000 yards and they just put 40 MOA on. Well 400 inches at 1000 yards is not 40 MOA but 38.2 MOA so they just shot 18" over the target.
That is true but again, as practical matter, it is never in a million years going to happen. Everyone these days has a ballistics app on their phone, and no one is going to be told they need to come up 400 inches and then convert that to MOA -- they are going to have the ballistics table tell them how many MOA they need to come up for that distance and then dial it. If they don't understand that then shooting 18" over their target is the least of their problems.
 
You would be surprised how many new shooters still think in inches and even run data in inches on ballistic software.
 
You would be surprised how many new shooters still think in inches and even run data in inches on ballistic software.
In the first place, I would't because I interact with newbies learning to shoot at longer ranges 2 or 3 days a week and I have never seen one so ignorant that they do that.

Second, if someone does do that, then you need to fix that problem, not teach them how to do a dumb thing more accurately.
 
Well guess I run into more ignorant people than you. And yes when I am teaching I teach them the right numbers and how to do everything properly. I am not going to be the math teacher rounding Pi to 3. Lol Have we beat this to death yet?
 
... and at this point the guy is looking at the screen and wondering why he ever asked the question here.

Just wait till you ask a reloading questiono_O
 
Exactly! Some of the "expert" information was not even correct. It is just one more instance of guys having to bloviate about how much they know. Ends up with more hot air than the Albuquerque balloon festival.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,033
Messages
2,188,725
Members
78,647
Latest member
Kenney Elliott
Back
Top