Looking for help. Shooting low

[SheepDog]

Please, forget the software and believe the targets.

They use computers to forecast weather too - and they are just as far off.
Why do you think NASA plans for course corrections going to the moon or mars? That's all computed ahead of time on computers - The software is off. Computers are not infallible. There is stuff that happens the the program doesn't know about.

One last time: The targets are right.

 

[BoydAllen]

I stand corrected. Sorry about that. I am more used to short range were less is considered relatively more....a lot in that is not so much in this. There are about three things that can contribute to this, an error in velocity measurement, an error in BC, and an error in zeroing at 100 yards. Shooting uphill or down would make you higher on the target, and the only other thing that could contribute would be altitude, as it relates to air density. Doing this stuff on the internet is just guessing. Oh I forgot, your 500 yard target distance could be wrong. You could be shooting farther than you think that you are. Things fall off pretty rapidly around that distance.

 

[SheepDog]

You can try to make your gun and target match the computer print out or you can accept that your targets are right and the computer is off.

 

[GrocMax]

All true guys but this is like orders of magnitude off, not a few tenths here and there due to reality vs. computation.

 

[SheepDog]

There are 40 some odd variables when calculating ballistics. How many does your software allow you to enter?
It is not that unusual for software to make those kinds of errors. That is why we build DOPE sheets.

 

[GrocMax]

An error in shooting distance is also a possibility, it makes the most sense. 600+ yds not 500.

Data verification is always a killer. Ask the Mars Climate Orbiter. Miles or kilometers? Oops, crash.

 

[Paul Milone]

Having to adjust a G7 BC by that much (.305 to .180) doesn't add up. A tenth or two but not that much. 500 yds is short range for a ballistics calc, before the rainbow, something doesn't add up in a big way.

Shooting at two distances should get you a lot closer to true BC for your situation. Sounds like you've double checked all the other data.

What's the barrel twist? Is it under stabilized?

This may sound silly but is it possible the 20 MOA rail is on backwards?

the 20 MOA is on correctly. I was hoping it was something as dumb as that to be honest. Id take any ribbing needed if i knew what was not correct. 1/8 twist I dont think stabilization is an issue if im grouping at 500. Not that 5" at 500 is any world champ shooting, but I shot it in a hurried manner, cold and windy, crappy conditions.

So Im at the point of not caring what the calculators say and only going to care what it does at actual distances with actual rounds / data.

Thanks for all the questions and input and ideas.

 

[Paul Milone]

Im looking for any help with this issue / question. I recently had a build completed by a quality gunsmith / national shooter. It's a Rem 700 action, 26" Stainless Proof Research barrel, 6.5 creedmore, Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56, LaRue Tactical OBR mount/rings, 20 MOA base, Hornady 140gr ELD-M rounds. Timney trigger

Shooting sub 1" at 100. Ballistics calculator(s) all say I should be 2.6 mills at 500. I was not on steel until I went up to 4.1 mills A full 1.5 mills more. Then I shot a hurried 5" 5 shot group at 500yds.

Wondering what was going on. What did I do wrong. Re calculated the ballistics program(s), re sighted in.... no change.

Shot 10 rounds thru decent chronograph. Averaging 2797 fps.

Took scope off, replaced it with a Nightforce. Got the same results, shooting low, but shooting tight.
I spoke with the folks at Proof Research. I spoke with the gunsmith, I spoke with great shooters. All say dont worry about it, just increase your dope and continue to shoot groups at distance.....

Some other folks say "it's a lemon".

Has anyone else had a barrel that "shoots low" ?

I posted a few weeks back regarding hitting way low out at 500. And I had tried everything I could to find out why. As of Friday, I had put the scope back in the rings but it's in a different spot on the base. The lugs on the mount are in different slots on the base, and the scope is in a different spot on the rings.

For whatever reason my low shooting issue has been taken care of. Something must have been amiss in the mount. Even though I had checked the mount several times before posting my original question on this form. I had checked and re checked. But now for whatever reason the scope likes where it is and my dope was true out to 600, so im leaving it where it is.

Thanks to all who gave your 2 cents, all good info and advice.

 

[VaRandy]

I posted a few weeks back regarding hitting way low out at 500. And I had tried everything I could to find out why. As of Friday, I had put the scope back in the rings but it's in a different spot on the base. The lugs on the mount are in different slots on the base, and the scope is in a different spot on the rings.

For whatever reason my low shooting issue has been taken care of. Something must have been amiss in the mount. Even though I had checked the mount several times before posting my original question on this form. I had checked and re checked. But now for whatever reason the scope likes where it is and my dope was true out to 600, so im leaving it where it is.

Thanks to all who gave your 2 cents, all good info and advice.

If you did not find the reason, it will return.

 

[StevenDzupin]

Ok,if your shooting low aim higher or pull the trigger harder.

Sorry I couldn't help myself. LOL

Steve

 

[Paul Milone]

Really? That is all you have for a retarded reply to a post that is 6 weeks old?

 

[StevenDzupin]

Really? That is all you have for a retarded reply to a post that is 6 weeks old?

Yep, waiting for warmer weather,cabin fever.
Just bored LOL
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Actually told to me by an old Geiser decades ago,now I'm
an old Geiser myself.
So lighten up and laugh.

 

[Pvt.Donut]

Make sure you have the correct BC selected, G1 vs. G7. Maybe you have G7 selected when you should have G1. 4.1 MIL's at 500 seems high.

 

[savagedasher]

Where is the barrel timed It could be timed down . If that is the case let your target be the guide . Larry

 

[Bryan Webster]

Im looking for any help with this issue / question. I recently had a build completed by a quality gunsmith / national shooter. It's a Rem 700 action, 26" Stainless Proof Research barrel, 6.5 creedmore, Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56, LaRue Tactical OBR mount/rings, 20 MOA base, Hornady 140gr ELD-M rounds. Timney trigger

Shooting sub 1" at 100. Ballistics calculator(s) all say I should be 2.6 mills at 500. I was not on steel until I went up to 4.1 mills A full 1.5 mills more. Then I shot a hurried 5" 5 shot group at 500yds.

Wondering what was going on. What did I do wrong. Re calculated the ballistics program(s), re sighted in.... no change.

Shot 10 rounds thru decent chronograph. Averaging 2797 fps.

Took scope off, replaced it with a Nightforce. Got the same results, shooting low, but shooting tight.
I spoke with the folks at Proof Research. I spoke with the gunsmith, I spoke with great shooters. All say dont worry about it, just increase your dope and continue to shoot groups at distance.....

Some other folks say "it's a lemon".

Has anyone else had a barrel that "shoots low" ?

What chronograph did you use, and how many rounds where used? Just in case this is related to velocity lower than you have assumed.

 

[Bryan Webster]

Im looking for any help with this issue / question. I recently had a build completed by a quality gunsmith / national shooter. It's a Rem 700 action, 26" Stainless Proof Research barrel, 6.5 creedmore, Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27x56, LaRue Tactical OBR mount/rings, 20 MOA base, Hornady 140gr ELD-M rounds. Timney trigger

You might also want to tell us the load used...powder, grains, seating depth...

 

[Ned Ludd]

He fixed the issue already, folks...see Post #27. The scope rings were mounted in a different notch on the mount. When he put it back to the original spot, the discrepancy disappeared.