accuracy problems with '06 - contd

[mendozer]

He must be a credible smith bc hes loaded with jobs to do. I had a 2 week wait for mine. Maybe he knows something that goes against conventional wisdom. Just like any other field ways of doing things change. Heck I work in medicine and our treatments change almost every few years.
cant be buying a rifle now. Im stuck with this one

[RC20]

Would you believe your mechanic as to which way to vote?

He may be a good mechanic but be completely out to lunch on what makes an accurate rifle.

[Art Eatman]

My experience with 1:10 '06s is that I get tight groups with bullets from 110 to 180 grains. Way, way back, I even did okay with swaged .32-20 80-grain flat-nose in my jackrabbit shooting days.

No bullet ruins meat if you don't shoot Bambi in the eating part.

For just deer hunting, anything that groups inside of two MOA is quite adequate. Since back around 1930, what with my father and uncle, I'd venture that the "Eatman boys" have killed around 200 or so bucks with 150-grain bullets from '06s.

[mendozer]

shot it today. Trigger was much better. Here's how it went...

First out of the barrel, spot on perfect. Next, 8" low (yikes). Then I noticed the club has a lead sled. I set that up to take all the recoil (or most) out of it and hold the gun steady. Next shot, 6" low and right. OK no improvement, odd. Next one, 2" low and right or the previous.

Time to adjust. corrected using dials and visual study. Next shot, same exact spot. OK weird. At this point I asked the rangemaster who took a look at it. He boresighted it and said the reticle was correcting properly. Next shot, 6" up and right, next shot...on the previous. OK so precision is there. Now let's adjust the scope again. Instead of visual alignment, I just used the 1/4" clicks on the dial since it was nearly impossible to keep the rifle steady as I looked through it. The following two shots were on each other, 4" up and right. So clearly the adjustments suck. Again I adjust accordingly, then the next 2 are nowhere to be seen (unless they tacked the same holes, unlikely. To rule out the incorrect adjustment, I REVERSED the adjustment, then the next two were again nowhere.

***. He said he's never seen a scope act like this. I had it in a benchrest so it took my variables out (although for the record the first spot on shot was freehand). He said the adjustments did suck but also the part (i forget) that holds it stable is likely rattling loose. So I spent about 25 rounds of ammo in total to no avail. I contacted Nikon as he said they may offer a trade-up or repair.

it's a Prostaff 3-9x40 BDC. It came with my gun. I wouldn't have bought it alone, but what the hell right?

So now to add to this cluster of all clusters, I am looking into a scope to possibly purchase as I await Nikon's response.

He recommended Leupold (of course) or nightforce (yeah, Budget says no).

I looked into Redfield revolution 4-12x40 as it's made by Leupold and they look pretty solid. I do like the finger adjustments, No more turning a dime in the stupid shallow groove.

also looked into Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14 as its a $350 scope I can get for $200. Reviews from other forums seem to think Redfield is good, but head to head the Buckmaster is superior. It has been discontinued last year as Nikon says they'll upgrade their Prostaff line.

Also, consensus online is that either of these are better choices when compared to Leupold Vx-1. VX-3 is where it really becomes a Leupold so I'm told.


*side not, rangemaster told me not to clean it after he saw me doing so. He said it needs to form some lead fouling to"condition" it and form tighter groups. These days it seems people are feeding me information that go against my previously held belief. But then again I'm a noob so I'm open to suggestions.

[Art Eatman]

My scopes are almost all Leupold Vari-X IIs. Old, like me. But they still work as well as they ever did. Set it and forget it and go shoot something. So far, so good. Coyotes at night, Bambi in daytime.

Cleaning? Mostly, I just spray a little WD40 on a patch and run it through the bore a couple of times. Then, a patch with a little RemOil sprayed on it, same deal. If groups degrade, I've gone to Hoppe's copper remover a couple of times and life returned to its normal sub-MOA. Been doing that for over forty years, now. But I don't worry about how others do their deal.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

No bullet ruins meat if you don't shoot Bambi in the eating part.

That's some down home wisdom right there, ha ha.

[RC20]

Redfield 3-9 is a bit less expensive and should be all that's needed for hunting.

I got the 4-12 but with thoughts of longer range shooting at some point.

And yes, you get all sorts of "advice"

Cleaning if it degrades seems to be the best but you need to have reasonably accurate for it to degrade in first place.

I normal use a mix of Hoppes 9 and Kroil. I have never got any copper reaction but I shoot lower velocity than max as I am not into hunting, just 100 yd target shooting.

I have some close to 100 year old Model of 1917s that cleaned that way can shoot a 5 inch group of 3/8 (best) at 50 yds using the iron sights (sight picture is harder at 100 and this is just entertainment and seeing how good the reloads are.

Bores are a bit crazed and no idea what history is but original barrels.

[mendozer]

aHA! I took my rings off the base today out of curiosity. Loose screws and slightly damage groove lip. The gunsmith was supposed to check torque, but maybe he only did it on the rings. Rangemaster said today that could have been the issue. So I loctite'd it down and will see Sunday. If it's wonky again, I'm ordering a new scope (and one piece DNZ mount).

edit: as far as scope power, I will definitely upgrade from 3-9 IF I get a new one. I can barely see the bullseye at 9x when I'm sighting in. I don't mind movement of the reticle, just need to see what I'm aiming at, especially if the animal's at 200 yds!

[Doyle]

I can barely see the bullseye at 9x when I'm sighting in

If you are sighting in at 100 yds, then put the power adjustment somewhere in the middle (4 or 5). No need to go to 9x for only 100 yds.

[Art Eatman]

On sight-in, I use 9X so I can see .30 holes without the spotting scope. After I'm all happified, I then shoot a group at 3X to see if the scope is righteous.

[mendozer]

The reason I use 9x is I can't see the holes otherwise. I'm "guessing" that the bullseye is somewhere there in the middle. I like to visually see (clearly) what I'm shooting at.


Like with mt 22, I zoom in to 9x for 50 yds! but I can see the exact dot of the bullseye. Plus that way when I'm done with my target, I can precisely shoot the staples off

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by mendozer

Also, consensus online is that either of these are better choices when compared to Leupold Vx-1. VX-3 is where it really becomes a Leupold so I'm told.

First off any VX1 scope will be a better scope than the Redfield Revolution. Leupold isn't going to put better tech in a Redfield than its gold ring products. The only issue you might have with the VX1 is the parallax is set at 75 yards instead of 150 like the VX2, I have a newer VX1 on my daughters .250 Savage and have no issues with the parallax. For a sub $200 scope in the 2-7 or 3-9 power range you'll be hard pressed to find a better scope.

For years the standard for Leupold was the Vari-X/VX-II 3-9X40 this is the most popular selling version of the Leupold. One thing to remember about Leupold is technology trickles down line with them. A couple of years ago they went to the VX3 line and VX2 got the VX-III tech and the VX1 got the VX-II and so on. The new VX1 now has finger adjustable turrets with clicks like the VX2 & 3 and the same Multi Coat 4 glass coatings as the VX-II. The only thing you can't really get on a VX1 is the CDS dial.

[RC20]

On sight-in, I use 9X so I can see .30 holes without the spotting scope. After I'm all happified, I then shoot a group at 3X to see if the scope is righteous.

I need a spotting scope of 40x to see the holes at 100, your eyes more better than my eyes!

When I was hunting I sighted in at 3x and that was what I shot at. 9x was for scanning from a fixed position (stable)

I always went back to 3x, wider field of view and plenty good for hunting (never did see any of the holes in the animals until I skinned em!

Still whatever works. Lot of varried vegitation so wider was bette.

I had the raised rings for any bear encounter, not a fun thought trying to get one of those critters in the scope to shoot.

[HiBC]

Talk with your smith about checking ring alignment and perhaps lapping the ring(if needed).

If the rings are not coaxial they flex the scope tube.The weak zone in the tube is where the turrets attach.All the precision the scope (hopefully) was built with is compromised if the tube is flexed

Could be your scope just failed for any number of reasons,but,IMO,misaligned rings is a prime root cause.

[mendozer]

Voila! the loose mount was the culprit. Again visually correcting the issue with the reticle (which was opposite of scope directions) made it go haywire, so i used the directions and calculated it by clicks.


However, the down adjustment on the scope SUCKS! To move down 10 inches I must have done like a million clicks.

I eventually got it on bullseye then took it out of the bench rest and tried the next 5 by hand. I was high, but that's on me not the scope. Then I tried 200 yd using the BDC. I missed up and left by quite a bit 3 times.

But keep in mind this is cheapo PPU 150 grain stuff too.

So my best conclusion is at first it was fine, because that sight in went well, but over the next 5 or so range visits, that mount loosened more and more (especially the visit where I used 180 grain) and eventually got way off. So I'll keep an eye on this to ensure it stays where it is.

I think I'll go 165 grain for hunting. However it's hard to find 165 gr practice rounds locally. Usually they only have 150 or 180.

I may go to a one piece DNZ mount as well after hunting season. The one piece design gives me peace of mind, as it's 50% less chance of something moving.

[hooligan1]

Try Remington CoreLokts, they are pretty consistant for commercial ammo, and they have a 165 grn load I believe..

As far as Redfield Revolutions go, I had one and sold it because me and the sight picture never got along......Id take a broken VX over a new Revolution everytime.

[mendozer]

I've been using Core-lokts when available for sure. They're usually $25 a box or so near me.

the Fusions are $25 also, so I've been using those. A reloading calculator put my potential reloads at $27 a box using Nosler Ballistic Tip and brand new brass (which I have saved). I'm assuming my handloads would be better, but I'm not in a position to drop $$$ on reloading equipment right now.

[moosemike]

150's damage way more meat than 180's in an aught six. But the 180's lead to slower kills. I like 150's. I've used every weight in .30-06 from 125-220 grains. 150-165 is the sweet spot for deer.

[mendozer]

I'm thinking I'll use 165 for deer and elk. Seems like a good compromise between the two.

Anyone have experience with the Fusions for elk? I know it's got plenty of knockdown power for deer. Or are the Barnes $45/box really THAT much better?

The options I have around $25 are Core-lokt, Fusion, Power Shok and Winchester Super X

[moosemike]

The Fusion is constructed for deer. I've killed moose with 150 grain Power Points and 220 grain Core Lokts.

[mendozer]

well shoot if a 150 can do moose than a fusion 165 should do elk just fine right?

[moosemike]

Admittedly the 150 was too light for moose. It did the job but required follow up shots because of insufficient penetration on the first shot which struck shoulder bone.

[603Country]

You have a situation similar to one I had when I bought a new rifle a few years ago. New rifle, new scope, no favorite reload or factory load that's known to be good. Worked up a few loads that shot decent, but wanted better, but the more I shot, the worse the groups were. Tried everything I could think of and it still shot terrible. I went through hundreds of rounds. Finally, due to a magazine article I changed out the brand new scope for an old reliable one. All along, the scope had been the problem. A brand new scope. Oh, well.

So, if you still have the old scope on it, swap it out with new or borrowed. If you go with new, the options are endless, and most are good. Go with brand name gear. Bushnell, Burris Fullfield II, Leupold VX2, Vortex will do just fine. Magnification range of 4-12 will be just dandy for seeing the bullet holes at 100. Don't listen to the baloney about sighting it in at 4 power. Why do that if you have 10 or 12 power available? As for mounts, the DNZ one piece are fine, and easy to install.

As for bullet choices, if you don't reload, Remington, Winchester, Federal ammo will do just fine. Your rifle might like one more than another, so try a few out. Bullet weight of 150 or 165 will be fine.

As for bore cleaning, lately I'm in the camp of not taking all the copper out till accuracy degrades. That's 25 rounds in my 220, about 50 to 75 rounds in the 223, and seemingly never in the new 260 with the Brux barrel. Until you start reloading and have constantly consistent ammo, you may not be able to really tell when accuracy has degraded and copper needs to come out.

[mendozer]

I clean with Ballistol which supposedly works on every kind of fouling.

I'll keep those tips in mind with ammo testing. As far as the scope, it seems to hold FOR NOW

[603Country]

Swap out the scope. It will either solve your problem, or at worst will at least tell you that it isn't your problem.

My scope issue (Nikon Monarch) never got so bad that it became obvious that it was my problem. I just got endlessly bad groups of 1 to 2 inches. Changed powders and bullets and got the same nasty groups. I swapped out the stock, installed a Timney trigger and STILL got the same nasty groups. Clean bore or dirty bore, the groups were bad. Then I read that article about scopes sometimes being bad, but not so bad that that it would be obvious. And then I dug out some old targets, from back when the rifle and scope were a week old, and there was a nice group with 55 gr Noslers and Varget, I loaded up some more of those and got nasty groups. Dug around for an old Bushnell I had, mounted it and shot some decent groups. Took the Nikon back, swapped it for a Leupold VX2 6-18 and have shot happily since then.

If my rifle had been an old familiar one that I knew shot good groups, a scope problem would be immediately realized. Not so with a rifle new to me.

Swap out the scope. Trust me.