50 yd. zero pros and cons?

[Pony Soldier]

I sight in at 50 yds because it is a short walk and I built a 50yd range. After final adjustment I then move to my 100 yd range and verify. If I am curious enough I will then go to my 200 yd range for a couple shots.

300-400 yd shots are usually reserved for coyotes and elk out the front porch windows or off the second story balcony.

 

[Mike Islander]

Let me be clear, name calling and insults are against the forum rules. Just because you have a different opinion, it does not make me wrong. You are entitled to have any opinion you like, but you are not entitled to try to force it on others. I will simply agree to disagree, and move on.

Please don't move on just yet. I wondered about your statement as well. Are you saying Remington machined the receivers on my model 700s so that the barrels angle upward? Same on my Fieldcraft? I've never heard anything like that before.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

Let me be clear, name calling and insults are against the forum rules. Just because you have a different opinion, it does not make me wrong. You are entitled to have any opinion you like, but you are not entitled to try to force it on others. I will simply agree to disagree, and move on.

Go back and read both of my replies to you, I never called you a name and I never insulted you. You’re making stuff up. I stated that you don’t know what you’re talking about because you don’t.

It’s fact that barrels are not perfectly straight and that they don’t curve up unless that just happens to be the way it gets machined by luck, that’s not opinion. There’s a lot of other issues like chamber alignment that would present itself if you machined a barrel pointed up too that you are also apparently clueless about.

You spread your misinformation and I called you on it so you were the first to “force” an opinion on others if that’s what you want to call that.

 

[Wrench]

Boy there's more stretching in this one than a gymnastics competition.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

Let me be clear, name calling and insults are against the forum rules. Just because you have a different opinion, it does not make me wrong. You are entitled to have any opinion you like, but you are not entitled to try to force it on others. I will simply agree to disagree, and move on.

Where’s the insult? Hurting feelings by calling you out on misinformation is not an insult.

But, I’m with Mike on this one. Are you telling me the threads cut in an action are not squared and angled up? That truing an action is a waste of time? Shouldn’t you see a small gap at the bottom of the action or is the action cut at a small angle to compensate? I could go on and on but I’ll wait.

 

[Bubblehide]

Go back and read both of my replies to you, I never called you a name and I never insulted you. You’re making stuff up. I stated that you don’t know what you’re talking about because you don’t.

It’s fact that barrels are not perfectly straight and that they don’t curve up unless that just happens to be the way it gets machined by luck, that’s not opinion. There’s a lot of other issues like chamber alignment that would present itself if you machined a barrel pointed up too that you are also apparently clueless about.

You spread your misinformation and I called you on it so you were the first to “force” an opinion on others if that’s what you want to call that.

But you're calling it WRONG.

Explain how a bullet has an upward trajectory from leaving the muzzle, on every rifle made? Explain how and why every trajectory chart has the bullet traveling upward from the muzzle to its apex, and then starts droping?

The problem here is that you can't becaue you are misinformed.

 

[Bubblehide]

Stop and think about it, bullets don't have wings, so there is zero lift.

 

[Mike Islander]

But you're calling it WRONG.

Explain how a bullet has an upward trajectory from leaving the muzzle, on every rifle made? Explain how and why every trajectory chart has the bullet traveling upward from the muzzle to its apex, and then starts droping?

The problem here is that you can't becaue you are misinformed.

The scope line of sight angles down with respect to the barrel. The barrel angle is higher than the scope line of sight, but not because the barrel is angled on the receiver. It's because aiming the downward angled scope at the target means the entire rifle is aimed upward with respect to the scope.

The bullet direction when it leaves the barrel is in line with the rifle, which can be up, horizontal, or down, depending on the target. If a deer is far below you in a canyon, the bullet will exit at a negative (downward) angle to the horizon. Immediately after leaving the the barrel the bullet begins to fall below the barrel line of sight due to gravity.

Now, do you still assert that the barrel is angled upward in relation to the receiver? Or would you like to correct that statement (or back up with a reference)?

 

[Pickettpuncher]

But you're calling it WRONG.

Explain how a bullet has an upward trajectory from leaving the muzzle, on every rifle made? Explain how and why every trajectory chart has the bullet traveling upward from the muzzle to its apex, and then starts droping?

The problem here is that you can't becaue you are misinformed.

Because the rifle is aimed higher than a true horizontal axis. Not because the barrel is turned in at an angle lol.

 

[Montana Slim]

If you don't think barrels are slightly 'pointed up' - what does a canted rail, or moving your top turret accomplish??
These things increase angle between your rifle 'boresight' and your scopes line of sight... increasing the amount of pointedupedness. If they were parallel, you would never hit any closer than the distance between your scope and barrel at any distance

 

[Bubblehide]

The last time I mounted a scope (zero moa) and the first, along with everything in between, I level tge acton and the scope, forwards and side to side. I simply have no idea how you guys are doing it. But that is all I have to say on the matter for now, as I will be hunting.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

If you don't think barrels are slightly 'pointed up' - what does a canted rail, or moving your top turret accomplish??
These things increase angle between your rifle 'boresight' and your scopes line of sight... increasing the amount of pointedupedness. If they were parallel, you would never hit any closer than the distance between your scope and barrel at any distance

But it’s not just the barrel.

 

[Montana Slim]

So the main argument here is whether or not the barrel is 'pointed up' relative to the receiver..................

 

[Mike Islander]

If you don't think barrels are slightly 'pointed up' - what does a canted rail, or moving your top turret accomplish??
These things increase angle between your rifle 'boresight' and your scopes line of sight... increasing the amount of pointedupedness. If they were parallel, you would never hit any closer than the distance between your scope and barrel at any distance

Already covered. Nobody is saying that the barrel isn't pointed higher than scope line of sight. The entire rifle line of site is at a higher angle than the scope, but is there up angle between the barrel and the receiver "on every rifle" as claimed? I don't think so.

 

[Mike Islander]

So the main argument here is whether or not the barrel is 'pointed up' relative to the receiver..................

Yes, that was what was called out specifically.

 

[Montana Slim]

The scope line of sight angles down with respect to the barrel. The barrel angle is higher than the scope line of sight, but not because the barrel is angled on the receiver. It's because aiming the downward angled scope at the target means the entire rifle is aimed upward with respect to the scope.

The bullet direction when it leaves the barrel is in line with the rifle, which can be up, horizontal, or down, depending on the target. If a deer is far below you in a canyon, the bullet will exit at a negative (downward) angle to the horizon. Immediately after leaving the the barrel the bullet begins to fall below the barrel line of sight due to gravity.

Now, do you still assert that the barrel is angled upward in relation to the receiver? Or would you like to correct that statement (or back up with a reference)?
View attachment 463928

Missed this one... hahah ill show myself out

 

[Mike Islander]

The last time I mounted a scope (zero moa) and the first, along with everything in between, I level tge acton and the scope, forwards and side to side. I simply have no idea how you guys are doing it. But that is all I have to say on the matter for now, as I will be hunting.

So, you were guessing that maybe the barrel is angled up and not measuring bore angle when reciever is level? I mean, it's not impossible to have a canted receiver top surface, but that doesn't mean the barrel is angled up on the rifle.

 

[Desk Jockey]

fun debate. One thing to add: That imaginary straight line that comes out of the barrel and continues on straight for infinity is called the line of departure. that line does converge with the line of sight on a scope on a typical rifle. The bullet trajectory is a downward arch from the end of the barrel or a parabola (depending on how your mind works and how you think about it relative to a theoretical horizon) Due to gravity. The line of sight from your scope and that line of departure from the barrel will converge at one point - potentially a zero at 50 yards but likely slightly above a zero at 100 yards. More importantly, that line of sight will cross the bullet trajectory at two distances (generally) and if one happens to be your 50 or 100 zero then the line of sight will cross the bullet trajectory again at a further distance (about 275 yards on my ) gun.

if the line of sight and the line of departure did not converge and were 100% parallel, the bullet trajectory would start off below the line of sight by the offset distance of the line of sight and the bore access and then it would drop from there Throughout its trajectory. Basically the bullet path would always be below your point of aim and lower the greater the distance.

so…while I don’t exactly agree with the idea formulation of the thought used above about the barrel being angled up toward the line of sight…it is more accurate to me to say that the lines of sight and departure converge at a point…so if the barrel was perfectly horizontal, the scope would be pointing downward relative to perfectly horizontal, and if the scope was perfectly horizontal, the barrel would be pointing slightly upward relative to the horizon.

 

[fwafwow]

 

[redneckbmxer24]

But you're calling it WRONG.

Explain how a bullet has an upward trajectory from leaving the muzzle, on every rifle made? Explain how and why every trajectory chart has the bullet traveling upward from the muzzle to its apex, and then starts droping?

The problem here is that you can't becaue you are misinformed.

Yes, your thinking is wrong, that’s not how it works. The bullet falls from the moment it leaves the muzzle. The reason the rifle is AIMED up is the match the POI with the POA, the same as when you dial dope you are aiming the rifle up.

Again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.