Long range builds

[JohnJohnson]

What you are describing is way more similar to PRS than general mountain hunting. I have stated numerous times that Coues hunting with a rifle is about the only hunting I’ve seen that somewhat mimics the type of gear and shots a PRS match generally exhibits.

That explains why it was the most fun I've ever had hunting. That and the desert scenery.

 

[hereinaz]

That explains why it was the most fun I've ever had hunting. That and the desert scenery.

It’s not that much fun, no one should come hunt coues… besides the desert is hot. Much cactus, very thorns. Deer small.

@Formidilosus I agree far more than I differ. I am not stroking you about your experience, merely saying that I appreciate and find value in it. I do disagree a little, but we are talking finer points so it always requires back and forth. And, I am going to test it and see if I am full of crap. Being better is more important than being right.

I am experimenting after this thread specifically on your suggestions.

Short form media being what it is, I am sure I read more into your critique of PRS trends. PRS has has its limitations and it doesn’t do much for the basic mountain hunting. I have to remember that caveat…

For the benefit of those looking for a long range build, which is what my comments have been tailored to, I stand by what I said, because I have rifles set up a little differently depending on the purpose.

I view long range really at 600+ so that is outside of much of what Form focuses on for mountain hunting. A dedicated long range hunting gun is a tool set up differently IMO.

I don’t know everything, but I have some well thought out and studied idea. And, some experience to set up in order to make the long pokes even for a largely self-trained shooter. Heck, shooting long range off a tripod, that might be the only thing I am good at…

My view is that going and shooting local PRS and NRL Hunter matches is one of the best things for the skills and way it opens one’s mind. I am still a relatively crappy “competition” shooter, but when it comes down the I crunch time on an animal, I feel like I have done as well as a guy can.

I haven’t been hunting many years, but I have killed every big game animal I shot at. If I shoot enough, that will change I am sure. The style mountain hunting I have done has admittedly played to my strengths and what I practiced. And, I take high confidence shots.

Bottom line is that a couple years of PRS made me a confident killer. Going to matches is a fun way to get practice and experience, cause it forces pressure. That’s really what taught me to clean up my shot process and learn to get on a gun and kill.

But, I am at best a middle of the road shooter at competitions. Yet, the system I work can get guys on my guns and set them up to kill off my tripod at long range if they can just press the trigger.

I have never blindly followed “the authorities” without testing, and so maybe I avoided the extremes Form talk about. It’s obvious to me that too high doesn’t work, just like too low. Always tradeoffs.

There is a good way to use PRS and NRL Hunter. I guess following it for some trends is not a good way. I haven’t followed it lately, so maybe there’s that.

Before PRS, the first couple of years I hunted I was a mess for sure. After local PRS and a few 2 days, I learned what I needed and tailored my gear to me, my surroundings, and the hunt. I don’t do anything but maybe an NRL Hunter and a couple local matches a year now.

I am not all about long range, cause my gun got transformed to an 18” .308 for my bison hunt cause the furthest shot would be 150 yards. There was like 10 of us hunters lined up on a herd just outside the Grand Canyon National Park at dawn. It was like a western shootout at dawn, lol. The first guy shot and they all started running. It was like a battle with all the shooting. I was the only guy to kill one on the run and it was all because of confidence from PRS.

I want to get better on the fast shots inside 400 that Form talk about. And, I am also gonna stick with a proven method for long range that has gotten me and guys around me kills on animals that are outside the skill set of most hunters.

 

[TaperPin]

Some interesting feedback in here, in my experience having a better cheek weld to match scope height has made more of a difference than strictly trying to get a scope as low as possible.
I think it's also a fair point to call out that overall ergonomics between the stock shape and where the action lies also plays to the decision making of how we're mounting scopes as well as personal preference before changing actions around on a sole basis if bolt throw.

I’ve been told my moderately firm cheek weld is wrong, by some quite talented shooters - the pressure isn't wrong, but I don’t lower my head down to the stock, which rolls the skin over the cheek piece and stretches the skin from the jaw line up. I honestly don’t know how much of a difference, if any, this makes, but entire teams of competition hole punchers seem to do it, so this year I’m going to try to do it enough that it becomes automatic and this time next year maybe I’ll see a difference. Lol

 

[TaperPin]

As far as long range builds go, I’m not really a long range shooter yet, but a very proficient moderate range shooter to 500 yards. This is the year to see how far I can stretch cold bore shots on a 9” plate, with both an 8x and 20x scope, and a good peep sight.

The number one thing that has made a difference to me, has been getting a light rifle that shoots really well. If a rifle puts all the bullets into a small group if you do your job, it provides instant feedback on every new hold or technique you try. The more things in a long range system you can check off as being solid, the better. The formula that always works is a custom barrel, 2 lb trigger, light weight stock, and reliable scope. There’s no reason an 8-1/2 lb rifle can‘t shoot 1/2 moa, even with 6x scope.

A very close second thing has to be an accurate 22 rimfire rifle - the dwell time is so long it amplifies any bad habits.

 

[rootacres]

Bighorn Origin Action
HNT26 Folder
Triggertech Triggers
MDT / Hawkins Mags
Proof CF Barrels
NX8 for hunting / MK5 for NRL Hunter


I have a 21” 7 SAUM Barrel. That’s my primary hunting caliber. I couldn’t be happier with the performance and setup. When I’m not in hunting mode. I swap the barrel to a 24” 6.5 Creed. Then I becomes my NRL Hunter rig.

 

[Formidilosus]

For transparency: I used to mount 'as low as possible', then experimented with the precision rifle (not PRS-specific) idea that low rings can mean one tilts/cranes one's head to the side, and that higher rings can help bring the head more vertical - especially with a raised buttpad and cheekpiece, so that the centre of boreline is in line with shoulder. So far, I've found this to be more comfortable and effective in recoil management - for me.

I’m reversing your questions to make it clearer/easier. If pure shooting performance is the goal- yes, get the center to upper 1/3rd of the recoil to the boreline; raise the cheekpiece to a solid, but not crushed cheekweld, and raise the scope to match. You also need a proper grip size/shape/angle to match.
This is where the Master Sporter is near perfect. The same for biathlon stocks, though many won’t have the recoil pad that high because of .22LR. You do see similarities with grip, comb, etc.

Hi Form, I don't *think* this is directly covered above, and wondering if you can spell out what those disadvantages are?

To make high mounted scope work you need adjustable cheek pieces and adjustable butt pads. They should probably be fully adjustable. That setup is heavy, bulky, and overall large. Those are factors that matter for most hunters, even LR ones.
Moving the optic higher also puts it into a more vulnerable position. Higher mounted optics are more susceptible to impacts and loss of zero. They make the gun bulky and large- which means it catches on more stuff- brush, packs, clothing, whatever. And yes, the higher the optic is to the bore, the more rifle cant matters.
It’s “fashionable” I guess you could say, to say that the differences between a scope as an example that a 1.7” height over bore (HOB) and one at 3” HOB doesn’t amount to much at most ranges. And on paper it isn’t that much. However, in the field, in very vertical broken terrain without references like straight trees- people really cant rifles. Even when they have references they do. And the differences can and are noticed when you see a lot of people shoot a lot of rounds in that environment.
I and others have seen a trend where the higher the HOB is, the more people cant the rifle in less the perfect shooting positions relative to a lower mounted optic. For example, if someone is shooting a rifle with HOB of 1.6” and they cant on average about 4-6° in broken terrain, when they go to a 3” HOB, it isn’t unusual for that cant to be 10-12° or more. This is isn’t something I have a massive amount of data on, but it does happen enough to be noticed.
Yes, bubble levels work, however lots of people don’t use them- even those that have them on the rifle. And ironically, one of the most aggressive proponents for higher mounted scopes and that low mounting a scope is “fudd”, also says that bubble levels are stupid and unneeded….


A high mounted scope using a low cheek weld or a jaw weld, also changes where the index is based on shooting position (standing to prone) unless you make a concerted effort to crank your neck up and back. That isn’t comfortable, and it isn’t repeatable. It introduces stress and tension which is what the whole “heads up” position is supposed to eliminate.

Again, I am not really talking about the difference between a 1.6” HOB and a 2” HOB. I am talking about the thing being pushed where rifles have 2.5”-3” HOB. For some rifles that’s how it is. For most hunting rifles- no.

 

[JohnJohnson]

And yes, the higher the optic is to the bore, the more rifle cant matters.

I'm trying to figure out how that squares with MDT's myth-busting on the subject below. For all of your other cant-related stuff the take-home seems to be use a level and you're fine.

 

[Dobermann]

I’m reversing your questions to make it clearer/easier. If pure shooting performance is the goal- yes, get the center to upper 1/3rd of the recoil to the boreline; raise the cheekpiece to a solid, but not crushed cheekweld, and raise the scope to match. You also need a proper grip size/shape/angle to match.
This is where the Master Sporter is near perfect. The same for biathlon stocks, though many won’t have the recoil pad that high because of .22LR. You do see similarities with grip, comb, etc.







To make high mounted scope work you need adjustable cheek pieces and adjustable butt pads. They should probably be fully adjustable. That setup is heavy, bulky, and overall large. Those are factors that matter for most hunters, even LR ones.
Moving the optic higher also puts it into a more vulnerable position. Higher mounted optics are more susceptible to impacts and loss of zero. They make the gun bulky and large- which means it catches on more stuff- brush, packs, clothing, whatever. And yes, the higher the optic is to the bore, the more rifle cant matters.
It’s “fashionable” I guess you could say, to say that the differences between a scope as an example that a 1.7” height over bore (HOB) and one at 3” HOB doesn’t amount to much at most ranges. And on paper it isn’t that much. However, in the field, in very vertical broken terrain without references like straight trees- people really cant rifles. Even when they have references they do. And the differences can and are noticed when you see a lot of people shoot a lot of rounds in that environment.
I and others have seen a trend where the higher the HOB is, the more people cant the rifle in less the perfect shooting positions relative to a lower mounted optic. For example, if someone is shooting a rifle with HOB of 1.6” and they cant on average about 4-6° in broken terrain, when they go to a 3” HOB, it isn’t unusual for that cant to be 10-12° or more. This is isn’t something I have a massive amount of data on, but it does happen enough to be noticed.
Yes, bubble levels work, however lots of people don’t use them- even those that have them on the rifle. And ironically, one of the most aggressive proponents for higher mounted scopes and that low mounting a scope is “fudd”, also says that bubble levels are stupid and unneeded….


A high mounted scope using a low cheek weld or a jaw weld, also changes where the index is based on shooting position (standing to prone) unless you make a concerted effort to crank your neck up and back. That isn’t comfortable, and it isn’t repeatable. It introduces stress and tension which is what the whole “heads up” position is supposed to eliminate.

Again, I am not really talking about the difference between a 1.6” HOB and a 2” HOB. I am talking about the thing being pushed where rifles have 2.5”-3” HOB. For some rifles that’s how it is. For most hunting rifles- no.

Thanks for taking the time to reply so fulsomely, Form.

Lots in here for me to re-read and digest - and then get out an experiment with.

Thanks so much again!

 

[C Bow]

WOW this has been very educational read for me Thanks

 

[DEW0341]

Glad I grabbed the popcorn before this one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[260shooter]

I am in the process of gathering parts for a 6.5/7 PRC, relatively light weight rifle build. Parts I have. Manners Pro Hunter (carbon) stock, Bartlein CF R5 8 twist 22" barrel, Hawkins M5 bottom metal, TT Special trigger. No action (open to suggestions), muzzle break, Dies or reamer yet. Also plan to get another Bartlein steel barrel (B3) and have it chambered along with the first one.

Have ADG 7 PRC brass and intend to use 147 ELD-M's or Berger OEL 156's

I have watched the UM guys on their podcast and what they are doing with shorter lighter rifles. And the thought of a 147 @ varmit caliber velocities spiked my intest.