Scopes and sighting in

[greenhorn]

I recently mounted a Bushnell Elite 3200 to my .270. My rifle came with Weaver style mounts, and I found a set of Burris Zee rings that I was told were nice, and ended up purchasing them.

My question arises from the subsequent sight-in I tried a few days ago. I had a fella bore sight the rifle for 100yds, and then I headed to the range to make the fine adjustments.

My first group of three shots were about 18" high and 4" to the right of the target. I quickly corrected the windage adjustment without any problems. Then I started adjusting for elevation.

On this 3200, one revolution of the dial is 60 increments. To get the bullet hitting dead center, it took 53 of the 60 increments!

My question is, is this past what is called a "fine adjustment"? The burris rings I'm using accept pos-align offset rings to avoid shimming problems, and I'm wondering if I should try a new set of these to bring the scope down .005"

Any help is appreciated!

[brotherjack]

Boresighting is typically only good enough to get you on the paper at 100 yards (and it's not unheard of, that it won't even be that good after a boresight job). That's why you have to go out and sight it in the old fashioned way.

Your scope lists 50 inches of adjustment (25 up and 25 down). If you did 18 of that, I'd say that didn't sound too bad (though worse than one might like).

IMHO, if the scope will hold zero, provide consistently repeatable adjustments, and the windage and elevation adjustments don't interfere (ie: the impact point doesn't move left or right after you've made only an up/down adjustment to the scope - or vis vsa) (I think the latter would be the most likely problem, if any, you would see from having to crank the elevation down too close to the limit on your scope), then I wouldn't worry about it for 5 seconds. They put adjustments on scopes so you can adjust them as needed. They're there to be used, in other words. :)

[greenhorn]

Thanks for the input;

I agree with you, the only problem I foresee is centred upon the fact that I shoot both 130gr. and 150gr. bullets.

Specifically, If I've used up all of my adjustment (or close to all of it) sighting in for a certain bullet weight, I may not have enough adjustment left for the others.

[elkster]

I would do the elevation adjustments and go back to the range. shoot three shots and see how it is. If its good I wouldn't worry about. If its still high, you might need to lower your scope. Is your scope very high off the rifle? If you are going to do more tahn 3 shots, let the rifle cool down in between.

[greenhorn]

The centerline of the scope is about 1.5" above the centerline of the bore. More importantly though, it feels more comfortable to shoot than my previous scope that was really low.

The scope is currently adjusted to shoot dead center at 100yds. and it seemed to hold the adjustment for the rest of the day, and I was able to hit all the gongs that were set-up past 250 yds.

[elkster]

The centerline of the scope is about 1.5" above the centerline of the bore. More importantly though, it feels more comfortable to shoot than my previous scope that was really low.

The scope is currently adjusted to shoot dead center at 100yds. and it seemed to hold the adjustment for the rest of the day, and I was able to hit all the gongs that were set-up past 250 yds.

If you are comfortable with your scope at that height. Keep it there. 1.5" is not that high. The adjustment from 150 to 130gr. shouldn't be to drastic. If your scope is 1/4" per click, you should have around a hundred clicks for adjustment.

[bochunk2000]

Greenhorn you have way more the one revolution of the dial for adjustment. If you only had to come down 18" then you should be fine to leave it where it is. I would just make sure you aren't having any problems keeping it sighted in. Good luck and let me know if you need some help on my home email. Steve.

[steel_ram]

I would hope buy the end of your sighting in that your scope adjustment knobs are as near centre as possible. Having to crank the dials most of the way to hit centre on target is not the greatest. It will still work but personally I would shim or whatever you have to do to centre the reticle before shooting.

What I do is go to the range with some good sandbags. Remove the bolt (assuming its a bolt action). Secure the rifle in the sand bags so that when I look down the bore I can see a prodominant object out at 100yds. ie. a white target, cross posts of target stands. and then I move the scope to meet it.

[greenhorn]

Thanks for all of the advice guys!

It's a nice cool (rainy) holiday monday in Victoria today, and I'll probably go and check the adjustments I made last week.

I've got some 130gr. and 150gr. bullets, and will try both. I'll also try bumping the rifle a bit to see if the adjustments stay.

If all is good and the bullets hit true, I'll likely leave the rings as they are. This higher scope position is alot more comfortable for me to shoot than my old, lower scope level.

I'll let you know how it goes, and please keep posting replies if you have any further advice/tips.

[brotherjack]

Actually, if you do some fooling around with a ballistic trajecotry calculator (I use Shoot v3.0, though there are many good or better ones out there), you'll find that for a big game rifle - which assumes you can be up or down 2-3 inches with your bullet and still handily kill your critter - having a high(er) mounted scope is actually a slight advantage (not so much so that I would change my rifle around to mount my scope high to get that advantage, but definitely it is an advantage).

As many of you gasp in horror - let me explain. If you drew a graph of the line of sight against the arc of the bullet - you'll find that the higher the scope/line of sight, the more you can arch that arc and still not cross the 3 inches high mark - which then in effect, extends the maximum range you can shoot without having to compensate for the yardage.

Here's an example from my .303 British, using a 200 yard 0:

With a 2.1 inch scope height (my current setup, actually - can't mout it any lower without changing out my entire scope mounting system, as well as performing permanant modifications to the reciever), I am 2.44 inches high at 100 yards. 2.4 inches high at 100 yards is actually a bit under the 3 inches high that a lot of people recommend for a big game rifle.

However, according to my ballistic software, if I could adjust my scope down to say 1.3 inches high, to keep the same 200 yard zero, I would now be 2.84 inches high at 100 yards.

That extra .4 inches isn't much really (and in reality, 2.1 inches is way higher than most people without an old Enfield will ever have a scope mounted), which is why I said earlier, I wouldn't go out of my way to raise the scope on my rifle trying to get that advantage. I would set my scope to whatever is comfortable to shoot with (as you have), and leave it there - comfort shooting is way more important than just about anything else.

However, I just thought that I would point out, that - unlike in target shooting - it is a slight advantage to have your scope higher mounted on your big game rifle, if you get technical about it (which I am).

:)

[greenhorn]

Well, everything worked well!

At 100yds, the 130gr. and 150gr. bullets all shot within a 2" group of one another. And the nosler partitions (150gr.) all grouped in at around 1". I think this is ok given the fact that I wasnt using sand bags, and was just shooting from a rest.

I also stopped by my local gun shop and asked about lowering the scope with some new/different rings, and was presented with some options. I think the option I'll go with is:

Leupold mounts with Leupold rings.

This system is supposed to be very stable once you actually get it installed and adjusted.

So you are probably asking, why am I changing equipment again if what I have is working? The answer is price.

This guy is willing to trade me the Burris rings and Weaver mounts for the Leupold setup, at net money transfer of $30. This will allow me to lower the scope slightly, but maintain a comfortable level.

Also, the Leupold set-up uses a single rail mount, instead of the two mount system of the weaver I have.

I really like the rifle, and I think the extra money for this set-up is worth it.

[greenhorn]

Well, everything worked well!

At 100yds, the 130gr. and 150gr. bullets all shot within a 2" group of one another. And the nosler partitions (150gr.) all grouped in at around 1". I think this is ok given the fact that I wasnt using sand bags, and was just shooting from a rest.

I also stopped by my local gun shop and asked about lowering the scope with some new/different rings, and was presented with some options. I think the option I'll go with is:

Leupold mounts with Leupold rings.

This system is supposed to be very stable once you actually get it installed and adjusted.

So you are probably asking, why am I changing equipment again if what I have is working? The answer is price.

This guy is willing to trade me the Burris rings and Weaver mounts for the Leupold setup, at net money transfer of $30. This will allow me to lower the scope slightly, but maintain a comfortable level.

Also, the Leupold set-up uses a single rail mount, instead of the two mount system of the weaver I have.

I really like the rifle, and I think the extra money for this set-up is worth it.