Spikes Tactical (Range Report)

Discussion in 'AR-15 Discussion' started by Gloves, Feb 7, 2011.

  1. Gloves

    Gloves New Member

    483
    0
    0
    2nd time to the range with the Spikes Tactical 16"

    My goal was to set the iron sights to 25 yards and the scope to 100 yards.


    Maybe you can see what my problem was with the scope.

    25 Yards:
    [​IMG]

    100 Yards:
    [​IMG]
     
  2. MrMilspecer

    MrMilspecer New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Looks like you need to go down and left. Are you out of adjustment ? Did you zero your scope at 25 or 100 ? Looks like you zero'd at 25. I would suggest to zero at 100 yards and learn to hold over at closer ranges.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2011

  3. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Was the scope question rhetorical or did you want some help with it?

    And I think Milspec meant to hold "under" at closer ranges (if zero'd at 100) as the bullet will still be on the rise out of the muzzle at closer distances to make a 100 yard zero. ;)
     
  4. MrMilspecer

    MrMilspecer New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Heres some info i found. Just from shooting a lot most my scoped rifles when zeroed at 25, 50, 100 yards i have to hold over when shooting at less than zero'd distance. The bullet rise is the cant where the scope axis and bore axis cross. Unless my brain is going...

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    So, with a 100 yard zero, the blue line in your graph, you would be holding lower to shoot at 50 yards, unless we are saying the same thing a different way. Looks to be about -1 on your graph.
     
  6. MrMilspecer

    MrMilspecer New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Yes you would be shooting lower at 50 with a 100 yard zero therefore you would aim high approx 1'' at 50 to compensate. You wouldnt aim lower if your already shooting under. Does that make sense?
     
  7. Gloves

    Gloves New Member

    483
    0
    0
    The Problem:
    I zeroed at 25 yards with the scope.
    Then I was shooing inexplicably high at 100 yards.

    At first I thought it was the Coriolis effect.
    or maybe spin drift.
    Then I remembered I forgot to check the tides and could have been the pull of the moon...
    Turns out it wasn’t any of those things it’s the height of the gun sights above the bore center line. (I forget the official term for this)

    MrMilspecer that’s the best diagram I ever seen. It beautifully illustrates the solution to my problem. I knew I want a 0 at 100 yards. I just started it at 25. When I went to shoot 100 yards, I couldn’t see the holes in the paper. (I don’t own a spotting scope yet)

    So any recommendations for an inexpensive spotting scope? It should be easily capable of seeing .223 sized holes in paper 100 yards away. =)

    Thanks for the input, next time I got out (with a spotting scope) I'll be shooting bottle-cap sized holes at 100 yards.
     
  8. MrMilspecer

    MrMilspecer New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Sounds like you have it figured out. The height of the scope over the bore can play tricks on people and on the ARs even open sights set up high. I almost always zero at at least 50 yards , 100 pref. As you found out a 25 yrd zero leaves shooting high at 100 the sand-rats would be safe :eek:
     
  9. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    I must conclude that you are referring to the "X" and "Y" axis of the scope reticle when you are saying to "aim high". In effect, choosing a spot "higher" than the "X" and "Y" intercept to compensate.

    If that is the case, we are saying the same thing.

    The confusion is verbage. Rotate this equation 90 degrees to hit a moving target. You don't hold in front of a moving target and call it "lag".

    It would appear that the OP has the information he needed though, so that is the most important thing.
     
  10. Gloves

    Gloves New Member

    483
    0
    0
  11. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    To be honest, binoculars are cheaper, will get more usage than a dedicated range scope, and for me as a shooter, much easier to use.

    I don't own a spotting scope, but I do have a nice pair of binos in my range bag. I think they are Leica. I got them on close out about 6 or 8 years ago.

    So much easier to take a couple of shots. Open the bolt, rest my elbows on the table or the mat and zero in with the bino's instead of getting up from prone or off the bench and continuing to squint into a new piece of glass.

    But that is just me. YMMV.

    JD
     
  12. MrMilspecer

    MrMilspecer New Member

    126
    0
    0
    Looks like the reviews are good. I have a hard time recomending Barska, BSA and a few others. I like Nikkon, Bushnell Elite's, Leopuld, Burris,Weaver. You may get lucky. I usually dont. With me cheaper is often more expensive, But sometimes you get lucky. If you get one I would like to hear your opinion on it. Good luck.
     
  13. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    You know JD that is actually quite clever. A pair if binos would be so mcuh handier than a separate spotting scope. Thanks ;)

    Hmmmmm , maybe I should take a look at some monoculars
     
  14. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Every once in awhile I have a moment. :p
     
  15. Gloves

    Gloves New Member

    483
    0
    0
    Yep, I got a pair of binos, not great quality. So i'm still going to go the route of the
    spotting scope. I think i'm going to try it. I'll put the order in tomorrow. I'll let
    you all know how nice/crappy it is when it gets in. I don't know much about eye-relief
    maybe I'll read some on that before using to give a better review.

    Thanks!