The Tipping Point

[Motorhead]

MONSTRUM
30mm extra low cantilever piccitini mount being used with Dovetail to Picc rail ( Same as UTG but in a longer rail configuration )

 

[JungleShooter]

MONSTRUM
30mm extra low cantilever piccitini mount being used with Dovetail to Picc rail ( Same as UTG but in a longer rail configuration )

Thank you!

 

[cavedweller]

Hi,
I have the CF barrel tube so I can fill to 250bar. With that, at my current tune, I am getting around 90 shots before falling off the regulator. I have the reg set at 110 bar. This has been one of the areas I have spent a lot of time working on. The DRS is really intended for higher power than 20 fpe. I think the valve return spring could probably be a little stiffer to help close the valve quicker. The valve is almost exactly the same size as in the Crown, but the spring is different.

When I ordered the FORM stock (from the UK maker) having a UIT rail is on option. So are the cheek riser and the adjustable length of pull. I opted for this stock (two other style options) with the cheek riser and UIT rail, but not the LOP adjustment. I 3D printed a plug to get the LOP where I wanted it and to allow the PRS butt pad to work. The stock isn't cheap - more than the FX Grade 2 walnut option. But I like it better. Not as much as the GRS stock on my Crowns, but almost as nice.

The 30yd/40yd Challenge is a bench shooting challenge. There are guys using fancy benchrest front supports, but a lot of us just use a Bipod and a bag or monopod. Mike (from Thomas Airguns) has reported using a remote-control trigger on some of his cards. I have shot a few from my HFT position. I am going to ask Ed (EPG, the thread moderator) if we can add an HFT class. I think the rings on the targets are way to small for offhand.

Cheers,
Greg

I really enjoy BR especially when it’s too hot and too cold when I shoot from my heated and cooled shooters box.
I’ve always had a dream of creating a new game = combination of benchrest and field target See picture:
these hybrids (8 per lane) 10-15 lanes, would be placed, or set out at various distances just as you would a regular FT course but no strings…
The challenge is that a cold line would need to be called after each 5 minute round so cards could be retrieved and new ones placed. This amounts to more exercise
Cards would be scored just like regular bench rest - which is a little bit more time consuming. This particular model has a flip up paddle which blocks the target after it’s shot

 

[Franklink]

"The Tipping Point"

When I saw the title I fully expected another thread adjacent to spending money on field target.

 

[cavedweller]

"The Tipping Point"

When I saw the title I fully expected another thread adjacent to spending money on field target.

 

[cavedweller]

I’m spending less and less on FT/EFT equipment and more and more on Ammo these days.

 

[cavedweller]

I’m spending less and less on FT/EFT equipment and more and more on Ammo these days.

I was playing FT with my ghost today when it dawned on me that bullpups are perhaps the most difficult Airgun platform to manage the “tipping point”.
From my experience this is because to get a good eyebox I have to mount the scope much higher than I would like, and the higher the scope, the tippier things get.
this tidbit of information also makes me rethink what I use my bullpups for.

 

[JungleShooter]

Bullpups: To get a good eyebox I have to mount the scope much higher than I would like, and the higher the scope, the tippier things get.
this tidbit of information also makes me rethink what I use my bullpups for.

Mmmm, everybody has a different anatomy, different habits, different preferences.

The scopes on my bullpups are all mounted fairly close to the barrel: 2.6", 2.3", 2.1"


️ Let's not forget that PCP rifles with traditionally shaped stocks often have a magazine sticking up under the scope that prevents low scope mounting...

Matthias

 

[cavedweller]

Mmmm, everybody has a different anatomy, different habits, different preferences.

The scopes on my bullpups are all mounted fairly close to the barrel: 2.6", 2.3", 2.1"


️ Let's not forget that PCP rifles with traditionally shaped stocks often have a magazine sticking up under the scope that prevents low scope mounting...

Matthias

it certainly doesn't help to have hardware in ones neck. Making me wonder more about why a bullpup (for me personally) is more difficult to get the perfect eyebox? Dunno. Bullpups generally have more of the weight forward of the cocking, breech and trigger area with a shorter LOP...?

 

[Scotchmo]

Mmmm, everybody has a different anatomy, different habits, different preferences.

The scopes on my bullpups are all mounted fairly close to the barrel: 2.6", 2.3", 2.1"


️ Let's not forget that PCP rifles with traditionally shaped stocks often have a magazine sticking up under the scope that prevents low scope mounting...

Matthias

The scope height in my P15 is 1.85”. Works well for me.

 

[cavedweller]

The scope height in my P15 is 1.85”. Works well for me.

You must have gecko eyes

 

[Franklink]

I was playing FT with my ghost today when it dawned on me that bullpups are perhaps the most difficult Airgun platform to manage the “tipping point”.
From my experience this is because to get a good eyebox I have to mount the scope much higher than I would like, and the higher the scope, the tippier things get.
this tidbit of information also makes me rethink what I use my bullpups for.

Two thoughts here...scope height, and bullpups for field target.

Scope height
High versus low scope mounting both have pros and cons, similar to the argument of faster/flatter with 10.34s versus slower/ (potentially) better BC with 13.43s.

High scope mount on a field target rig equates to requiring more hold over for close shots, but less for the 45+ yard shots.
Low scope mount on a field target rig is the opposite....they require less hold over on close shots, but more on the 45+ yard shots.
Where do most scopes range best, close or far?

Bullpups (and tipping point)
Will share an interesting anecdote from this past weekends ft and silhouette match.

I shot the official match with my USFT, which is NOT a bullpup. I scored a 44/48. 38/42 on stool/sticks shots and 4/4 on offhand, 2/2 on kneeling.
While waiting for everyone to finish lunch and get the silhouette match going, I shot my Veteran (VERY much a bullpup, and a short little thing at that) through the course, but for an unofficial score. 44/48 again. 41/42 on stool/sticks shots, and combined 3/6 on the offhand/kneeling (forget which ones I missed).

Two very different guns, one a long gun, the other a very short bullpup. The Vet is actually about half the length of the USFT. Same score. Same model of Midas Tac 6/24 on both of them. The scope height is greater on the Veteran. The tippy nature of bullpups can be accounted for by matching gun weight/scope weight. This particular Vet is in a HEAVY chassis stock, and it works well with the 24ounce Midas Tac. Think of the keel of a boat. Adding weights to rails on the sides of the gun, or on the hamster, etc (point being that the weight is added on the lower portion of the rig) can make an otherwise tippy bullpup, MUCH less tippy. Ie, can still mount the scope on the bullpup high enough to get a good eye alignment, and then negate the tippyness that creates by adding weight as low as possible. If done properly, and sprinkled with a decent dose of practice (which of course applies to any and all ft rigs), bullpups can be as competitive in field target as any other type of airgun.

 

[JungleShooter]

Two thoughts here...scope height, and bullpups for field target.

Scope height
High versus low scope mounting both have pros and cons, similar to the argument of faster/flatter with 10.34s versus slower/ (potentially) better BC with 13.43s.

High scope mount on a field target rig equates to requiring more hold over for close shots, but less for the 45+ yard shots.
Low scope mount on a field target rig is the opposite....they require less hold over on close shots, but more on the 45+ yard shots.
Where do most scopes range best, close or far?

Bullpups (and tipping point)
Will share an interesting anecdote from this past weekends ft and silhouette match.

I shot the official match with my USFT, which is NOT a bullpup. I scored a 44/48. 38/42 on stool/sticks shots and 4/4 on offhand, 2/2 on kneeling.
While waiting for everyone to finish lunch and get the silhouette match going, I shot my Veteran (VERY much a bullpup, and a short little thing at that) through the course, but for an unofficial score. 44/48 again. 41/42 on stool/sticks shots, and combined 3/6 on the offhand/kneeling (forget which ones I missed).

Two very different guns, one a long gun, the other a very short bullpup. The Vet is actually about half the length of the USFT. Same score. Same model of Midas Tac 6/24 on both of them. The scope height is greater on the Veteran. The tippy nature of bullpups can be accounted for by matching gun weight/scope weight. This particular Vet is in a HEAVY chassis stock, and it works well with the 24ounce Midas Tac. Think of the keel of a boat. Adding weights to rails on the sides of the gun, or on the hamster, etc (point being that the weight is added on the lower portion of the rig) can make an otherwise tippy bullpup, MUCH less tippy. Ie, can still mount the scope on the bullpup high enough to get a good eye alignment, and then negate the tippyness that creates by adding weight as low as possible. If done properly, and sprinkled with a decent dose of practice (which of course applies to any and all ft rigs), bullpups can be as competitive in field target as any other type of airgun.

After Cole's very deep and insightful post, I feel quite silly to publish this following post.
But I have been suffering from airgun withdrawal symptoms for almost three long months now due to a business trip....
So, bear with me. Here goes:


We've been talking about
the tipping point with scopes.

I think I'm reaching mine:
Because the total value of my scopes versus the value of my guns is reaching a tipping point:
My scopes just need a 3-digit dollar amount more to tip the scale in their favor.

➧ This should officially qualify me to carry the questionable title "scope nerd."




OK, carry on now (with the other meaning of tipping point).

Matthias

 

[cavedweller]

Two thoughts here...scope height, and bullpups for field target.

Scope height
High versus low scope mounting both have pros and cons, similar to the argument of faster/flatter with 10.34s versus slower/ (potentially) better BC with 13.43s.

High scope mount on a field target rig equates to requiring more hold over for close shots, but less for the 45+ yard shots.
Low scope mount on a field target rig is the opposite....they require less hold over on close shots, but more on the 45+ yard shots.
Where do most scopes range best, close or far?

Bullpups (and tipping point)
Will share an interesting anecdote from this past weekends ft and silhouette match.

I shot the official match with my USFT, which is NOT a bullpup. I scored a 44/48. 38/42 on stool/sticks shots and 4/4 on offhand, 2/2 on kneeling.
While waiting for everyone to finish lunch and get the silhouette match going, I shot my Veteran (VERY much a bullpup, and a short little thing at that) through the course, but for an unofficial score. 44/48 again. 41/42 on stool/sticks shots, and combined 3/6 on the offhand/kneeling (forget which ones I missed).

Two very different guns, one a long gun, the other a very short bullpup. The Vet is actually about half the length of the USFT. Same score. Same model of Midas Tac 6/24 on both of them. The scope height is greater on the Veteran. The tippy nature of bullpups can be accounted for by matching gun weight/scope weight. This particular Vet is in a HEAVY chassis stock, and it works well with the 24ounce Midas Tac. Think of the keel of a boat. Adding weights to rails on the sides of the gun, or on the hamster, etc (point being that the weight is added on the lower portion of the rig) can make an otherwise tippy bullpup, MUCH less tippy. Ie, can still mount the scope on the bullpup high enough to get a good eye alignment, and then negate the tippyness that creates by adding weight as low as possible. If done properly, and sprinkled with a decent dose of practice (which of course applies to any and all ft rigs), bullpups can be as competitive in field target as any other type of airgun.

Excellent input!

 

[cavedweller]

After Cole's very deep and insightful post, I feel quite silly to publish this following post.
But I have been suffering from airgun withdrawal symptoms for almost three long months now due to a business trip....
So, bear with me. Here goes:


We've been talking about
the tipping point with scopes.

I think I'm reaching mine:
Because the total value of scopes versus guns is reaching a tipping point:
My scopes just need a 3-digit dollar amount more to tip the scale in their favor.

➧ This should officially qualify me to carry the questionable title "scope nerd."




OK, carry on now (with the other meaning of tipping point).

Matthias

 

[Franklink]

@cavedweller, seems like I remember reading somewhere that the Brits who play the version of field target where absolutely zero scope adjustments are allowed (not even the parallax) mostly use high scope heights. They do this to make their guestimates on the yardages of the farther targets less critical. In other words, they're using the high scope mount specifically because it benefits that variety of the game where they have even less surety of the distances than Hunter class shooters do here in the US.

Wish I could remember where I saw that to be able to check my memory and make sure I'm not spouting untrue info.

 

[cavedweller]

@cavedweller, seems like I remember reading somewhere that the Brits who play the version of field target where absolutely zero scope adjustments are allowed (not even the parallax) mostly use high scope heights. They do this to make their guestimates on the yardages of the farther targets less critical. In other words, they're using the high scope mount specifically because it benefits that variety of the game where they have even less surety of the distances than Hunter class shooters do here in the US.

Wish I could remember where I saw that to be able to check my memory and make sure I'm not spouting untrue info.

This is very insightful information and since I have lots of FT rigs to fiddle with I’m going to intentionally set two up with the extreme opposite scope heights. The lowest scope height may cause me to visit my neck Dr. we shall see.
on another note - I find it ridiculous regardless of country, that humans play these field target games based on old equipment Limitations. Silly at best.

 

[Scotchmo]

@cavedweller, seems like I remember reading somewhere that the Brits who play the version of field target where absolutely zero scope adjustments are allowed (not even the parallax) mostly use high scope heights. They do this to make their guestimates on the yardages of the farther targets less critical. In other words, they're using the high scope mount specifically because it benefits that variety of the game where they have even less surety of the distances than Hunter class shooters do here in the US.

Wish I could remember where I saw that to be able to check my memory and make sure I'm not spouting untrue info.

Actually UKAHFT shooters tend to run lower scopes than WFTF shooters.

The maximum far target is 45 yds. The close targets can be 8yds, where a high scope would be problematic.

They don’t allow the smallest kill zones at 8yds, as it would require precise distance estimates, which is difficult to do without focus ranging. Parallax error can also be a problem.

 

[shootermeb]

My observations and experimentation agree with Frank's statements - a higher scope mount will lessen the distance ranging sensitivity effects for long range shots. A scope mounted about 3-3.25 inch above bore, shooting 10.5gn pellets at like 900fps, my difference in hold between 50 and 55yds is still on the KZ at that distance. So, If I think it's past 50yds, I can hold a touch high, if I think it is shorter, a touch low.

My zeros are 20yd and 45yd, and I have hold under shots between those zeros. I am using a UTG Accushot SWAT 4-16x scope and it works great, but like with every other scope, the ranging gets iffy in the 45-55yd ranges. So I setup the gun in a way that gives me the most room for error where I know the scope is not going to be precise.

I chose to zero at my chosen distances to mitigate the quantity of hold over needed at the close yardages. I didn't want to have (and count) seven dots of holdover for a 10 yd shot, instead I only need to count 5 (the UTG reticle is not numbered, and counting is hard). In this setup, you could easily have zero'd for like 30-35yds and had only hold overs.

Regarding the difference between 50 and 55 yards, my hold over is slightly above the one dot, and for 55yd is slightly below the one dot. I say dot because it's not technically mils because it's SFP and zoomed in more than where the reticle is true.

 

[Franklink]

Actually UKAHFT shooters tend to run lower scopes than WFTF shooters.

The maximum far target is 45 yds. The close targets can be 8yds, where a high scope would be problematic.

They don’t allow the smallest kill zones at 8yds, as it would require precise distance estimates, which is difficult to do without focus ranging. Parallax error can also be a problem.

Yeah, details were fuzzy. Maybe it was about UK WFTF then. It made an impression because it was accompanied by some photos of guys adding in risers between high scope mounts and the gun. Some of them were an inch plus. In my mental image they would have been working with 4.5-5 inch scope heights.