Gun for 600 yards

[Gutshot John]

The notion that a gun shoots .5 MOA at 100-800 yards and then suddenly jumps to 3 MOA at 1000 is somewhat flawed (not to mention completely irrelevant for the tactical shooter).

It's not the subsonic part that makes it hard, but what happens to the bullet in the transonic range. Subsonic is pretty much as consistent as supersonic and both are relatively stable, supersonic is just somewhat easier to predict.

While there is a period of instability that occurs in the transonic range, given the amount of data available understanding what happens at all three velocities isn't impossible to predict. It ultimately depends on the accuracy you're willing to accept. If you expect the bullet to behave the same way in all three velocity ranges you're going to be disappointed but it doesn't mean you can't predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy what it will do.

The match/precision guys keep their bullets supersonic as long as possible because .25 MOA difference at 1000 yards can determine the winner and loser. That doesn't mean they can't hit a torso sized target reliably.

Does this mean it's a chip shot? Nope, but it's certainly not impossible.

[orkan]

The notion that a gun shoots .5 MOA at 100-800 yards and then suddenly jumps to 3 MOA at 1000 is somewhat flawed (not to mention completely irrelevant for the tactical shooter).

I've seen this with 168SMK's before. If you haven't... then you probably shoot at high altitude or haven't tried it. ... and going from .5 MOA to 3 MOA is very relevant to me at any range.

I'm with AJS on this one. Supersonic = predictability as a rule. Now this doesn't stop me from making accurate hits with 175SMK's long after they've gone subsonic. However at that point, it certainly isn't with authority. As he pointed out, while it can be done and I do it regularly, it certainly can't be done on command. Different bullets and different velocities out of different rifles react... differently! The only "rules" are those that you've discovered yourself with your particular gear and loads.

[HaydenB]

My recommendation is to up your price cap by $150 and get the Tikka T3 scout CTR. Its got a cold hammer forged 20 inch sako barrel, a picatinny rail, one of the the best triggers I've ever pulled (Adjustable between 2 and 4 lbs and breaks like an icicle) and THE smoothest action of ANY bolt gun on the market. Plus they have the aftermarket support of Manners Stocks. My friend has the lite hunter version in 30-06 and he gets groups the size of pennies at 200 yards.

[AJS]

The notion that a gun shoots .5 MOA at 100-800 yards and then suddenly jumps to 3 MOA at 1000 is somewhat flawed (not to mention completely irrelevant for the tactical shooter).
Yet it can and does happen. It's also VERY relevant. You NEED to know what your load does at all ranges you shoot at.

It's not the subsonic part that makes it hard, but what happens to the bullet in the transonic range. Subsonic is pretty much as consistent as supersonic and both are relatively stable, supersonic is just somewhat easier to predict.
Many projectiles are not "stable" when they go subsonic. You get yaw and other effects. There is also the issue of projectiles going subsonic at different points which certainly does make a huge difference to where they end up.


The match/precision guys keep their bullets supersonic as long as possible because .25 MOA difference at 1000 yards can determine the winner and loser. That doesn't mean they can't hit a torso sized target reliably.
No, they do it because in most cases the accuracy drop off is very large. Have you done any of this? I have. There is also the issue that it is not CONSISTENT. From day to day your transition point changes.
That makes a HUGE difference.

Does this mean it's a chip shot? Nope, but it's certainly not impossible.

I am happy for anyone to show me consistent accuracy at 1K with subsonic loads.

[Gutshot John]

I've seen this with 168SMK's before. If you haven't... then you probably shoot at high altitude or haven't tried it. ... and going from .5 MOA to 3 MOA is very relevant to me at any range.

While there is certainly a degradation in accuracy in the transonic range, it doesn't happen by that much in the specified ranges. It may drop from .5 to 3 MOA (or even greater) in the 800-1200 range but not from 800-1000. Very few tactical shooters are going to be trying for .5 MOA accuracy (5+" target or head shot) at 1000 yards. Standard tactical practice is typically any hit on the upper body is a good hit which 2-3MOA should be capable of.

I'm with AJS on this one. Supersonic = predictability as a rule. Now this doesn't stop me from making accurate hits with 175SMK's long after they've gone subsonic. However at that point, it certainly isn't with authority.

I agree and stipulated that point but again the lack of authority isn't that it's subsonic, it's that it's experienced some instability in the transonic range. Coupled with wind or other weather effects this increased instability can be comparatively small or it can be quite significant, it's not simply about being subsonic. People shoot subsonic .308 all the time and are able to be consistent within a given range. It's what happens in the transonic range that makes consistency difficult, but not impossible.

[Gutshot John]

I am happy for anyone to show me consistent accuracy at 1K with subsonic loads.

First you're setting up a false premise no one shoots 1000 yards with a subsonic load. A high velocity bullet may go subsonic but it isn't loaded to subsonic velocities.

Second you've not defined "consistent accuracy". What do you call consistent >70%? >80% >90%? >95%? Is 95% or even 100% consistency possible? Probably not and while that may be the standard for competition shooters, it's certainly not the standard for tactical shooters. That said I've seen some guys do some pretty hardcore shooting at 1000 yards that isn't just blind luck.

Yes you need to know what your load does. I never disputed that but most commercial bullets are quite capable of consistent 1000 yard shots. I've seen M118 drop off quite significantly at 1000 yards, while Hornady and others are far more consistent. Most serious 1000 yard shooters will roll their own making consistency that much more possible.

Yes supersonic velocity is EASIER to predict than subsonic but as you stated this gets easier if you have enough data showing what your load does at specified ranges/conditions consistency is certainly possible and always the rule of the game.

Yes your transition point changes based on altitude, temperature, air pressure, humidity etc. The more you've shot in varying conditions the more likely you are to be consistent. This is true for anyone, not just precision shooters. Once you've factored these in and fired a few rounds, hitting at 1000+ yards consistently is not voodoo.

Is there a degradation in accuracy? Sure and I've said that repeatedly, it's not a chip shot. Is it some sort of mystical, esoteric skill that only a few people, endowed with dangerously hot loads and the luck of the Irish, as well as some black magic are able to pull off? Absolutely not.

And yes I've shot at 1000 yards and beyond, do I miss? Sure, but once I've established my dope, at 1000 yards I'm capable of hitting torso sized steel consistently for me. Is it consistent enough for you? Maybe not but I am consistent.

[AJS]

While there is certainly a degradation in accuracy in the transonic range, it doesn't happen by that much in the specified ranges.
Which is not what myself and many others have SEEN. Many projectiles do have real issues when they transition.

It may drop from .5 to 3 MOA (or even greater) in the 800-1200 range but not from 800-1000.
Yet we have SEEN this happen over and over with different projectiles. In many cases a 50 yard difference is enough to open a group right up, when we consider the transition point could be anywhere (or outside) of this yardage, shot to shot we really cannot predict where each shot will go.

Very few tactical shooters are going to be trying for .5 MOA accuracy (5+" target or head shot) at 1000 yards. Standard tactical practice is typically any hit on the upper body is a good hit which 2-3MOA should be capable of.
2-3MOA is not "accuracy". There is also the problem of group centers and splitting with differing transition points. To me, 1-1.5 is acceptable. I guess this the where we differ.
What you call accuracy, I call unacceptable. So the issues that occur, which are VERY real are not SEEN as they are hidden or within your acceptable margin of error.

I agree and stipulated that point but again the lack of authority isn't that it's subsonic, it's that it's experienced some instability in the transonic range.
No. That's not correct. Plot your transition points over a 30FPS range, include a 3-7% BC variation (projectile to projectile), find the subsonic BC's for some projectiles (remember BC is an AVERAGE in the EXPECTED velocity range AND is very different at low speeds) and plot the last few hundred yards with that BC and then get back to me. This DOES show what I am saying.
After that we can talk about "yaw" and everything else.



Coupled with wind or other weather effects this increased instability can be comparatively small or it can be quite significant, it's not simply about being subsonic. People shoot subsonic .308 all the time and are able to be consistent within a given range. It's what happens in the transonic range that makes consistency difficult, but not impossible.

Can you show me some long range consistent subsonic data? I've yet to see ANY which has accuracy. You cannot plan on hitting your target day to day.
Yes, there are mutiple factors involved BUT those only come on once we are subsonic (actually, they are often much more apparent at this point).

[AJS]

First you're setting up a false premise no one shoots 1000 yards with a subsonic load. A high velocity bullet may go subsonic but it isn't loaded to subsonic velocities.
Maybe I was not clear. Show me consistent day to day accuracy with loads having gone subsonic at long ranges.

Second you've not defined "consistent accuracy". What do you call consistent >70%? >80% >90%? >95%? Is 95% or even 100% consistency possible? Probably not and while that may be the standard for competition shooters, it's certainly not the standard for tactical shooters. That said I've seen some guys do some pretty hardcore shooting at 1000 yards that isn't just blind luck.
I thought I have given what myself and others feel is acceptable accuracy several times in my posts? What's the difference between "tactical" and "competition" shooters? Lower standards? That's not been my experience. This is why tactical guys end up following the same sort of accuracy path the match shooters have been down some time before. The push for MORE accuracy is what drives things but the following of fashion tends to be something which has a greater effect with many tactical guys.


Yes your transition point changes based on altitude, temperature, air pressure, humidity etc. The more you've shot in varying conditions the more likely you are to be consistent. This is true for anyone, not just precision shooters. Once you've factored these in and fired a few rounds, hitting at 1000+ yards consistently is not voodoo.
Depends on how big a target you want to hit though. 20-30+ inches has no interest to me. It's not fun, I don't learn anything. What I hear being said is that instead of resolving the problem we are simply picking a bigger target and telling everyone that short barrels can do the same job. I DO have a real issue with people being told a subsonic load is "accurate" or that short barrels will ALWAYS be "accurate" without people saying what they find to be "accurate". Your acceptable accuracy is not acceptable to myself or many others who do this stuff all the time. There is also the problem of people needing to learn. You cannot learn well if your gun is not more accurate than you are and I've found very few people who cannot get down to 2MOA and below very, very fast. If the tool can only shoot 2.5MOA what good is it? I can't teach someone to be more accurate than the equipment if they cannot SEE what is going on, where the issue is. Did your last shot miss due to wind? Did you pull it?


And yes I've shot at 1000 yards and beyond, do I miss? Sure, but once I've established my dope, at 1000 yards I'm capable of hitting torso sized steel consistently for me. Is it consistent enough for you? Maybe not but I am consistent.

I said this in the other post but will say it again.
Plot your transition points over a 30FPS range, include a 3-7% BC variation (projectile to projectile, guess how much POI change we get from this?), find the subsonic BC's for some projectiles (remember BC is an AVERAGE in the EXPECTED velocity range AND is very different at low speeds) and plot the last few hundred yards with that BC and then get back to me.
Working around this by picking bigger targets is not something I have any interest in.
I KNOW my guns are more accurate than I am. when I miss I KNOW it was me, something I did. If I moved to a less accurate system to save a few inches of barrel I lose that day to day. That's not acceptable to me. I think we need to be clear when offering advice on the subject so new shooters or those who wish to push and learn buy the right tool.

[Gutshot John]

I said this in the other post but will say it again.
Plot your transition points over a 30FPS range, include a 3-7% BC variation (projectile to projectile, guess how much POI change we get from this?), find the subsonic BC's for some projectiles (remember BC is an AVERAGE in the EXPECTED velocity range AND is very different at low speeds) and plot the last few hundred yards with that BC and then get back to me.
Working around this by picking bigger targets is not something I have any interest in.

While that sounds very fascinating and impressive but it doesn't account for other things like whether you're talking about bore temperature, spin, and other variables. The formula for BC doesn't change with velocity (Mass/Form Factor * diameter squared) so I'm not sure what your point is there, depending on the drag coefficient it will change (usually very slightly) with air density as it moves through various ranges but it will ramp up and then ramp down by minute amounts. Such that a bullet might have the same BC at 100-200 yards as it will at 1100-1200 (I just picked arbitrary distances) so in general you could just average them. Even if it did doesn't change the basic premise. A gun that shoots .5 MOA at 1-800 yards is certainly capable of 2MOA at 1000. While it's a 4 fold increase in group size it's still going to be relatively consistent. While the math for calculating BC is perhaps interesting from an academic perspective it's also pretty pedantic inside of 1000 yards for practical purposes. Just get out and shoot - the more data points you have, the better you'll be able to predict where the bullet goes. At 1000 yards a 30FPS change in velocity and you're talking less than 1MOA impact shift. Does this matter for a long-range competitor? Sure it does, does it matter much from a tactical perspective, less so, you just adjust and take another shot until the target goes down.

The problem is that you've never specified what targets are being shot so talking about "picking bigger targets" is walking a mile around the point. An NRA F-Class 1000 yard target is 26x26". I'm not talking any bigger than that. What I typically shoot is 18x24" steel at those distances. The dope I've gathered seems pretty consistent at the conditions I've shot at. Does that mean I'm 100% accurate at 1000 yards? Nope but I've never claimed to be a great shot, but out of 5 shots I'll ring it ~4 times. That's pretty consistent from my perspective. Is it going to win against guys with precision hand loads and $4000 rifles? Probably not but it's perfectly acceptable for my purposes.

I KNOW my guns are more accurate than I am. when I miss I KNOW it was me, something I did. If I moved to a less accurate system to save a few inches of barrel I lose that day to day. That's not acceptable to me. I think we need to be clear when offering advice on the subject so new shooters or those who wish to push and learn buy the right tool.

The "new" shooter specified 600 yards in his OP and so what you're talking about is completely irrelevant at those ranges. You're making it seem like 1000 yards is either blind luck or mystical voodoo, it's neither, you can certainly be consistent at those ranges. That doesn't mean you hit every time. You talked about consistency which is a qualitative comparison, you did not talk absolute accuracy which is an quantitative comparison. Even still you'd need the same bullet, the same shooter using the same gun. Some people are consistently bad, others are consistently good, until you define what "good" is you're not really feeling me.

Do I view 2 MOA as objective accuracy? Not especially. Do I view it as consistent? Yep.

Is what you're talking about relevant, or even realistically achievable for the OP, a new shooter not willing to invest thousands of dollars in guns and gear? Probably not.

[AJS]

While that sounds very fascinating and impressive but it doesn't account for other things like whether you're talking about bore temperature, spin, and other variables.
Of course not. Why does it NEED to? This is about SHOWING that what I have said IS factual and based on what goes on. That can be done with far less than I have suggested you try. I was supporting what I said factually. So you could go and prove to yourself what I was saying is what goes on.

The formula for BC doesn't change with velocity (Mass/Form Factor * diameter squared) so I'm not sure what your point is there, depending on the drag coefficient it will change (usually very slightly) with air density as it moves through various ranges but it will ramp up and then ramp down by minute amounts. Such that a bullet might have the same BC at 100-200 yards as it will at 1100-1200 (I just picked arbitrary distances) so in general you could just average them.
Rather than argue the point go and do what I told you and get back to me with proof. projectile behaviour is different in the trans and subsonic regions. A "good" BC does not make a stable subsonic bullet.

Even if it did doesn't change the basic premise. A gun that shoots .5 MOA at 1-800 yards is certainly capable of 2MOA at 1000.
2MOA is not "accurate". It's too easy and there is no need to give up that much just to cut a few inchs of barrel.

While it's a 4 fold increase in group size it's still going to be relatively consistent.
Plot the information I gave you over mutiple conditions and see just how consistent it is day to day Of course, it's consistent THAT DAY but what does than mean? You need to shoot your dope every time you go out? Does not sound very tactical to me.


The problem is that you've never specified what targets are being shot so talking about "picking bigger targets" is walking a mile around the point. An NRA F-Class 1000 yard target is 26x26". I'm not talking any bigger than that.
I'm not a "hit stuff" guy. I don't think this is the "hit stuff" subforum.
I've told you what I consider to be accurate. I'm not going out to plink at things. I want to hit MOA consistently. 20 inches is nothing.

What I typically shoot is 18x24" steel at those distances. The dope I've gathered seems pretty consistent at the conditions I've shot at. Does that mean I'm 100% accurate at 1000 yards? Nope but I've never claimed to be a great shot, but out of 5 shots I'll ring it ~4 times. That's pretty consistent from my perspective. Is it going to win against guys with precision hand loads and $4000 rifles? Probably not but it's perfectly acceptable for my purposes.
It's not that good though. I've moved over to .223 out to 1K as it's harder. I'm learning more and it's fun. This is the precision rifle bolt gun sub forum. Your stuck. You can't learn an aweful lot if your gun is not more accurate than you are. That is how it is. If you are happy with that and what you do then great, the problem is telling others it's "acceptable" when you have not mentioned your standards.
They NEED to know what you think is accurate so they can judge if it's acceptable to them.
One question, how can you tell if a miss is you or your gun/load if you have limited accuracy?

The "new" shooter specified 600 yards in his OP and so what you're talking about is completely irrelevant at those ranges.
Yet you picked up on it and here we are.

You're making it seem like 1000 yards is either blind luck or mystical voodoo,
No, I posted factual information which your own posts support.
You can always calculate the information I provided and see if you can prove me wrong but what you are saying is that 2MOA is fine. It's not. How can you tell if a miss is you or the gun if you can only hit something 2MOA? You can't so you pick a bigger target. You can't push your skills as your target and equipment can't do any better so how can you learn? Can you read wind switches with 2MOA accuracy? Not a small one so your ability to learn wind is also limited.
New shooters NEED to know and UNDERSTAND. You made a choice and are happy with it. Great, let's give new guys the chance to understand what they give on with that same choice.

it's neither, you can certainly be consistent at those ranges.
Of course, I can get a black powder rifle able to be consistent 2-3MOA at 1K. For one of those it's accurate and consistent.
For a bolt gun it's not accurate and gains you little skill.

That doesn't mean you hit every time.
How can you tell if the miss is you or your equipment?


Is what you're talking about relevant, or even realistically achievable for the OP, a new shooter not willing to invest thousands of dollars in guns and gear? Probably not.

Rubbish. A basic Savage or Rem, decent barrel length, loads, 20MOA base and a reasonable scope. Some practise and they have it. I've SEEN it over and over. I've taught people to do it. It's not hard to get people to 1.5MOA. Yes, they need to focus on wind and the basics but they can do it consistently.
Picking equiment which WILL NOT do it puts them in a situation where they cannot learn and get better. That's what you are suggesting.