It’s not throwing shade, just pointing out that what “the master” accomplished without a rangefinder and good ballistic solutions is well below what a mildly competent rifleman should be able to accomplish now.
Most hunters suck at shooting and need all the help they can get.
Do I think having an actual range of game animals and the bullet drop in inches or angular correction displayed alongside the range improves hunters odds of aiming/hitting in the right spot compared to just sighting in 3” high and guessing how far they are and thinking within 3” of POA is good...
I recall hearing somewhere that an analysis was done based on hunts covered in his writings and he had an over 30% miss or wounding rate. Maybe his methods were the way in his time but its 2024 and common rangefinders make it obsolete.
Have you looked into what Barnes and others consider enough expansion to meet their "minimum" requirements? I don't think you're going to want to go below 2000 FPS with etips or barnes either.
I’ve had three 3.5s (‘16, ‘18, ‘22) with about 225k miles between them and never experienced an issue. Had the ‘16 longest, traded it for the ‘22 with around 135k miles IIRC. I’m a sucker for the power of them, more than I’ll ever need but its nice. Way more low end torque than the 5.0.
A...
I dont get why people would do this in this day an age. 165 copper in a tikka 30-06 is probably 2700 fps’ish. 3" high at 100 is probably in the neighborhood of 7" low at 350. Given that most hunters aren't going to be 3 moa shooters in field situations, further complicating that with 7" of POA...
1 MOA is what, a whole 4 or 5 MPH wind deflection at that range? In my opinion 1 MOA error in zero is a big error and if we're arguing about trying to get the best zero the method that leaves you with 1 moa error is the wrong one.
The issue is that results at 250 yards are more likely to be impacted by environmental conditions than those at 100 yards, creating another source for error in your zero that is already likely to have that error due to poor precision.
"MOA guarantee" = at some point a single statistically insignificant 3 round group is shot measuring below 1 MOA. Doesn't mean your gun will do it most of the time or with any ammo you actually want to use necessarily. It's a marketing Schtick.
Don't know enough to weigh in on the value of...
There are people who've had negative results but there's lots of factors at play..
Harmonics change, might not matter, might matter.
Some barrels have looser and tighter spots in a bore, don't want a loose spot at the muzzle.
Sometimes a suppressor on a given barrel just doesn't play nice...
As you pointed out, if your groups are not that precise at 100, getting a good zero at further will likely be even more difficult. 2.8" high at 100 will probably be your best path. If you want a good zero with that level of precision you're going to want a good # of shots to get it, even 10...
There is more to it than that. A number of things in the configuration of rings and the associated hardware impact the ring clamping force that corresponds with a given screw torque amount. In the case of ARC rings, it's a single screw that creates the entire clamping force for a ring and not at...