I did a simple test with my Burris Landmark 15x - 45x spotting scope
today. The target was lettering on a neighbor's boatlift at a
paced-off distance of 100 yards plus.

I could easily (no strain at all) make out letters that are .300 high
with .078" strokes -- as in the width of an I or the stem of a T.
I could read with "eye test" facility (read the smallest line you can
see) characters that were .187 high with .045" strokes. I could
easily discern individual blades of grass at the shore end of the
dock.

I would think that it would be very easy with this $200 scope to see
holes punched with a .22 in paper targets at 100 yards.

Light was good mid-afternoon light.

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

I did a simple test with my Burris Landmark 15x - 45x spotting scope
today. The target was lettering on a neighbor's boatlift at a
paced-off distance of 100 yards plus.

I could easily (no strain at all) make out letters that are .300 high
with .078" strokes -- as in the width of an I or the stem of a T.
I could read with "eye test" facility (read the smallest line you can
see) characters that were .187 high with .045" strokes. I could
easily discern individual blades of grass at the shore end of the
dock.

I would think that it would be very easy with this $200 scope to see
holes punched with a .22 in paper targets at 100 yards.

Light was good mid-afternoon light.
Thanks Don for posting that. I've been thinking about spotting scopes
because I shoot .22 for sport and for longer range I really need a
scope that I can see exactly where the bullet hole is. I have my own
firing range (well, 10 acres of woods really, with a naturally clear
alley) and want to improve it with a shooting bench and maybe a target
holder on a rope so I can change the target distance. I won't be using
the target holder if I shoot at 100 yards though. That sure would
require a lot of rope.
Eric

No scope needed if you make a plinking target like I did for Karen's dad:
http://www.tinyisland.com/images/Target.jpg

He's shot hundreds of rounds at it and it still looks basically like that. The
target is cut from 3/16" A26 plate, and everything else is just mild steel
scrap. The backplate is 1/8" thick, and angled to deflect everything down. If
you hit something, it swings so you can see where you hit. Not good for 1/8"
resolution, though ..

GWE

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".

In article , Grant Erwin says...

No scope needed if you make a plinking target like I did for Karen's dad:
http://www.tinyisland.com/images/Target.jpg

Now *that*'s cute! You could sell those and make
some money!!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100 yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100 yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:54:42 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100 yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Yup. Scopes for spring air guns must be made for that service. I
have been well satisfied with the Tasco on my RWS Diana model 34.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power? I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100 yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".

Not to worry, Don. The Leupold I have is designed for spring guns (Vari-X
3-9x33mm EFR Compact). I chose it with that feature originally, thinking
I might someday relegate it to a spring gun for backyard shooting. I've got
a pile of 2 x 6's
waiting for me design a fold-up bench.

Bob Swinney
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:54:42 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Yup. Scopes for spring air guns must be made for that service. I
have been well satisfied with the Tasco on my RWS Diana model 34.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:23:04 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
Ignoramus14408 quickly quoth:

btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

These tasco 3-9x40 scopes are very good.

I wonder how they differ from the 3-9x40 Tascos I saw in WalMart at
$39.99 last week. Reticle only, I wonder?

--
"Simplicity of life, even the barest, is not misery but
the very foundation of refinement." --William Morris
-----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power? I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?

Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X

My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100 yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22 X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power? I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22 X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power? I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally, I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22 X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power? I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its
normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally,
I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting
scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction
in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news:37uvj1p6nrn8crbb7ggfkdlmg7knumd49i@4ax. com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22 X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power? I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its
normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally,
I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting
scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction
in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news:37uvj1p6nrn8crbb7ggfkdlmg7knumd49i@4ax. com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:42:30 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Ooh..sorry. Yes indeed. Id consider 18x to be the minimum for this
type of work, and 24x the maximum. Even at 50 yrd..with more
magnification..mirage will be a big issue. And of course so will your
heart beat.

Gunner


Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22 X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power? I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its
normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally,
I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting
scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction
in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news:37uvj1p6nrn8crbb7ggfkdlmg7knumd49i@4ax .com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:40:52 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:42:30 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Ooh..sorry. Yes indeed. Id consider 18x to be the minimum for this
type of work, and 24x the maximum. Even at 50 yrd..with more
magnification..mirage will be a big issue. And of course so will your
heart beat.

Gunner

Is mirage or "shimmer" more of a factor with larger magnification --
or is it just more visible? It would seem to me that it is what it
is -- uncertainty and variability of an optical ray path --
regardless of the magnification used when noting it.

That said, my humble opinion is similar: 20X would be about right.

I don't see much shimmer at 50 yards, even over water at 50X, but it
may be different over hot sand in the desert. I've zero desert
experience.

And now a question: "shimmer" is noise, temporal variance due to
turbulence. But when it is present, there is also usually a vertical
density gradient, which causes "mirage" in the sense of
reflection/refraction that makes a hot surface look wet. The
average density gradient in the air causes refraction. Does this
density gradient also cause "refraction" of the path of a bullet? I
would think so, though the degree would very likely not be the same as
it is for light, but either greater or lesser, and would also
depend strongly on the mass and velocity of the bullet.

Hm. If a bullet is affected by this gradient, would the "shimmer"
(noise, temporal variance) cause a wider dispersion at range
resulting in larger groups?

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:19:04 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:40:52 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:42:30 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Ooh..sorry. Yes indeed. Id consider 18x to be the minimum for this
type of work, and 24x the maximum. Even at 50 yrd..with more
magnification..mirage will be a big issue. And of course so will your
heart beat.

Gunner

Is mirage or "shimmer" more of a factor with larger magnification --
or is it just more visible? It would seem to me that it is what it
is -- uncertainty and variability of an optical ray path --
regardless of the magnification used when noting it.

That said, my humble opinion is similar: 20X would be about right.

I don't see much shimmer at 50 yards, even over water at 50X, but it
may be different over hot sand in the desert. I've zero desert
experience.

And now a question: "shimmer" is noise, temporal variance due to
turbulence. But when it is present, there is also usually a vertical
density gradient, which causes "mirage" in the sense of
reflection/refraction that makes a hot surface look wet. The
average density gradient in the air causes refraction. Does this
density gradient also cause "refraction" of the path of a bullet? I
would think so, though the degree would very likely not be the same as
it is for light, but either greater or lesser, and would also
depend strongly on the mass and velocity of the bullet.

Hm. If a bullet is affected by this gradient, would the "shimmer"
(noise, temporal variance) cause a wider dispersion at range
resulting in larger groups?

Its been in my..my experience..that there is indeed some varience as a
result of the same conditions that cause mirage. Which is no more
than heated air defracting light differently. The heated air component
does indeed impart some outside force on the bullets flight, more
noticiable over very long distances. I regularly shoot at 1000 yrds or
more with .30 cals and the thermals a bullet may encounter when
shooting over a long, nonhomogenious distance can add some
complications to ballistics calculation. Plus the air is thinner over
the hotter areas. The shimmer you see is no more than that thermal
air being moved around a bit by faint breezes caused by its own uneven
rises.

I will shoot a tighter 1000 yrd group on a still calm cool day, than I
will on a still calm hot day. Plus of course the mirage effect makes
it difficult to even place the sights on the target..in some
cases..trying to figure out which of the three G mirages IS the real
target can be interesting

Gunner

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:40:52 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
Asch quickly quoth:

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:42:30 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Ooh..sorry. Yes indeed. Id consider 18x to be the minimum for this
type of work, and 24x the maximum. Even at 50 yrd..with more
magnification..mirage will be a big issue. And of course so will your
heart beat.

Are you referring to the heat-glimmer type of mirage, or something
else?

(There, I snipped the other 100+ lines of unnecessary post, too.)

--
"Most Folks Are As Happy As They Make Up Their Minds To Be"
-Abraham Lincoln
-----------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Happy Website Development

Thanx awl -- so it's 18 x min, 24 x max. Deep breath, release slowly, hold,
squeeze the trigger - got it. But how do you deal with that pesky heart
beat?

Bob Swinney

Bob Swinney
"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd
recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but
my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22 X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot
bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power?
I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its
normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally,
I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting
scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction
in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single
power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for
a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news:37uvj1p6nrn8crbb7ggfkdlmg7knumd49i@4ax .com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:05:24 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx awl -- so it's 18 x min, 24 x max. Deep breath, release slowly, hold,
squeeze the trigger - got it. But how do you deal with that pesky heart
beat?

Bob Swinney

When the sights go off target..you hold what you have. When the sights
go back on target, you sqeeze a little more, and so forth. Pretty soon
there will be a bang.

On the other hand..minimal stock contact and sandbags will help
minimize heartbeat issues. If the weapon is firmly bagged and heavy
enough..heart beat becomes much less of an issue.

Prone, offhand and kneeling..those are what seperates the men from the
boys..

3 position or prone shooters seldom consume caffeine before a match,
and train to be in good physical shape, with a low resting heartbeat.

Once your rifle/optics are good to go..and you have proper rests..the
single biggest issue you will need to address is which ammunition your
particular rifle prefers. You will need to buy one box of every kind
of 22lr ammo, both cheap and expensive, and shoot 5 shots minimum for
group.

This may be of assistance

http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_roundup_22LR.htm
http://www.nfa.ca/CFJ-Archive/Ballis...mmunition.html

It may surprise you that a $.99 a box brand may outshoot the $7 a box.
Its VERY gun dependant.

My Anshutz 54 shoots Winchester Wildcats (less than a buck on sale)
nearly as well as Eley Tenex Gold ($7)

Gunner


Bob Swinney
"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd
recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but
my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22 X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot
bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power?
I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news:bb70k1h8mnja9dsvl4i2qp4uoq5hmuhr4i@4ax. com...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its
normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups. Occasionally,
I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting
scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small reduction
in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single
power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold for
a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news:37uvj1p6nrn8crbb7ggfkdlmg7knumd49i@4a x.com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to "Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry





Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

Ooh..sorry. Yes indeed. Id consider 18x to be the minimum for this
type of work, and 24x the maximum. Even at 50 yrd..with more
magnification..mirage will be a big issue. And of course so will your
heart beat.

Gunner

My .02 worth. Agreed 18-24 power works well at 50 yards. I disagree that
mirage is a problem. I used to shoot centerfire bench rest with a 44X scope.
The mirage helps you see the wind. Its helpful to be able to read the
condition of the atmosphere out there. Wind flags aren't enough. Warren Page
explains it very well in his book "The Accurate Rifle" in the chapter named
appropriately 'Shooting Through the Swimming Pool'.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:01:12 GMT, "Tom Wait"
wrote:



Ooh..sorry. Yes indeed. Id consider 18x to be the minimum for this
type of work, and 24x the maximum. Even at 50 yrd..with more
magnification..mirage will be a big issue. And of course so will your
heart beat.

Gunner

My .02 worth. Agreed 18-24 power works well at 50 yards. I disagree that
mirage is a problem. I used to shoot centerfire bench rest with a 44X scope.
The mirage helps you see the wind. Its helpful to be able to read the
condition of the atmosphere out there. Wind flags aren't enough. Warren Page
explains it very well in his book "The Accurate Rifle" in the chapter named
appropriately 'Shooting Through the Swimming Pool'.


I guess Im more used to 115F mirage than perhaps you are.

Gunner, California desert.

Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

Thanx for the nice links, Gunner! You are "Right on" re. the flavor of
ammo. I'm still trying different stuff for my Kimber .22. Attempting
sub-1/4" groups at 50 yards brings out all the variables. As said, I shoot
off a Hart rest and rear butt stock leather shotbag. You are sooooo right
about minimal stock contact. I shoot "std. benchrest" style with my left
hand folded back under the rifle around the rear rest with the stock being
pinched between thumb and forefinger for elevation control. Stock contact
has been eliminated to the extent I am now needing a lighter trigger than
came on the rifle. Pulling off a std.trigger works in opposition to minimal
stock contact; pulls you closer to the rifle; emphasizes heartbeat, etc.

Bob Swinney


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:05:24 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx awl -- so it's 18 x min, 24 x max. Deep breath, release slowly,
hold,
squeeze the trigger - got it. But how do you deal with that pesky heart
beat?

Bob Swinney

When the sights go off target..you hold what you have. When the sights
go back on target, you sqeeze a little more, and so forth. Pretty soon
there will be a bang.

On the other hand..minimal stock contact and sandbags will help
minimize heartbeat issues. If the weapon is firmly bagged and heavy
enough..heart beat becomes much less of an issue.

Prone, offhand and kneeling..those are what seperates the men from the
boys..

3 position or prone shooters seldom consume caffeine before a match,
and train to be in good physical shape, with a low resting heartbeat.

Once your rifle/optics are good to go..and you have proper rests..the
single biggest issue you will need to address is which ammunition your
particular rifle prefers. You will need to buy one box of every kind
of 22lr ammo, both cheap and expensive, and shoot 5 shots minimum for
group.

This may be of assistance

http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_roundup_22LR.htm
http://www.nfa.ca/CFJ-Archive/Ballis...mmunition.html

It may surprise you that a $.99 a box brand may outshoot the $7 a box.
Its VERY gun dependant.

My Anshutz 54 shoots Winchester Wildcats (less than a buck on sale)
nearly as well as Eley Tenex Gold ($7)

Gunner


Bob Swinney
"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd
recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want
the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but
my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22
X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot
bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power?
I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the
magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the
most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news:bb70k1h8mnja9dsvl4i2qp4uoq5hmuhr4i@4ax .com...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its
normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I
mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups.
Occasionally,
I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting
scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small
reduction
in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold
scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am
considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single
power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold
for
a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news:37uvj1p6nrn8crbb7ggfkdlmg7knumd49i@4 ax.com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage
with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to
"Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry





Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:43:14 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx for the nice links, Gunner! You are "Right on" re. the flavor of
ammo. I'm still trying different stuff for my Kimber .22. Attempting
sub-1/4" groups at 50 yards brings out all the variables. As said, I shoot
off a Hart rest and rear butt stock leather shotbag. You are sooooo right
about minimal stock contact. I shoot "std. benchrest" style with my left
hand folded back under the rifle around the rear rest with the stock being
pinched between thumb and forefinger for elevation control. Stock contact
has been eliminated to the extent I am now needing a lighter trigger than
came on the rifle. Pulling off a std.trigger works in opposition to minimal
stock contact; pulls you closer to the rifle; emphasizes heartbeat, etc.

Bob Swinney


Try the "pinch" method of trigger pull. Simply put your thumb behind
the trigger guard, and your forefinger on the trigger..and pinch.
If you are sand bagged/rested...the weapon is self supporting, or may
be lightly stablized with the off hand. This works even with
rough/creepy two stage military triggers.

My long range bench method, is to solidly bag the forend..then
bring my lefthand back under the pistol grip, and by opening or
closing my left fist a bit...I can control elevation and windage,
while my right hand does the pinch method. I regularly shoot the .22
at 200 yrds, which is good practice for centerfires at longer ranges,
wind doping, etc etc.

I generally shoot the 300 Winmag and other high recoil centerfires at
1000yrds, and that requires a normal trigger pull, simply to control
the rifle when it recoils..as do most centerfires unless you have a
good brake installed. The notible exception is the 6.5x55 Swede, which
is quite capable of 600 yrd work this way.

Glad to be of help.

Gunner



"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:05:24 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx awl -- so it's 18 x min, 24 x max. Deep breath, release slowly,
hold,
squeeze the trigger - got it. But how do you deal with that pesky heart
beat?

Bob Swinney

When the sights go off target..you hold what you have. When the sights
go back on target, you sqeeze a little more, and so forth. Pretty soon
there will be a bang.

On the other hand..minimal stock contact and sandbags will help
minimize heartbeat issues. If the weapon is firmly bagged and heavy
enough..heart beat becomes much less of an issue.

Prone, offhand and kneeling..those are what seperates the men from the
boys..

3 position or prone shooters seldom consume caffeine before a match,
and train to be in good physical shape, with a low resting heartbeat.

Once your rifle/optics are good to go..and you have proper rests..the
single biggest issue you will need to address is which ammunition your
particular rifle prefers. You will need to buy one box of every kind
of 22lr ammo, both cheap and expensive, and shoot 5 shots minimum for
group.

This may be of assistance

http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_roundup_22LR.htm
http://www.nfa.ca/CFJ-Archive/Ballis...mmunition.html

It may surprise you that a $.99 a box brand may outshoot the $7 a box.
Its VERY gun dependant.

My Anshutz 54 shoots Winchester Wildcats (less than a buck on sale)
nearly as well as Eley Tenex Gold ($7)

Gunner


Bob Swinney
"Robert Swinney" wrote in message
...
Gunner, my question was more about the magnification factor you'd
recommend
for .22 RF off the bench. What is your best guess, 20 - 22 X? I want
the
opinion of someone that used has some of the high-X scopes for bench
shooting. I fully realize they would be almost useless for hunting, but
my
quarry is only a sub-1/4 group at 50 yards.

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Gunner sez:
" Im still shooting an ole Unertal 20x on my Anschutz 54 match rifle,
the Weaver 18x went on the Rem 40X"

So, is this a recommendation for a single power scope of around 20 - 22
X
for .22 RF work? I shoot "bench" with a Hart rest and a leather shot
bag
for the butt stock.

Bob Swinney

Bob..there are many many good scopes available today that are far
better than the old Unertals. Clearer, brighter. But they cost
dearly. As do the Unertals btw. If you shoot bench, then the size and
weight is not a factor and likely neither is brightness, assuming its
reasonable.

However..the Unertals etc are what I have..so I run what I brung, and
really have found no good reason to spend mega bucks on new hip slick
and cool optics. They have taken home the tropheys for me for years.

Gunner



"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news:4912k1pe1a72s4fj2rsh03lcpkcejp84rb@4ax. com...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:04:35 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Thanx, Gunner. Those Tascos look good. I am leaning toward a single
power
scope though for .22 RF target use at 50 yards. Do you have a
recommendation, or anyone have a preference for any specific power?
I'm
thinking something around 20 X would be about right.


At this point..the big question is..what is your price range? Once
you get up over 10x...the price goes up with the
magnification..faster
actually. Also..reticle?


My long range personel interdiction rifles have fixed 10x for the
most
part. Weavers and Leopolds. For this kind of work..a fixed power
scope has advantages that a variable does not.

The varminters have a mix..Bushell, Lyman G, and Nikon.

Gunner

Bob Swinney
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news:bb70k1h8mnja9dsvl4i2qp4uoq5hmuhr4i@4a x.com...
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:00:54 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Redux on Redux. I have a 15 to 45 X Simmons spotting scope. Its
normal
use
is for .22 RF at 50 yards, where it is set for around 25X. I
mostly
practice at 50 yards, trying to shoot 1/4 inch groups.
Occasionally,
I
will
slew the little Simmons over and see what the boys are doing at 100
yards.
No problem, at all, reading their 30 cal. holes. Cheap spotting
scopes
like
mine have plastic lenses, which are great with only a small
reduction
in
transmission. The more expensive ones have glass lenses - a little
better,
but a whole lot more money. I shoot with a vari-power Leupold
scope.
Glass, of course, marvelous optic; beautiful scope. I am
considering
getting another scope; pretty sure it will be a Simmons, single
power,
around 20X. It won't be quite as rugged as a Leupold but more than
sufficient for bench rest shooting. Think I'll save the Leupold
for
a
quality air rifle for back yard practice.

Bob Swinney

Take a hard look at these, before buying a Simmons.

http://www.tasco.com/riflescopes/tar...int_main.shtml


btw..this is a decent scope of its type....
http://www.eabco.com/Tasco03.htm

I hope that Leupold you have, isnt going on a spring gun.

Gunner


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news:37uvj1p6nrn8crbb7ggfkdlmg7knumd49i@ 4ax.com...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:06:04 -0400, Brian Lawson
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

SNIP ALL

Hey Don,

What does "redux" mean?? I know a "redoubt" is an outlying
fortification, but I've never seen the term redux.

"Revisited". The term may have come into more common usage
with
John Updyke's novel "Rabbit Redux", which was a sequel to
"Rabbit
Run".




Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry





Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals
are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry


Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry

In article , Gunner says...

Try the "pinch" method of trigger pull. Simply put your thumb behind
the trigger guard, and your forefinger on the trigger..and pinch.
If you are sand bagged/rested...the weapon is self supporting, or may
be lightly stablized with the off hand. This works even with
rough/creepy two stage military triggers.


Hmm. I've never done this. I'll give it a try - as soon as
the stupid county gets our range open again!!! It's been
closed all summer for renovation.

Their idea of renovation is ripping everything out with buldozers,
and then saying 'what do we do now?'

GRRRRR.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================