.204 Ruger accuracy

[Hedge]

Hope he shows up at the range again with the check!

You should be able to do a heck of a lot better than 5" at 100 yds. The Bushmaster should perform for you with the .204 upper assuming you're a sub MOA shooter.

The scope on the other hand...you might want to consider other scopes. Barska doesn't have a good rep for reliability.
Before you make your scope purchase, consider what you want to do with your system, tactical shooting, varmints, targets, plinking etc.
Check out the different options on scopes. Will a fixed power do what you need? Variable power; the high mag scopes are attractive but, personally, I've tried 'em and found I have no need for anything more than 16x max. The higher the power, the better the quality of optics is necessary to make it useful. That means more money.

Above about 14x needs some type of parallax adjustment. Objective adjustment works very well, but it is awkward to make the correction. Side adjustment is convenient and is becoming more popular.

Reticle choice is another thing to think about.

There's a lot to think about before putting good money into a scope. Here's a link that should give you plenty to read up on before you make your purchase.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthr ... Post378812

Take your time and don't jump right in.

[RedLeg]

Thanks for replying.

After more research, am leaning to a Millet 4-16x50 1/8 MOA click scope side parallax adjustment mil dot reticle. 3x the price. Unsure of the height that the mount rings need to be because of the 50mm OL and very flat top on the receiver and FULL forearm of the Bushmaster (no iron sights came w/gun). Any help there would be appreciated.

The shooting styles interested in are first range queen (gun, not me) to tack drive. Just to show the "enthusiast" that much better groups can be shot than what he claimed due to the limitation of the gun. Plinking up on the list. Varmints next, but still want accuracy at + 300 yards.

[Hedge]

You should do fine at 300 yds with your system. The .204 will shoot farther, though. I've been smacking steel plates the size of a coyote at 540yds. But, I'm shooting a varmint style bolt rifle.

Hmmm...Millett. Not saying Millett is a bad scope. I have one and it's heavy duty and good optics. The turrets don't have as positive a click as I'd like but it does track well. However, the darn thing jumped zero on me and I wasted a lot of time and ammo using it while testing. Mind you, all mechanical devices can fail and I might just have gotten one of those. All the same, it left a bad taste in my mouth.
So, don't put too much weight into my evaluation.

If you have the $ to put into a good scope, I'd recommend checking out the optics forum at sniper's hide. There is a lot of information to be gleaned from what those guys have used. Don't go hog wild and spend kilo bucks on a scope like some of them do. For what you want, it isn't necessary. Find a scope that will meet your needs, is reliable and fits your budget.

You'll probably need high rings for a 50mm lens. I'd recommend Burris Signature Zee rings. They have a poly insert that will prevent ring marks on the scope and negate the necessity of lapping the rings for alignment. Plus they come with an extra set of eccentric inserts that will give you a cant to help increase your scope's elevation range.

I favor the milrad/mildot reticle as you chose. But, if you're going to use it for ranging (which is what it was designed for), I wouldn't go with MOA/Mil. Pick a scope that has the turrets that match the reticle. Otherwise, you will have to do extra calculations in converting Mil to MOA. Also, be aware that with the SFP scopes, the reticle is accurate only at one magnification, usually at max (or even divisions thereof with additional calculations).
With an FFP scope, the reticle is accurate at all magnifications.

Some people don't like the FFP because it looks like the reticle changes size depending on mag setting. It actually maintains the same target to reticle ratio. Not so with SFP. But, the SFP can maintain an apparent small size at high mag. It's user's choice.

Here are some examples of what an FFP reticle looks like at different magnifications:

The actual view through the scope is much clearer than the pics show. It's just hard to get a good camera focus shooting through the scope.





Here's another link to read. It discusses the main topics you should consider before you pick a scope.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthr ... ost1938091

Hope that helps and didn't confuse you more.

Just thought of something. Give Scott at call at Liberty Optics. He's a standup guy and can give you some advice.

[jo191145]

RedLeg

Hopefully your friend meant .5 groups. A more realistic wager.
Not all barrels are capable of agging at .5
I find that incapability rare in a bolt action but your semi adds a bit of handicap also.

Forget the Barska please. Never owned one but I looked through just one at the range.
Mildot reticle was drooping in the scope. Reminded me of a Christmas Tree LOL's
View was fuzzy at at all powers.
Not something I would put much faith in. Cheap scopes are NEVER worth the initial savings.
I learned that lesson the same way every other competitor did. The hard way with a drawer full throwaways.

Magnification never scares me but it must be half decent otherwise its useless.
As a shortrange Benchrester I never shoot under 36X. Weaver fixed power is bottom line.
Probably not the scope for an AR setup but magnification in and of itself is not a hindrance. Quality is. Keep that in mind.
For an AR I'd first decide how low I want the magnification to go. Then decide how high I can go with usable quality for your set price.

[ryutzy]

I echo all the other's comments on scopes. Forget cheap, they cost you more in the long run. Your 18" barrel will hamper your groups a little, but you should still be able to shoot 1MOA I would think. Give us a report!

[RedLeg]

Hedge, to show my ignorance, I am unsure of what actually happened when your Millet jumped to zero. Please explain. The rings I am thinking are Burris AR Tactical P.E.P.R. quick disconnect (supposed to have the same point of aim remount). Still thinking the Millet, model with mil adj mil dot reticle, 30mm tube. However, it is a SFP. I think I can live with it, it is on at max power (16), 8x just do some math, and being same adj (mil to mil).
Nice pics. The difference in the reticle at 4x and 16x is dramatic. As you say, I think the image would be clearer through just the scope.
Thanks for the link to snipershide, Good info.

jo191145, he said 5" groups at 100 yards. I don't want his $, it is just that he said the platform would not preform. Like the hard head I am, I think I can do far better. Things going for me (IMO) Bushy 2 stage 2.5lb to 1lb trigger, free float barrel, of course the .204 caliber, and hopefully a good piece of glass.

ryutzy, I have shot through cheap scopes/red dots, and the Millet is supposed to be a good one under $500. It just has the features I want except it is not an FFP. All the other scopes by different manufacturers with the same or less features big$. I only spent $699 for the rifle. Just thought I would come on here for good info, to make the decisions I need to make and get the job done. Maybe I will be able to put up a target that won't embarrass me!

[Hedge]

Redleg -

You're welcome. Glad it helped.

Here's what happened. I was in the middle of re-running an OCW test and the bullets just weren't hitting the way I thought they should. I'd started the test with a couple of zeroing shots and they were right on. Then, on the 4th target the bullet impacted near target 5. At first, I thought I'd just screwed up. I aimed at 5 and hit near 6. That was 3" from POA! The test was toast, so I shot the remaining rounds and punched 9 holes into the size of a quarter. The zero on the scope had shifted from the beginning of the test to the end and seemed to lock in on the last shots.

SFP is a good choice for what you plan to shoot. FFP isn't something everyone likes because of the way the reticle seems to grow. As long as you become familiar with what you have, you'll be fine.

Glad you chose to go mil/mil. It'll make things easier for you. Here's another link to get you started on using the mil reticle:

http://www.shooterready.com/index.html

If you go with the Millett or any scope for that matter, one of the first things to do is check the parallax control. If one of the crosshairs "locks on" but the other doesn't, there's a misalignment in the optics system. Had that problem with mine but was still new to the control so didn't know better. Also be careful not to force the turrets when they're at the end of their run. If it feels like it will take a little more force to move to the next click, stop.

Another thing is to check the tracking.
lock the scope down solidly without mounting it (most dealers won't take a return on a mounted scope). Shooting bags will work.
Put up 4 1" dots at 100 yds in an "box" pattern. Place them 2 to 4 mils apart (1 mil = 3.6" @ 100 yds). The idea is to see if the turrets track accurately back to zero. You'll use the turrets to move the crosshairs to each corner dot. Make a note of the start index of each turret on the first dot. You start at one corner and count the number of clicks it takes to move the zero to one of the other corner dots. (Should be the same all way around) Track to the next and the next around the box until you've gotten back to the starting zero. Your turret indexes should be right where you started.

Scope rings: Never tried quick mounts so, can't advise you on that. You'd have to wait until January to get the Zee rings, anyway.

As for the bet; I'm betting your rifle will shoot sub MOA with the right loads. Some of the guys I run with shoot ARs that surprise the heck out of me.

[Irish]

I have not been able to yet find a load giving acceptable accuracy in my new Savage 12 FCV. What power/bullet works for you?
Thanks!

[Great White North]

Irish I think you might want to pose tis question in a new thread under the reloading section. This thread is a couple of years old.