Get Off my Lawn & For That Matter, Out of my Zip Code
November 12th, 2008Eastern Bloc Rifle Would Make Comrade Obama Proud
It looks like the new trigger has fixed up the PSL/Romak III/FPK/Whatever. The gun cycles and shoots, and the trigger feels great and has a very light pull.
When I got to the range, my shots were completely off the paper, but after I searched for a while, I found the black. I had to move to 50 yards to do it. Here is what happened when I finally zeroed the scope:
The upper shots were made before a scope adjustment. I realized I was not going to learn anything at that range, so back I went. Here are a whole bunch of shots at 100 yards.
That was pretty exciting. Unless I am mistaken, that is a very nice group with some flyers caused by shooter error. It looks like there is nothing wrong with this gun that a new owner won’t fix. It appears to be highly accurate.
I shot another 20 rounds, but by then I was pooped. Here they are:
I think fatigue explains the difference here. I don’t think it’s the gun.
Here’s what I don’t get. I see people saying they get 1″ rifle groups with iron sights. I can’t do that with a 4x scope, because the error in my aiming is that big. The scope doesn’t magnify the target well enough for me to find landmarks on the target and hold the POA accurately. Add the error of the rifle and the error induced by trigger pull problems, and 1″ accuracy is impossible. So how do people do it with iron sights? My guess: the usual explanation applies. They lie their butts off. Or they shoot all over the paper, circle the three closest shots, and call them a group. To me, if it’s not 15 or more shots, it’s not a group, and it means nothing. Anyone can put three consecutive bullets in a one-inch circle by blind luck. If you can’t do it with 15 rounds, shut up.
I figure the aiming error with this scope is about 1″, meaning that even if I pull the trigger perfectly and the rifle is 100% accurate, I should still expect a 2″ group. The trigger error is probably about the same size. So I’m pretty happy with these targets, because they’re not much worse than that. If I’m right, this rifle will reliably put bullets into a circle the size of a quarter. You just have to hire a robot to fire it.
I think I may have a bum magazine. The magazine disengages when you push a lever in front of the trigger guard. It is getting harder and harder to push. The upper end of the lever has to slide on the metal of the magazine, and I think it’s getting rough with age. I have to find hard objects to press against it; it’s nearly impossible using my thumbs.
I am tired of this scope. I don’t see how I can exploit the rifle’s accuracy with 4x optics. I guess I can find a 9x online.
Am I wrong about this? It seems like a bigger scope is always better. With these little ones, you can’t really tell where you’re aiming, and you can’t see the bullet holes, so you have to have a spotting scope (which I did not have today). I love the 14x scope on the .17 HMR. The 4x Russian scope is dandy at 50 yards, but at 100, you just can’t tell what’s going on.
I’m looking at the Kalinka site. Maybe this is a 6x scope.
I didn’t shoot any other guns today. I took the K31, but I left it in the car.
A fellow shooter taught me something. One of my shells hit him, and he complained. I had no idea you were allowed to complain about being hit with hot brass. I get hit all the time, especially on the pistol side. He said things were different on the rifle side of the range. Apparently they provide people with pieces of cardboard to set up on the podiums, to deflect brass. And of course, they don’t tell you this at the mandatory class.
I think this gun is accurate, and I think the Russian ammunition is a bargain, and I need to get more of it, before Comrade Obama starts taking names.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:19 PM
1. Match competition, you shoot a 12″ bull at 200 and 300 yards.
That’s 6MOA and 4MOA from a variety of positions and firing rates.
At 600 yards you shoot a 20″ bull, prone, sling supported.That’s 3MOA and some change.
2. Plenty of shooters clean everything but the 200 yard standing (not off hand). Have pulled targets for a couple perfect rounds.
3. The match M-14’s are supposed to all be one minute guns when test-fired from a vise. Unless some dumbass gets cleaning solvent in the bedding. Now who would do that?
4. Snipers are tested on a standard “E” type silhouette -[18″across the shoulders, 40″ tall] from 300 to 1000 yards. Moving targets are 12″ wide silhouettes walked across the butts from 300 to 800 yards.
5. Sniper qualification, when I did it, required 28 hits out of 35 shots.
6. The closest thing to 1 MOA shooting in any of this was firing from the 900 and 1000 yard line. When you went back from the 800, it was generally agreed that the far targets were much harder.
7. The most demanding rifle shooting I did was firing .22 match Anschutz at 25 yards. The shooting jacket was strapped so tight I had trouble moving and the bull wasn’t much larger diameter than the round. Did poorly enough to not be interested in it. Saw some fellows shoot ten round groups that looked like a single round. And these fellows got waxed by the Russians and Eastern Europeans.
8. Regardless of scope or iron sights, choose an aiming point and stick to it. Standard are: center mass, six o’clock and line of white.
magnification shouldn’t matter.
V/R J West
November 12th, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Steve,
The way people shoot 1 MOA groups with iron sights is by getting a reproducible sight picture and holding hard. With service rifle sights of front post and rear aperture you center the bull in the aperture and bring the post up to kiss the bottom of the bull, or split it. Your choice. As long as you do it the same way each time, the rounds will go to the same place. As you go to longer ranges, the bull (the black disc) gets larger on High Power targets so that the apparent size is the same. The key rule is a fuzzy ring, a fuzzy bull and a sharp front sight. Focus on the front sight; if you do that your groups will get tight.
Match rifles use two apertures, and the sight picture is two concentric rings and a fuzzy bull. This is even easier to use. Master and High Master Match rifle shooters routinely put 9 out of 10 rounds into a 1″ circle at 100 yds. A prone match, slow fire, of sixty rounds will usually be tied by people shooting a perfect score of 600 (all sixty rounds into a 2″ circle); the winner is decided by the number of X’s, or rounds in the 1″ circle. 57 X’s or 57 rounds out of sixty into the nominal 1″ X-ring takes the prize. These guys are good. They are shooting prone with slings, no rest or support.
The challenge comes in doing it at 1000 yds or 600 yds when wind, light conditions and mirage affect your shooting.
They are not lying. Go and watch a High Power rifle match sometime. Note the accuracy in Rapid Fire, as well.
Bill P
November 12th, 2008 at 5:28 PM
People almost never get 1″ groups with iron sights, they just say they do on internet boards and blogs. Very few issue rifles are capable of that, to say anything of the “driver”.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I think that the brass thing is a courtesy that you will feel good about later. Getting hit with brass on the bench gets really annoying. 🙂
Regarding glass, you will definitely find that higher power equals more precision, but there is a point of diminishing returns depending on the style of shooting you’re doing. I like lower-power optics on a field rifle that I will be shooting at shorter ranges with (i.e. under 300), especially off-hand. If I am shooting from the bench, and trying to squeeze every bit of accuracy out of the rifle, I want the highest power scope I can get.
On to small groups. As you’ve pointed out, the problem with accuracy (and in the group game, accuracy means consistency) is removing the variables. If you can lock your rifle into a front and rear sandbag really solidly, so that you’re barely moving between shots, you, too, can get tighter groups.
It also depends on your vision. I have been shooting open sights my whole life, and only very recently got involved in shooting with glass. I am also pretty new to shooting from the bench. I am a decent shot offhand, but technique from the bench is different, and it takes getting used to. So I was not a “group” shooter, but I can peg a target at range very consistently with weapons and loads I’m familiar with.
Can you shoot non-paper targets at your range? If possible, I’d recommend that you see how you can do off-hand on my favorite target, 2 liter bottles filled with water, at different distances. You have trajectory charts for 7.62x54mm that you can use to get a good idea as to hold-over and hold-under at different ranges.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Sorry to burst the bubble. Accuracy from the russian stuff is hit or (mostly) miss. You’ve found an average ruskie pea shooter. It’s not going to get better. Do not spend cash on a better scope it’s not going to help because the barrel was cut by barefoot blind men pedaling the lathe drill in the Urals.
You have a sight picture problem too. You are focusing on the target instead of the front sight post (or reticle). A common mistake.
Probably trigger control too but hard to tell from here.
If you know your rifle is rude with its brass, you have an obligation to warn the guy shooting next to you, yeah that’s true. Pistol shooters don’t give a crap but rifle shooters do.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:07 PM
“You’ve found an average ruskie pea shooter.”
Okay, but it was made in Romania.
“You have a sight picture problem too. You are focusing on the target instead of the front sight post (or reticle).”
That is true. I have no idea how you can figure that out from the photo. The point of the little arrow in the reticle is always within the same 1-2″ circle when I shoot. Are you saying that will improve if I remember to focus on the reticle?
I’ll post a video of a guy shooting the PSL at 113 yards. His groups are tighter than mine, and he uses cheaper ammunition.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Steve, the more shots the more the group opens, that is just the way it is. The standard group is five shots. A light hunting rifle is usually three shots. Thing is, the goups should be repeatable. Fire a five shot group, go shoot a handgun while the barrel cools. Fire another five shot group, go shoot the .22 for a while. Fire another five shot group, go in the office, have a cool drink and listen to and tell lies.
You shouldn’t let the barrel get hot and you should not get tired.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:28 AM
1. BillP is right about focusing on front sight tip.
2. Made that point in a previous comment.
3. The reason he can tell is that your shots are wandering in a roughly circular area.
4. Used to send new rifle team members in search of the group tightener.
5. Focusing on the front sight tip takes practice and, at match level, fiendish concentration. As much as I practiced and snapped in, would catch my focus going off the front sight tip. Works roughly the same for the reticle if you’re using glass.
6. If you can’t call your shots, you don’t know what you’re doing.
7. Conversely, if you’re calling them, everything becomes a lot clearer.
8. Your results are excellent for the amount of effort you are putting into the enterprise.
9. Suspect major improvements at this point will be realized through spending time and effort rather than money.
10. What skills I possess were acquired at government expense. Was paid to shoot and provided adequate equipment and support.
A lot of my instructors were legends in the shooting community.
11. Most of the comments here are probably written by folks who had similar advantages.
V/R J West
November 13th, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I forget – why did you stop with the piano? I want to remember that it was a good reason but one based in some disapointment. I’m glad you’re keying in on the guns though – you’re always happier when you’ve got a hobby you’re actively engaged in.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:22 AM
There is a reason I don’t write about the piano any more, but I have been putting off explaining it.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Take it from a guy who knows optics in other contexts: the focus on the reticle/focus on the target bit means they don’t know how to set up a scope.
The eyepiece of the scope is a lens. It has a focus point, and when you look through the eyepiece what you see is not the target; it is an image of the target formed by the objective. If the scope is even halfway correctly made, you can adjust the eyepiece so that it is focused at that image plane, and at that point the image of the target is sharp — but that’s the wrong way to do it.
The purpose of the focus adjustment on the eyepiece is to get the reticle at the point of best focus for your eyes and the production tolerances of the eyepiece lens. You then have to adjust the objective so that it produces its image in the same plane as the reticle. If the image of the target produced by the objective is in the same plane as the reticle, both reticle and target are equally sharp, and the question of fuzzy target/fuzzy reticle doesn’t arise.
If you don’t do it that way, there is some distance between the reticle and the target image — and if you move your head, you are changing your line of sight through the eyepiece, so the image and reticle shift with respect to one another. You aren’t aiming at the same place any more. This puts a large, possibly intolerable, burden on you to reproduce your eye position every time, because the distance from eyepiece lens to reticle is relatively short and a small error in distance to target image means a big change in overall sight line. This is a big problem with surveying instruments, which is where I learned it, but a rifle scope works exactly the same way from an optical point of view.
Fortunately you are using the objective at “infinity” and your eyes aren’t a factor, so focusing the objective once is enough unless something causes the objective or the reticle to shift. Unfortunately that also means the scope manufacturer need not provide an easy way to focus the objective. I have even seen some scopes that didn’t provide any means at all of focusing the objective, and a few others in which you had to shift the reticle to get it into the objective’s image plane. That makes focusing the scope a pain in the butt, but if you want the scope to be accurate it still has to be done.
Regards,
Ric
November 13th, 2008 at 12:36 PM
oh- thought you did explain it. I just keep thinking of the opportunity for playing sacred music.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I mistook the PSL/Romak for something else. Pls disregard my earlier comment. I have no practical experience with Dragunovs.
Taget fixation is one of if not the most common problems for new shooters. It’s analagous to the new golfer who can’t keep his head down on the ball, because he’s too interested in where the ball is going and seing himself make a strong straight drive. Focus on the front sight post allows the shooter to have follow through, then point of impact takes care of itself if you’ve done everything else correctly. From the above it sounds like you are at least shifting your focus between the reticle arrow and the target circle if not completely focused on the target circle. That causes bigger groups overall and fliers.
It may ultimately turn out that something else is causing your groups, front sight focus (or scope reticle focus in your case) is the first thing a shooting coach here will ask you about when troubleshooting big groups.