.223 ballistic mystery...

[bellavite1]

Please guys help me understand because this is driving me nuts:
It is common knowledge that a .223 chambered ar, zeroed at 50 will somewhat, depending upon load, have a second zero at about 200/220 yds.
Because of said trajectory it will hit approximately 1.5" high at 100 yds.
This also matches my ballistic calculator figures (1.4", but close enough).
So why do my rounds hit consistently 2.5" high at 100 yds?
Now, the lack of accuracy of my rifle is becoming legendary, but I doubt that is the problem here...

Scope height is 2.6"
Hornady 62gr
Velocity should be around 2940 fps

[henpecked]

The length of your barrel may be the issue.

[bellavite1]

The length of your barrel may be the issue.

it is a 16" ...

[ray1970]

Velocity should be around 2940 fps

Should be or is?

You can?t make assumptions about unknown variables and then act surprised if you don?t get the results you expect.

I do a 25/300 zero with 55gr and it performs as expected.

[bellavite1]

Should be or is?

You can?t make assumptions about unknown variables and then act surprised if you don?t get the results you expect.

I do a 25/300 zero with 55gr and it performs as expected.

According to my velocity calibration feature on my ballistic app it is.
Regardless, to justify a 2.5" climb in 50yds, my velocity, again according to my shooting app, my velocity should be beyond 5000 fts (that would give a climb of 2.1 moa at 100 yds, with a 50 yds zero).
I can promise you that is not the case.

[ChickNorris]

Im seeing some good sized groups in those images. Might not be as far off as you think. Maybe try sand bagging to bring those groups down, eliminating at least one contributing variable & work from there?

[bellavite1]

Im seeing some good sized groups in those images. Might not be as far off as you think. Maybe try sand bagging to bring those groups down, eliminating at least one contributing variable & work from there?

Thanks for the kind words... sadly I WAS on sand bags already...
I just ordered some 69gr smk, will see if it helps.
Yet the trajectory part is weird, i just don't get it...

[Duman]

Do you have a chronograph?

I always thought the 50/200 zero was based on the A2 upper and standard barrel length (i.e.-sight radius), etc..

[bellavite1]

I don't have a chronograph, yet.
But I should be able to chrono my loads as soon as I get my new bullets.
The 50/200 zero worked out just fine, the weird part is only at 100 yards.

[mpatch]

What is the optic you’re using?

[bellavite1]

Vortex Viper hs, MOA turrets.

[Grant H.]

I will bet $20 that your optic height is what you are fighting.

Irons are 1.4", and a lot of optics mounts shoot for that same level (cowitness). The 25/200 zero is built around irons. Having to account for the additional 1.2" in optic height means that the angle of convergence between bore and optic is more aggressive. This could easily explain the additional 1" @ 100yds.

[Tim K]

I see at least two problems. As Ray pointed out, your velocity is a guess. Secondly as Chick pointed out, accuracy is pretty poor. I’m not trying to bust your chops, but it’s hard to tell anything from a 3”-4” 100y group.

It could also EASILY be a parallax issue with your scope. If your scope is fixed parallax, it’s most likely set at 100y. At 50 and 200y it could be far enough off that subtle inconsistencies in head position could account for all your error. Might even account for some of your accuracy issues. If parallax is adjustable and you don’t know how to use it correctly, that would cause all the same problems.

[bellavite1]

I will bet $20 that your optic height is what you are fighting.

Irons are 1.4", and a lot of optics mounts shoot for that same level (cowitness). The 25/200 zero is built around irons. Having to account for the additional 1.2" in optic height means that the angle of convergence between bore and optic is more aggressive. This could easily explain the additional 1" @ 100yds.

I am using a pretty standard ar mountm and I am pretty sure it cowitness.
To clarify, 2.6" id measured from center bore to optical center, as in the picture.
And it is programmed into the ballistic app as well, so it is factored in.

[bellavite1]

I see at least two problems. As Ray pointed out, your velocity is a guess. Secondly as Chick pointed out, accuracy is pretty poor. I’m not trying to bust your chops, but it’s hard to tell anything from a 3”-4” 100y group.

It could also EASILY be a parallax issue with your scope. If your scope is fixed parallax, it’s most likely set at 100y. At 50 and 200y it could be far enough off that subtle inconsistencies in head position could account for all your error. Might even account for some of your accuracy issues. If parallax is adjustable and you don’t know how to use it correctly, that would cause all the same problems.
No offense taken!
However, I would like to point out that both 100 yds pictures show a vertical spread of about 1.5 MOA (hardly something to be proud of, but somewhat within specs for an average AR from what I hear).
There is consistency there.
The white and orange target is a 200 yds target, shot with the 50 yds zero, without any elevation adjustment, to show that the 50/200 zero actually pans out.
I do appreciate all the replies, but I still don't see how this additional 1" of correction from 50 to 100 comes to be.

[Grant H.]

I am using a pretty standard ar mountm and I am pretty sure it cowitness.
To clarify, 2.6" id measured from center bore to optical center, as in the picture.

Yep, I grabbed the wrong number off the drawing.

[bellavite1]

I see at least two problems. As Ray pointed out, your velocity is a guess. Secondly as Chick pointed out, accuracy is pretty poor. I’m not trying to bust your chops, but it’s hard to tell anything from a 3”-4” 100y group.

It could also EASILY be a parallax issue with your scope. If your scope is fixed parallax, it’s most likely set at 100y. At 50 and 200y it could be far enough off that subtle inconsistencies in head position could account for all your error. Might even account for some of your accuracy issues. If parallax is adjustable and you don’t know how to use it correctly, that would cause all the same problems.

The scope has parallax adjustment and I do adjust it for range.
I have the same scope (well, Viper PST) on my other rifles and they all shoot consistent with the ballistic tables, from the 308 to the 50BMG.
This one is the only one that doesn't...

[C Ward]

A few things ,

Barrel length has got jack to do with anything other than it's affect on velocity

If the 1st target is 50 yards it is shooting 4 MOA which make diagnosing accuracy issues pretty much impossible , even blaster ammo typically shoots better than that

How is the scope mounted , is it all on the receiver or is it jumping the gap and on a receiver and free float tube

Sight height / scope height is not an issue after the 1st cross over point after the cross over point the ballistic curve determines the height above or below the line of site

The 1st target also looks like it is possibly showing 2 seperate groups , 1 at the top with 2 rds and 1 at the bottom with 3 rounds , signs of rear bag cheek pressure issues

1st thing is get ammo that shoots better than 4 moa that actually groups . The bottom 2 targets show groups wider than tall which can be a few things , NPA , trigger control , muscling the gun

Check the scope mounting , tight fasteners , binding , interference, DO NOT BRIDGE THE GAP WITH THE MOUNT

The viper is lower end Vortex and has been hit or miss quality , check the tracking and make sure it is functioning correctly

At 2.6 inch scope your more than likely going to need a cheek riser to get a consistent cheek weld

[Great-Kazoo]

Outside of the front bag, use a squeeze bag on that buttstock. Minimalizes movement.
https://www.crosstac.com/shop-all-products/tactical-rear-squeeze-bag/

OR use a lead sled to really take all the human error / movement out of the equation. Or as much as possible .

[bellavite1]

A few things ,

Barrel length has got jack to do with anything other than it's affect on velocity

If the 1st target is 50 yards it is shooting 4 MOA which make diagnosing accuracy issues pretty much impossible , even blaster ammo typically shoots better than that

How is the scope mounted , is it all on the receiver or is it jumping the gap and on a receiver and free float tube

Sight height / scope height is not an issue after the 1st cross over point after the cross over point the ballistic curve determines the height above or below the line of site

The 1st target also looks like it is possibly showing 2 seperate groups , 1 at the top with 2 rds and 1 at the bottom with 3 rounds , signs of rear bag cheek pressure issues

1st thing is get ammo that shoots better than 4 moa that actually groups . The bottom 2 targets show groups wider than tall which can be a few things , NPA , trigger control , muscling the gun

Check the scope mounting , tight fasteners , binding , interference, DO NOT BRIDGE THE GAP WITH THE MOUNT

The viper is lower end Vortex and has been hit or miss quality , check the tracking and make sure it is functioning correctly

At 2.6 inch scope your more than likely going to need a cheek riser to get a consistent cheek weld

Now we may be getting somewhere...
Scope is mounted correctly, all on the receiver, not bridging the gap, 35 pounds on the crossbolts, 15 pounds on the caps.
Cheek weld feels right, natural, but I did notice that it seems to shoot better at 100 than at 50, with the shooting position being elevated over the targets, so that the 50 yds requires more of an angle, potentially creating cheek pressure issues.
I will try a more leveled position, with better bullets (Midway has Sierra MK 69 gr at a decent price, free shipping over $49) and then report...

[C Ward]

What kind of mount is it , couldn't tell from picture ? 35 in lbs on the cross bolts seems kinda low . Also the PEPR mounts the cross bolts aren't seated all the way at the factory and have to go trough 3 or 4 torque cycles before they have pulled up tighe against the shoulder .

Not sure if it is online or not but there is a video from the Magpul movies , not the Hodnett stuff but the extra footage with Cayden Wojick about che king scope setup and checking NPA with closing your eyes .

[C Ward]

NPA
https://youtu.be/4FStIVqb94A

Can't find anything on setting eye relief and cheek hieght

[bellavite1]

What kind of mount is it , couldn't tell from picture ? 35 in lbs on the cross bolts seems kinda low . Also the PEPR mounts the cross bolts aren't seated all the way at the factory and have to go trough 3 or 4 torque cycles before they have pulled up tighe against the shoulder .

Not sure if it is online or not but there is a video from the Magpul movies , not the Hodnett stuff but the extra footage with Cayden Wojick about che king scope setup and checking NPA with closing your eyes .
It is a Warne, came with a scope I bought used a while ago.
I believe it is this model:
https://warnescopemounts.com/product/gen-2-extended-skeletonized-30mm-msr-mount-black/
Looks like you are correct, it calls for up to 65 pounds.
And up to 25 pounds on the caps, although Vortex calls for 15-18, so 18 pounds it is.

[Tim K]

When you set parallax do you just dial to the number on the knob or actually check that the scope is parallax free at that range?

[DireWolf]

The scope has parallax adjustment and I do adjust it for range.


...


When you set parallax do you just dial to the number on the knob or actually check that the scope is parallax free at that range?

^exactly what I was thinking when I read that...

[bellavite1]

Move my head slightly and make sure the reticle doesn't move in relation to the target

[C Ward]

Parallax isn't going to cause inches at 100 yards errors . This seems more of a mechanical/ tolerance stacking error . First thing is better ammo and determine if the barrel is acceptably accurate and confirm the scope is tracking.

[bellavite1]

Parallax isn't going to cause inches at 100 yards errors . This seems more of a mechanical/ tolerance stacking error . First thing is better ammo and determine if the barrel is acceptably accurate and confirm the scope is tracking.

I would exclude the scope:
I started by zeroing at 50.
Then, without any adjustment, I shot my 100yds target: consistent hit 2.5" high.
Proceeded to adjust for it (2 .5 MOA down, 10 clicks with a 1/4" value) and got a group, huge as it was, on the crosshairs.
I will shoot the box next time I go out, hopefully with the Sierra bullets.
The issue here is not accuracy: I know that this barrel sucks, and I know that because I am a much better shooter than that (the picture below is my personal best with my 308, 3 rounds group at 100yds without adjusting for wind).
The second picture is 2 consecutive shots at 550 yds (I would have shot a third but Those were my last two rounds).
I may not be competition material but I practice consistently.
The issue is why my my group printed 2.5" high rather than 1.5" as it should have.
If my shots were between 0.5" and 2.5", making a 2" group, yes, I would know it's the barrell, or the load, or me for that matter, but they printed quite consistently at 2.5" high.

[DFBrews]

This community is awesome. There are tons of great shooters on here with probably hundreds of thousands of rounds sent down range.


Watching from afar on my COVID covered couch my thoughts are Minute of bad guy doesn’t care about that extra inch of zero

[C Ward]

I personally would start by zeroing at 200 yds with decent ammo .

Cross over zeros work fine for green e types but there is enough slop that when shooting reasonably sized targets it can cause misses .

My ballistics program shows cross over for 200 yds with 223 / 556 at 46 yards .

Also the problem with shooting close is moa / mrad are an angular measurement so a relatively small error up close is multiplied as the distance increases . I always zero at the distance I want the zero at .

[Duman]

The best correlation I've had between load data, ballistics calculator, and actual results were from Sierra loading tables and Sierra ballistics calculator.

There are only a finite number of things that can go wrong, all of which have been discussed.

The only way you can have a mid-range 'hit' higher than calculated, and short/long range hits on target, is a larger arc with a slightly slower bullet.
In your ballistics computer, can you input the hit points and back calculate velocity or other variables?

Or you can run the calculator forward and change input variables until you get an arc matching your hit points.

[bellavite1]

The "velocity calibration" feature does just that, but only allows a drop increase input.
To input a climb would mean entering a negative value and that is not allowed.
Therefore I attempted changing the velocity in the load data until it gives me a 2.5" climb: at 5000fps (maximum allowed velocity) I was getting about 2" climb at 100yds from a 50yds zero.
It would mean my load is more than 5000 fps...
If that was the case I would probably be dead rather than just confused...
These are the bullets I was using:
https://www.hornady.com/bullets/rifle/22-cal-.224-62-gr-fmj#!/
I will get an exact velocity figure out of a different rifle (to rule out any hardware issue) and try it again next week.

[ChickNorris]

If solving for your 'anomaly' is what you want to do then I would back up & start again. Youve already gone over the rifle & checked off what you could from the suggestions here with no apparent 'A-ha!' moment from anyone looking at the information provided or your review, yes?

In the interim, forget the percieved data anomaly & concentrate on a making groups as tight as possible to verify your zero distance. Prove this first & then move forward.

Back to basics. Being the biggest variable, I would be certain that I am minimizing my influence to as little as possible on the rifle during my zero procedure & that my fundamentals are solid. Then I would start/continue a check list & test each item on that list, individually & without making any other changes during each test.

Reason i suggest this is because currently you're trying to extrapolate from the circumstantial that hasn't been proven true @ zero. You need a control set/group first or everything thereafter is speculation. Repeatability & precision is the only way to prove your data is sound, or not - if you want to solve for the anomaly. To me, there are too many variables & not enough proof to even think about arguing 'known' trajectory data.

Review the fundamentals. We know/assume the rifle is minimally operational because you're on paper.
Switch the ammo, which youve already considered. Use match grade if possible.
Swap the optic. Perhaps try a different optic & repeat the zero process. If your results are not different, improved or solved then you can narrow your focus.
Replace the barrel, which youve already stated isn't particularly accurate. That's an issue in itself- you can either use what you have & try to find the ammo it shoots best or get a new barrel & start over.
...

Manually adjusting the mv to account for your bc at this point isnt going to solve for this, if anything its telling me that your actual zero probably isn't where you think it is. Revisit your zero.

[ray1970]

I will get an exact velocity figure out of a different rifle (to rule out any hardware issue) and try it again next week.

This makes no sense. Why would the ammunition velocity out of a totally different rifle have any bearing on your issues? Why would you not verify your velocity out of the rifle in question?

Just trying to understand your thought process here.

(Although perhaps I don't really want to understand it. From what I can tell you have a rifle that shoots 2+ MOA groups but being 1.5 MOA "off" at a certain distance seems to be a concern to you.)

[TEAMRICO]

Me: Zeros rifle
Ask myself ?Self, could you hit a communist with it at a given distance I?m confident in??
If answer is yes then Rifle is fine. No worries about math.

[ray1970]

Me: Zeros rifle
Ask myself ?Self, could you hit a communist with it at a given distance I?m confident in??
If answer is yes then Rifle is fine. No worries about math.

Yeah. All of my stuff is "minute of communist" out to 300 yards easily. My good stuff is even "minute of kitten".

[bellavite1]

This makes no sense. Why would the ammunition velocity out of a totally different rifle have any bearing on your issues? Why would you not verify your velocity out of the rifle in question?

Just trying to understand your thought process here.

(Although perhaps I don't really want to understand it. From what I can tell you have a rifle that shoots 2+ MOA groups but being 1.5 MOA "off" at a certain distance seems to be a concern to you.)

Exactly my point.
First, as prompted, find out exact velocity, ideally out of both rifles.
Then start to eliminate variables as rifle accuracy, see if that is the problem, if not, change ammo, and try to find the weak link.
I am very aware of the issues with my rifle, thank you.
What I don't understand is why the ballistic calculations don't match real life trajectory.
A 2"+ group that centers 1.5" higher than it should makes no sense.
It is a theoretical question, there must be something in my data input that is wrong.
I have been repeating this from post one but all I am getting is (well meaning) advice on rifle fundamentals.
Thank you all, but that is not what I was asking.
Never mind, forget I asked.
Mods, go ahead and close the thread, this is not going anywhere.

[Irving]

Have you tried putting in speeds far lower than what you expect to give you that rise? It doesn't make sense to me that the bullet would have to be going 5,000fps+, rather than much slower. I'm not great at this stuff, but I haven't seen anyone else suggest it so far.

Also, rage quitting your own thread out of frustration over some light miscommunication isn't going to get you anywhere.

[C Ward]

Go zero at 200 yds , crossover zeros suck if you want a 200 yard zero shoot at 200 yds . The group you posted at 50 yds was 4 moa and is nowhere good enough to determine what point is the actual zero inside the 4 moa circle . This alone makes huge differences in the ballistic path .

Crossover zeros have to be perfect to function and any small error is magnified exponentially at distance because of the angular measurements .

[ChickNorris]

When/if you zero @ 200 your 50 - 100 will then be better, with 100 less high & 50 just a bit low.

[bellavite1]

Have you tried putting in speeds far lower than what you expect to give you that rise? It doesn't make sense to me that the bullet would have to be going 5,000fps+, rather than much slower. I'm not great at this stuff, but I haven't seen anyone else suggest it so far.

Also, rage quitting your own thread out of frustration over some light miscommunication isn't going to get you anywhere.

True, but one person's reply was starting to border personal insult, and THAT is not helping anyone.
Again, my main concern is: is there any reason why my ballistic calculator App, which has been spot-on so far in many different loads all of the sudden does not match real world results?
What could I have actually messed up to cause that?
To answer your question, yes, I have tried entering lower speeds and they would actually reduce the climb.
I will change my zero to 200 and see what happens.

[Grant H.]

You haven't actually shown anything that "verifies" a discrepancy between the ballistics app and real world results.

As CWard has been saying, every picture of a group that you have posted has been 3-4MOA. A perceived 1" discrepancy in POI while shooting 3-4MOA groups doesn't mean anything.

A few more data points that might help in all of this:
- Barrel Twist Rate?
- Gas length of rifle?
- Is the 62gr Hornady that you were shooting factory ammo, or reloads?

[bellavite1]

Twist is 1:7
Carbine lenght gas system
62 gr is loaded over CCI primers with 25.4gr of CFE223

[Grant H.]

62gr is pretty light for a 1:7, which may be a good chunk of your 3-4MOA grouping.

The 69gr that you mentioned buying should help, but even up into the 7Xgr will stabilize better, and should help to tighten groups up.

FYI, this thread shows a guy having really poor luck with velocity and accuracy out of very similar load and rifle configuration. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/slow-velocity-with-cfe-223-and-62-grain-gold-dots.864212/

If it were me, I would ignore the ballistics "anomaly" until you get a load that the rifle likes, and then re-run your tests.

[bellavite1]

Thank you, good info.

[izzy]

I've got a bunch of heavier projectiles if want a few to test out shoot me a dm.


Eta: and I mean you can just have a few, not trying to sell them

[Duman]

Have you tried putting in speeds far lower than what you expect to give you that rise? It doesn't make sense to me that the bullet would have to be going 5,000fps+, rather than much slower. I'm not great at this stuff, but I haven't seen anyone else suggest it so far.

I thought I mentioned that....[Coffee]

[bellavite1]

I've got a bunch of heavier projectiles if want a few to test out shoot me a dm.


Eta: and I mean you can just have a few, not trying to sell them

Thank you so much for the offer.
I actually have 500 Sierra Matchking 69gr coming Monday, I'll see how they work first...[Beer]

[izzy]

Thank you so much for the offer.
I actually have 500 Sierra Matchking 69gr coming Monday, I'll see how they work first...[Beer]

Let me know. I have serra 77s and hornady 75s if you decide you want to experiment.

[Duman]

62gr is pretty light for a 1:7, which may be a good chunk of your 3-4MOA grouping.

How would a faster twist rate (1:7) vs., say, 1:12, affect the grouping?

[00tec]

How would a faster twist rate (1:7) vs., say, 1:12, affect the grouping?

A 62gr will keyhole at about 10 yards out of a 1:12.
Been there, done that.

My 1:12 loves 40gr, but anything over 55 is a disaster.

[Grant H.]

How would a faster twist rate (1:7) vs., say, 1:12, affect the grouping?

The object of the rifling is to spin the bullet and create a gyroscopic stabilization of it that allows for significantly greater consistency in flight paths.

As the bullets weight, shape, and cross-sectional density change, the rate of twist that is ideal for that particular bullet changes.

Lighter bullets generally prefer a slower rate of twist (1:12)
Heavier bullets generally prefer a faster rate of twist (1:7)

Generally the bullet manufacturer can/will provide a recommended barrel twist and velocity for "ideal" functionality of that specific bullet.

ETA:

The less stable the bullet is leaving the barrel, the less consistent the flight path will be.

Shooting for groups is often considered "accuracy", but that's not really correct. That is consistency. The smaller the group you can create with your rifle, the more consistent the rifle, load, and shooter are.

Accuracy is more often talked about in terms of "POA vs. POI" (point of aim vs point of impact).

Having the wrong weight of bullet for the twist of your barrel will cause poor consistency and large groups, or in extreme cases like 00tec mentioned, it will cause complete loss of accurate flight within very short distances.

[bellavite1]

62gr is pretty light for a 1:7, which may be a good chunk of your 3-4MOA grouping.

The 69gr that you mentioned buying should help, but even up into the 7Xgr will stabilize better, and should help to tighten groups up.

FYI, this thread shows a guy having really poor luck with velocity and accuracy out of very similar load and rifle configuration. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/slow-velocity-with-cfe-223-and-62-grain-gold-dots.864212/

If it were me, I would ignore the ballistics "anomaly" until you get a load that the rifle likes, and then re-run your tests.

Update:
Swapped upper with a 20" Palmetto.
Same trigger and scope as before, same 62gr loads ammo.
...Same results...2-3MOA groups.
The good news are that my barrel may not be the culprit after all, I am more leaning towards the load.
So I am going to try some 75gr loads with some Hornady Match bullets I have laying around.
I will start with 24.4 of CFE223 and see where it takes me (Hogdon shows a max load of 25gr).
TBC

[Duman]

Update:..Same results...2-3MOA groups.

Are you sure you're not shooting an AK? ...[Coffee]

[bellavite1]

Are you sure you're not shooting an AK? ...[Coffee]

[hahhah-no]

[Grant H.]

Update:
Swapped upper with a 20" Palmetto.
Same trigger and scope as before, same 62gr loads ammo.
...Same results...2-3MOA groups.
The good news are that my barrel may not be the culprit after all, I am more leaning towards the load.
So I am going to try some 75gr loads with some Hornady Match bullets I have laying around.
I will start with 24.4 of CFE223 and see where it takes me (Hogdon shows a max load of 25gr).
TBC

Is the PSA 20" also 1:7? For my own edification.

I have stumbled onto my own versions of loads that just simply will not shoot, so you may be onto something.

I know it has been talked about, but you might want to inspect rings/caps very closely. A buddy of mine was shooting one of my .17HMR's and it was continually changing groups, POI, etc (worse case than you are seeing), and it turned out that when I bought the scope, the front ring cap was put on backwards. Even though it was torqued, it never behaved. Only changed the front ring cap 180?, re-torqued, re-zero'd, and has been perfect from 25yds to 250 since. Baffled the hell out of me how a scope ring cap could cause that much heartache, but there was a small bevel at the edge of one side of the ring that didn't exist on the other, and they were mismatched.

Just another thought to look at, given the same results with the same scope, although this seems far more consistent than that .17 ever was with the ring installed wrong.

[bellavite1]

Is the PSA 20" also 1:7? For my own edification.

I have stumbled onto my own versions of loads that just simply will not shoot, so you may be onto something.

I know it has been talked about, but you might want to inspect rings/caps very closely. A buddy of mine was shooting one of my .17HMR's and it was continually changing groups, POI, etc (worse case than you are seeing), and it turned out that when I bought the scope, the front ring cap was put on backwards. Even though it was torqued, it never behaved. Only changed the front ring cap 180?, re-torqued, re-zero'd, and has been perfect from 25yds to 250 since. Baffled the hell out of me how a scope ring cap could cause that much heartache, but there was a small bevel at the edge of one side of the ring that didn't exist on the other, and they were mismatched.

Just another thought to look at, given the same results with the same scope, although this seems far more consistent than that .17 ever was with the ring installed wrong.

Yup, 1:7 as well, just to confirm that my hardware is still in good shape.
Same twist, same results.
In fact, I even had a keyhole...[facepalm]
No issue with the rings, thankfully, because of the shape there is no way it can be backwards.
BTW, I have these 500 Sierra Match King 69 gr coming, which I will probably be returning to Midway if the 75gr load is halfway decent, unless somebody is looking to trade or buy them, that is...
Any takers?

[Grant H.]

Yup, 1:7 as well, just to confirm that my hardware is still in good shape.
Same twist, same results.
In fact, I even had a keyhole...[facepalm]
No issue with the rings, thankfully, because of the shape there is no way it can be backwards.
BTW, I have these 500 Sierra Match King 69 gr coming, which I will probably be returning to Midway if the 75gr load is halfway decent, unless somebody is looking to trade or buy them, that is...
Any takers?

Well, at least there is consistency... Helps keep one sane when chasing something like this.

You might consider keeping the 69's and loading them over a different powder. You may find a good load for them.

Beyond that, I will send you a PM. I'm never opposed to having another box of bullets.

[Duman]

Updates?

[bellavite1]

Slow burning powder giving low velocities with extreme spread over 100 fps.
Grant H link was spot on.
2427fps to 2592 fps out of a 16".

75 gr bullets vs 62 gr bullets did not help.

Then again, in the past, 26" gr of varget over 62gr bullets was still over 1"...

[bellavite1]

Update:
Might just have found a somewhat decent combination:
The above mentioned PSA 20", with 26gr of Varget and 69gr SMK, produced 2 sub-moa 5-shot groups today.
2832 fps.
This is the better of the bunch, rnds 11-15.
Nothing to write home about (and yet here I am...) but definitely an improvement:
200 yds confirmed zero, group shot at 100 yds, 9 o'clock 2-5 mph.