1000 YD Savage .308 build

[pierce195]

I seem to be getting a ton of mixed reviews here. Does it help if I say this is not for any competition or match shooting. Just looking to be able to shoot from 400-1000 yards using the .308win. I know 1000 yards is pushing it.

You will be fine. I shoot my R700 with 20 inch barrel in 308 out to 1000 yards.

 

[sadclownwp]

I would personally dial back the zoom a little. By dialing back the zoom to something like the 2.6-16 you will have more than enough zoom to reach 1000 yds, but you will have alot more internal travel. The scope you chose has 50moa of internal travel, so in a perfect world you would have 45moa with your 20 moa base. It never works like that in the real world, and you MIGHT not have enough travel to reach 1000 yds with that scope. The 308 has roughly 39 moa of drop at 1000yds, so your right on the line.

Outside of that bit of advise your setup sounds great

Can you explain what you mean by this to me, and how you got those numbers?

 

[sloughfoot]

Can you explain what you mean by this to me, and how you got those numbers?

It seems clear to me. Are you not clear on some of the numbers? Or all of them? These are all roughly the same numbers that long range marksmen use at least as a starting point.

Please specify which numbers you are not clear on.

 

[sadclownwp]

"The scope you chose has 50moa of internal travel, so in a perfect world you would have 45moa with your 20 moa base. It never works like that in the real world, and you MIGHT not have enough travel to reach 1000 yds with that scope."

that is the part i am not clear on.

 

[avboiler11]

Scope mentioned has 50 MOA of elevation adjustment. Assuming best case scenario, your scope would reach 100yd zero with 25 MOA of elevation remaining. If you used a 20MOA scope base, in theory you would have 45 MOA of up elevation from a 100yd zero.

A 308 generally needs ROUGHLY 38-40 MOA of adjustment from a 100yd zero to hit a target at 1000 yards.

So if you only have (theoretically) 45 MOA available, and need 38-40 to get where you want to go, a scope with 50 MOA of internal adjustment might not be enough.

If your scope had, say, 70 MOA of internal adjustment...back up and do the math. 35 MOA at a 100yd zero with a 0 MOA base, 55 MOA at 100yd zero with a 20 MOA base, need 38-40 MOA to reach 1000 yards...yeah, thats a much better margin.

 

[42769vette]

Can you explain what you mean by this to me, and how you got those numbers?

Id be happy to.

The 39 MOA is just a ball park. It depending on your load etc.

You are starting of with 50 MOA of internal travel. That means from your mechanical center (not optical center) you have 25 MOA of up, 25 MOA of down, 25 MOA of left, and 25 MOA of right. Most manufactors are a little optimistic on their numbers, but for the math purpose we will stick with assuming you end up with exactly 50 MOA in the scope you get, as the actual travel will vary from scope to scope even inside the same line.

So IF (never happens like this in real life) you got a 200 yd zero in your exact mechanical zero you would end up with 25 MOA of up travel. You are adding 20 MOA of cant in your base wich means in a perfect world you would end up with 45 MOA of up, 5 MOA of down, 25 MOA of left, and 25 MOA of right.

Now most folks assume internal travel is a square. In real life internal travel is a circle, so if you have to dial in windage (due to zeroing, or wind calls) you will lose some of your internal travel.

All this is why I recommend dialing back your zoom (the higher zoom a scope is with in a certain line the smaller the circle that is internal travel ends up). Even though mathmatically you will be fine your leaving yourself NO room for error.

 

[sadclownwp]

Id be happy to.

The 39 MOA is just a ball park. It depending on your load etc.

You are starting of with 50 MOA of internal travel. That means from your mechanical center (not optical center) you have 25 MOA of up, 25 MOA of down, 25 MOA of left, and 25 MOA of right. Most manufactors are a little optimistic on their numbers, but for the math purpose we will stick with assuming you end up with exactly 50 MOA in the scope you get, as the actual travel will vary from scope to scope even inside the same line.

So IF (never happens like this in real life) you got a 200 yd zero in your exact mechanical zero you would end up with 25 MOA of up travel. You are adding 20 MOA of cant in your base wich means in a perfect world you would end up with 45 MOA of up, 5 MOA of down, 25 MOA of left, and 25 MOA of right.

Now most folks assume internal travel is a square. In real life internal travel is a circle, so if you have to dial in windage (due to zeroing, or wind calls) you will lose some of your internal travel.

All this is why I recommend dialing back your zoom (the higher zoom a scope is with in a certain line the smaller the circle that is internal travel ends up). Even though mathmatically you will be fine your leaving yourself NO room for error.

Ah it makes sense now.

 

[sadclownwp]

I think I am going to go with DNZ 20MOA base with built in rings. Seems like one of the best options, and it is one less thing to fail.

 

[koutsevil]

I think I am going to go with DNZ 20MOA base with built in rings. Seems like one of the best options, and it is one less thing to fail.

It definately looks like a solid base.

 

[Yeah]

Adopting fixed ring positions is a limitation with no upside.

 

[sadclownwp]

Adopting fixed ring positions is a limitation with no upside.

Can you tell me why that is?

 

[Yeah]

Because it removes the possibility of maximizing ring spacing for a given scope, which is always a preferable arrangement to clamping it any other way. It also limits fore/aft positioning by dictating the location of the rings relative to the receiver, a problem further complicated by moon scopes sporting massive ocular ends, wide zoom rings, and large erector housings so as to offer little latitude right out of the gate.

Integrated bases and mounts offer no advantage apart from weight reduction, which is obviated by DNZ's one piece design and superfluous on a rifle not built to be a lightweight itself. Any decent distinct base and mount arrangement, decently assembled, is far tougher than the scope it holds.

 

[sadclownwp]

Because it removes the possibility of maximizing ring spacing for a given scope, which is always a preferable arrangement to clamping it any other way. It also limits fore/aft positioning by dictating the location of the rings relative to the receiver, a problem further complicated by moon scopes sporting massive ocular ends, wide zoom rings, and large erector housings so as to offer little latitude right out of the gate.

Integrated bases and mounts offer no advantage apart from weight reduction, which is obviated by DNZ's one piece design and superfluous on a rifle not built to be a lightweight itself. Any decent distinct base and mount arrangement, decently assembled, is far tougher than the scope it holds.

What say you ingo, I have always heard that one piece mounts are some of the strongest you can get. I have never had a one piece mount before so I have never seen the dfference. Is there that much of a difference?

 

[IMPD31323]

Not sure on the one piece mount but everybody here seems to be telling me that what i shoot and hit with at 1000 yrds just shouldnt be happening. I have a 12 year old Savage FP10 with a 24 inch tube mounted in a bell carlson medalist stock with a swfa 20x ficed power scope sitting in Badger rings. with Federal GMM 175's it will ring a propane tank at 1,400 yards. Im pretty sure i have less in my entire set up than some of the scopes you guys are suggesting. Get what you like and shoot the poo out of it. There is no better way to get better than practice practice practice.

 

[sloughfoot]

Not sure on the one piece mount but everybody here seems to be telling me that what i shoot and hit with at 1000 yrds just shouldnt be happening. I have a 12 year old Savage FP10 with a 24 inch tube mounted in a bell carlson medalist stock with a swfa 20x ficed power scope sitting in Badger rings. with Federal GMM 175's it will ring a propane tank at 1,400 yards. Im pretty sure i have less in my entire set up than some of the scopes you guys are suggesting. Get what you like and shoot the poo out of it. There is no better way to get better than practice practice practice.

What? You are suggesting that people get out and shoot and learn their rifle? Don't you understand the importance of internet debating?

You are no fun.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Don't forget the MOST important piece of gear (besides the stuff between the auditory canals) ... a data book. That will be more important than anything you will bolt on your rifle.

 

[koutsevil]

What say you ingo, I have always heard that one piece mounts are some of the strongest you can get. I have never had a one piece mount before so I have never seen the dfference. Is there that much of a difference?

I'll throw my Savage in the truck for Sunday. You can take a look at the DNZ mounted.

 

[Niles Coyote]

What caliber are you shooting 1000 yards out of a 20" barrel?

I have both a 223 and 308 R700 tactical. Both have been to the 1000 yard line often...the 308 more, as the bullets I need for the 223 have been unavailable for the last 6 months.

In both cases getting to 1000 is the easy part. Reading the wind is the challenge. The 308 gets to 800 well, the last 200 yards separates the good shooters from the great shooters. If you plan to do a lot of 1000y shooting I'd opt for every advantage you can get, one of those is a longer barrel... handloading and choosing some of the better bullets not currently loaded in factory ammo is another. Now if you are just shooting to 1000 occasionally a handy compact rifle makes a lot of sense.

I look at my two tacticals as midrange rifles but here is a tread I posted on the 308 at 900 - 1000 with good conditions
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iy-skim-bedding-remington-tactical-style.html

Thats also what a DNZ 20moa medium mount looks like with a 50mm objective scope... and weight savings was what I was after that year for mule deer hunting.

 

[sadclownwp]

I'll throw my Savage in the truck for Sunday. You can take a look at the DNZ mounted.

I can't wait to see it.

 

[sadclownwp]

The DNZ mounts should be in soon, but I may still buy the base and mounts just to compare. I look forward to doing a full right up when this is all done.