Project Appleseed

I didn't see this posted on here yet.  Tech-Sights made this handy "MOA Chart" for all of their models.  Useful info!

http://www.tech-sights.com/MOA%20chart%20clicks%20per%20sight%20w%20logo.pdf

Handy!

If you look at the chart you will see that a rounding of 1 moa per click will get you within 1/4 of an moa  of theoretical change for every single rifle. That round number probably has more value than the chart itself because it is simple to remember and to use. Remember that 1/4 moa at 25m is 1/16 of an inch or .0625 inches.

Yeah I've noticed my marlin's tech sights are basically 1 moa. Dunno about my sks yet.

Quote from: 509gman on June 01, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
Yeah I've noticed my marlin's tech sights are basically 1 moa. Dunno about my sks yet.

My SKS is 1 MOA per click in windage and elevation.  I would agree with jmdavis and just round to 1 MOA per click for all of them.  Close enough for Rifleman standards.

UL

1 moa for teaching. The rifleman can determine the exact data for his or her rifle. To do that you shoot a box and test it.

Quote from: jmdavis on June 02, 2014, 12:59:54 AM
1 moa for teaching. The rifleman can determine the exact data for his or her rifle. To do that you shoot a box and test it.

Agreed.  That's exactly how I determined that my SKS is 1 MOA per click.   

UL

This subject came up at the Newcastle WY Appleseed this weekend --- thanks for the reminder!

So, I have had problems with the recommended adjustments for 10/22 Tech-sights (i.e., TSR-100 and TSR-200) for some time. Until recently, their literature typically stated "1 click = ⅝ inch at 20 yards". However, we don't shoot Appleseed at 20 yards (60 feet), we don't even shoot at 25 yards (75 feet), we shoot at 25 meters (82 feet), so the ⅝" per click doesn't quite work for us.

Being the anal-retentive person that I am, I decided to do all the conversions (⅝" @ 20 yards →25 yards→25 meters) to figure out how many clicks we should adjust Tech Sights, and Scopes based on shooting at 25 meters. The final # of clicks for each distance off target is rounded because we can't reasonably dial in 1.675 of a click. I have set this file up to print on Avery 3×5 Index Cards (Template #5388). I hope this helps. It has worked well for us.

Quote from: DrRichP on June 11, 2014, 09:15:37 PM
So, I have had problems with the recommended adjustments for 10/22 Tech-sights (i.e., TSR-100 and TSR-200) for some time. Until recently, their literature typically stated "1 click = ⅝ inch at 20 yards". However, we don't shoot Appleseed at 20 yards (60 feet), we don't even shoot at 25 yards (75 feet), we shoot at 25 meters (82 feet), so the ⅝" per click doesn't quite work for us.

Being the anal-retentive person that I am, I decided to do all the conversions (⅝" @ 20 yards →25 yards→25 meters) to figure out how many clicks we should adjust Tech Sights, and Scopes based on shooting at 25 meters. The final # of clicks for each distance off target is rounded because we can't reasonably dial in 1.675 of a click. I have set this file up to print on Avery 3×5 Index Cards (Template #5388). I hope this helps. It has worked well for us.

You mean to say that the standard TS click value is ~⅝ moa, correct?

Yes, that seems to work. The standard value of 1 click =⅝ inch per 100 yards =⅝ MOA.

Tech-Sight's current literature for the TSR100 & TSR200 states, "Approximately 1/8" per detent at 20 yards - 5/8" at 100 yards", and in their FAQ on their website they say, "Each click is going to be 5/8 minute of angle (MOA).", which are saying the same thing. That works out to .171" per click at 25m. I used that as a basis to find the changes necessary for a 6 o'clock hold on the various sizes of targets on a Q&D AQT with my CZ 452 and have found that it (5/8 MOA) also seems to hold true for corrections at 50 and 100 yds. So, quite odd that their chart shows 7/8 MOA for the TSR100 & TSR200, and 3/4 MOA for my CZ (though I admit it would take some pretty dang small groups or a whole lot of shooting and statistical analysis to distinguish between 5/8 MOA and 3/4 MOA at any of those distances!).

I've found using 5/8 (rounded to 1/2) is the best way to do it because it's usually wrong.

"But slim, why would we teach them to do it wrong?"

Because it allows us to reinforce that each rifle/ammo combination is different AND it gives them a chance to get "close enough" while simultaneously figuring out exactly what's right. We can have a sheet with a million different numbers printed on it and guess what? It's not going to be exact.

We need to get them "close enough" and let that little lightbulb in their head go off when they see the IMC numbers in action and working out there on the line. When they, themselves, crunch the numbers and do the clicks. "Oh, I see 1/2 only got us 1/3 of the way there. I guess mine is closer to 1/3 or even 1/4. Cool!"

Quote from: slim on July 01, 2014, 11:40:49 PM
I've found using 5/8 (rounded to 1/2) is the best way to do it because it's usually wrong.

"But slim, why would we teach them to do it wrong?"

Because it allows us to reinforce that each rifle/ammo combination is different AND it gives them a chance to get "close enough" while simultaneously figuring out exactly what's right. We can have a sheet with a million different numbers printed on it and guess what? It's not going to be exact.

We need to get them "close enough" and let that little lightbulb in their head go off when they see the IMC numbers in action and working out there on the line. When they, themselves, crunch the numbers and do the clicks. "Oh, I see 1/2 only got us 1/3 of the way there. I guess mine is closer to 1/3 or even 1/4. Cool!"

slim,
If I follow what you are saying (and I might well be wrong), we should say Tech Sights on 10/22 are 2 clicks per MOA?  (1/2 MOA per click, 1/2" at 100 yards, 1/8" at 25 yards?).

If the clicks are 5/8 MOA or 7/8 MOA or pretty darn near 1 MOA, assuming 1/2 means they put in too many and then have to go back, doesn't it?

There's definite merit in firmly teaching that they must learn their own rifle, but if the goal is 'creep' up on zero, isn't better to say "round up to 1 MOA per click" because that way they'll need more in the same direction to get all the way there?

I wonder if using a method that puts them off target in the other direction instead reduces confidence in what we instruct?  Granted low cost scopes and even Tech Sights probably differ from spec depending on the manufacturing run, QC etc. But shouldn't we seek to find a reliable, confidence building way to "teach them to fish"?  By running past zero, you are definitely not giving them a fish, and by repeated adjustment they can get on, if they continue to apply the fundamentals, of course.  But, if we can find a quicker method to build confidence in our methods and allow the student to experience repeated 'Eureka' (as in wow this Appleseed stuff works!) moments, the sooner they will relax, trust NPOA and fire in Cadence using all 6 Steps?  Just musing and interested in your opinions & experience.

(ol' addled brain) fisherdawg

If you go partially there it "proves" they're moving in the right direction and then they can crunch the numbers to get exactly on the next time they do a sight correction. The shine in their eyes when their second group is on is worth the price of their admission.

That shine comes about because THEY did it. Not us. Them. They did it themselves after taking some feedback downrange, applying a little math, and then coming back and making it work. We've now just had them do the Rifleman's Dance as well and it's still before lunch on Saturday.

If we round it to 1 (which I've yet to see the 10/22 Tech-Sights that are 1moa/click) they overcorrect and then have to figure out how many to go back. That happens sometimes but it's not nearly as precise because the measurement becomes bigger and in two directions instead of just one. It often results in another square or two being necessary before a good zero is established.

*Scopes or any other sighting systems needing "64 clicks" (or similarly high number) should be encouraged to do 1/2 that number to verify we're going in the right direction and the click value is indeed what's printed on the scope.

When we had shooters who brought out $1,200 scopes we could crunch the numbers on the first group, make the correction, and we were shooting zero on the second group. Now that we have more and more noobs coming out with "high dollar optics" made by NC Star and Center Point it seems we need a measurement to confirm.

1 MOA for non-10/22 Tech-Sights is fine. But for the 10/22 it should be 1/2.

Quote from: DrRichP on June 12, 2014, 05:56:32 PM

Quote from: AFTERMATH on June 11, 2014, 09:38:34 PM
You mean to say that the standard TS click value is ~⅝ moa, correct?

No, I'm not saying that the standard TS click value is ~⅝ moa. I am saying it is NOT ⅝ moa at the distance we shoot (i.e., 25 m). I made this card so that we AS ITs can look at a squares target shot at 25 m, coun't the number of boxes off target and tell the shooter how many clicks to adjust their sights and get on-target.

5/8 moa is 5/8 moa - at any distance.

Let me be frank, I see an issue here, if our IIT's being taught to use shortcuts.  How are we going to convince the shooters that IMC works, if our instructors are grabbing for a chart every time they're asked how to adjust? 

We need to make sure our IIT's know the IMC process - they should not simply be looking at a chart and telling them how many clicks they need to move.  They should work it out with the shooter.  Starting with inches, converting to minutes then converting to clicks.  The shooter should be doing the math and the IIT guiding them through the process.  This will help both to gain a better understanding of the concept.

Besides, which barrel length are we talking? 

16"
18.5"
20"
22"

And for that matter - Where did they mount the rear sight? 



Here's the simple method:

If they have the longer barrels, tell 'em round to 1/2 moa clicks.
If they have the short barrels, tell 'em round to 1 moa clicks.


Don't fret it - it'll work.

I teach Inches, then Minutes, then at Clicks I clearly explain that "Clicks are specific to your rifle" and that as a Rifleman they are expected to learn their rifle. 

I then explain how to look for the marking on a scope (1/4 etc.) and what that means.
Then I explain that many service rifles are 1 MOA per click.
Then I explain that if you don't know the adjustment for your rifle, presume 1 MOA per click.  After your next shots you will quickly be able to determine the actual click value for YOUR Rifle.

The concept is to teach them to fish (teach them how to figure it out), not to do it for them

I've seen 10/22's with Tech Sights on barrel length from 16-24 inches, the above is easily digested and applied to all of those combinations.

Okay. So as is typical this post has been morphed from what it was supposed to be (ie, posting a simple and useful tool) to some whacked discussion that it was not meant to become. Let me re-focus. The reason for my post was because Tech-Sights originally stated "Tech-Sights for Ruger^® 10/22^®, CZ 452^® & CZ 455^®, Marlin^® 60^® & 795^®, Mossberg® 702^®, and Remington^® 597® front and rear sight adjustments equal ⅛ inch at 20 yards per click, or ⅝ inch at 100 yards per click."

Of course we all teach IMC. Of course we all teach the value of knowing your rifle. No one ever discounted doing either. So this was the question I was trying to answer. One click at 100 yards = ⅝ inch. How much is a 1 click change at 25M (in inches)? The answer: 0.171 of an inch. Calculate that in your mind.

Let's suppose after your IMC speech a shooter using TechSights says "I'm 9 boxes off target (ie, 2¼"). So how many clicks should I adjust the TechSights?". Okay boys, have at it ... go ahead and start calculating that 0.171 of an inch per click in your heads. I wasn't writing about estimating, "If the length of your barrel is X inches and your sight radius is Y,  and your using Z grain ammo, and Mercury is in retrograde ..."  The Tech-Sights MOA Chart I posted was just a tool to quickly and easily look down and say "You're off 9 boxes, try starting with an adjustment of this many clicks"

Wait, wait, I was advocating "IIT's being taught to use shortcuts".  NO! NO I WAS NOT. I never wrote anything about IITs only (or red hats only) using the card, or IIT's NOT knowing  the IMC process. Of course they should know it and teach it as well. Yes, teach and use IMC. Not "roughly this" or "roughly that", teach IMC and explain the 0.171 inches per click for TechSights, Calculate where they mounted the rear sight, barrel length, ammo grains, ballistic coefficients, refraction of their eyes for  their prescription of contact lenses, the relative gravitational force based on the longitude and latitude of the shoot, and their favorite colors too, and then tell them "Oh ... maybe ½ MOA per click or then again if that doesn't work maybe 1 MOA per click" 

Here's the long and short of it. I posted a tool. If you like it great, if not ... Don't use it.

Let's try not to make it feel like passing a kidney stone every time someone tries to do something helpful.