Watch this!
Fantastic barrel change repeatability from the Mauser M03 rifle system. :-)
I should add, this is the first shot fired after completely disassembling this M03 Deluxe receiver and stock a few weeks ago, as described in this post.
Sunday, 16 April 2017
13 comments:
Your comments and questions make this blog much more interesting. You can submit them for moderation here via your Google account, or take them over to the Mauser M03 Blog - Discussion Forum (link at top of page). If you do comment here I'll publish it and reply as soon as possible. Please check back soon. Thanks.
Regards, Rick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What was the MOA offset of bullet hole from the AP? How does that compare with the accuracy of a 5 shot group under similar environmental conditions? What was the support system? Bags on a bench rest or prone position with bipod and rear bag or something else? Was the scope at maximum power?
ReplyDeleteBy the way your blog was reason I purchased a M03 system. Superb rifle and worth every cent.
Rick
Hi Rick137. Thanks for your questions. :-)
ReplyDelete- at 100m the bullet hole was 1cm to the left of the aim point. That's 0.1 milliradian, or about 0.4 MOA.
- the wind was building and gusting inconsistently so I didn't bother firing any other shots. It was calm for few seconds when I fired. Further, it's likely there were pigs in the forest nearby; no need to drive them away with repeated bangs. I fire groups when I'm testing factory ammo or developing hand loads, to check for small shot dispersion, preferably first thing in the morning before the wind gets going. Beyond that, it's the first shot that matters and I want it to go where I expect it to. The critters I meet are usually not too interested in where shots 2 to 5 would go. There's a post about developing this particular hand-load, titled 'Mauser M03 - 243 Win Accuracy', which can be found in the Index post, or at this link:
http://mauserm03blog.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/mauser-m03-243-win-accuracy.html
- the support system was a rice-filled leather bag up front and another smaller one with wings at the back, over the hood of a Landcruiser. Not quite as steady as a concrete bench, but pretty good.
- yes, the scope was at maximum power (24x), focused at 100m to reduce parallax error. I used the set trigger. The very fine centre dot was right in the middle of the square when the shot fired.
Thanks for letting me know about your purchase. Great news. :-) I agree - superb rifle in so many ways.
Regards, Rick.
The repeatability was the primary reason for me to choose the M03. If i could live with a poorer repeatability, i would have had several other choises. Now I only had two - the other one being Blaser.
ReplyDeleteHi Kenneth. Repeatability, as well as accuracy, of the Mauser M03 rifle system was a big factor for me too. Hopefully this blog, with comments from users like you, will help others who are weighing up the options. I haven't used Blasers but I agree that their repeatability should be the same. If only Blasers would go bang every time instead of click sometimes, they might be as good as Mausers. :-)
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Rick.
Hi Rick
ReplyDeleteYou have not mentioned it before this post, but I have found that if i have the bolt in the barrel for final tightening of the barrel, the realignment is spot on every time
Cheers Don
Hi Don. Thanks for bringing this point to the fore. I've started using the practice you describe and it looks like it's helping with first shot accuracy. I guess we could call that repeatability. In particular, I'm making sure to cock the action, so that the bolt head's engagement lugs are bearing on the barrel's lugs. One day when I feel like firing off some shots at the range I'll do some tests to see how much each method affects first shot accuracy, that is, barrel tightened without the bolt installed, barrel tightened with the bolt installed but not cocked, and lastly, my current preference of barrel tightened with the bolt installed and cocked.
DeleteRegards, Rick.
Rick how do you run your scopes, by the pictures i think you have 3 or 4
ReplyDelete3 Ziess and 1 Kahles do you swap scopes for different hunts or do you have scopes for specific calibers
cheers Don
Hi Don. It's a bit of a mix with the scopes. I use the Kahles with both the 6.5x55 and 243 barrels, on the one M03 Deluxe receiver. I have dedicated Zeiss scopes for the 270 and 30-06 barrels, each on their own 140th anniversary receiver. A low power Zeiss scope is currently set up with the 30-06 as well - good for being ambushed by a mob of pigs. While it's handy having separate scopes for particular barrels, it's perfectly do-able to share one scope with multiple barrels, as I do with the two smaller calibres.
ReplyDeleteRegards, Rick.
Hi Rick
ReplyDeleteI have a few more questions for you if I may, but I will tell you a little about myself first.
I have only had my gun licence for about a year so I am a novice with firearms.
My first rifle, like most people, was a .22. For my first center fire rifle I didn't want to muck around and buy low or middle of the range, wanted something special, reliable, accurate and as safe a possible. Like you, it's very hard to go past the M03!
My M03 is the stalker package in 270 standard barrel and 9.3/62 in the short 20" fluted barrel using a Ziess Victory V8 1.8-14x50 rail scope with ASV - I love it!!!
I am facing some slight challenges that I am hoping you might be able to help me with.
90% of the shooting with the m03 has been with the 270, working with different ammo to find the best that suited the rifle. Hornady American whitetail in 130 grain has been the best. I have found the 9.3 disappointing. I have found ammo that shoots well, but I still wont to work on that. I have also found the repeatability with barrel change on both calibers fine. It's the difference in where the 270 to the 9.3 hits on the target. The 9.3 hits 11" down and 8.5" to the right at 100mt. A good friend of mine has a Sauer multi barrel rifle in 308 and 9.3 with the same size barrels and without changing his scope is only out by an inch. I understand that I have different barrels and a bigger difference in caliber velocities, but I expected they would be closer.
If it was closer, I was hoping just to make a small scope adjustment and then swap ASV rings and it would be spot on.
To me, I think I will just have to by another scope and base. I am not really interested in continually adjusting my scope that much. I have no problems buying another scope but would like some advice.
I was thinking of using the 1.8-14x50 Ziess scope for the 9.3 and or an aim point h34l for some fun and getting a victory V8 2.8-20x56 with asv for the 270, however you may have some better options here???
If I was doing it all again and I wanted to try and use only 1 scope I would try and find 2 or 3 calibers that had the similar velocities like a 22-250, 270 and 300 win mag?, again any input would be greatly appreciated as I am only a novice.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Cheers Don
Hi Don. I'll be very happy to help. Others may chime in too, so keep an eye out for further comments. What I will also do is copy your question and my reply over to the Mauser M03 Blog Discussion Forum, for which there is a link at the top of this page. It doesn't see a lot of traffic, but is a better medium for back and forth discussions. You can decide where you prefer to write - here or there. I'll follow you. :-)
DeleteFirstly, congratulations on your quick progression to the quality end of rifle and scope technology. I'm impressed. A 270 Win and 9.3x62 is a great combination; very versatile. I have a friend with a similar M03 combination and I will ask him for input on how the two barrels print. I know already that they are individually accurate.
I think you are right in your analysis; the separation in impact points is being caused by both internal and external ballistics. Let's look at external ballistics first. The 270 bullets are travelling faster and are more streamlined. Their higher velocity and ballistic coefficient means they drop less than the 9.3s. This is likely to be part of the reason why the 270 is printing so much higher at 100m.
However, I think it's the internal ballistics we really need to look at, i.e. what's happening before the bullets leave the barrels. You might be aware that when rifles are fired the barrels vibrate and whip around like a water hose that's held a few of feet from the end, just faster and not as much. The trick in choosing factory ammunition or developing hand loads is finding a load where the vibrations are minimal and consistent, as well as one where the bullet leaves the barrel when the vibration is at a peak. At that point, the barrel will momentarily stop moving before changing direction. If each bullet in a string leaves at that same peak, a small group should result. Herein lies the root of what can happen with a switch barrel system. Accurate loads for multiple barrels can end up being well separated, because that accuracy comes from bullets leaving the barrels at the respective peak points of vibration. The variables of barrel length, barrel profile, calibre, powder burning rate, chamber pressure curve, projectile bearing surface, projectile jacket hardness, etc, etc, all add up to make it far from likely that two quite different set ups will shoot side by side at 100 metres.
I've just discovered there's a 4096 character limit to these comments. See my next comments for the rest!
If we look at what you are dealing with (provided I understand correctly), you have two barrel and ammunition combinations that are true to the most likely scenario, the bullets don't land in the same place. At first look, that's annoying. However, my take on it is this. These two barrels were never going to shoot groups through the same minute of angle circle and if by some miracle they did, that would only happen at one distance. At all other distances external ballistics would pull the trajectories apart. So, adjusting the shared scope's turrets and ASV rings was always going to be required. I know you knew that. :-) As long as the number of clicks required fall within the scope's range of adjustment, we're having a win. I'd be feeling mighty unhappy if the clicks ran out before I was making holes where I needed them. Unless I was looking for justification to buy another scope! Therein lies a possibility - find some 9.3x62 ammo that's wonderfully accurate but so far away from the 270 that you just have to get that new scope!
DeleteTurning to the question of which scope, well, now it gets really interesting. If you have an excellent gun shop nearby, they might have S&B, Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss scopes in stock. Kahles and Steiner too perhaps, if it's a particularly good shop. :-) Looking through these in quick succession and in the right conditions is quite revealing. In the post linked below I wrote about all of the trade offs there are in scope design, but in summary, we can have the highest light transmission numbers possible, or the best flat field and edge to edge sharpness, but not both. That edge to edge sharpness and lack of field curvature comes from including additional lens elements in the design, which chew up light, as well as add weight and cost. Which is better? For me, it depends on what mood I'm in and what I'm using the optics for. A simple point is, we look through spotting scopes for many minutes at a time, sometimes adding up to hours in a day. It's important that the image quality across the field of view is excellent. A flat focal plane and edge sharpness is much appreciated. Then, we look through binoculars for up to a minute at a time. Excellent sharpness across the central two-thirds of the field is important; the edges less so. We can always adjust the position of our eyes slightly, if adjusting the binocular's aim point is a hassle. Lastly, we look through a rifle scope for only seconds at a time, but the quality of the image in the middle of the field is of the highest importance. A lower quality image at the edges of the view is certainly irritating, but of no consequence when lining up where to quickly place a bullet, relative to the cross-hair.
When purchasing my Zeiss Victory HT scopes I put a lot of emphasis on low light performance, knowing I would often be using them at night, under spotlight or moonlight. I was aware that they would not make my eyes pop with fascination like the Leica ER and Magnus scopes, or the Swarovski scopes I tried. The field curvature that is a 'feature' (not a flaw) of the Victory HT scopes results from their 'as few as possible' lens elements design. They work well for what I bought them for.
DeleteIf I won the lottery and could buy a new set of scopes, I'd be looking hard at those Leicas and Swaros again. Their image quality, at the expense of three or so percent of light transmission compared to the Victory HTs, would put a smile on my face each time I lifted my Mauser up to see what the heck that is over there.
I guess I'm suggesting that a good place to start with scope selection is to really nail down what the main point in choosing the optic is. Best on-paper light transmission, or best image quality? Will you always carry some useful binoculars when hunting, or use a Mark I eyeball, with a rifle pulled off the shoulder and lifted to the that eye when needed? To keep weight down I've dumped the binos of late, hence my heightened interest in scopes with nice and flat, edge to edge sharpness. Don't get me wrong, my Zeiss Victory HTs are also sharp from edge to edge, it's just that the significant field curvature means that what's sharp at the edges is much closer than what's sharp in the centre.
Chances are you will use the 9.3 in tough country, chasing gnarly critters. They might not always be the kind that want to eat you but they're probably going to be a good size. Shots will sometimes be up close. You won't be head shooting rabbits at 200 metres with it, though you might swat the occasionally bunny at 100 to check the sights. :-) As such, weight and size, along with a bias towards lower magnifications, will be a factor. I'm thinking a scope with a smaller objective, lower power and lower weight could be worth thinking about. Such scopes should be less expensive too. When I'm walking around with my 270 I keep my scope at 4x. It's high enough to help my eyes evaluate detail at distances and low enough for pop-up pigs at 6 metres. I dial up to 10x for a set shot at distance if time permits. Higher power is always handy when shooting groups at the range, but try not to let that influence decisions on the best scope for hunting. The same point applies to scopes with parallax reduction focusing rings - great for sniping or long range target work - not so for walk-about stalking; guaranteed to be set for the wrong distance when a fleeting shot presents.
Re the V8 2.8-20x56; that's the kind of scope I'd use with a 243 or 6.5 barrel, for long shots on small targets, having carried it from one end of my Landcruiser to the other end. It wouldn't be the first scope to come to mind for my 270, largely because it must weigh a bit. I'm actually thinking that your V8 1.8-14x50 is a good fit for the 270. I'd keep it for use with that barrel and look into what's best for the 9.3, at the lower end of the magnification scale.
DeleteThat's a long enough comment for the moment. :-) Please get back to me with what you think. BTW, it's your money and they're your eyes, so be sure to please yourself with any choices you make.
Regards, Rick.
Here's the link I mentioned, on scope design compromises.
http://mauserm03blog.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/zeiss-victory-ht-scopes-on-mauser-m03.html