|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,003
Members14,391
|
Most Online1,131 Jan 21st, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
the sight doesn't sit on top of a barrel on a double barrel. Sits on the rib between the barrels.
Last edited by Mike Harrell; 03/18/22 05:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69 |
the sight doesn't sit on top of a barrel on a double barrel. Sits on the rib between the barrels. Ok but I want to know, as I said, the height of the sights over the center line of the bore. The C/L of the bore is the only reference that ties the relationship of the sight together. The rib it what just holds the barrel together and a convenient place to mount the sight to. How does the way the sights are mounted play into the equation? Am I missing something here, if so I would like to know.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
I have no idea how to guess and measure at or from the centerline of the bore.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 284 Likes: 25
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 284 Likes: 25 |
Mike, put a straight edge under the muzzles resting on both the barrels. Measure the height of the front bead from the top of the straight edge. Measure the outside diameter of a barrel and subtract half that number from the "height" dimension.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
The rib stands proud of the barrels by quite a bit. Luckily the caliper end will reach from the sights to the top of the barrel. Rear is .6745" from center line front is .537
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69 |
This may help. Measure with a dial caliper is easiest
Last edited by LRF; 03/19/22 04:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
Using LRF's method I came up with these numbers. F .5545 Rear at top of blade + .7045 at bottom of V = .588.
Last edited by Mike Harrell; 03/19/22 05:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69 |
Using LRF's method I came up with these numbers. F .5545 R .7872. For a difference of .2327. And when taking the barrel measurements and dividing by 2, both were within .003 of each other. Pretty close I'd say. Mike what is the actual measurement you got for the 4 dimensions: A, B, C, D Please
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,567 Likes: 79 |
A using top of rear sight blade = 1.1395 A using bottom of v+ 1.034 B = .8705 C = .9105 D = .712
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,254 Likes: 69 |
Just had a nice conversation with Mike on the phone. Measuring to the top of both sides gives us a difference in sight heights of ~.150" height over the bores. Extrapolating this difference out to 50 yds says the bores are pointing about 12" above the point of aim. So Mike in his shooting had the bullets impact about 14" above PoA. The rear blade is marked 100 yds.
Given this we agreed that working on the sight picture, trying a lighter bullet, and maybe some increased velocity will work to refine the position of the group on the target. We feel good with the results.
Last edited by LRF; 03/20/22 07:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|