Even though the mount is attached to the receiver, to remove the bolt and op rod, you have to remove the trigger group and the stock. This is the issue. If you could remove the bolt and op rod without removing the stock, then you should be able to retain your zero. It is when you replace the stock that is when you are placing tension on the barrel that was not exact as before. Now granted, you still have an impact to aim point that is still on paper, but in an actual combat situation where there are a lot of civilian non combatants that are part of the equation, are you willing to live with the consequences if you inadvertently wounded or killed an innocent bystander because your zero was off a tad?
Bear in mind also, that when you take the stock off and reinstall it, you should take a few shots to shake things down before re-zeroing. Some say that bumping the butt on the ground will do the same settling; dunno 'bout that, but it makes some sense.
I used to own a match grade M1a that was glass bedded by someone that knew what he was doing. I field stripped and cleaned that rifle many times, and NEVER had a change to the POI. Maybe I was lucky, but that was my experience. Wish I hadn't of sold it. jim
I'm not planning on having to fight any more battles in the sandbox or the rock pile any time soon ... but I do still love my m14s/M21s. The FN SCAR is produced right down the road from me though ... a Heavy is next on my list. Never have been crazy about the AR10, and I've owned one and shot a few. Now, the SASS is a horse of a different color.
No doubt we've come to expect a jarhead circle jerk any time the word "sniper" is evoked. The reason there are few "well know VN snipers" [sic] from the Army, Navy, DOD et al., is because our units (not Marines) are given orders for missions we can't talk about, whereas Marines get missions where, not only do they NEVER stop talking about them ... but let's just say Marines have been known to embellish from time to time. And oh, Carlos Hathcock ... no way did that pill travel through VC charlie's tube and hit him in the eye. Yet that story just keeps on growing longer and longer legs, year by year.
I'm at the Springfield Armory historic site right now on a research project. Will post photos later. Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Shot through the scope--why not? If that was what he was aiming at--or the only thing he could see. Seems reasonable to me--lol.
It did, according to Hathcock, it is where the bullet hit. He wasn't planning to hit the scope just the person. In the 1980s, Hathcock would show up at Ham-fests in northern Va to sell his book. On any given day it is much better to be very lucky than very good. A lot of people talk war stories and avoid talking about places.
It's a virtual impossibility that the projectile could have traveled down that tube, through two lens and a prisim. They've tried duplicating it over and over again and it cannot be done ... physically impossible. And I think Hathcock was a great sniper, no doubt about it, but so were many others that just didn't have their exploits embellished like some Marines tend to do. And no real sniper, none that I've ever worked with or known, would EVER intentionally wear a white feather in his hat just to draw attention to himself. Anyways, as far as "the shot" is concerned ... And remember this ... that video was done by a biased fellow Marine finally finding a scope that worked to fit his needs FROM 30 METERS, not 300 meters. As most fellow shooters here would know, the trajectory of the projectile at 300 meters would be traveling downwards, not in a straight line as the 30 meter pill was traveling ... therefore, even when they try to make the sample advantageous to fit the story, it still doesn't flush the bravo sierra test.
