Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scopes That Track Perfectly Every Time ?

Oh godd Damn!!! Lmfao

Concur.

Things have actually gotten much better, I remember when it was standard procedure to tap the turret after making an adjustment or turning it past , coming back and tapping on it. I have a Nikon Monarch 1.5-4.5x20mm that has been sitting in the safe for a number of years that needed a little extra turning and tapping before it settled into it's groove and held zero though a couple of sight changes and blasts from both the rifle barrel and the shotgun barrel, it's mounted on a combo gun and now will most likely stay as is for a couple of years before being moved again.

Matt,
Wondered if you are going to be at the match at Peacemaker this weekend? I am going over and meeting a friend from Richmond Friday evening in Winchester.

This is for those who posted previously regards tracking. I have a VX6 in 4x24x52 with TMOA reticle. It's on a 13# 6.5/47 and has several hundred rounds though it all with the Leupold scope on it. Tracks fine however I use a .95 correction factor in my Shooter App as the 20 MOA and 30 MOA test revealed the discrepancy.
It shoots and routinely hits plates at long range.

I also have two Ultra Light Arms rifles with Leupold scopes. One has a 3.5x10x40 CDS (6.5/284) and one a 3x18x44 CDS Windplex illuminated (280 Ackley). Both do well on plates out to 725 yards. I have not tried them on targets farther.
Also have a 3.5x10x50L 0n a Sako AV in 300WM that does very well on my range in my bottom out to 600 yards which is the farthest I have tried it. I must be lucky.
I do not dial wind much and only on the 6.5/47 on rare occassions. The TMOA reticle does a nice job on the horizontal bar.
Putting together a 6.5 SAUM in a Defiance Machine Tactical Action using one of Shaun's barrels at Hawk Hills. It's going to get a new NF ATAC in 5x25 as soon as Shaun gets it barreled and I get the stock and get it prepped. Guess I'll find out if the NF tracks...lol

Dave

Try fugking with an ACOG. You need a hammer to move the POI on those fugking things.




Travis

Sugar Tits ?

In the last 3 years you went from kinda funny to an obnoxious [bleep]. Congratulations?

Now GFY.

My nightforce has been perfect, and one lone burris. Recently bought a sightron sIII LR that I'm eager to crank.

Dave,
I'm afraid not... Working on the getting a tractor loaded and over the Bay Bridge Tunnels to the Eastern Shore to a friends Plantation. Old Deere stirs a lot of emotions to see it go, however, he is the restoration guy not me. Hopefully I'll have first right of refusal. All in all I would far rather be shooting...

Not familiar with Peacemaker. What fields of fire?

Regards, Matt.

Back when high power Silhouette was popular I shot Leupold M8 16 and M8 20 on my rifles and I twisted the turrets on each animal change. I still have the scopes and neither one ever failed tracking after 10 years of competition. The sixteen power now sits on a 223 dog rifle and the 20 is in its box sitting on a shelf. When the need arises I will put it back in service.

You went from fugking stupid to fugking stupid.

Merry Christmas.



Dave

I'm lean and mean.

And handsome.



Travis

Asking if there are "Scopes that track perfectly every time?" is like posing the question, "Which rifle shoots 1/4" groups every time?".

I think everyone knows here that from a sample of 20 Remington 700's in "X" chambering, some will shoot better than others; same goes with a sample of any other rifle offering.

The same thing applies to any Brand scope and particular model.

If you take a sample size of a certain model scope, say 20, some will have more accurate click values, "track" better, return to zero better.

It's just like getting lucky with a factory rifle that one-holes.

that is pretty funny knowing how tuff print media has gone in modern times. if your denying the absence of politics in print media, your credibility is damaged with me. this kinda thing happens all the time. my family member writes for the new york times, motor trend etc. and several other print media.

its ok carry on

I know a guy who is an editor for an outdoor magazine and he made the mistake of writing a truthful (or poorly worded) review comparing spotting scopes. Upon stating the obvious with one of the scopes, they lost a lot of ad money as soon as the article came out in the mag.

Take what you read for face value, because like anything else these days, politics and hurt feeling seem to run everything.

I guess that is why I like this forum-hurt feelings seem to be the norm!

that is why I told MD he is hurting his credibility by denying this stuff happens. YES take what you hear with a grain of salt.

I doubt if MD's credibility has been damaged one bit.

You, on the other hand, are a notoriously ignorant boob.

That explains a lot.




Travis

cumminscowboy,

Go back and read my post again. I never denied stuff like that happens, just that I've written scope reviews that showed the scope didn't work perfectly, and they were published by several of the magazines I've worked for, the way I wrote them.

There's more than one magazine publishing company that does edit out some negative stuff about advertiser's products, even if a writer does find minor fault. I know this from talking to other writers, one of whom resigned from one of those companies after some particularly advertiser-friendly editing of one of his rifle reviews. But not ALL magazine publishers do that.

One thing that does happen, more than occasionally, is a magazine decides not to review a product that simply doesn't live up to the manufacturer's claims. Normally the manufacturer is given the chance to provide another sample, because occasionally any factory puts out a mistake. But more than once an editor and I have agreed not to review a product at all, because two samples had the same problem.

That's one reason not many super-negative reviews are published. The other is that many readers are offended by negative reviews, because they waste the reader's time. They want to read about stuff that works, not stuff that doesn't.

But on occasion I've also found serious stuff wrong with scopes during my tests, and the manufacturer has redesigned them to work right. No review of the original design appeared, but I did review the second version, and it turned out to be a very popular scope with a good reputation. In fact, many times manufacturers use writers as guinea pigs for new products, before they introduce the final version.

But among my scope reviews that have been published I've mentioned a "turret" equipped scope that wouldn't return to zero, several that had clicks not matching their specs, eye relief that wasn't as nearly as long as claimed, and one that I plainly implied wasn't worth the very "affordable" price.

I'm not one to start a pi$$ing match; but, if you read his post, he did no such thing; so, can we assume his credibility is not damaged with you? Especially since you threw in the qualifier "if your (sic) denying....".