Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics A no BS test on high $ long range scopes and tracking...

Oh heck, it would be the best.

Ready for the flames. lol

I liked the test. I agree with the writer. Sending rounds downrange would introduce the variables of rifle, ammunition, and shooter when evaluating repeatability of adjustments and return to zero.

Testing a scope without putting it on a rifle and firing some rounds is like testing a pickup by driving it off the lot.

Why not do both tests, and also see how the adjustments hold up during repeated recoil? It certainly wouldn't be that big a deal to see if the live-fire test results match the mechanical results. I've seen a bunch of scopes adjust very differently when jarred by recoil between shots.

I think that happens way more often than most people think. ask yourself how often you have to adjust 3 clicks up down whatever when you go back and do some shooting at the range. you chalk it up to the gun or how your holding the rifle.

when I finally got a rifle accurate enough to really expose scope flaws I got rid of the leupold mk4 that was on the gun. replaced it with a nightforce. I have never once changed the zero of that gun in 3 years. every time I check it, the gun hits right where its supposed to at 200 yards.

That's exactly my current position. It's not dissimilar to the machining/precision assembly world, where you can end up playing "whack a mole" as you increase the precision in one area enough to reveal imprecisions in other areas that were previously lost in the noise.

I built a 7 WSM that is just freakishly accurate. It's been an eye-opener because the "one big hole" groups it shoots really show what's going on. I'm about to embark on some fairly exhaustive testing to see if I do or do not have a RTZ issue with the Zeiss currently mounted on it. If it has a problem, it's a small one, in the realm of 1/2 MOA or so. Hoping it doesn't, but I'm ready to open my eyes to the reality that it might...... Anyway, actively plotting a few key scope upgrades on my core rifles in order to tighten things up another notch or three.

I think it depends on what you are testing, the accuracy and repeatability of the adjustments or the resistance of those adjustments to recoil. Both questions are worth answering but they aren't the same question. I would imagine that all the scopes might have different thresholds for recoil.

This begs the question: What good is the first without the second?

Not much, but the degree of recoil resistance required would depend upon the application. It's nice to define exactly what it is you are testing. Just don't use the test to answer a question it wan't designed to.

Since we are talking about this....

I had to re-zero the scope on my LR rig anyway, because it had moved forward in the (Burris insert-style) rings under recoil. I had been seeing subtle changes in my 100-yard zero and was HOPING that the rings were the problem, or rather that my improper assembly of them was the problem, and not the scope. I like that scope very much and is has been great for me.

I set up a simple "tall target" test with several targets taped together, a dark plumb line with a Sharpie, and the whole thing set up "perfectly" plumb. I set up for shooting from prone with a bipod because that's how I mostly shoot now and I shoot quite well that way these days. After zeroing, I shot 3 rounds at the zero bullseye (about a .4" CTC group) then fired 20 more rounds as I cranked it up to as much as 18 MOA from zero. It tracked great as usual. Then I returned to zero and fired two more shots. The aggregate group at the zero bulls is .7" CTC.

I was very happy to see it return to zero. I love the scope and have numerous other things I want to upgrade before that... Unless or until I'm forced to change, I'm riding that horse as far as she'll take me.

I then hiked into my latest LR spot and put my first 5 shots into a 12" plate at 740 yards.

These kinds of tests are a great thing to do. At the end of the day, stuff either works or it doesn't, and it's good to just know.

Oh-- the scope is a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50. The tacticool guys will find plenty to knock on it. I love the thing; it works great, tracks great, has really good glass, and cost me $650.

The guys doing the testing have a pretty good handle on what scopes work and what dont...

Gentlemen,
Schmidt Bender has been back to the traditional 10/30 year arrangement for PMIIs for 6 months or better and that goes back to cover any scope bought under the ill conceived 2 year warranty period from some new folks in management. Just a fwiw & afaik...

John,
How true... I am subsidized and it is still expensive.

Regards, Matt.

The test is what it is. Best takeaway is if it won't perform in a static test it most likely perform in the field. Still a very interestng set of test results.
The most bullet proof scope i have experience with is a nightforce nxs. Mounted 15 years ago on a custom 6/284 with 1500 rds shot . Has traveled alot in an unpressurized aircraft baggage compartment at 45000 feet at -60 degrees farhrenheit or colder. Have probably carried this rifle on my shoulder over a thousand miles. Beat,banged,dropped,I have never had to readjust the zero from day one. Whatever defficiencies NF may have this isn't one of them.
Those scopes that returned to zero perfectly are impressive, unless they never left zero to start with. I have had scopes that did just that.

http://www.scout.com/military/snipe...865031-killswitch-s-scope-tracking-tests

It is all in the application. For those who turn turrets this is a good read. If the scope sits, is never adjusted and is just expected to hold zero, maybe not.

No shots were fired. But if it doesn't do well before, will recoil help?

I would have liked to have seen swfa ss scopes tested. My guess of the results: their tracking would have been excellent,their glass quality would have been very close to night force, and not as good as s&b, and their ergonomics needing some improvement with the large uncovered turrets. Just my 2 cents.