Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Scope Tracking Tests...

Not sure if these have been posted before or not but found them very interesting... Not the most scientific test but should open a few eyes as to what some of these scope brands are capable of right outta the box...

On the March scope the reason it's off on the tracking is that March uses a Mil value of 6400 verses the standard 6283... The 6400 is an old Army artillery value and not common in todays scopes... In 2015 March will begin using the 6283 value...

If you put in a value of .097 (6400) mil adjustment in your ballastic calculator verses the .1 (6283) mil value the March tracks perfectly... Just a side note...


Leupy Mark 6 3-18


Vortex Razor HD


Bushnell Elite Tactical


March 3-24


Mark 4 6.5-20 M5A


NightForce F1

Wow!!!! Someone who is actually willing to show some informative shooting results, instead of just talking chit about how great they are and how everyone else is a "[bleep] idiot"...Lol

Thanks EHG,

Negative EHG....

I keep being told how awesome three of those scopes are....



Here's a buddy testing what is normally a very good scope for a match.


Setup...






Results of two consecutive runs. Scope was zeroed beforehand.






Two more of the same type-





Only three that I have seen fail, and all three used the same Warne Vertical Split Rings.


Off goes those scopes and on goes these-

]

I've been reading about all of the chitty scopes in various forums here on the 'Fire over the past week or two. Even if I came to the conclusion that you are correct, and that many/most commonly used hunting scopes are junk, what can I do about it?

I have several rifles between me and my teenage son that would need to be re-scoped. If the only good scopes cost upwards of $2,000 or more each, I would need to remortgage my house in order to put good scopes on my rifles. I don't think that I, or most other hunters with middle-class incomes, are going to do that.

What would you suggest? I think I'll just bury my head in the sand and stick with what I have....

Most of the best scopes are under $2k. The SWFA SS lines are fantasticly reliable and start at $300.

The last two Nightforce compacts that I bought were both under $1k.


Other than the scopes in that picture I don't think I've talked about or recommended any $2,000 scopes.

Coalcracker, given the opportunity I convert said scopes to the Leup 6x42

What you can take away from these videos are this.

1) you can test your scopes tracking ability and reliability on the bench so you know how it tracks better in the field.

2) which line of scopes actually tracked the best. In my opinion the NF scopes performed the best.

I have been slowly replacing the scopes on my rifles over the years. Seldom do rifles depreciate in value unless abused by the owner.

In this day and age most people want a tactical scope bug don't spend the time to learn how or what it's capable of doing....

This is a tutorial of checking your scopes out....Good info...

I appreciate the information and suggestions. I have my mind set on saving money for a new lightweight, short-action, big-game rifle. Without having given it a whole lot of thought, I was thinking along the lines of scoping it with a Leupold 2.5-8x36 or a 6x36.

The SWFA SS and Leupold 6x42 would be in my price range, too. I'll keep reading and learning in the meantime....

Here is one I posted recently of a a Bushnell HDMR that I am going to do all my shooting with this year after spending last year with Nightforce Compacts for DMR and an F1 BEAST for PRS. It is one of the "budget" scopes.

I did not watch every video, but the first one with the Leupy 3-18 is something that I noticed years ago with Leupys.

How far you plan on shooting your lightweight big game rifle?



Travis

The results of the individual scopes tested there are pretty common, even though I would suspect cherry picking

To say that every scope of each make and model tested will perform exactly like the individual scopes tested is completely wrong.

For example, not every Vortex Viper HD will perform exactly alike.

Actually if March were using the French, NATO, old Army 6400 division in a circle then the reticle would have moved less than indicated. It was moving further than indicated.

In other words the clicks were bigger than a real Trigonometric 0.1 Mil so the March Mil would be fewer division in the circle, or less than 6283. The Russkis used a 6000 division Mil.







I had a couple of the MK 6s and both had click values greater than the 6283 Division 0.1 Mil. The reticules were spot on (Horus Tremor, TMR). Not really an issue if a guys knows it and it ain't much but still annoying.

The MK 6 is not really my cup of tea as the resolution really falls off after 15X. In my opinion it would have been a better scope as a 3X-15X.

Form,

You mentioned all three scopes that failed had the split Warnes.

My Tikka has a 6X SS in Warnes on it. The scope adjustments are close to centered and it has been doing great with tracking and RTZ, but three failures makes me worry.

I thought the Warnes were a good option on the Tikka because they mount on the integral rail and have the recoil pin. I also thought they would be more durable than the Talley LW.

With your negative experience with these rings, would you suggest a rail and picatinny rings?

Thanks.

If you're not having issues I wouldn't necessarily worry about it. That is zero doubt with that particular line of scopes, those rings and the ring placement caused the failures. 15in pounds with those rings caused the parallax to lock up consistently. Could not make it happen with multiple sets of horizontal split pic rings even with 40in lbs.


I have rifles with Tally LW's, DNZ's, DD's, Weaver, probably several others and of course picatinny. As I go I am replacing them all with picatinny base rings. Less issues, perfect spacing on the scope, strongest setup, and can swap scopes with the turn of a wrench and near perfect return to zero. Win/win/win.

Thanks for the response.

You are correct and I guess I shoulda watched the video before making my comment... I took for granted it would be the same bitching and complaining of how the March does not track in true Mils etc... I stand corrected and my statement should be a general statement of the current March scope product line and not directed towards the video... I only watched the first video and then posted the others as I am working off my phone with sub par service... Ive been able to watch the Vortex, March and half of the Leupy video and am not at all surprised of the results...



I highly doubt the people involved with the video's cherry picked anything... I'd guess the comment comes from your emotional attachment to Leupy's... Its easy to find a Leupy that will fail a tracking test... All one has to do is open a Leupold Variable box and you're golden...

I opened every single one of these boxes and didn't find a single one that failed to properly track.

Personally shot every one and tested every one.



Don't you owe me a broken 2.5-8X36mm VX3 to test??

Emotion goes many ways.

I like to play and experiment, but, Wow! How many rounds did you fire and how long did that take?

That's proprietary info I believe....