Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ask John Barsness Questions About "Testing Riflescopes"

It's time again for me to thank John Barsness (our own Mule Deer) for his latest exclusive (and particularly timely) Campfire article "Testing Riflescopes", which can be found on the Home Page and by clicking the link.

Please use this thread to ask John questions about the article.

Thanks John, and Happy Birthday.

Thank you John for the thoughts on this subject. Interesting to read on the change in testing over the years as the technology advanced and as the use refined the common practice with the optic.
Did not know that you and Craig had worked together. That must have been some spicy conversation in the break room back in the day.

John,

Have you considered a consistent method for testing scope durability, ability to hold zero, etc., when "thumped", etc? Particularly given the posts on same of late.

Hello John,

I really enjoyed reading your article too. According to your observations, here is the state of the art:

a) Current scopes are very good in terms of being sealed and weatherproof.
b) The optical quality of most premium scopes is very good too.
c) Even the most well-known brands, seem to fail to retain their zero or follow a desired elevation adjustment.

I agree with the above assessment. I'd add the following observations: The main trend in the recent years has been making scopes with more zoom range. First we had the 3X zoom range (such as 3-9X), then it became 4X (3-12X) and now we are being offered 6X and even 8x zoom ratio in the latest Swarovski and Zeiss products. It is also becoming "normal" to produce hunting scopes with larger main tubes (34mm tube on Schmidt and Bender Polar and now the huge 36mm tube of Zeiss V8). The result is that we have heavy, ugly and ultra expensive scopes with features that we really don't need. A high-quality scope with magnification of 1.5-6X and objective of less than or equal to 42mm is good enough for nearly all kind of big-game hunting. A little more power (say 12X) is good for zeroing-in and target shooting but not really needed for hunting. Larger objectives (say 56mm) are good because they enhance optical resolution and also enlarge the exit pupil but the weight and bulk they add is a problem. (The weight of the scope is being added to the top of the rifle which is the worst location to add weight. It also adds to the stress that mounts must withstand)

Zero retention is a basic requirement but we hardly see it being advertised or discussed in marketing literature. Few manufacturers want to talk about it. A scope's robustness can only be verified until you buy it, mount it, zero it and use it. Even then, it could be that one particular sample of a scope works well and exact same scope model used by someone else fails.It is somewhat correct that this issue is caused by poor material and poor quality control (the economics of scope manufacturing you mentioned in your previous article). But let me point out the real cause:tilting the inner tube that holds the reticle and the erector lenses is a bad idea.

In virtually all hunting rifle scopes on the market today, an inner tube holds the reticle and erector lenses. This inner tube is attached to the main scope housing at the rear using a two-dimensional joint such that it's front end can tilt up and down (elevation) or left and right (windage). The front end of the inner tube is held by the elevation nob, the windage knob and a supporting spring. This assembly is fragile and has many mechanical weaknesses. For example: when the inner tube is tilted, only one single point from the elevation knob's stem can touch it. The point of contact is not a surface, not even a line, just a single point! (Pick up to two cylindrical objects such as two shotgun shells. Hold one in your hand horizontally then tilt it a bit upwards. Hold the other one vertically and try to touch the side of the first shell as if this is your elevation knob. Observe how the two shells touch.)

When we dial elevation and windage, the contact points that hold the inner tube shift around and this causes irregularities in the position of the reticle. The rear hing also needs to be very precise to keep the inner tube in exact same tilt under strong recoil forces. This method of holding an inner tube at a precise tilt using two knobs and a spring is simply not robust enough to handle the recoil of a high power rifle.




As long as a scope's mechanical design is as I explained above, then it is susceptible to failure. Machining the parts better, using brass parts, or better quality springs would not solve the fundamental weaknesses shown above. We need to address the root of the problem and solve the "zero retention" problem once and for all! Being a PhD researcher with some knowledge of optics and mechanics, I have devised some solutions for this problem myself. This thread is not the right venue to get into technical details but if I see you at Shot Show this year, I would be happy to discuss these new solutions with you.

Thank you again for writing these articles which address real issues with modern rifle scopes. I hope articles like these start a dialogue and get manufactuerers' attention so that the problems of mechanical reliability are addressed at a fundamental level.

Sincerely,
-Omid

Bob,

Craig and I never worked in the same office. His was at Petersen Publishing headquarters, then in Los Angeles, and mine was in my house in Montana. But we did have some interesting phone conversations!

Ed,

Haven't developed a thumping routine, partly because (as I pointed out on at least one of the threads on the subject) it's difficult to separate the effects of thumping on the scope and mounts. Back in the 1990's the quasi-government German testing agency DEVA performed thumping tests on various scopes with a rubber mallet, which I reported in my first hunting-optics book OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER. But even they never attempted to separate whether the mallet affected the scope or the mounts.

However, over the decades I have observed that scopes more resistant to recoil also tend to be more resistant to accidental thumping--unless they're actually bent. Have seen that a few times, but even then most could still be used reliably after re-zeroing.

John,

Thanks for the article. I am a rifle loony and have been buying and selling rifles and scopes for the past several years. Always want to try the next thing. For now I have have found that a rifle that fits me and balances well for me in more important than the caliber or cartridge that the rifle is chambered for.With scopes, I tend to like fixed power scopes with duplex reticle and not over a 40-42 mm objective. I have taken a few range trips recently with several Leupold M8 friction adjustment scopes which were not exactly easy to sight in. What scopes would you recommend that have accurate adjustments for sighting in and then leaving them alone? I am not oppose to going with a variable scope if needed.

Thanks

kandpand,

While fixed-power scopes aren't as common as they used to be, some are still being made--and I suspect more will show up in the future, not so much because of ruggedness but because more hunters are becoming aware of the advantages of a constant reticle size, especially with multi-point reticles.

It's too bad Burris doesn't offer their 6x40 anymore. It had click adjustments that were certainly consistent enough for a set-and-forget scope. However, the Burris 3-9x Fullfield II has equally good click adjustments, and is a great all-around set-and-forget scope, in my experience very reliable and tough.

Two fixed-power scopes that work pretty well are the 4x38 and 6x38 Weaver K's. Some people don't like the relatively short tube and eye relief of slightly over 3 inches in the 6x, because the combination can make the scope difficult to mount on some rifles. However, a rail-type base allows more mounting options, and I haven't found as much difficulty in mounting the 6x38 on long-action rifles as some other people have. (In my experience it works fine on short actions.)

The 4x38 has almost 3-1/2" of eye relief, so is more flexible in mounting. The only reticle available in both scopes is Weaver's version of a Duplex--a trademarked Leupold name--the Dual-X. Right now I have four of 'em, three 6x38's and one 4x38, and the adjustments are pretty good in all four. Dunno how much recoil they can take on a consistent basis, but they've worked fine on my rifles up to .30-06.

Another fixed-power option is the 6x42 SWFA, though it isn't available with a plex-type reticle. It's considerably bigger and heavier than the Weavers and is designed as a dialing scope, but doesn't cost much more than the Weavers. However, the adjustments are dead-nuts, it holds zero, eye relief is 3-1/2", and the long tube makes mounting easy.

I have a question about testing for light transmission through a scope. How do you test for it?

One thought I had was to have a consistent light source and use a photo light meter. You would measure the difference between the light at the front of the scope and the light as seen through the lens itself. Does seem like a valid, objective way to test for light transmission if you didn't have lab-grade testing equipment?

That doesn't work, because a typical light meter's sensor isn't large enough to measure all the light passing through a scope.

I described how test for light transmission (or "brightness") at the end of the article. It isn't as precise as using an integrating sphere, but correlates pretty well with the results from one.

I have a question regarding changes in scope construction over the years. What are the manufacturing difference(s) between a dialing scope and one that simply adjusts sufficiently accurately and holds zero.

I ask because you mentioned the box test that was usual in years past as opposed to more complex measures for testing dialing scopes, especially on the sameness of each click on the elevation axis. You also mentioned the swfa scope that is very inexpensive but is a good dialing scope. What is the difference in build that allows that inexpensive scope to do what so many other much more expensive scopes don't in terms of precise, repeatable adjustments?

Why, if building a rugged dialing scope need not be expensive, does this issue bedevil some very competent manufacturers of expensive scopes? Is there some tradeoff that's not obvious?

I'm also curious as to whether, in your opinion, the usual hunting scopes have increased, decreased, stayed the same in overall ability to retain zero in ordinary use since you began testing? What factors are correlated with failures? Larger objectives, parallax adjustments, target turrets, greater zoom range, higher scope weight, higher mounting height, maybe method of assembly- all these have changed from a time when a 3x9x32 was pretty typical for a hunting scope.

But, most of us probably have more guns and scopes in use. Are we seeing more failures because we use more stuff/ spend too much time on this forum/ generally bitch about prosperity?

The difference in consistent dialing scopes is basically tougher springs, and far fewer plastic or soft-metal parts in the turrets, erector tube, etc. Which is why effective dialing scopes typically weigh a lot more than typical "hunting" scopes: They're beefed up in the right areas.

That said, one reason the SWFA scopes are so reliable yet cost relatively little is they're sold directly to buyers on the Internet, rather than through the typical layers of wholesalers/distributors/retailers. Each of those layers needs to make a profit, so adds to the price to consumers. Plus, SWFA offers a number of fixed-power scopes, which can be made for less money than variables. Not nearly as many scope companies offer fixed scopes anymore.

It's my experience that more typical 1" hunting scopes are failing to retain zero these days, for a couple of reasons. First, there's increased competition in the marketplace. More of today's shooters own far more rifles that they used to in the decades after WWII, when scopes started becoming common on rifles. Back then most hunters had one big game rifle and, maybe a varmint rifle. Nowadays it's common for some hunters (especially the ones who frequent the Campfire) to own several rifles, and maybe several dozen. I've even seen posts where guys essentially brag about only having 4-5 rifles.

Most people think every rifle needs a scope these days, so they also buy more scopes. Many of these shooters spendd the same time shooting all of their many rifles that our grandfathers might have spent shooting 2 rifles, so many of their multiple rifles don't get shot all that much. This isn't because we don't want to shoot more, but many of us can't. Today about 85% of Americans live in urban areas, where just getting to a shooting range takes considerable effort.

Plus, we're often using smaller cartridges than our grandfathers used. Instead of one all-around .30-06, we have rifles for cartridges from, say, the .223 Remington to the 7mm-08, with maybe one .300 magnum. There's a big difference in recoil's effect on a scope between those smaller rounds and a .300 magnum, or even a .30-06 or 7mm magnum. Often we have these because another modern American trend is spending more time fiddling with our outdoor gear (including dreaming about buying more) than actually going out and using it, because of where we live.

Consequently, most scope manufacturers (or importers, which is far more often the case these days, when most optics companies order scopes instead of building them) know the vast majority of their scopes will go on relatively mild-recoiling rifles that won't shot all that much. This is why most claim even sub-$100 scopes are "recoil and shock proof." On the average deer rifle, shot a few times a year, they probably are--and even if they fail, so what? Replacing 3-5% of their scopes is cheaper than building truly recoil-proof scopes--and with so many optics companies out there today, price is a big competitive point. This also applies to "dialing scopes," because most shooters aren't going to dial them much.

Because most shooters don't really shoot much, especially hunters, they don't have much trouble with these scopes. But those who do shoot a lot have more scopes fail, especially on rifles that kick more than a .223, .243 or 7-08, particularly if they dial them a lot.

Right now I've had 17 different brands of scopes fail mechanically on rifles, some on relatively mild kickers. That's brands, not scopes; some brands have failed multiple times. This has happened far more in the past 20 years than before then.

Why do you recommend centering the reticle? Seems to me no matter where the reticle is located when one starts to zero his rifle the reticle is going to be in the same place when zeroed.

What am I missing.

I probably should have said "reticle/erector-tube assembly," rather than just "reticle."

In modern scopes the reticle is always centered in the optical view, but the reticle/erector tube assembly isn't always centered mechanically in the scope.

Moving the erector tube is what adjusts point of impact, so we want to mount the scope with the adjustments centered, so it has the the maximum amount of erector-tube movement. Primarily this is to prevent the scope from "running out of adjustment" when sighting-in, but also because the clicks tend to work most accurately when the erector tube's closer to the center of its adjustment range.

As a result, we need to start with the reticle/erector tube centered, and during mounting try to get it as closely aligned with the bore as possible without using the scope adjustments. This can be done with either a collimator or actual bore-sighting. Actual zeroing will normally still require a few clicks, but the scope will still be aligned closely to the bore, so there'll be plenty of adjustment left. (Of course, if you plan to use the scope only for longer-range shooting, it should be mounted tilted downward a little, the reason for slanted bases, or using Burris Signature rings. But the reticle/erector assembly should still be centered.)

Once the mounts and rings are installed won’t the erector tube be where it sights in even if the erector tube isn’t centered before mounting. Will it change location if not centered before mounting?

You're not getting it. The mounting process needs to come close to aligning the scope with the bore WITH the reticle/erector tube centered. Much of the time, installing a scope in out-of-the-box mounts won't result in the scope being aligned, for several reasons, including an uneven top on the rifle action (not uncommon on factory rifles), bases that aren't machined precisely, and rings that also aren't aligned with the rings.

Add up all those factors and scopes will OFTEN be misaligned with the bore, even though there's still enough adjustment range in the scope to getting sighted in. Most people don't understand this, which is why many scopes don't adjust like desired. They may not anyway, but being mounted somewhat crooked doesn't help.

Got you! Thanks.

So, how does one align the centered scope with the bore axis? What mounts allow for this type of adjustment besides the "standard" windage-adjustable type?

Burris Signature rings are probably the easiest way to get it done, but there are several other methods, including shimming both bases and inside rings. Talley will machine bases of their rings to fit off-kilter actions, and some gunsmiths regrind action-tops, or redrill mounting holes out to 8-40 to correct off-center 6-48 holes. It's also pretty easy for home gunsmiths to modify some bases and rings. I've written a number of magazine articles and book chapters about all of this over the years.

It's not rocket science, but a surprising number of scopes get blamed for running out of adjustment, or erratic adjustments, when the real problem is crooked mounting, including strain on the scope tube from crooked rings. Well, actually the rings may not be crooked, but the action they're mounted on is.

A number of shooters get irate whenever collimators ("bore-sighters") are mentioned, saying they've been sighting-in rifles for decades without one. But I've pointed out a number of times that the real value in a collimator isn't sighting-in, but making sure the scope is basically aligned with the bore when mounted. Many aren't.

Another great article John. I always learn something.

Do you have a favourite collimating that you could recommend?

Not really. I have several, and use whichever one seems right for the job. The one I probably use more than any is an old Bushnell with 3 expandable arbors that fit inside the muzzle, but it won't work on barrels under .22 caliber or over .45, or on most rifles with muzzle brakes or other attachments, because the "spuds" aren't long enough to reach the actual bore. Bushnell (and other companies) still sells a similar unit, or another one with fixed arbors for various calibers.

The most versatile are collimators that attach to the muzzle with a magnet, and I have two of those, an older Leupold with a grid reticle, and one from MidwayUSA, under the Wheeler Engineering brand, that also attaches magnetically to the muzzle but projects a laser. There are also laser collimators that fit specific cartridge chambers, but like bore-sighting through the barrel itself, they require more room to use.

Of course, you can also put the rifle in a vise where the muzzle can be pointed through a window at an object at least 20 yards away, and check on bore/barrel alignment that way, at least with rifles where you can look through the bore. In one house, my work-room had a window where I could put a rifle in my wise, then aim the bore at the peak of the roof on a house across the street, which worked VERY well.

The biggie with any collimator is to check its alignment, by putting it on several rifles that are already sighted-in. You'll discover that bore-scope alignment will vary somewhat, but will be in the same general area. The Bushnell, like some other more sophisticated collimators, has a grid reticle that can be adjusted to line up with the bore on sighted-in rifles. I did that years ago, and it works well, but as noted not for all barrels. Probably the most versatile in my collection is the Wheeler Engineering laser model. I've even used it on 12-gauge slugs guns.

Your test for resolution at 6x is pretty neat, no expensive equipment needed. That and some comments here on the forums got me to thinking more about low light performance, resolution, color accuracy, usability, etc. I hadn't really thought through about how concentration of the focused image increases with the square of the magnification. (9x is about twice as concentrated as 6x given the same objective lens size). Given an average or above average variable scope at a 40 mm or so objective, about how far do you have to crank the magnification to go from a high six, low seven on your scale to a solid eight? Or does it not work like that?

Have you noticed a difference in scopes in their ability between day use and low light use that wasn't directly related to apparent optical quality. I ask because I was looking at information regarding human sight differences between day and night. Night vision is quite a bit more sensitive to blue light whereas day vision is more green/yellow sensitive. Also night vision takes awhile to develop. Are some scopes better comparatively for night use because they are optimized for use in lower light? Does building a scope with coatings optimized for color accuracy in day use contribute to, take away from, makes no difference in low light use?

Something else that got me to thinking on a cold weekend were comments about the perceived differences in brightness between 33mm, 36mm and 42mm Leupold fixed 6x's. I wouldn't think there would be too much difference until I got crazy with excel. What I hadn't though through was that while the concentration factor is the same at 6x, the amount of light refracted goes up at the square of the objective size. Even after controlling for the area difference in the exit pupils, the 42 mm is going to be about 60% brighter than the 33mm. I'm not sure a 60% increase is huge since our eyes are adapted to an incredible range of differences in brightness, but I'd guess it's easily perceptible.

oklahunter,

It doesn't take much more magnification to push a scope's rating up in my nighttime chart test--which is one reason magnification is one of the factors in the approximate dim-light formula for "twilight factor," which originated in Europe. I've tested a few scopes above 6x, including a Schmidt & Bender 8x56, which easily rated an 8+, higher than any scope tested on 6x.

My test is strictly designed to rate sharpness (resolution) and brightness (light transmission), not color. That's partly because human eyesight can vary considerably in how it perceives color, with color blindness being the most extreme example. But many of us have slight differences in how we perceive various colors, particularly in the blue part of the spectrum. In fact, studies have shown women see blues somewhat better, on average, than men do, though there's some overlap.

As a result, when scope manufacturers tweak the color transmission of their optics to emphasize certain colors, this doesn't always work for all people. An emphasis on the blue spectrum to enhance dim-light viewing, for instance, won't help people who don't see blue as well. Also, a number of years ago, one scope company marketed their scopes as optically enhancing visibility of big game animals, which often are more reddish. But that didn't help dim-light aiming.

We also often make a big deal about exit pupil size being at least the size of our eyes' pupils, but as you point out refracted light increases as objective size decreases. But they also diffuse more light, because smaller lenses have more "edge" compared to overall area, and the edge of any lens scatters more light, partly because it's what's actually held by the lens mounts. So yes, scopes with smaller objectives tend to be perceived as less bright in dim light, even if their exit pupils are larger than our pupils, since the image isn't quite as sharp. (This is also why many "cheap" 10x40 binoculars have a noticeably sharper view than 10x20 binoculars, even on a sunny day when our eyes' pupils are quite small.)

Another factor in all this is the inside of a scope. A lot of light can be reflected by the interior walls, diffusing the view, the reason some scope companies paint or baffle the insides of their scopes.

John;

I've got a few questions.

The first is regarding adjustments and the amount / direction of backlash in the turret threads. Its commonly believed that adjustments up and right are less positive than down or left because the erector tube is relying on the springs to push it along with the adjustment. For some it borders on religion that you should go past the desired elevation point or right adjustment and back down to take the slack out of the system and let the threads do the job that they don't trust the spring to do. Whether it works, or whether we owe our scopes any favors is another thing. At first glance that does seem to make a certain amount of sense; until I realized that adjusting the elevation up is in fact moving the crosshairs down. Since that's the case relative to our eyes, isn't adjusting for more elevation actually compressing the springs and doing a back and forth herky-jerky at the end the exact opposite of what they should be doing? It has occurred to me that the term erector assembly does hint that adjusting up is in fact dragging an upside down image up but then my head starts hurting. I guess this is my long way of asking if dialing elevation up is really compressing the springs instead of loosening them? I may take that information and use it to start a new religion.

The next is concerning European scopes with backwards adjustments. Are the turrets set up with a backwards thread or is the erector tube being moved at the opposite end? It may not make any difference, but at least I'd know whether to call them left-hand thread scopes or backward tube scopes when I'm bad-mouthing them for having backwards knobs.

The last is rather general. I know that at least some cheap scopes have their erector assembly mounted in a rubber tube. How prevalent is that design?

I can't be the only one who wonders this stuff.

Model70Guy,

You got it right when you started thinking about the erector assembly: The turret turning up is actually "dragging" an upside-down image of the reticle down.

Yes, some Euro-scopes have turret screws with left-hand threads. But quite a few don't these days.

Also, quite a few scopes these days have strong enough erector springs that twisting the turret past the desired spot to take out the slack isn't necessary. In fact I haven't collimator-tested a scope in quite a while where the reticle didn't move noticeably (and apparently consistently) with each click the turret (though that doesn't mean each click moves it exactly as much as the manufacturer claims). Personally, anymore I won't put up with a "dialing" scope that doesn't consistently move POI with each click.

Hadn't heard about rubber-tube erector systems.

Thanks, wondering about the direction of the movement was honestly bugging me.

The thing about the rubber erector assemblies stemmed partly from some Youtube videos showing scope tear-downs. One was showing how the erector tube was a rubber tube. Admittedly it was cheap scope, but the way nobody seems to make their own scopes anymore I was wondering how far up the food chain the heater hose mechanism had made it.

I think of scope adjustments like adjusting a front sight. You physically move them the opposite direction for the desired results.

Dang you..you might cost me some $
I got online to get one of these things and couldnt figure out how to to get one at their internet pricing..everywhere i looked up was $50 ish higher (i am cheap) referring to the below statement in your article...

(The exception was a recent Tract Toric BDC 3-15x42, priced at $674, made possible by Tract's direct Internet sales, which bypass the profit taken by the layers of typical retailing.)

Being cheap, I thought that maybe we could get several members to make a group buy and save even more ...?
Dont know how to go about this, but you likely do ! (Your endorsement is already out there so I bet there would be several other members here that would be willing to chance such an endeavour.. ?)
Have seen "group buy's" for here on rifles, but not optics..whatcha think ?..!
"elk"

I honestly don't know if Tract would go for a group buy, but you might contact Trevor, the Tract guy here, or Jon LaCorte, one of the owners.

John I live down the road from you and have enjoyed reading your articles over the years.
My question is,does any scope stand out as a great scope below 1000.00?

How far "down the road"? :-)

In my terms, yes, quite a few scopes under $1000 are great. But what's your definition of great?

Helena.
My needs are clear optics and super at keeping on target every year.
I have been a Leupold man since the 1970's and have had great success with them but my latest seems to drift a bit every year.I will give Leupold a call and send it in way before hunting season begins.
I'm open to all brands.
Is there that ONE scope that stands out as a SUPER scope?

Again, it depends on what YOU mean by SUPER.

As far as set-and-forget scopes I've had excellent luck with Burris as "set-and-forget" scopes for a long time (though they also make some good "dialing" scopes as well). In fact, one of the best bargains I've found is Burris's Fullfield II line. I've had them on rifles chambered for cartridges up through the .300 Weatherby Magnum and while any scope can malfunction, I haven't had any problem with FFII's yet. In my night-time optics-chart test they rate above average, and their adjustments are good enough to make sighting-in easy. Just last week I sighted-in a brand-new 3-9x40 on a .308. After bore-sighting and a check shot at 25 yards to make sure it would be on paper at 100, I shot a 3-shot group that turned out to be 2" high but also 2" to the left. After eight clicks to the right on the windage turret, the next group landed two inches high, dead-center.

The sub-$1000 scope I've been most impressed with lately is a Tract Toric 3-15x. I've had it on three rifles now, the first a super-accurate .300 Winchester Magnum that I shot extensively with a handload getting close to 3000 fps with 210-grain Berger VLD's. The adjustments were dead-nuts, and on the night-time optics chart the scope tested an 8, the highest ANY scopes have tested, including some costing well over $1000, but the price of the Toric is around $700. However, it weighs around 20 ounces, which is the other price often paid for reliable dialing scopes. A 3-9x40 Fullfield II is $200.

The other scope I've been very impressed with lately is the Nightforce SHV 3-10x42, a much more compact scope than many NF models, designed more for hunting. I have two now, and both have been dead-reliable in every way so far. The optics rated a 7-1/2 on my optics chart. The price varies, but so far Internet searches have always found them for under $1000, and sometimes in the $750-850 range. However, they weigh about the same as the Toric.

Back when Herters closed their doors, my family went to Mitchell and bought out their inventory of Weaver scopes. My favorite was a 6x, which I had on my 6mm for many years. The only issue I had with Weavers was having to ‘knock’ on the scope to settle it after adjusting the setting.
Since then I switched to Leupold due to their great service.
Lately I’ve bought a few Bushnell Elite scopes which are mounted on a couple 223’s, a 6mm varmint barreled 700 and one will be on a 280AI. That 280AI has a varmint contour 26” Douglas XX barrel. I don’t suppose that in any imagination these could be called heavy kickers. I sort of like the DOA600 reticle.

I wonder have you tried the Elite scopes? How do they compare to the Fullfield II? Thanks.

Many thanks sir.
I have only sent 1 Leupold scope in for repairs since the 1970's and I have 9 at the present and have had 11 in the past with only 1 problem which Leupold fixed fast and no charge.
I was advised to do one thing before contacting Leupold and I'll get that done soon.
I also will check out the Burris scopes too as weight matters to me as I have had many back surgeries.
Happy hunting

Bugger,

Saying "Bushnell Elite" scope is sort of like saying "Leupold" scope: There are so many different Elites that making meaningful comments is difficult. They range in price fromabout the same $$$ as a Burris Fullfield II) to the over-$1000 Elite Long Range Hunter series. I've owned several Elites, at the moment from the fixed 10x40 Elite Tactical MilDot (under $250) to a 4.5-30x50 Elite 6500 (close to $900). They all work well for their price.

Ok, thanks. I’m not knowledgeable on Bushnell scopes.

I just ordered a 3x9 Elite with a 1” tube 50mm objective and a DOA600 reticle for ~ $215 from Outdoor liquidators.
This is the second or third (???) just like that - I have them on varmint rifles. I also have a 10x with multiple dots. I had sent the original 10x in and Bushnell replaced it for free.

I sort of like that kind of service.

Are the 3x9x50’s I have as good as the Fullfield II’s? If they are good with heavier recoil, I may put one on a 300 Win Mag - 180 to 200 grain bullet loads.

BTW: your write up on bullet stability in the Gack book saved me some heart burn. I’ve taken physics classes to doctorate level and I “thought” I knew all I need to on stability. I was wrong. Thanks for sharing your expertise.

+1 on the Burris. I had a 3-9x40 Burris FFII that took quite a bit of abuse and never wavered. I like their hashmarks on the vertical crosshair better than Leupold's dots too.

Bugger,

Glad you like Gack! Am working on Gack II, but got slowed down in April due to a more-than-average number of magazine assignments. It still should be out by late summer or early fall. As for bullet stability, I'm lucky enough to live where it can be tested at elevations from 2500 to 8000+ feet, in temperatures from below zero to 90+. Have found today's best twist-rate formulas are very accurate for modern spitzers--though not always for blunter bullets.

Dunno if the 3-9x50 Bushnells are as reliable as the Fullfield II 3-9x's. They haven't been around as long, so don't have as much experience with their reliability. Have been using FFII's since they were made in the USA, which was at least a decade ago. The present Philippine-made model caused so much worry among rifle loonies that I requested a test sample ASAP, and found it slightly better than the American model. The optical quality was the same, because the lenses were the same, but the machining was smoother. Unlike other optics companies that contract to have scopes made in Asia, Burris provided the same tooling to make the scopes, and taught the Philippine company to use it. Which is why I'm always kind of amused when somebody on the Campfire Classifieds asks if a Fullfield II for sale is made in America.

Really great article Mule Deer. Another factor I use in selecting a scope is eye relief. Three to 3.5 inches of eye relief is not enough for me on a super light "mountain rifle" or a magnum cartridge rifle; some rifles are both. So I look mostly at Nikon, Leupold, and Sightron for this in moderate price range optics. I understand some of the Vortex and Hawke offerings have longer (approximately 4 inches) eye relief as well. I'm wondering if others have suggestions for reliably longer eye relief scopes?

Thanks for this!

An order for a Wheeler Engineering laser bore sighter was entered yesterday. (After all these years without.) Lever action, pump action and now an in-line muzzle loader besides upgrading scopes pushed me over the edge.

MD, thanks for the tip on that Wheeler Engineering bore sighter! It’s exactly what I needed. It works great.

I forget, "What's the drawback for a scope having a longer eye relief?"

Smaller field of view--everything else being equal.

Thanks.

Optical physics.

DF

I took a course in optical physics once. But memory is a sister to Mother Nature. (Bitch)

Yep, for sure...

DF

John,
What is an accurate scope bore sighter that won't break the bank?

Ralph

John,
Have you or anyone you know had a chance to test or use a Maven RS2 riflescope. I’m interested in hearing about any experience with these scopes....thanks, John

anothergun,

The Sightmark laser models only cost around $20, depending on where you buy them. But they're essentially chamber-specific cases that only fit a rifle chambered for the .223 Remington, .243 Winchester, etc. If you want to use a collimator for rifles in several chamberings, you're money ahead when buying a more universal model, whether a laser or optical type.

gbear,

Sorry, no I haven't.

when it comes to 4x scopes i just can`t see how people can claim they can shoot small groups at 100 yards ,i have tried and with a 6x it can be better but to be honest 9x or higher really helps most of us. > Mule Deer what power scope setting for seeing how well a rifle shoots do you use ? i also have been told if you have a 3-9 scope you should sight rifle in on 6x so its more equal accuracy on 3x and on 9x is that true ?

John,
Have you or anyone you trust done a field test on the Sig BDX system?

Pete,

There's a very simple optical rule for the potential amount of aiming error with a scope of a certain magnification.

The average human eye (meaning 20/20 eyesight, whether "bare" or corrected) can resolve about 1 inch at 100 yards in a black-and-white test, which involves looking at a sheet with alternating black-and-white lines of equal width. At 100, 20/20 eyesight can see alternatiing lines 1/2" thick, but not very far beyond 100 yards the same lines merge and appear gray (just like a zebra in the distance).

Magnification allows our eyes to resolve B&W lines at longer distances, and also allows us to resolve smaller lines at shorter distances. A 4x scope allows us to resolve 1/4 inch at 100 yards, if the optics in the scope are decent, which means a 4x scope will result in 1/4" of aiming error--in addition to other inherent errors in rifle/ammo accuracy. (This is leaving out parallax, wind, and our hold and trigger pull.)

The same rule applies to higher magnification. A 6x scope allows 1/6" in aiming error (.1666 inch), a 3-9x set on 9x .1111 inch (a little over a 1/10th), and a 25x scope .04 inch.

The quarter-inch error in 4x scopes really isn't much. I have several medium-bore hunting rifles with 4x scopes, and the most accurate will regularly shoot 5-shot groups averaging an inch with the right loads. Which means they should average .85 inch with a 3-9x set on 9x, or slightly over .75" with a 25x. In reality that isn't much error.

I suspect most of the problem many people have with shooting small groups with a 4x scope is due to inappropriate targets. Most commercial targets these days have pretty small aiming points, because so many hunters use at least a 3-9x variable. While a 4x scope ideally results in only 1/4" of aiming error, most aiming points don't allow us to hold as closely as possible with 4x.

There's also potential parallax, which many hunters don't even know how to check for, or correct. But 4x scopes normally don't have any perceivable parallax at 100.

Hear! Hear!

From another thread:

Thanks John...

I have a bushnell with the plastic insert on the end of the unit, for different calibers, and they seem to be touchy, and have to be set in the barrel just so, in order for the laser to be where it needs to be.

So the ones that look like a casing seem that they aren't as finiky?

Have never used that model. The laser bore-sighters that shoot through the bore are much less touchy.

I've also had very good luck with the Wheeler laser model, available from Midway and others, that attaches to the muzzle with a strong magnet. It's useable on everything from .17's to 12-gauge slug guns, but like all laser bore-sighters, requires some room in front of the muzzle to work usefully, in my experience at least 20-25 feet. It's also relatively pricey, around $80, but that's the sort of price you pay for versatility and reliability.

back to 4x scopes yes i understand a bigger target is needed to shoot some what smaller groups ,but i myself do better with more scope power and yes most of my targets do have smaller squares all 1 inch mostly . i like a bigger hunting scope for another reason so i can judge the size of the antlers on a deer ,at my age of 66 i don`t see a reason to shoot little deer anymore its just a personal thing for me, but i do enjoy young people shooting a deer no matter the size for them,for me just watching deer is alot more fun and less work too. scopes i guess the power you use is just a personal thing but i see a advantage to more power than 4x too, yes some will criticize me on here that`s ok, but when i only always carry a 257 Weatherby Mag. single shot i don`t plan on missing if i take the safety off either. Tim the toolman and me believe the same thing more power !

This one???

https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Magnetic-Connection-Gunsmithing-Maintenance/dp/B07L6YYTM7

Good stuff... thanks again John.

Yep, that's it.

looks good ! Thanks

Mule Deer may i also thank you for your answer on the 4x scopes i kinda knew that.my eyes are not very good anymore so i need much more power in a scope now. with respect thank you again,Pete53