|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,482
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,482 |
I'd be all over this one if I could find the model that has the 6.5 CM Ballistic reticle. Mine has the Mcwhorter. Best hold over ret IMHO ...having holdover marks...is a little goofy. Indeed.  Particularly because the distance pertaining to each mark will change with your load, temperature-dependent velocity variation, altitude, ambient temperature, etc. Just get a reticle that is not calibrated to any specific load, but can be easily used with all possible loads, like the Mil-Quad or G3. Use a ballistic solver found online or as a smartphone app, confirm drops with actual shooting, and use a MRAD or MOA reticle to determine elevation holds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,482
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,482 |
I am just getting started doing scope reviews, scientifically. its funny how people are even questioning that now. I think its pretty darn scientific if I can tell you the exact percentage of tracking error a scope has, within 1% its way more scientific than shooting the scope mounted on a rifle that I guy thinks is a half MOA gun "if they do their part" because it shot 1 1/2MOA group.
cummins, Do you know what constitutes proper scientific testing? I have been paid by our government to conduct research in experimental nuclear physics in a controlled lab environment, so I know more than most people about what "scientific testing" means. If you're not carefully controlling each independent variable, isolating only what you are trying to test, and you're not specific about your testing methodology so that your experimental outcome is repeatable (a reader can duplicate your experiment), then no, it's not a very scientific test regardless of the results you obtain. You should easily be able to explain how you align the scope's reticle in your fixture if you're claiming that your test is scientific. Science is objective and unbiased, not defensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,083
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,083 |
Like KFC and Coca-Cola, some things just have to remain secret.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,786
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,786 |
I was in the same position as you a few years ago, wanted to increase magnification and better glass with great tracking.
I ended up buying 2 Leica 3-15 x 56mm ER 5 scopes, both have been on various rifles using Murphy Precision rails and Nightforce Ultra Light rings. Both track as they should and both hold zero. They were not designed to be used as a dialing scope, but they do it beautifully.
I still find them for $6-700 NIB occasionally and when I do, I buy them, I think I am up to 4, maybe 5 of them. I did let a friend talk me out of one and I think he has another I loaned him.
NRA Endowed Patron Life Benefactor
GOA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
NSCA Life Member
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,647
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,647 |
I am just getting started doing scope reviews, scientifically. its funny how people are even questioning that now. I think its pretty darn scientific if I can tell you the exact percentage of tracking error a scope has, within 1% its way more scientific than shooting the scope mounted on a rifle that I guy thinks is a half MOA gun "if they do their part" because it shot 1 1/2MOA group.
cummins, Do you know what constitutes proper scientific testing? I have been paid by our government to conduct research in experimental nuclear physics in a controlled lab environment, so I know more than most people about what "scientific testing" means. If you're not carefully controlling each independent variable, isolating only what you are trying to test, and you're not specific about your testing methodology so that your experimental outcome is repeatable (a reader can duplicate your experiment), then no, it's not a very scientific test regardless of the results you obtain. You should easily be able to explain how you align the scope's reticle in your fixture if you're claiming that your test is scientific. Science is objective and unbiased, not defensive. I really think at this point Jordan that CC just simply wants attention, not an optics discussion.
- Greg
Success is found at the intersection of planning, hard work, and stubbornness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,482
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,482 |
Oh, I know. I continue to respond to him and rebut his statements for the benefit of those who may otherwise believe him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 956
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 956 |
As said by others, the SS 3-15x would meet your criteria, as would the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS 4.5-18x. not sow fast on that model of SWFA, the one I just checked had right reticle travel when dialed for elevation, not a ton, but some. don't worry I have it on video. zeiss v4 4-16 is the scope you should check into. The sample I had tracked flawless. it also, has tracked flawless and shot some incredible groups during first round of load development on my blaser R8 How many SS 3-15x scopes have you tested? A sample of one? Nothing personal, cummins, but my confidence in your methodology, testing, and claims is less than awe-inspiring...That aside, every model of scope can occasionally come off the line with some sort of minor manufacturing flaw, regardless of brand. That is why I test every new scope I get for tracking, return-to-zero, etc. I have seen scopes from NF, SWFA, etc, with tracking errors, whether canted reticles or incorrect increment values. I just send scopes back if I find a problem out the gate, and when they return they work correctly. Once any initial errors are corrected, scopes from those brands tend to continue to work correctly for a lot of rounds and a lot of use. That’s the key. You claim the Zeiss V4 is the scope to look at. How many samples have you tested? How many rounds have you shot using that scope? How much rough handling has it seen? Mechanical integrity and durability (when subjected to continued shooting and use the scope keeps tracking correctly, retains zero, returns to zero, etc) is about as important as correct initial tracking. Lots of scopes track correctly initially, but the pool of brands and models that continue to track and work properly for many, many rounds, and a lot of use, is much smaller, IME. The V4 may be one of them, but the number of samples and the amount of use/shooting on those tested that I’ve seen is a far cry from being able to make any claims about mechanical robustness of the lineup. I have tested 1 3-15 swfa statically in a testing fixture which is more than you have tested in such a manner, i agree it could be limited to just the scope I had. I also agree my sample of one Zeiss v4 may not be indicative of other scopes, so far I have tested 4 swfa scopes. I am 50% on flawless tracking. Love hearing the attacks on me by others don’t shoot the messenger, if you want to atttack me, get specific, I can and do change my mind about things. Dispagement just means you got owned and are whining I will post the video once my refund for the scope hits my card. Don’t worry I know you are a 3x9 fan. It tested good. Am I understanding this correctly? Are your scope reviews and recommendations based on ordering a scope, testing in a fixture, then returning them for a refund? Or do you keep some and put them through lots of field use? I’m not trying to attack you either, but you gotta admit that isn't quite in the same realm of experience compared to people that have actually used multiple examples. Or guys like Formidilosus that uses them and trains people to use them for a living. I agree with Jordan. I am just getting started doing scope reviews, scientifically. its funny how people are even questioning that now. I think its pretty darn scientific if I can tell you the exact percentage of tracking error a scope has, within 1% its way more scientific than shooting the scope mounted on a rifle that I guy thinks is a half MOA gun "if they do their part" because it shot 1 1/2MOA group. When the rest of the groups always seem to have a flyer or 2 but if you take those flyers out by golee its another 1/2 MOA gun. As for the C clamps that is also funny when I can hang off the fixture with my entire weight of 225 pounds, AND the scope seems to magically return to zero, that is how you know the scope tracks true. YES I returned the 3-15 SWFA, why because the tracking wasn't up to my standards. you have no idea if yours does or not. what are the factors that prevent accurate scope assessment by shooting it? -rifle accuracy. -the shooter holds the gun slightly different on each shot and this prevents being able to see this because even if the gun was 100% accurate and fired bullets in the same hole, POI would still be different because the shooter -field and range conditions, wind etc. are you saying static testing a scope has no value? seriously? why don't you watch how (youtube) nightforce tests their scopes. hint, its not shooting them!!!! OMG a truth dart. lets mock the only guy on this forum that has publicly shown and actually invented his own way not from the group and pack that you simply continue to repeat their drivell. I am not the pack, I am the opposite, I always question conventional wisdom. There are litterly tons of people who test scopes shooting them, in fact everyone does it that way. I do it differently at least initially. why go to the trouble of wasting ammo and time if you can't see what a scope is doing, are the clicks matching? does the reticle match the markings? do I see reticle shift as the scope is dialed? does the amount dialed match what it should be? my methods identify if these things are true. you only test one thing by shooting a scope, durability. a durable scope that has adjustments that don't match, how good is that? just because I come on here and refuse to spout off about 100k and even 1 million rounds fired with a scope, then show 6.5 creed tikkas with factory barrels on them somehow means I never shoot anything. keep parroting what the pack says, you will never know the difference. ignorance is bliss. carry on and enjoy your weekend, seriously. Im not questioning your static testing at all. I haven’t watched any of your videos and don’t know how many you’ve done, but I am asking if your reviews and scope recommendations are based on the static testing alone? Are you static testing scopes, doing a video review, then sending them back for a refund regardless of the static test results? You’re recommending the Ziess scope over the SWFA scope based on a sample of one each, and static testing alone. You have to admit there’s not much value in a recommendation like that. I assume you bought the SWFA in the first place because they have a solid reputation. Why give up on it based on a sample of one. It would make more sense to accept that it is probably one of the few samples to have a problem, send it back for replacement/repair and carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,531
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,531 |
As said by others, the SS 3-15x would meet your criteria, as would the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS 4.5-18x. not sow fast on that model of SWFA, the one I just checked had right reticle travel when dialed for elevation, not a ton, but some. don't worry I have it on video. zeiss v4 4-16 is the scope you should check into. The sample I had tracked flawless. it also, has tracked flawless and shot some incredible groups during first round of load development on my blaser R8 Sorry to derail...serious question.... I’m curious how you are truing the reticles up to your jig before your TTT? In case you missed it Cowboy....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,925
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,925 |
As said by others, the SS 3-15x would meet your criteria, as would the Bushnell LRHS/LRTS 4.5-18x. not sow fast on that model of SWFA, the one I just checked had right reticle travel when dialed for elevation, not a ton, but some. don't worry I have it on video. zeiss v4 4-16 is the scope you should check into. The sample I had tracked flawless. it also, has tracked flawless and shot some incredible groups during first round of load development on my blaser R8 How many SS 3-15x scopes have you tested? A sample of one? Nothing personal, cummins, but my confidence in your methodology, testing, and claims is less than awe-inspiring...That aside, every model of scope can occasionally come off the line with some sort of minor manufacturing flaw, regardless of brand. That is why I test every new scope I get for tracking, return-to-zero, etc. I have seen scopes from NF, SWFA, etc, with tracking errors, whether canted reticles or incorrect increment values. I just send scopes back if I find a problem out the gate, and when they return they work correctly. Once any initial errors are corrected, scopes from those brands tend to continue to work correctly for a lot of rounds and a lot of use. That’s the key. You claim the Zeiss V4 is the scope to look at. How many samples have you tested? How many rounds have you shot using that scope? How much rough handling has it seen? Mechanical integrity and durability (when subjected to continued shooting and use the scope keeps tracking correctly, retains zero, returns to zero, etc) is about as important as correct initial tracking. Lots of scopes track correctly initially, but the pool of brands and models that continue to track and work properly for many, many rounds, and a lot of use, is much smaller, IME. The V4 may be one of them, but the number of samples and the amount of use/shooting on those tested that I’ve seen is a far cry from being able to make any claims about mechanical robustness of the lineup. I have tested 1 3-15 swfa statically in a testing fixture which is more than you have tested in such a manner, i agree it could be limited to just the scope I had. I also agree my sample of one Zeiss v4 may not be indicative of other scopes, so far I have tested 4 swfa scopes. I am 50% on flawless tracking. Love hearing the attacks on me by others don’t shoot the messenger, if you want to atttack me, get specific, I can and do change my mind about things. Dispagement just means you got owned and are whining I will post the video once my refund for the scope hits my card. Don’t worry I know you are a 3x9 fan. It tested good. Am I understanding this correctly? Are your scope reviews and recommendations based on ordering a scope, testing in a fixture, then returning them for a refund? Or do you keep some and put them through lots of field use? I’m not trying to attack you either, but you gotta admit that isn't quite in the same realm of experience compared to people that have actually used multiple examples. Or guys like Formidilosus that uses them and trains people to use them for a living. I agree with Jordan. I am just getting started doing scope reviews, scientifically. its funny how people are even questioning that now. I think its pretty darn scientific if I can tell you the exact percentage of tracking error a scope has, within 1% its way more scientific than shooting the scope mounted on a rifle that I guy thinks is a half MOA gun "if they do their part" because it shot 1 1/2MOA group. When the rest of the groups always seem to have a flyer or 2 but if you take those flyers out by golee its another 1/2 MOA gun. As for the C clamps that is also funny when I can hang off the fixture with my entire weight of 225 pounds, AND the scope seems to magically return to zero, that is how you know the scope tracks true. YES I returned the 3-15 SWFA, why because the tracking wasn't up to my standards. you have no idea if yours does or not. what are the factors that prevent accurate scope assessment by shooting it? -rifle accuracy. -the shooter holds the gun slightly different on each shot and this prevents being able to see this because even if the gun was 100% accurate and fired bullets in the same hole, POI would still be different because the shooter -field and range conditions, wind etc. are you saying static testing a scope has no value? seriously? why don't you watch how (youtube) nightforce tests their scopes. hint, its not shooting them!!!! OMG a truth dart. lets mock the only guy on this forum that has publicly shown and actually invented his own way not from the group and pack that you simply continue to repeat their drivell. I am not the pack, I am the opposite, I always question conventional wisdom. There are litterly tons of people who test scopes shooting them, in fact everyone does it that way. I do it differently at least initially. why go to the trouble of wasting ammo and time if you can't see what a scope is doing, are the clicks matching? does the reticle match the markings? do I see reticle shift as the scope is dialed? does the amount dialed match what it should be? my methods identify if these things are true. you only test one thing by shooting a scope, durability. a durable scope that has adjustments that don't match, how good is that? just because I come on here and refuse to spout off about 100k and even 1 million rounds fired with a scope, then show 6.5 creed tikkas with factory barrels on them somehow means I never shoot anything. keep parroting what the pack says, you will never know the difference. ignorance is bliss. carry on and enjoy your weekend, seriously. Im not questioning your static testing at all. I haven’t watched any of your videos and don’t know how many you’ve done, but I am asking if your reviews and scope recommendations are based on the static testing alone? Are you static testing scopes, doing a video review, then sending them back for a refund regardless of the static test results? You’re recommending the Ziess scope over the SWFA scope based on a sample of one each, and static testing alone. You have to admit there’s not much value in a recommendation like that. I assume you bought the SWFA in the first place because they have a solid reputation. Why give up on it based on a sample of one. It would make more sense to accept that it is probably one of the few samples to have a problem, send it back for replacement/repair and carry on. He slept through statistics class.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,220
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,220 |
Looks to me like the dude is a wannabe youtube hero.
He says he 'questions conventional wisdom'. Mebbeso he oughta slow his roll on questioning wisdom. It doesn't seem to be working out to well for him.
And I'm wouldn't necessarily call using some ad hoc jerry-rigged contraption the best example of using the 'scientific method'. My guiess Is that when Jordan worked for Uncle he didn't quite do things that way, which inspires me to appreciate Jordan's opinion and experience and depreciate cowboy's opinion and experience, although he does get points for living up to his moniker and acting like some cowboy, even if one who has gotten bucked (waaaay) too many times and landed on his noggin for most of them.
Exquisitely turdlike in all of his many manifestations!!
Resist much - obey little. Hayduke lives!
"30-06 guys don't worry about schit 'cause 30-06 guys don't worry....." 16bore
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,997
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,997 |
Looks to me like the dude is a wannabe youtube hero.
He says he 'questions conventional wisdom'. Mebbeso he oughta slow his roll on questioning wisdom. It doesn't seem to be working out to well for him.
And I'm wouldn't necessarily call using some ad hoc jerry-rigged contraption the best example of using the 'scientific method'. My guiess Is that when Jordan worked for Uncle he didn't quite do things that way, which inspires me to appreciate Jordan's opinion and experience and depreciate cowboy's opinion and experience, although he does get points for living up to his moniker and acting like some cowboy, even if one who has gotten bucked (waaaay) too many times and landed on his noggin for most of them. Don't judge cowboys by a sample of one!
I am continually astounded at how quickly people make up their minds on little evidence or none at all.
Jack O'Connor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,963
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,963 |
I just like to keep it simple. I don't dial, use mostly fixed power optics. Less to go wrong, don't need to spend huge money. Most expensive optic I have is a 4x32 Meopta and I didn't exactly spend "alpha" money on that(thanks for getting that imported for me Doug).
Mauser Rescue Society
Founder, President, and Chairman
I don't always shoot Mausers, but when I do...I prefer VZ-24s.
jdi do píči
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,220
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,220 |
Looks to me like the dude is a wannabe youtube hero.
He says he 'questions conventional wisdom'. Mebbeso he oughta slow his roll on questioning wisdom. It doesn't seem to be working out to well for him.
And I'm wouldn't necessarily call using some ad hoc jerry-rigged contraption the best example of using the 'scientific method'. My guiess Is that when Jordan worked for Uncle he didn't quite do things that way, which inspires me to appreciate Jordan's opinion and experience and depreciate cowboy's opinion and experience, although he does get points for living up to his moniker and acting like some cowboy, even if one who has gotten bucked (waaaay) too many times and landed on his noggin for most of them. Don't judge cowboys by a sample of one! My deepest apologies, sir! Now that I reread it, it does seem to knock cowboys en masse. That was certainly not my intended meaning or intent. Most cowboys are good guys and straight shooters. It's folk like cummins that gives good cowboys, real cowboys, a bad name. Again, my sincerest apologies.
Exquisitely turdlike in all of his many manifestations!!
Resist much - obey little. Hayduke lives!
"30-06 guys don't worry about schit 'cause 30-06 guys don't worry....." 16bore
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,220
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,220 |
I just like to keep it simple. I don't dial, use mostly fixed power optics. Less to go wrong, don't need to spend huge money. Most expensive optic I have is a 4x32 Meopta and I didn't exactly spend "alpha" money on that(thanks for getting that imported for me Doug). I remember growing up back in the day, a 4x Weaver was seen atop many, many hunting rifles. A 4x is still a pretty dang good idea for those who don't dial, either that or a 6x. There's a lot to be said for the KISS principle. You are a wise man.
Last edited by DELGUE; 01/12/20.
Exquisitely turdlike in all of his many manifestations!!
Resist much - obey little. Hayduke lives!
"30-06 guys don't worry about schit 'cause 30-06 guys don't worry....." 16bore
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 385
Campfire Member
|
|
OP
Campfire Member
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 385 |
I just like to keep it simple. I don't dial, use mostly fixed power optics. Less to go wrong, don't need to spend huge money. Most expensive optic I have is a 4x32 Meopta and I didn't exactly spend "alpha" money on that(thanks for getting that imported for me Doug). I remember growing up back in the day, a 4x Weaver was seen atop many, many hunting rifles. A 4x is still a pretty dang good idea for those who don't dial, either that or a 6x. There's a lot to be said for the KISS principle. You are a wise man. I've used a 3x forever.. but I't be hard to make a 400yd shot with a 3x.. so jump up to 6x.. then you sacrifice target acquisition at close range.. It's ok for a deer that is standing still but you get those guys that are in a hurry more often than not. All I know.. I love hunting.. buying a new gun and scope should be fun and exciting.. not this stressful. Lmao
You can lead a horse...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,963
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,963 |
I just like to keep it simple. I don't dial, use mostly fixed power optics. Less to go wrong, don't need to spend huge money. Most expensive optic I have is a 4x32 Meopta and I didn't exactly spend "alpha" money on that(thanks for getting that imported for me Doug). I remember growing up back in the day, a 4x Weaver was seen atop many, many hunting rifles. A 4x is still a pretty dang good idea for those who don't dial, either that or a 6x. There's a lot to be said for the KISS principle. You are a wise man. I've used a 3x forever.. but I't be hard to make a 400yd shot with a 3x.. so jump up to 6x.. then you sacrifice target acquisition at close range.. It's ok for a deer that is standing still but you get those guys that are in a hurry more often than not. All I know.. I love hunting.. buying a new gun and scope should be fun and exciting.. not this stressful. Lmao 4x is my favorite, low enough to be reasonably quick, and if it isn't enough mag...well then I need to get closer LOL
Mauser Rescue Society
Founder, President, and Chairman
I don't always shoot Mausers, but when I do...I prefer VZ-24s.
jdi do píči
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 17,865
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 17,865 |
He slept through statistics class. Not even on campus. He was on the playground.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,232
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,232 |
Until I started reading this forum, I knew nobody who dialed for elevation. It’s just not an issue for many of us. I’m sure it depends where you hunt. Keep reading here and you will find out all kinds of meaningless drivel.Everything from what scopes are junk and you are a meaningless piece of chit unless you use Nightforce or SWFA. 
Its all right to be white!!
Stupidity left unattended will run rampant
Don't argue with stupid people, They will drag you down to their level and then win by experience
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 500
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 500 |
This forum is a strange mix. There’s often good, objective information and analysis together with subjective beliefs/ opinions bordering on superstition.
I’m willing to cut the enthusiasts a break.
I do enjoy the banter and discussions. Not so much the name calling and making criticism or disagreements personal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,222 |
I have two SWFA FFP 3-15X42 in the family. We use them on our PCP Air rifles. WE use a laser rangefinder and dial the shots quite a bit. You have to with a rainbow trajectory. I use a 25 cal FX Impact and my son uses a different PCP. It is good training that crosses over to similar shooting at long range. I got the SWFA for about $500 less than a year ago on a sale. Good luck and Be Well, Rustyzipper.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
|
|
571 members (219 Wasp, 10gaugeman, 1234, 17CalFan, 22kHornet, 222Sako, 48 invisible),
3,285
guests, and
1,151
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,292
Posts18,467,960
Members73,928
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
