I remember a few months back people who don't know shat from shinola made fun of me for static testing scopes. I mean shoot the thing they said!! they said that because they had no imagination on how to do it. there are many things you find out about a scope by static testing it. There are many things you will never know simply "shooting" it. nightforce QC's their scopes not by shooting them, but testing them statically in fixtures. here is a an article about scope truing. I post this because I would like to see more people static testing scopes. I personally believe it will move the optics world dramatically. I think many so called trusted scopes will be unmasked as not that trusted. http://www.shootingusa.com/PRO_TIPS/JP-1-7/jp-1-7.html
They weren't making fun of you because you were static testing scopes. They made fun of you because of the way in which you did so.
WRT to the article, using a 1" bubble level to set the fixture is the weak link in that process, and IMO, is not a reliable way to calibrate the system.
They weren't making fun of you because you were static testing scopes. They made fun of you because of the way in which you did so.
WRT to the article, using a 1" bubble level to set the fixture is the weak link in that process, and IMO, is not a reliable way to calibrate the system.
So when you watch the videos I posted and the scope returns to zero, is my mounting setup flawed? The fing c clamps can hold my entire body weight. It just shows the level of blowhards here who have no clue.
People can keep imagining their swfa tracks 100% in bliss.
It's really not hard to do an optical tracking test on a scope. Simply figure out a rock-solid way of mounting the scope and the target such that the reticle and target/grid lines stay perfectly parallel with each other, and neither the scope nor the target/grid move relative to the other.
It's a safe bet, if the couple of dozen SWFA scopes I've tested are any indication, since nearly all of them do track 100%. The adjustment increments aren't always perfectly error-free, but the erectors track repeatably and reliably and they hold zero.
Jordan; Good afternoon to you sir, I hope this Victoria Day finds you and yours well.
If you're so inclined, I'd like to hear your opinion on what I just did with two different scopes I picked up for a buddy, both of them procured from various parts of our country via gunnutz.
What I came up with was that I clamped a 1" dowel rod into my Workmate bench, then screwed two Weaver bases into the dowel rod and mounted the scopes thusly.
My testing was to stick a target on the porch of the house which is 30 yards or so from the garage, move the target and the Workmate until they were sorta lined up and then I cranked the dials to see if the reticle moved.
It did in both cases - up/down and left/right - so I believe that the scopes should work okay and sent them on to my buddy.
Did I miss anything testing that way?
Thanks in advance sir and all the best to you all. Stay well.
It's really not hard to do an optical tracking test on a scope. Simply figure out a rock-solid way of mounting the scope and the target such that the reticle and target/grid lines stay perfectly parallel with each other, and neither the scope nor the target/grid move relative to the other.
It's a safe bet, if the couple of dozen SWFA scopes I've tested are any indication, since nearly all of them do track 100%. The adjustment increments aren't always perfectly error-free, but the erectors track repeatably and reliably and they hold zero.
nearly all of them? my 20x doesn't, the 3-15 didn't, the 10x and the 3x9 are the only ones I could say that did, that is 50% failure. if repeatability means to repeat with the same error, I suppose we agree.
Jordan; Good afternoon to you sir, I hope this Victoria Day finds you and yours well.
If you're so inclined, I'd like to hear your opinion on what I just did with two different scopes I picked up for a buddy, both of them procured from various parts of our country via gunnutz.
What I came up with was that I clamped a 1" dowel rod into my Workmate bench, then screwed two Weaver bases into the dowel rod and mounted the scopes thusly.
My testing was to stick a target on the porch of the house which is 30 yards or so from the garage, move the target and the Workmate until they were sorta lined up and then I cranked the dials to see if the reticle moved.
It did in both cases - up/down and left/right - so I believe that the scopes should work okay and sent them on to my buddy.
Did I miss anything testing that way?
Thanks in advance sir and all the best to you all. Stay well.
Dwayne
Dwayne,
I hope all is well over your way. As long as your target has straight grid lines on it and the scope was mounted so that it didn't move even a little bit when you were touching the turrets, and the reticle and grid lines were aligned perfectly, then what you did confirms that the reticle is not canted relative to the erector, and the turrets move in the direction they should. But to take it a step further you can measure the angular subtension of the grid lines on your target (or mark off angular subtensions that you would like) and use them to measure the reticle subtensions, and you can also test that the turret adjustment increments are what they are advertised to be using the same technique. You can then dial back and forth and see that the reticle returns to the original spot to confirm that the erector tracks straight and repeatably, and returns to zero.
It's really not hard to do an optical tracking test on a scope. Simply figure out a rock-solid way of mounting the scope and the target such that the reticle and target/grid lines stay perfectly parallel with each other, and neither the scope nor the target/grid move relative to the other.
It's a safe bet, if the couple of dozen SWFA scopes I've tested are any indication, since nearly all of them do track 100%. The adjustment increments aren't always perfectly error-free, but the erectors track repeatably and reliably and they hold zero.
nearly all of them? my 20x doesn't, the 3-15 didn't, the 10x and the 3x9 are the only ones I could say that did, that is 50% failure. if repeatability means to repeat with the same error, I suppose we agree.
Yes, nearly all of them. What did you observe as a failure with your 20x and your 3-15x? The concept of using C-clamps at a playground aside, I would be concerned that while the clamps will hold your weight without grossly slipping, they may still undergo very small positional shifting when you touch and dial the scope. It does seem like a marginal way to ensure that the scope is mounted rock-solid. Not being overly critical, just trying to have an honest conversation about it.
Tracking straight (reticle and erector in perfect alignment) and tracking repeatably (erector travelling along the same path every time) are two different things. Nearly all of the SWFA's I have tested (about 6-8x the number that you've mentioned here) have tracked both straight and repeatably with very little perceptible error. I have observed that about 30% of the scopes have increment values that range from 0-4% error, but that does not affect the scope's ability to track straight and repeatable.
It's really not hard to do an optical tracking test on a scope. Simply figure out a rock-solid way of mounting the scope and the target such that the reticle and target/grid lines stay perfectly parallel with each other, and neither the scope nor the target/grid move relative to the other.
It's a safe bet, if the couple of dozen SWFA scopes I've tested are any indication, since nearly all of them do track 100%. The adjustment increments aren't always perfectly error-free, but the erectors track repeatably and reliably and they hold zero.
nearly all of them? my 20x doesn't, the 3-15 didn't, the 10x and the 3x9 are the only ones I could say that did, that is 50% failure. if repeatability means to repeat with the same error, I suppose we agree.
Yes, nearly all of them. What did you observe as a failure with your 20x and your 3-15x? The concept of using C-clamps at a playground aside, I would be concerned that while the clamps will hold your weight without grossly slipping, they may still undergo very small positional shifting when you touch and dial the scope. It does seem like a marginal way to ensure that the scope is mounted rock-solid. Not being overly critical, just trying to have an honest conversation about it.
Tracking straight (reticle and erector in perfect alignment) and tracking repeatably (erector travelling along the same path every time) are two different things. Nearly all of the SWFA's I have tested (about 6-8x the number that you've mentioned here) have tracked both straight and repeatably with very little perceptible error. I have observed that about 30% of the scopes have increment values that range from 0-4% error, but that does not affect the scope's ability to track straight and repeatable.
most people don't have 100 yards of area to check something at their house. the fact I use one leg of a steel pavillion that is concreted in and holds up several thousand pounds and its probably 1/2" thick steel should stay something. The clamps allow me to instantly adjust up and down and side to side. if you watch the video of the tracking inside the scope if it was moving the scope would not return to zero. As you said the SWFA's you tested are repeatable. I say repeating the same error. its not a terrible amount of error but error none the less. the fact that a play gound is nearby and that is something to make fun of just exposes the haters. is the scope test less valid if it was conducted at a football game or at a daycare? of course not. I have a concreted 6"x6" 1/2" thick steel beam. to clamp to. I have 100 yards measured out. I have it marked by the distance from a pine tree because I have set it up so many times. I originally walked off the distance with a roll up tape measure. marking exactly 100 yards.
every scope error I have found in a scope, I have retested the scope on a different day. That means I took the camps off, took everything back home, came back another day, reclamped it, got it all leveled and centered again, The results have repeated exactly the same. The vortex PST 2, showed right reticle shift. I got the same results in 2 samples tested 5 total times. my 20x SWFA, 3-4 clicks off at 20 MOA, AND right reticle shift. SWFA 3-15, right reticle shift again similar to the problem with the PST 2. all scopes tested at least twice. Why would I go to the trouble of checking this and actually making videos of it, if I wasn't totally and utterly confident of the results? I wouldn't, as you say they are repeatable.
This testing was done almost six years ago. Note that the two Leupolds tested better than all three Nightforce scopes. Just an observation, and the tester noted their performance also right behind the four perfect models.
I've tested a lot more than 6-8 SWFA SS scopes and vast majority of them track essentially perfectly. Keep in mind that the way I test them, target size, distance to target, angle of inclination, tilt, etc (i.e. all the reasons why vast majority of people doing these tests screw them up) make no difference whatsoever.
Static tests work great when they are done right. I essentially stopped answering questions on what people are doing wrong with their static tests since it was taking too much time.
It's really not hard to do an optical tracking test on a scope. Simply figure out a rock-solid way of mounting the scope and the target such that the reticle and target/grid lines stay perfectly parallel with each other, and neither the scope nor the target/grid move relative to the other.
It's a safe bet, if the couple of dozen SWFA scopes I've tested are any indication, since nearly all of them do track 100%. The adjustment increments aren't always perfectly error-free, but the erectors track repeatably and reliably and they hold zero.
nearly all of them? my 20x doesn't, the 3-15 didn't, the 10x and the 3x9 are the only ones I could say that did, that is 50% failure. if repeatability means to repeat with the same error, I suppose we agree.
Yes, nearly all of them. What did you observe as a failure with your 20x and your 3-15x? The concept of using C-clamps at a playground aside, I would be concerned that while the clamps will hold your weight without grossly slipping, they may still undergo very small positional shifting when you touch and dial the scope. It does seem like a marginal way to ensure that the scope is mounted rock-solid. Not being overly critical, just trying to have an honest conversation about it.
Tracking straight (reticle and erector in perfect alignment) and tracking repeatably (erector travelling along the same path every time) are two different things. Nearly all of the SWFA's I have tested (about 6-8x the number that you've mentioned here) have tracked both straight and repeatably with very little perceptible error. I have observed that about 30% of the scopes have increment values that range from 0-4% error, but that does not affect the scope's ability to track straight and repeatable.
most people don't have 100 yards of area to check something at their house. the fact I use one leg of a steel pavillion that is concreted in and holds up several thousand pounds and its probably 1/2" thick steel should stay something. The clamps allow me to instantly adjust up and down and side to side. if you watch the video of the tracking inside the scope if it was moving the scope would not return to zero. As you said the SWFA's you tested are repeatable. I say repeating the same error. its not a terrible amount of error but error none the less. the fact that a play gound is nearby and that is something to make fun of just exposes the haters. is the scope test less valid if it was conducted at a football game or at a daycare? of course not. I have a concreted 6"x6" 1/2" thick steel beam. to clamp to. I have 100 yards measured out. I have it marked by the distance from a pine tree because I have set it up so many times. I originally walked off the distance with a roll up tape measure. marking exactly 100 yards.
every scope error I have found in a scope, I have retested the scope on a different day. That means I took the camps off, took everything back home, came back another day, reclamped it, got it all leveled and centered again, The results have repeated exactly the same. The vortex PST 2, showed right reticle shift. I got the same results in 2 samples tested 5 total times. my 20x SWFA, 3-4 clicks off at 20 MOA, AND right reticle shift. SWFA 3-15, right reticle shift again similar to the problem with the PST 2. all scopes tested at least twice. Why would I go to the trouble of checking this and actually making videos of it, if I wasn't totally and utterly confident of the results? I wouldn't, as you say they are repeatable.
If you think you need 100 yards to test scope tracking, then you don't understand the concepts involved.
I'll repeat, the SWFA scopes I've tested tracked STRAIGHT and repeatably. The fact that most of the scopes you've tested showed right reticle shift makes me think there's systematic error in your testing that causes a misalignment between reticle and target grid, inducing right drift as you dial through the erector travel, and that the scopes likely worked fine. WRT the 20x being a few clicks off, yes I said that I have seen some of them have adjustment increment error up to 4% from what is advertised.You being totally and utterly confident in your methodology doesn't mean that it's correct. Just something to think about.
I've tested a lot more than 6-8 SWFA SS scopes and vast majority of them track essentially perfectly. Keep in mind that the way I test them, target size, distance to target, angle of inclination, tilt, etc (i.e. all the reasons why vast majority of people doing these tests screw them up) make no difference whatsoever.
Static tests work great when they are done right. I essentially stopped answering questions on what people are doing wrong with their static tests since it was taking too much time.
CC, I don't think folks were making sport of you because of what you were preaching as much as your execution of the procedure. I think I have a hunch what you're trying to say and I agree with a lot of it, but I gotta say that you come across as if you were the first guy to ever come up with the idea. There's been a herd of guys doing it for quite a spell ... just google "the scope humbler." I made my own by screwing a rail to a length of rail road track that I put on a big stump. It does not move.
When a guy says SWFA scopes run a 50% failure from a sample of four, or when a guy wants to argue with someone like Koshkin, it just tells me all I need to know about his opinion. You and most of us (me) would do well to shut our mouths and listen carefully to those who know what they are talking about.
Jordan; Good afternoon to you sir, I hope this Victoria Day finds you and yours well.
If you're so inclined, I'd like to hear your opinion on what I just did with two different scopes I picked up for a buddy, both of them procured from various parts of our country via gunnutz.
What I came up with was that I clamped a 1" dowel rod into my Workmate bench, then screwed two Weaver bases into the dowel rod and mounted the scopes thusly.
My testing was to stick a target on the porch of the house which is 30 yards or so from the garage, move the target and the Workmate until they were sorta lined up and then I cranked the dials to see if the reticle moved.
It did in both cases - up/down and left/right - so I believe that the scopes should work okay and sent them on to my buddy.
Did I miss anything testing that way?
Thanks in advance sir and all the best to you all. Stay well.
Dwayne
Dwayne,
I hope all is well over your way. As long as your target has straight grid lines on it and the scope was mounted so that it didn't move even a little bit when you were touching the turrets, and the reticle and grid lines were aligned perfectly, then what you did confirms that the reticle is not canted relative to the erector, and the turrets move in the direction they should. But to take it a step further you can measure the angular subtension of the grid lines on your target (or mark off angular subtensions that you would like) and use them to measure the reticle subtensions, and you can also test that the turret adjustment increments are what they are advertised to be using the same technique. You can then dial back and forth and see that the reticle returns to the original spot to confirm that the erector tracks straight and repeatably, and returns to zero.
Jordan; Thanks kindly for the reply sir, I very much appreciate it.
After reading your reply twice, I now see that while my testing proved that the scopes adjusted, I didn't confirm if the adjustments were repeatable or if there was error in how many minutes the scope moved vs what the turrets indicated they should.
Thanks for explaining it to a semi-old guy sir - but not too old to learn!!
My late father used to tell me, "If you're not learnin' something Dwayne, best look around as you're likely dead!"
Then he'd chuckle deep down, give me a pat on the arm like old guys do and say, "But you know, you're going to find out some days you don't want to learn that again.."
Luckily this isn't one of those times sir and again I believe it made good sense.
My targets have 1" grids, the Workmate can easily be made solid - couple boxes of lead and wheel weight ingots will do that fine - so I believe I'm set for next time.
Thanks so much again sir, all the best to you folks and stay well.
