Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Light Optical Works (LOW) question

Please do. Meanwhile, I’ll keep searching and debating on whether or not to just have it built.

If you go the build route I would get a hold of Shooter71 here on the forum. Shaen knows how to build a super rifle and really builds a fine 7MM-08, he did 2 for me and they are both perfect.

Tract scopes are garbage?

I'd lean more to your opinion being garbage

Thanks for the recommendation. I had the same idea based on reports of his builds here on the fire.

Any recommendations on custom actions, if I went that route?

Getting harder to justify squaring up a stainless 700 (I would prefer stainless), with the prices they are selling for.

Defiance

+1 The two that Shaen built both where with a Defiance Rebel action. So far they have been nothing but great and of all the actions I looked at for the price they have the most options you can choose from when ordering. And if trying to build a lighter weight rifle and not go Ti they can be optioned out to be reasonably light weight.

I am not sure LOW builds SWFA SS, I also would not consider them bullet proof, 2 of the 4 I checked demonstrated right reticle travel. either a canted reticle or a flaw with the adjustments. we did have a thread where people asked if they had a problem with bushnell elites and no one responded with an issue. most people took my comments on tract as negative. but I would bet a fair amount of money their japanese scopes are far better than the run of the mill vortex stuff.

I recently bought a 4-16x40 elite 4200, its not a dialing scope and never was intended to be. it does have finger adjustable turrets but this scope isn't for dialing. I checked it anyways to see what it would do. What I found was about 6% tracking error. but the RTZ was perfect, and the error was consistent. no wonky right or left reticle travel either. while this would be an epic fail on a dialing scope, I have no issue with the error on a set it and forget it scope, I have mounted the scope up and been enjoying it for the last couple months.

another elite I checked the 10x elite 3200, this has a large turret that is meant for dialing. these were sold inexpensively back in the day. about 1% error is what I found. which is within my personal specs for a dialing scope. the fact is it depends and it also depends on if the flaw you find matters to your use. I did find a flaw on one of my v4's on the TMOA 30 the reticle only matches up at 15.5x and not 16x but as long as you're not using the reticle to hold off on targets more than 10-15 MOA you will never see the error in practice. I would never use the reticle for that much hold off. people laugh at me but I am probably the only person on the planet not working for the company that discovered that error.

the bottom line is you need to check yourself.

I

Will agree on one thing……

People do laugh at you!

Given the build nature of your static testing device, how can you definitively discern 1% or even 6% tracking errors in a scope? I know you attempted to answer this question in the past, but after working with C clamps a fair amount through the years, I'm not buying that your static testing methods can consistently be that precise.

While C clalps may generate enough pressure to support a lot of weight as you've claimed, they aren't always the best at staying exactly where you camp them as external forces get applied to the assemblage, especially when clamped to smooth, hard surfaces such as painted metal. The motion of turning a turret up or back down to a set stop could be enough to make the C clamps move ever so slightly, thereby making it appear that there's an error in the adjustment. Further, how could you possibly know that this movement had even occured while you're twisting on the scope? It's not like there's indexing marks on the play equipment that the device and C clamps mate up to.

In the end, for your purposes and interest, why wouldn't you just mount the scope to a rifle to test tracking? I've had a few scopes that will track fine without recoil, but unravel in real world use. It seems that external forces are what causes errors, so beyond establishing that a scope is worth trying, which you'd learn within a few shots after mounting it, of what practical value is static testing, even with a purpose built device with verifiable functionality?

He can’t.
Margin of error exceeds his stated precision. Repeatability and statistical significance is non existent.
I applaud his enthusiasm and emotional attachment to this endeavor, but making the statements he makes based on his “findings” is folly.

first thanks for asking, how can I verify its not moving and I have said this till I am blue in the face. THE SCOPE RETURNS TO ZERO!!!!!!!! if the scope returns to zero how is it moving in the mounts? is it just by luck when I check RTZ that it magically goes back exactly? its very easy to see if something unpredictable happens, scope twisting in rings, etc. how can I determine if its 1% error? 25 MOA is how many clicks on most scopes? 100 clicks is your answer. if its off 1 click its a 1% error. I recently tested my elite 4200 4-16. that scope has 1/8 MOA clicks, if I dial 64 clicks and I am off about 4 clicks that is about a 6% error. I have since upgraded my mount setup to a single piece of 3/16" steel angle iron. although the other setup worked as good. The mount post I use is a concrete pavilion post in a city park. its a massive square piece of metal that is probably at least 1/4" thick wall thickness. I have used a long tape and measured EXACTLY 100 yards from that post. I drive a tall target into the ground there that is leveled at exactly 100 yards away. its marked in MOA that is measured to 1.047 inches. I have since ordered some REX tall targets that are printed that I will probably use on my next tests, although what I have is working fine.

why do I use C clamps? which BTW can support my entire body weight, 230+ pounds! its because I have infinite tilt up and down, I also put a blue clamp on the front of the pic rail piece and this allows me to move the front of the scope for windage, this allows me to get the scope close on the target, I adjust the clamps until the scope is on "paper" or the backer board. Then i fine tune the reticle so its perfectly level with the center line of the tall target. I do that by adjusting the scope in the rings. . watching to see if it twists as I torque the ring screws. you can actually see quite a bit happening, if you decide to give your ring screws a bit of extra torque its a high probability that you need to rezero the rifle. thinking about it some more if my mount setup wasn't fixed I would see the reticle jump out of alignment with the straight line on the tall target. again, if something isn't mounted stout you see an error that wasn't predictable and know instantly something is off.

the way I do it is simply the way I do it. if a guy had access to 100 yards of property they could setup a permanent mount setup. I have seen this done by people mounting pic rail to anvils and other very heavy things. I like my setup because I can use it at the park next to my house. its not rocket science. you need a fixed mount that will not move and a way to mount a scope to it. you need an exact measured target, measured to the exact correct distance.

I have a 20x SWFA SS scope that has repeatable tracking issues, if anyone here knows of an optics lab that is capable of finding the error I found, I will pay a reasonable fee for the testers time and donate $500 to a charity of whoever takes the challenge choice if I am wrong. If I am right they pay the fee and donate $500 to my charity of choice. I think mule deer should take the challenge, he likes running his mouth off about what he doesn't know.

I just saw I didn't answer your entire question. why don't I just test the scope by shooting it. to that I say why waste ammo if the scope is chit out of the box? nightforce tests their scopes off the rifle for QC, if the mechanicals don't work right out of the box they aren't going to work right on the rifle. I test scopes bascially for fun and for my own purposes. the true test of a scope will always be pass the static test first, then be predictable when shooting the rifle with it mounted. YES shooting the scope is the final piece to know for sure. IMO that takes time. I love zeiss v4 scopes, I would sell 2 of my NXS scopes and replace them with v4's if I knew beyond a doubt they held up as well. the fact is I don't, only time and use will tell.

as to why shooting the scope is not the most accurate way of checking tracking? its because your see differences in a rifles zero depending on very small things at the range. you also don't have in most cases a rifle that is not capable of shooting less than 1/4 moa all the time, most guys drastically overstate accuracy of their rifles. its a half moa gun because one time it shot a half MOA group. lets shoot 5 groups and see if its 1/2 moa for all. the differences in range accuracy include how you hold the gun, how the gun rides in the bags, the angle of your body. all these things effect where the bullets go. If I want to see scope tracking error unless its MASSIVE static testing is the first place to look. I want my optics to be 1000 yard capable. I also want to trust them and know its not a mechanical issue.

I got started doing all this because of long range coyote hunting. from 500 to 1000 yards. the winter months around here are boring for the most part, so when the coyotes aren't really callable I use to try and shoot them way out there in open snow covered fields. shooting something the size of a coyote at 800+ is not an easy feat when your using some sort of field rest and doing it under different conditions. I had a leupold mk4 back when I first started that gave me fits, YES crappy leupold's provoked the whole scope testing adventure. I have since kinda lost interest in the long range coyote stuff I don't do it anymore very often. but my love of testing and optics has remained.

I would never use a blue clamp. But that’s just me.

Yep, you must have something to do with the UN and the New World Order

More seriously, if a person wanted to truly test scopes in the most efficient way possible, something along the lines of CC’s testing seems legit to me as a precursor to mounting on a rifle. If it won’t track, repeat, and hold zero without recoil, it’s sure not gonna WITH recoil added in. Once verified off the rifle a guy could progress to shooting tests.

I just go straight to shooting, but it’s not efficient. I remember I got suspicious of my A-series Swarovski 3-10. Mind you, I made a 520 yard dialed shot on a small mule deer with this scope on my Kimber, so it obviously worked “good enuff” for that. But I was always a little suspicious. I finally did a careful tall-target test on it that I thought did show some squirrelly shït, but since I’m far from a perfect rifleman, and because the fore/aft cant of the rifle changes pretty dramatically on a TT test at 100 yards (think about it), so therefore how it sits on the bags changes.... So I STILL didn’t trust my own lyin’ eyes. So I pulled it off, mounted it on my accurate little .223 AI, and put a crapload of rounds through it shooting yet another TT test. Finally, with that many data points, I could see what I’d been suspecting: the adjustments did not track true to the reticle; as my shots progressed up the tall target centerline, via dialing, they drifted off to the left.

To CC’s point, his test would’ve shown this in mere minutes without a single shot needing fired.

I could set up a test on my land. At one point I had a 100-yard rifle range here, until my very sweet neighbor asked if I could give a heads up so she could medicare her dogs when I was shooting. That made me feel too guilty so I took it all down. But I know for a fact I have a 100-yard sight line from my shop porch to the edge of the woods... hmmm...

Jeff,

Apparently you missed my post in this this thread, which stated:

"We have gone over this before, but apparently you believe your method is the best ever invented. However, I have had serious discussions with scope designers over the past 30 years (including show-and-tells of interior construction) and toured several scope factories around the world, and so far none of them have started using your method.

"One of the things I mentioned before in these threads is that one thing I "discovered" long ago (admittedly not nearly as revolutionary as your test-method) was that when scopes are mounted on rifles actually fired between adjustments, the adjustment value or consistency may not match the adjustments in "static" tests. Which is why long ago I started to test scopes initially by static means, and if they didn't measure up didn't bother mounting them on a rifle. If they passed the static test, I then gave them a thorough shooting test, which has been described before in many articles.'

There are far easier and quicker ways to do a static test, which are just as indicative of possible problems before a shooting test.

I am ready for you to take my challenge, since you "know people". when I do load development unfortunately its at least a 45 minute one way drive. I can set this up without going anywhere in a half hour and the testing area is walking distance. YES recoil is an X factor I cannot test, the reason optics factories don't use my method or anything close to it is because they have expensive equipment to test the scope. I am just some dude that tests stuff for fun.

here is some videos that lead to the decision to test the way I do.

this is almost exactly the view I have through the scope. I think we should agree as long as the mounts don't move I can see the exact same thing if the target is the correct distance.

another video by a different person. this video has an error that many might not catch, notice the reticle comes off the line the further the scope travels. this is either a canted reticle or an adjustment issue. also notice the hash markes on the reticle may not match at certain scope travel points.



this video demonstrates the easy to see error when the clicks don't match. notice how the scopes are alll perfect RTZ. I have to ask if the mounts are moving or in my case the famous C clamps how could that happen if you adjusted it multiple times?


the advantage these people have is they can video the results. I bought a scope cam and it sucked I could never get it right. I do have some videos out there that kinda show the RTZ but the video method sucks.

I have thought about how to check for recoil what I believe I need for that is a perfect RTZ mount. the closest thing I can think of is a blaser R8 scope mount and barrel mounted through drilled holes in the angle using the barrel nuts out of the bottom of the barrel. this would allow me to wrap the objective etc and remount it. but I am not certain that the mount is exactly RTZ. people would probably look at me funny with a gun barrel mounted in that location as well albeit a bare gun barrel.

My concern with your testing methodology is mostly in regards to repeatability, not with the fact that it can work as described some or most of the time. I can see that if everything stays static, it'll do what it's intended to do. At any rate, if doing your thing with scopes makes you happy, more power to you.

I do have to ask why the ire towards SWFA SS scopes? Seems you enjoy reporting the 1% error you've found on a couple of them. In the context of actual use, such an error on 25 moa of adjustment isn't really substantial enough so long as it's repeatable and the scope is rugged, which the SWFA's I've twisted on have been. Of all brands to take aim at, why them? They're offering scopes that do what they say they'll do and they've maintained bargain pricing. Not that I should mind you talking people off of them; perhaps some will listen and, by extension, they'll be in stock again at some point.

Probably just to kick the ant pile to be honest on swfa. Everyone acts like they are infallible as a brand. Btw it’s not 1% error I found. It was right reticle travel with dialing if I remember correctly. For what it’s worth the 3x9 and 10x swfa had flawless mechanical operation. The 3-9 also has outstanding glass. Pretty impressed with the 3x9 actually it’s my recommendation for the cheapest dialing scope. If they offered them in SFP I would buy at least 2.

I've been impressed with what you get for the money on the HD models.

But, I hope they stick to the FFP in the 3-9; it's one of the best for hunting. I wish more companies would offer a good FFP in their lower and mid X range offerings.