I have that scope on my FX M3 Airgun, the turrets track perfectly although the image quality is very low and for some reason you have to have your head perfectly aligned in order to maintain a good sight picture.
I have a few scopes from Element and I know the people behind it quite well. They are doing a lot of things right and, amazingly, they are doing them right (or very close to it) on the first try. I have the Nexus 5-20x50 from the very first batch they made and it is soldiering on quite nicely. I also have the Helix FFP 6-24x50 and as far as sub-$500 FFP variable scopes go, it is has been my go to recommendation for a little while. They pay a lot of attention to tracking and mechanical consistency and my experience with them, so far, supports that. I have seen prototypes of several of their upcoming designs and they have a lot of promise. Next scope of theirs I plan to look at is the Titan 3-18x50 that is supposed to be coming out momentarily if it hasn't already.
Thanks for the info. guys! I'm disappointed to hear of the poor image quality of the 4-16x.
ILya, I was hoping you might respond. Please do post after you get your hands on new / other offerings. How is the image quality on the 6-24x Helix?
The image quality is actually pretty good. In the sub-$500 price range, it is very competitive and also seems very consistent between samples I have seen. A have seen Arken scopes that were both better and worse than Helix due to sample variation.
where are all the clapping seals sayin you can't test a scopes tracking statically? SHOOT IT. seriously where are you? looks like the first thing they check is static tracking.
I'll state it: Static tracking tests are of dubious value beyond seeing if a scope's actually worth strapping to a rifle in the first place. And it raises eyebrows when done at the local playground.
Certainly, if a scope won't track on a fixture, it won't track when you mount it to your rifle and add recoil and jostling around while getting it to and from where you use it. But, a lot of scopes will track just fine when not shot in between adjustments; the issues often come about once external forces, such as recoil, are applied.
I prefer to shoot between each adjustment while shooting groups going at various yardages or on different sections of a tall target at the same yardages. Easy to see if any flyers are occuring. Failure to RTZ seems the most common problem I've experienced, followed by inconsistent adjustments.
I'll state it: Static tracking tests are of dubious value beyond seeing if a scope's actually worth strapping to a rifle in the first place. And it raises eyebrows when done at the local playground.
Certainly, if a scope won't track on a fixture, it won't track when you mount it to your rifle and add recoil and jostling around while getting it to and from where you use it. But, a lot of scopes will track just fine when not shot in between adjustments; the issues often come about once external forces, such as recoil, are applied.
I prefer to shoot between each adjustment while shooting groups going at various yardages or on different sections of a tall target at the same yardages. Easy to see if any flyers are occuring. Failure to RTZ seems the most common problem I've experienced, followed by inconsistent adjustments.
I will state it, if the scope will not track statically mounted why bother mounting it? further errors can and will be found that will likely never be found shooting groups. actually shooting a gun induces all sorts of changes to point of impact. changes in the way the gun recoils off the bench based on how its held by the shooter can and often does induce point of impact shifts. this is all without even getting into the accuracy of the rifle. fail to RTZ is not a failure I have ever seen in any of the roughly dozen or so scopes I have tested. This includes scopes with other errors such as shifting reticles and tracking error.
good hell I dunno why it was ever thought that I don't advocate shooting the scope was well. static testing is only the first test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never and will never say that static testing is a 100% sign off on a scopes durability. YES shoot it, YES jossle the scope around. YES use it over time. couple this with a static test and you have a proven scope. just like I have proven to myself personally that the zeiss v4 line of scopes track perfectly in my testing. Then why not sell both my nightforce scopes, buy v4's and pocket the cash? simple. I have yet to prove to myself that zeiss v4's track and shoot well reliably over time in actual use.
as for the playgound thing. do you have 100 yards on your own property to setup a measured distance? most people where I live don't. so a city park that just so happens to have a pavilion with 1/4 steel square posts that are concreted in to mount a fixture to DOES. some people aren't capable of seeing an original idea and thought. The fact is optics companies, like element and nightforce QC all their scopes at the factory with static testing and NOT by shooting them.
I can get several hundred yards line of sight on my property, out my backdoor. For static tests I usually mount the scope, clamp the rifle in a jig, line it up on two intersecting lines with measurements that I have up at 100 yds. I spin a few directions to see if the scope is worth using ammo on. Then I shoot a bunch with dialing between shots. Tight groups centered on the various dialed to points confirms the scope it's doing what it's supposed to.
I only included the playground mention to give you a hard time. You've detailed your process before. I get it.
Scope companies static test because it's easier than shooting a lot. While it's not worthless, it's far from an arbiter of overall performance.
