Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anyone do tracking tests ? If so

Anyone here happen to do tracking tests on scopes ? If so what are you doing as far as, like a fixture to hold your scope still and level ? Looking at buying cheap Amazon chicom scopes every now and then and just doing tracking tests and what not ,partly for my own curiosity and think it would make a semi interesting YouTube video for us poor people lol.It's never quite worked out well when I've tried doing it front he rifle.
So any how what's eveyone using to do this other then just locking their rifle in a lead sled or something

JFC

Sock puppetry is about played out on here.
Thanks Oregon.

Well looks like I'll be wilding up one of these deals

I use one of these.

http://www.targetsusa.com/scope-tools.html

John

Gee, never thought of doing tracking tests....

A good optical collimator will provide enough basic info to tell whether it's worthwhile to continue testing the scope. After that a "tall target" test with actual shooting will tell you the rest.....

….if you wanna do it the hard way and that’s all you got.


😁

Once the optic is proven on a collimator or static fixture a Tall Target Test is a waste of time and bullets for me.

I am going to check the load, chrono, and then on to distance.

I’m glad Brother Al is here to teach us people about optic testing.

Skip the further testing and see how many antlers you can shoot off. That works too?

Getya some C clamps and head to the nearest playground, sonny.

I can see the logic in that. If it doesn't pass the simple static test with the collimator, then it's never going to go on to be tested on a tall target, where you'd also be wasting ammo. The actual recoil from the rifle, while shooting and twisting the turret, tells a lot about the scope tracking. After that, then go on to shooting your hard targets to confirm your dope.

Furthermore, if someone wants to shoot a box test, that would be a good time to do that as well. Horizontal tracking is just as important as vertical tracking. Yet some scopes fail the horizontal tracking test, and ace the vertical tracking. A buddy of mine found that out with his $1,500.00+ Vortex Razor LHT a few months ago. It was sent in and replaced by Vortex. Now he's in the market to sell it. He's pretty damn disappointed in Vortex right now, especially when 2 of his Zeiss V4's track better. Nothing wrong with doing some tracking tests with a scope, to prove them out, but be sure you are doing it while also shooting the rifle it's on.

Whatever you do, don't be like these idiots, making excuses for their chidt scopes not tracking properly:

Not this shidt again.

WTF

Anything that mounts the scope to something that doesn’t move works. The idiots here who never came up with an original thought of their own made fun of my setup even though the clamps attached to 3/8 think steel square post could support my entire 250 pound fat azzzz. The scope returns to zero. It’s pretty brain dead simple to spot if the fixture moves or not.

Yes I highly recommend checking this. The same idiots say shoot it. Nightforce static tests their scope when they leave the factory. There are tons of variables when it comes to shooting it. Rifle accuracy and bench technique that causes groups to move slightly prevents checking this very easily. Check some swfa scopes and get back to me. LOL. Hint only some track perfectly. Most common tracking error with different scopes I have checked. Right reticle travel when scope dialed up which manifests itself as down and right when viewed through the scope.

Tracking error is usually linear and constant. I like to dial 100 clicks. The amount of clicks off i am is easy because each one is 1% if they are 100. I have a large frame and poster board that I drive into the ground at exactly 100 yards. It’s marked in exactly 1moa markings.

If that is true, I'm sure Nightforce static tests their scopes because they know they are robust enough and made right that they don't need to have the recoil induced stress to add to the test. Other manufactures have been found severely lacking in that department. The reason we say to test scopes with recoil. Hence shoot the rifle and see how that effects POI.

According to Formid: STATIC MOUNTED TRACKING DOES NOT PROVE THAT A SCOPE WORKS. It only shows that it works when no outside forces interact with it.

I'm way more apt to believe what he says, than someone that thinks a static testing device is the end all be all, simply because it is not.

Read up here bubba, you might just learn something:

Formids testing of Vortex Razor LHT 4.5-22X50

That video was a gun show. What's the point?

. Of course shooting it and use is the final test. I have never said it’s not. That’s identified with time and use. But static testing is the first step. Shooting and use isn’t going to fix a piss poor scope that doesn’t work correctly out of the gates. Maybe that is the misunderstanding people have with me. I personally believe often times the scope isn’t even working correctly when it’s brand new. I want to identify the attention to detail the company has or doesn’t have before I waste the time to shoot and miss shots I don’t want to. Gas, ammo, and opportunity is valuable to me. I want to be confident my equipment is squared away.

While yes scopes break etc. however if the scope isn’t actually mecahanically broken. I am developing a theory that shifts in zero have more to do with slight shifting in the rings than many think. This shifting caused by impacts of various magnitudes. I don’t mess with cheap scopes the cheapest scope I will use is a bushnell elite. My theory is being developed with that in mind. No cheap Chinese optics.

CC...I, for one, have no problem whatsoever with your static testing method. It removes a lot of variables, weather, human, non rigid foundation, ammo etc.
If I want to see if a scope crosshair is responding correctly to dial movement, it's quick and simple to clamp it in rings and rail in a big Wilton vise mounted on my 4,000 pound welding table in front of the shop. I pre center the travel in a mirror, mount the scope crosshairs aligned on a no trespassing sign, about 900 yards across the canyon, click through a box 15 or 20 clicks square....and see if they return to the no trespassing sign. It shows mechanical error without question, and I don't need to know whether it is thread slop, gimbal slop, or weak or broken erector spring...it may track back to the starting point...but it will always have a wandering zero. A collimator does the same thing with less precision.

Wolfdog91 ,

Are you a TrapperMan?

How did the scope track ?

Please explain why using grid-based collimator wouldn't provide the same information, with far less trouble.

JB, the only collimator I have is a magnetic Leupold, and I just don't have any confidence in it at all. When a customer brings me a project and I have to take his scope off, I record the collimator 'grid location' and try to return the reinstalled scope to the recorded grid location. I have gotten a lot of pretty sharp comments in customer feedback...none of them complimentary...some refer to my parentage..LOL.
Maybe a spud type collimator would be better? I don't fret too much over it all anyway...the good riflemen automatically assume they will have to verify zero...and those are the customers I care about.

I'm too dumb to do the math...but is seems to me a return to zero after clicking a box on a 900 yard target is something with a pretty high degree of confidence...the target being 8.5 x 11"...would I be looking at just over 1 moa?

Is my system better? Of course not, but it's what I have, it's free...and with 100% confidence I can tell someone ...your scope is bad.

This particular use of a collimator being discussed here is not about removing and reinstalling the scope nor the collimator itself. With the collimator attached to the muzzle (whether magnetic or using arbors), and the scope installed on the rifle, one can measure tracking, RTZ, and reticle/erector axis alignment using the grid with precision better than 1 click of the erector adjustment.

OK. I didn't know the collimators were that accurate.

According to Brother Burns, he likes sowing his seed in the garden of ass.holes or something like that.

John, though I prefer a different way, a grid style collimator is also a very good method.

Some love to be contrary, for whatever reason. While they're arguing about needing a Kleenex or a kleenex, their noses continue to run.

Hope Christmas was good for you and yours.

Good shootin' -Al

A collimater is simply an aiming point or grid upon which a scope can focus at close range.

Your Leupold will allow you to see movement/clicks as well as a solid fixture on a far target. The ability to resolve 1 click is somewhat dependant on scope magnification.

John,

Have you come upon any comparable (to Leupold at whatever price range) optics that you'd consider pretty much crap, based on your use/testing? In your opinion, do they rule their roosts, or just one of many good options?

I don't have much experience with "bad scopes". I have good rifles and have been pinning the mounts to the reciever for more than 2 decades. I think a lot of scope failures are really mounting failures.

The scopes I use the most are durable 2nd Focal Plane for hunting and Leupold offers really good solutions at moderate weight.

Lots of good options these days.

Thank you.

Always blows my mind how reported experiences vary so much.