https://www.snipershide.com/precision-rifle/scope-tracking-test-results-2020/

Bushnell is impressive, and not surprising, perfect score.

Alraedy posted a few months back. Been doing the same testing for 4 years. Meanwhile the dip hits kept saying shoot it

dumb question, were is the swfa scopes on that list,,,

Interesting.

Maybe I missed it but looked like they didn't actually test the scopes mounted on rifles being shot during the test session. I'd think that would make a difference

Not surprised to see the leupold results.

That has nothing to do with tracking.

no but I have tested 4 in the same manner. which ones are you interested in?

Couple of reasons;

SWFA stuff is generally accepted as being reliable in the tracking department, and they aren't a real big seller in the market that study is focused toward.

SWFA really needs to update their line.

It seems like it would have to do with tracking when it counts.

At the beginning, they said they had no options on which scopes they received.

No, it doesn't. If the scope fails to track after being subjected to recoil, that's a reliability and durability issue, not one of mechanical tracking.

OK, but what good is tracking "in a vacuum"? I want one that reliably and durably tracks.

That's a completely different criteria..you have to start with something that is designed and built to consistently track before you can expect it to do so under duress. In most cases, a scope that tracks in a repeatable, consistent manner in a sterile environment will continue to do so in use....and ones that don't track for [bleep] don't get better under recoil.

I would hope those attending the class had practiced with their gun/ scope combinations enough that any initial recoil-induced problems would be evident by the time they got to the class. The data indicates some of the scopes weren't up to the challenge.

I noticed the only brand that scored 100 across multiple models with an appreciable number tested was Kahles.

IF IT DON'T TRACK WHEN ITS STATIC MOUNTED IT SURE IS HELL AINT GOING TO FIX ITSELF WITH RIFLE RECOIL, this is a concept nearly everyone on this forum is dumbfounded over. recoil is not going to fix a [bleep] tracking scope. you do this type of testing when you first buy a scope, you can do it also later to check it. Yes recoil can and does cause issues with tracking. but you check this first to identify what problems there are BEFORE Wasting ammo.

Nowhere did I assert recoil would cure anything.

I am saying this for others, getting sick of people saying this type of testing has no value, its a not knowing shat from shineola mentality. but I guess many think a new scope is always an excellent tracker. I contend however most scopes that track like crap, do so brand new out of the wrapper.

No, it's not. You're hung up on this because a few people criticize your experimental design, not your purpose. I've never seen anybody tell you that static testing has no value, just the way you implement it is not very trustworthy.



I agree with you there.

On the other hand, some members on this forum are so "dumbfounded over" the expectation that the factory should have already determined whether or not the scope tracks while "static mounted" and then act accordingly ie fix it if there is problem before the scope ever leaves the factory. I guess that's too much to ask.

Depends on how you define "tracking". Typically when I talk about tracking, I'm talking about the mechanical function of the erector. This includes the ability of the scope to withstand recoil and still hold zero, repeat, and RTZ. If recoil causes erector shifts, then it'll be manifest in the scope's tracking when subjected to recoil. Of course, as you said if the scope doesn't track in a static scenario, it certainly won't get better when subjected to recoil.

But I agree that a scope should be able to track correctly in the simplest case (i.e., no recoil) before worrying about introducing recoil into the mix.

nightforce is the only company I know of that touts the testing you suggest. have you considered that the company selling the scope ALREADY KNOWS the scope doesn't track like it should? have you considered that few people would likely ever notice the difference? and that the company knows this and that the few people that figure it out will just get a refund or use customer service. I had 2 vortex viper pst 2's have the same exact tracking errors brand new off the shelf. The truth is many scopes don't track correctly from the factory. the company selling them often does not care. leupold is an example. they came on here and basically told campfire members that complained about tracking problems that we didn't know what we were talking about. several weeks back I posted a pic of the turret assembly breaking on my leupold and how it has only 2 very small dinky threads that hold it to the scope tube, these threads have to hold the entire click adjuster assembly to the scope body and hold back the spring pressure of the erector itself, AND lastly hold the seals down to maintain waterproof.

jordan dude sometimes your just full of it. everytime I posted about static testing, nearly everyone said it was an invalid form of testing because I wasn't shooting the scope. never mind that there is no way to figure the exact amount of tracking error shooting it, ( I can figure it within 1%) recoil and the way you hold the gun on the bench causes differences in point of impact, the accuracy of the rifle is another challenge. nightforce doesn't check their scopes for QC by "shooting" them. they test their scopes in a fixture. now that this type of testing is showing itself more into the mainstream, I am just pointing out I have been doing this for years and the rampant dumbassery around here can be cut with a knife. We have pack mentality and many here see one guy doing something different, ie actually figuring out how to make his own testing methods, instead of applauding them. the pack attacks and says shoot it instead, LOL

Cumhole ur such a drama queen. You should open up a nail salon and not waste ur talents here.

Nobody cares about your stupid jig, or your opinion about what doesn’t or doesn’t work for hunting scopes.

A 22lr that’s even medium accurate will tell you everything needed to know about tracking accuracy.

any decent scope has a ruler inside of it. Use it to test tracking acvuracy. You got 42 mils of elevation in a 6x and 26 in a 3-9. 1% error will show itself. Real fast. If I can’t see it, not worried about mental masturbation. We’re not building a house with a micrometer either.

Would rather punch holes in cardboard then attach a scope to a pole at a children’s playground like a creap.

Hmmm, somebody’s full of it, but I don’t think it’s me.

Yes, some people did say you should shoot the rifle, and of course I agree with that (in addition to a static test), but the common theme of most replies was that your method of conducting a static test was questionable (which I also agree with).

I’ve also been testing scope tracking for many years by using a static method prior to live fire, yet my method hasn’t been criticized for two reasons: I don’t make claims about my method that are stronger than are reasonably defensible, and also because the method design itself is more reasonable. Your attitude and wild claims are what cause people to criticize you, not because there’s no merit in what you’re trying to do.

Don’t confuse the idea of several informed individuals noticing the same problem and coming to the same confusion, with pack mentality. The critical feedback you get isn’t unique to hunting/shooting enthusiasts. As a scientist, I can guarantee that if you presented your “experiment” to a groups of scientists, they would also overwhelmingly criticize your experimental design and methodology, as well as the claims and conclusions that you draw from the results. The problem isn’t group-think, it’s that your method has some weaknesses that you claim don’t exist. You can fool the fans, but you can’t fool the players.

Thanks for proving my point.

Some folks sure do get a lot of ego and emotion wrapped up into a tool. It's a tool, it works or it doesn't and every one is an island unto itself. You can try to stack the odds in your favor, but, you can't account for human error or faulty materials. NASCAR motors blow up all the time despite the best mechanics using the best tools, tooling, and parts they can obtain at any price, sometimes stuff fails. I don't think I'll ever understand the emotion tied to tools?

Amen brother!

I didn't see playground equipment or c-clamps...