Reorganizing my scope shelves a few days back and got to the 'Test Scopes' shelf.

How many have a known-good scope around and use it on a new/unknown rig? Or to sort out a possible scope issue? Or to do load work with it and then put a more appropriate hunting style scope on?

Good shootin' -Al

I have a 10x SS I usually mount on a new rifle for load work or to check if I think a scopes gone bad. Been around for a long time now.

Like Scott, I have a 10x SS that gets used for that purpose. Bought it on a big sale and can't seem to find a rig I like it better on than a 6x or something else.

Had a Sightron 6X 44 that I used as a test scope for years. Is a damn good scope that's stood up to a lot of abuse. If it had a measuring reticle, I'd still be toting it around.

I also have a very accurate 300 win mag that most new or troubled scopes go on to check function.

Side note: Some call a test scope a Mule; might not be PC these days due to the double entendre that some would consider pejorative.

Like the others.....a 10x SWFA. It never stays on a rifle long though....but it's nice to have for load workup and verifying drops.

I have a couple Weavers, either KT-15s or CKT-15s, one in Warne Maxima rings and one in Redfield turn-in rings that I use for load development.

In The Day,multiple T-16's told THE Truth. Hint...............

I use the same scope that I am going to mount on the rifle and hunt with.

I used to do that but I never found where the best load with the working scope was any better if it was worked up with a more powerful scope. In other words if I work up a load with a target scope it might be a .250" group but when fired with the low power hunting scope it was a .500" and if I would have worked up with the low power scope to start with it would have been a .500" group so nothing was gained using a target scope.

I use the high magnification scopes because I perceive that doing so allows me to aim smaller, hit smaller, and the reticles tend to be finer than those of my hunting scopes. On a game rifle, I have come to prefer a reticle like the Leupold heavy duplex that is going to be visible under first/last light conditions and since I am much more likely to shoot something under 300 yards than over the portion of the animal covered by the thicker reticle is inconsequential.

If you use a target that fits the reticle/magnification/distance combination you can do very well with a modest amount of magnification. For example, these groups were shot at 300 yards with a 1.5-4x20 scope whose max magnification is actually 3.9x if I recall correctly.

I used to just use a 10X SWFA for said purpose for years. As my eyes got worse and I finally needed glasses, I switched to an SWFA 5-20x50 SS HD for my scope against which all others were judged, all rifles were tested and load work-up was done or, more appropriately, as stated by Al above. I now have so many SWFA, Athlon Helos and LRTS/LRHS that I trust, it just doesn't get used as much any more.

Maybe so, but I'm old, pretty well set in my ways and am quite comfortable continuing to do what has worked for me for quite some years. It ain't broke and doesn't need an upgrade, so no need to change just to change. Or so it seems to me.

Ha. I have a 10X SWFA that is often the the first scope mounted on a new rifle.

10x SWFA here too.

I just bought a 10x & 20x swfa for load development. Good timing on this thread.

With the lack of precision of 3.9 power at 300 yards, how do you know group size isn’t effected by variations in hold?



Me too

I was thinking along the lines of reassuring someone else reading the thread that their hunting scope they already have can do pretty good work if they don't have the inclination or finances to have a quality, high power scope around for such purposes.

I never, ever, tell people that what I do is the best or only right way to do something, just that it is my way of doing things.

Come to think of it, I've used several other scopes to load development, Lyman 8x and 20x, Bushnell 3200 10x40, among others.

It may well be. I just wanted to show that modest magnification can provide more precision than is often assumed.

Maybe the groups would be half that size if shot with a scope on 20X

🤷🏿‍♂️

So what? Absolute precision wasn't my point.

Or maybe at 20X the Mirage is so bad the group is worse.

You must live in extremely high humidity?

Have been doing that for many years, partly because I had to test so many rifles for magazine articles. This resulted in several revelations, partly due to (at this point) having 20 brands (not individual scopes) fail on various rifles. This was usually due to harder-kicking rifles, but not always. Have had 'em fail on rimfires too--though generally only after the scope had been on a centerfire for a while.

Eventually got to the point where I bought a scope of a supposedly "unbreakable" brand as a tester. It worked great for four years, on a wide variety of rifles, several that kicked pretty hard. (Have generally found .300 magnum recoil results in a noticeably higher scope-failure rate.)

This scope eventually failed to hold zero on a 6.5 wildcat rifle, whereupon I sent it back to the factory. They took a look, and proclaimed the failure was due to me not tightening the rings enough--because they found faint ring-marks in various locations.

Hmm. I would have guessed this was because the scope had been mounted on so many rifles, probably and average of 6-8 a year, not because it had been "slipping."

But they said it worked fine in their testing, and they'd refinish it before returning it to me. What they didn't know is that I record the serial number of every scope purchased--and the serial number of the nicely-finished scope they sent "back" to me did not match the number of the one I'd sent them.

All of this has made me somewhat skeptical, but still have a couple of test scopes that have worked well. Though I am no longer doing nearly as much test-shooting of harder-recoiling rifles....

Regards,
John

I do to, but it's nice to be able to run a "proven" scope on a new rifle. That way, if there happens to be a problem or something looks weird, you know the scope is not the issue. However, with that being said: I have bought a new/used scope and put it on a new/used rifle and everything went well, luckily!!! Recently I bought a used Burris FFII 3-9x40 (American made) with ballistic plex reticle and things went wonky right away. I knew it was the scope because the rifle was rock solid. Sent the scope in with a note, saying I really wanted the American made FFII back, if at all possible. They sent it back quickly, saying they had to put in some shims??? Tested it and it works well. I don't use a different scope to test loads. I'll run what I brung. It wouldn't be on the rifle if it were not good enough to shoot groups and also hunt with. The Burris FFII 3-9x40 with ballistic plex reticle is a great example of a scope that works very well for both applications, out to a meager 4-500 yards of course.. Prove it, ok:


I know, some of you guys get your jollies off of seeing fur on the ground:


And no, you don't need a 36x scope for developing loads.. See pic above. ^^^

Sounds like something Burris would do. I'm also thinking it was one of your American made FFII's. I have one that I've had for many years. When it goes tits up, I'm going to give it a proper burial. Its been on 10 different rifles and really has gone above and beyond any expectation I've had for a $175 scope I bought in 1998...

John, I just had a good one happen. A new scope had foreign material on the internal glass surfaces when I took it out of the box....looked like oil spots, likely from assembly.

I got the authorization to send it back and did so along with a detailed explanation. Two weeks later it came back with a work order that stated 'Replaced erector assembly and reticle."

'Ya gotta' laugh. But at least the spots are gone!

Good shootin' -Al

If I recall from my time living in Arizona, mirage was pretty bad in conditions with a relative humidity in the teens.🤔

So is it 3 or 10 shots today?

BSA,

Nope, it wasn't a Burris of any sort, whether American-made or Asian. Instead it was much further up the food-chain, though still basically Asian....

Now THAT'S funny!

Thanks,
John

Maybe the erector assy replacement was a proactive move? If so, hats off to them for doing it. I'll get it on the scope checker to check tracking after this weather blows through.

Stay warm out there. -Al

Stay tuned for more brass resizing tips…….lol

Does this scope brand start with a L? 😁

Yep....those steel tube T's have answered lots of questions. Can't imagine how much time and components they saved me over the years.

Good shootin' -Al

This later aluminum Japanese 'T' is one of the 'iron ball' scopes that gets used on new builds, when a scope problem is suspected and also for load work. Here, it's on my 250AI for some load work. Then a proven Weaver Classic K6 with an Ackerman reticle went on. I've had a proven Nikon variable hunting scope on it at times, too. For a combo coyote/deer rig, both work pretty well.

FWIW, if your rig has 30MM rings, a set of 30mm-1" Delrin reducers make it easy to A-B-A with a 1" test scope. Once you have a set of these reducers, you'll wonder how you ever got along without them.



Good shootin' -Al

Now my shirt has coffee stains...... -Al

I used KNOWN glass,to perhaps bridge a gap to get a "surprise" new rifle going,as I LOVE to buy rifles that "don't shoot",while a scope ordered for same headed my way in the Mail. KNOWN glass was handy to diagnose same,even though I KNEW the answers well in advance. Hint.

I do not recall ever using something with "More X's",for Load Development. In fact,I seldom even use a scope at all anymore,for same. Hint.

There is a direct correlation,to not using a T-series,once Reupold quit getting my checks...which was 100+ scopes ago. Hint...............(grin)

Good tip!!

A few more 'KGT's' (Known Good Testers) on huntin' rigs:

2 Weaver KT-15’s.
One is on my 541-T right now.