30mm scopes. What am I missing?

[Newtosavage]

@Newtosavage I am waiting for client to show up to a meeting, so I might have time for a story from two weeks ago.

I show up to the range at our private club and there is a very irate man. So angry that he told me several times he would kick my ass.

After a few minutes of discussion I learned he was upset that his new Seekins 300prc setup was shooting poorly to the tune of it would have been a good thing for to wager I could outshoot him with my pistol.

He had shot close to three boxes of factory ammo and didn't want to share the range because he was "troubleshooting".

I suggested we switch the scope to one of the few I had in my gear box. I also suggested he shoot off bags instead of the lead sled he had ratchet strapped to the bench. (he said he brought that out after the first half of shots sucked, and then strapped it to the bench for the last handful...)

On went my vetted scope and he shot a small group then went home.



For me, the reliability part is paramount. When it is known that many 25+oz scopes cannot be reliable, my logic tells me that a 13oz scope from similar brands that is value priced won't be either. Oodles and oodles of folks would love to see that $450 13oz scope that is as reliable as sunrise come about. I don't have anything against 1" scopes at all, but just like @DangerRanger said above, there doesn't seem to be one that does what I value. If a company made a 6x Mil reticle 1" scope at 13oz, even with capped turrets, and it worked every time, I would buy one. For now, the closest thing is 7oz heavier.

Does dialing introduce more opportunity to expose a less reliable scope than a scope designed for holdover? Seems to me like it would.

Said another way, if someone prefers a ballistic reticle and holding over to dialing, can they expect the same amount of reliability from a less robust scope since they aren't screwing the adjustment dials all the time?

 

[WeiserBucks]

Does dialing introduce more opportunity to expose a less reliable scope than a scope designed for holdover? Seems to me like it would.

Said another way, if someone prefers a ballistic reticle and holding over to dialing, can they expect the same amount of reliability from a less robust scope since they aren't screwing the adjustment dials all the time?

In my experience, any scope that doesn't dial reliably also doesn't maintain zero reliably. The mechanisms involved are joined at the hip.

 

[sndmn11]

Does dialing introduce more opportunity to expose a less reliable scope than a scope designed for holdover? Seems to me like it would.

Said another way, if someone prefers a ballistic reticle and holding over to dialing, can they expect the same amount of reliability from a less robust scope since they aren't screwing the adjustment dials all the time?

I think that a MIL or MOA hashed reticle is 1000x better than what a typical BDC reticle is. What I am familiar with as a definition for a BDC reticle is one that has hash mark at subtensions trying to predict 200/300/400etc like the below SWFA screenshot or the Maven CRS.2 review I did on here.


The subtensions are never correct and I don't want to look at the reticle and see a 4 but then have to remember it's not a 4 value it's really a 5moa value and for my cartridge/bullet/velocity/environmentals I need a 3.2 moa adjustment to hit what I am aiming at.

If I just have a mil (preferred) or MOA reticle with simple hash marks, I only have to know the adjustment solution and then shoot. If at 10k feet it's 3.2 then that's simple to find on the reticle, if next week at 5k feet it's 3.5, that's easy to find.

Logically it would seem that dialing introduces one additional action for possible error. From my own testing, it seems easier for brands to get adjustment value correct than zero retention.

If you buy into the zero retention testing that has been developed here by @formidulous, it is done without turning the turrets. All seven shots are done at zero without the variable of dialing and scopes fail. So, I take away from that a less robust scope can't be more reliable if the turrets are turned because they aren't in that test.

I also surmise that turning the dials never or religiously doesn't make a scope more or less reliable. The return to zero portion of the testing seems to support that from my perspective.

My conclusion from my experiences following the evaluation outline, and reading what he has done, that a scope is either competent or it isn't. There hasn't been presented any sort of crutch to help the failing, and a good job has been done to eliminate the variables.

The part that should be a show stopper is when scope's have been sent back to brands and they say nothing is wrong, and/or treat the situation as routine. If you had a heart attack, or stroke, or your legs went numb and stopped working, you'd want to figure out the why and then implement the fix yesterday.

I propose this idea...
Dialing my scope makes me drastically more confident in my rifle system and me as a shooter. I have proven to myself that I can PREDICTABLY fiddle for whatever reason, and put everything back to zero then go shoot an animal. I can shoot a ten round groups for load development that isn't on my aiming point, and I can make one set of adjustments with confidence. I can dial my windage off of a known zeroed rifle and shoot a group so I don't eat up my aiming point, then dial it back without wondering. Even better, I can not be the dude above who let a tool drive him angry, wasted time, wasted money, and didn't know where to troubleshoot. I know with absolute confidence when a bullet doesn't go where it is supposed to that it is me, or when developing a load, the bullet.

Back to your original question, and my answer of what you are missing. I don't think that the three adjectives I used are caused by a 30mm tube vs 1", I think the correlation is simply because I can find those adjectives in 30mm and not 1" (that I know of).

 

[Newtosavage]

I think that a MIL or MOA hashed reticle is 1000x better than what a typical BDC reticle is. What I am familiar with as a definition for a BDC reticle is one that has hash mark at subtensions trying to predict 200/300/400etc like the below SWFA screenshot or the Maven CRS.2 review I did on here.
View attachment 575922

The subtensions are never correct and I don't want to look at the reticle and see a 4 but then have to remember it's not a 4 value it's really a 5moa value and for my cartridge/bullet/velocity/environmentals I need a 3.2 moa adjustment to hit what I am aiming at.

If I just have a mil (preferred) or MOA reticle with simple hash marks, I only have to know the adjustment solution and then shoot. If at 10k feet it's 3.2 then that's simple to find on the reticle, if next week at 5k feet it's 3.5, that's easy to find.

Logically it would seem that dialing introduces one additional action for possible error. From my own testing, it seems easier for brands to get adjustment value correct than zero retention.

If you buy into the zero retention testing that has been developed here by @formidulous, it is done without turning the turrets. All seven shots are done at zero without the variable of dialing and scopes fail. So, I take away from that a less robust scope can't be more reliable if the turrets are turned because they aren't in that test.

I also surmise that turning the dials never or religiously doesn't make a scope more or less reliable. The return to zero portion of the testing seems to support that from my perspective.

My conclusion from my experiences following the evaluation outline, and reading what he has done, that a scope is either competent or it isn't. There hasn't been presented any sort of crutch to help the failing, and a good job has been done to eliminate the variables.

The part that should be a show stopper is when scope's have been sent back to brands and they say nothing is wrong, and/or treat the situation as routine. If you had a heart attack, or stroke, or your legs went numb and stopped working, you'd want to figure out the why and then implement the fix yesterday.

I propose this idea...
Dialing my scope makes me drastically more confident in my rifle system and me as a shooter. I have proven to myself that I can PREDICTABLY fiddle for whatever reason, and put everything back to zero then go shoot an animal. I can shoot a ten round groups for load development that isn't on my aiming point, and I can make one set of adjustments with confidence. I can dial my windage off of a known zeroed rifle and shoot a group so I don't eat up my aiming point, then dial it back without wondering. Even better, I can not be the dude above who let a tool drive him angry, wasted time, wasted money, and didn't know where to troubleshoot. I know with absolute confidence when a bullet doesn't go where it is supposed to that it is me, or when developing a load, the bullet.

Back to your original question, and my answer of what you are missing. I don't think that the three adjectives I used are caused by a 30mm tube vs 1", I think the correlation is simply because I can find those adjectives in 30mm and not 1" (that I know of).

Again, thanks for that detailed explanation. Makes sense for what your needs are.

 

[2-Stix]

A scope that has a 1" tube with a wandering zero of 1"-2" is not that critical for eastern hunting where you climb into a box or tree with shots typically under a 150 yards. A western mountain hunter is taking a military grade scope to deal with a long pack, falling, horse packs, miles of dirt roads...etc...this is a very generalization but hope to make a point. A western and eastern hunter have very different needs as a 200 yard and 600 yard hunter does.

 

[Fatcamp]

Leupold VX-3HD 3.5-10x40mm CDS-ZL Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of a Leupold VX-3HD 3.5-10x40mm CDS-ZL scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The ammunition used was Hornady Black 168gr AMAX that was purchased by Ryan. The 20 round proof group was just over 1.3 MOA. The scope and weight- Turrets...

rokslide.com

The last paragraph of this thread speaks volumes. I had a VX3 that performed well, but it was treated very well. Currently have a VX2 that is suspected as being a weak link, I just haven't had time to verify it.

 

[fngTony]

If the thread shifted gears from nonsense to a productive discussion then please don’t dig up a negative comment to reply to, it just kills the conversation.

 

[fwafwow]

This thread delivers

 

[8mille]

I don't know of a 1" scope that gives me ffp, mil reticle, and turrets I can dial.

I know of a single 1" scope that might pass a zero retention test.

I equate weight to the possibility of durable construction. I think only the optika5 gets to that mid 20oz weight. Which is the same as known durable 30mm scopes.

I also think that a deer/elk has a 1' circle-ish+ that one can send a bullet through to kill it. Add in most hunter's lack of skill shooting, equipment failures, and the sum of error is still 50/50 on smaller than those vitals. Luck, statistically likely due to vital size, ignorance, it can be called a lot of things.

I never quite get the skill to shoot concept. It’s shooting which I find somewhat easy. If the rifle has ammo that shoots .50moa then I will shoot .50 MOA. And most others will do the same with nominal practice. Otherwise it’s just math with atmospherics as variables.

 

[Macintosh]

@8mille when folks are talking about shooting skill and practice they are not referring to shooting groups off a bench or prone. They are talking about cold-bore first shots in field conditions under a time-constraint, as if they were hunting. Ie you are hiking up a steep slope with the rifle slung, you see a critter you want to shoot across the slope heading for the timber…so you unsling rifle, range target and determine your dial/hold, improvise a rest on the uneven slope, and get off an accurate shot before said critter disappears. Even prone many people arent as consistent as they are shooting from a bench or at the range. That type of shooting is a muscle that requires practice. If it comes easily to you, then you are not the norm.