Do everything scope?

[RussDXT]

Zeiss and Meopta had some of the best tracking results in my testing before the pandemic. Immediately after them was the Nightforce scopes. I used a total station to set up a tracking verification tool. Did some minor impact testing as well and they continued to track close to perfectly. Those 3 brands I’d be really confident in.

I only tested one SWFA scope that a lot of guys on here swear by. It was one of their lightweight models and did not perform as I had hoped.

None of the Vortex or Leupold scopes performed very well in the test. I can dig up the results if you want.

From my personal experience you can’t go wrong with Meopta, Zeiss, or Nightforce.

Would really like to see a link to this test. Thanks!

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

I'm putting together a Tikka in 280Ai using Preferred prefit #2 contour barrel and trying to figure out what I want scope wise.
This will be my proverbial do everything rifle.

Looking for glass quality, tracking and affordability.

Some scope options I'm considering.
Am I missing a really good option that I should look into?

Steiner GS3 2-10X42
SWFA 3-9X42
Vortex Razor LHT
Viper HS 4-16X44

Take the Viper HS off your list. The glass is “fair” at best and the scope is unreliable.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Not calling BS, but I’d like to know more detail on this too. Mine have worked perfectly.

Read my post above

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I had the v6 first and after pulling my hair out trying to get my ballistics to match my long range impact I did a tall target tracking test.
It failed miserably and the calibration error was not consistent through the elevation range.
It was my first time experiencing tracking issues and really opened my eyes.

The v4 I tried a few years later after all the awesome reviews, I had the same issues with impact not matchingy ballistics and did the same tall target test with similar results.
I realize every one can produce a lemon now and then but I just can't trust zeiss after that.
Also they only have a 5 year warranty on their scopes!!
Doesn't make any sense if they're so reliable

Amazing how people get different results from small sample sizes like ours. I believe my V4 and V6 count is relatively high though compared to most users.

I’d be curious to know what all is involved with your tall target tracking and how you measure it.

Here was my testing method. Ran these tests close to 2 years ago now and need to dig up the results.

Here’s a very quick description of how the test goes...

I verify all of my scopes at my office where we calibrate our total stations. They go through this procedure before they ever go onto a rifle. I’m able to verify accuracy at (0.5 +1ppm xD) mm. That’s using the latest ISO spec for accuracy. So any scope that goes onto the calibration station will be tracking against a “perfectly” measured verification tool.

I have created and measured in a tracking verification sheet using the total station. The scopes are then leveled, measured, and zeroed onto the center of the sheet at exactly 300 feet. The scope and tracking sheet are both measured in to be perfectly aligned horizontally and vertically. After the center of the sheet and the center of the reticle are aligned, and it has been verified that parallax isn’t effecting the outcome, zero is then set on the scope.

Finally we get to spin some turrets. I’ll start with small movements both horizontal and vertical with returns to zero. I then start stretching the turrets out to some larger distances. I keep track of clicks very carefully in each direction and writing down results.

People forget to realize that 1 MOA at 300 feet is 1.047" meaning the scope adjusts 0.261" with every click of the turret on a .25 MOA per click turret. Most homemade “tracking boards” aren’t measured in correctly and scarily, a lot of guys use shooting the rifle for verification. This is okay for a quick verification but not to accurately test if your scope is tracking correctly. Guys who don’t shoot and just use the scopes (better method) often do it in an environment where they haven’t been properly leveled, properly measured in, and checked for parallax issues. So you see a lot of guys claiming a certain scope “doesn’t track” but have zero verifiable data to back up their claim.

I’m a huge proponent of doing my own research for my own gear. Reading on the internet can help, but you gotta test your own gear for how you plan to use it.

 

[prm]

The Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42 is treating me well so, as is a Tract TORIC UHD 3-15x42. I can‘t say I‘ve shot them a lot, but they both held after thousands of miles driving, and some boincing around on rough roads. Checked upon return and they were exactly on, and they both seem to dial accurately.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Amazing how people get different results from small sample sizes like ours. I believe my V4 and V6 count is relatively high though compared to most users.

I’d be curious to know what all is involved with your tall target tracking and how you measure it.

Here was my testing method. Ran these tests close to 2 years ago now and need to dig up the results.

Here’s a very quick description of how the test goes...

I verify all of my scopes at my office where we calibrate our total stations. They go through this procedure before they ever go onto a rifle. I’m able to verify accuracy at (0.5 +1ppm xD) mm. That’s using the latest ISO spec for accuracy. So any scope that goes onto the calibration station will be tracking against a “perfectly” measured verification tool.

I have created and measured in a tracking verification sheet using the total station. The scopes are then leveled, measured, and zeroed onto the center of the sheet at exactly 300 feet. The scope and tracking sheet are both measured in to be perfectly aligned horizontally and vertically. After the center of the sheet and the center of the reticle are aligned, and it has been verified that parallax isn’t effecting the outcome, zero is then set on the scope.

Finally we get to spin some turrets. I’ll start with small movements both horizontal and vertical with returns to zero. I then start stretching the turrets out to some larger distances. I keep track of clicks very carefully in each direction and writing down results.

People forget to realize that 1 MOA at 300 feet is 1.047" meaning the scope adjusts 0.261" with every click of the turret on a .25 MOA per click turret. Most homemade “tracking boards” aren’t measured in correctly and scarily, a lot of guys use shooting the rifle for verification. This is okay for a quick verification but not to accurately test if your scope is tracking correctly. Guys who don’t shoot and just use the scopes (better method) often do it in an environment where they haven’t been properly leveled, properly measured in, and checked for parallax issues. So you see a lot of guys claiming a certain scope “doesn’t track” but have zero verifiable data to back up their claim.

I’m a huge proponent of doing my own research for my own gear. Reading on the internet can help, but you gotta test your own gear for how you plan to use it.

Yes I'm aware of the true moa value at 100 yards and I measured up from my zero point in 10 moa increments for a total of 40 moa.
I used a plumb line to verify a true vertical grid.
RTZ was solid but the tracking was not, I used my exceptionally accurate custom 6.5 for the testing with a well tuned load..
Tall target tests are absolutely a solid and standard way to verify a scopes repeatability, calibration, and RTZ.
I've done it many times now on mk5s, NF, and a few vx5s. Only one vx5 gave me issues like the zeiss

One thing your method does not measure is the ability of a scope to continue tracking after taking some recoil.
It's very common for a scope to track and RTZ for awhile then fail

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Yes I'm aware of the true moa value at 100 yards and I measured up from my zero point in 10 moa increments for a total of 40 moa.
I used a plumb line to verify a true vertical grid.
RTZ was solid but the tracking was not, I used my exceptionally accurate custom 6.5 for the testing with a well tuned load..
Tall target tests are absolutely a solid and standard way to verify a scopes repeatability, calibration, and RTZ.
I've done it many times now on mk5s, NF, and a few vx5s. Only one vx5 gave me issues like the zeiss

One thing your method does not measure is the ability of a scope to continue tracking after taking some recoil.
It's very common for a scope to track and RTZ for awhile then fail

Wait. So you’re shooting the rifle to verify scope tracking?

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Wait. So you’re shooting the rifle to verify scope tracking?

Uh huh..
Exactly like this guy except I go beyond 20 moa.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tal...sung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#
Just about any scope can fail so I realize there are many zeises out there working flawlessly, I'm half tempted to try another v6, the glass was great and it fits the bill for a lightweight hunting optic.
However the 5 year warranty makes me way hesitant! If it craps out you're hosed

 

[WDE91]

5yr warranty won't work, it's very easy to obtain a lifetime warranty.
I'm 30years old, so there based on age there's a decent chance I use a warranty based on age.

 

[WDE91]

I think we’ve talked on AL Deer, I’m a fan of the Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42 on my 280AI. Drug it all around WY a couple months ago, dialed perfectly for a 390 yard shot on an Antelope. Has all the features and keeps the weight down. Wide FOV on 2.5x, plenty of mag for longer shots. Pretty good glass too. It feels like a much higher quality optic than the SWFA or Razor LHT, I’ve had both.

View attachment 353216View attachment 353217

Chris, yes sir we have.
Do you mind if I shoot you a message? Got a different question for you.

 

[ChrisAU]

Chris, yes sir we have.
Do you mind if I shoot you a message? Got a different question for you.

Of course, no problem

 

[RS3579]

SHV. It has capped turrets. It’s less expensive than the NSX mentioned before.

 

[BCD]

I have the SWFA and the LHT. Thinking about getting another LHT.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Has anyone used the new 4.5-22×50 LHT?
I had a 3-15×42 lht but didn't like the tight eyebox

 

[TREE ‘EM]

Of those on your list, SWFA is the only good choice.

On my do all 270 I went with a Trijicon Acupoint 3–9 X 40 green mill dot. It’s faster and easier to learn your trajectory and hold over with your radical in hunting situations. Dialing is overrated.

 

[sndmn11]

Just curious what model SWFA you were looking through? There is a difference in optical quality between the Classic and HD models. I have compared the SWFA 3-9×42 against alpha glass at the end of shooting light and found the SWFAs do as well or better.

The only issues I have founf with SWFA is finding them in stock.

I believe it was a 3-15X that is now on my dad's rifle. If that is true, I also think it is a very finicky scope optically and the hue is a little yellower than the 5-6 other SWFA scopes I have/had. It still works as it should and my dad loves the thing.

Right now, I think the best scope around is the 3-12 LRTS/LRHS. I'd be real tempted to trade my 4-18 and SHVs for more.

 

[Anschutz]

I've got a VX-3 3-10x40 on my Model 70. That's my do all rifle and scope combo. On your rifle I'd probably step up to the VX-5 3-15x44.

 

[pc3]

I

Has anyone used the new 4.5-22×50 LHT?
I had a 3-15×42 lht but didn't like the tight eyebox

I have one on the way....DOL has done an extensive review on it and he seemed to think it was good. It is a cross over optic not meant to be Simon pure tactical scope. But at 21 ounces ffp decent reticle, Japanese made and razor glass I figure it’s pretty capable without overpowering a lighter rifle.

 

[Tesoro]

I am/was in the mkt for a do it all scope too for a new rifle. I prefer german stuff. I was willing to try out a meopta and called for 3 days to their hq where they sell and neever could reach anyone or get a call back. So that one is a big gong.

I went with a leup vx5hd 2-10 firedot for 1050. I would have taken a new swaro z3 as more compact being 1in and smaller obj but they are not around. used ones are selling for 8-1000 and never know what you are getting and used should not sell for more than new. I also really like the american hunter kahles 3-9 but they are hard to find.

I dont think any of the older model leups, or the others mentioned, can handle lots of dialing and for normal hunting why do you need that anyhow? maybe the vx5 and 6 line are built better inside.

I tried a vortex viper and thought it was a counterfeit and returned it to sportsmans. apparenty it was not but...

 

[isocyanate]

Night Force NXS 2.5 -10. Pretty much bomb proof.

Lock the thread. We’re done here.