Ranking the "others" for Dialing

[DPReef]

Checking out your own equipment is always better than reading someone else's results on the internets. The CATs target will work. There are others out there as well. I draft my own and could send you the PDF if you're interested.

As I've posted, I check tracking via static mounting and separate errors by each full revolution of the turret. As you get to the outer extents of travel, it is more likely that you will see an error. I prefer to put the error in context to understand the equipment's limitations better. When static mounting, you will typically see that a scope will Return to Zero even if the adjustment value is off or if there are dead spots, etc. The adjustment value will not vary depending on which rotational direction the mechanism is turning. This can also be seen in Cal's article that you posted.

Introducing recoil via living firing might show you if your optic has a zero retention problem. However, most shooters are unable to shoot well enough to determine if it's actually an error with the scope, or shooter, or ammo, or mounts - unless there is a significant problem. Additionally, the shooter error will also make it so that you will be unable to tell if your optic actually tracks correctly or is just kinda sorta close. Mechanically induced impulse loading and various mechanical stress testing is the only real option for professionals that actually perform testing for all the reasons I've previously posted.

Good Points. I have thought about other sources of error resulting in my "tracking test" resulting basically just another range practice session with questionable data. I was thinking the below two could be bigger sources of error on a 100 yard test.

Shooter Error
Using Factor Ammo and inconsistencies related to factory ammo
Heating of barrel (t3X lite and Christensen carbon)
Other Gun issues

Practice and data better than nothing? I do "rebuild/verify" my dope chart every range session at 200, 300, 400, and 500. trying to build my confidence with large temperature, humidity swings and confidence in these ballistic apps. I wonder if that is just better than doing a 1-off CAT chart test.

 

[Formidilosus]

SNIP

You keep posting up nonsense. Here I’ll ask again-

What scopes have you personally-not Frank, not anyone else- you, used for a significant amount of rounds (please state)? Did you ever have a loss in zero, have to rezero, failure to return to zero, or weird elevation issues?

You can stop with the passive aggressive, snarky, engineer dance. What scopes, in what numbers, in how much use have YOU used for a significant amount of time and rounds, including heavy field use? You. Not anyone else. Not Ilya, not Frank, not anyone else.

 

[Formidilosus]

Snip.

So no personal experiences to share.

 

[sneaky]

How is that nonsense? I’m referring to known industry professionals that show their face, give their name, tell us what they do & where they work, and have a reputation to uphold in order to make a living. There's no cagey claims about working at an unknown secret facility performing undisclosed T&E, and no odd authoritative statements that only NF & select budget equipment works “perfect” (which must be the emotional nomenclature of choice by T&E professionals), based on unverifiable metrics.

When Marc & Frank speak highly of various Athlon optics, AMGs, Gen2 Razors, Kahles, S&B, Mark 5’s, ZCOs, Tangents, and all kinds of other optics, they’re wrong?

When Caylen Wojcik, Rudy Gonsior, and others speak highly of the Mk 5’s, they’re wrong?

When Phil Velayo speaks highly of Kahles, he’s wrong?

When Cal Zant shows multiple optics that track and return to zero, he was wrong (except for NF of course)?

When Ilya recommends Tangent, or ZCO, or Burris XTR3 & XTR2, or Vortex PST Gen2, or all the other optics he recommends, he's wrong on all accounts?

Numerous top PRS competitors, benchrest competitors, ELR competitors, etc. are successful with Tangent, ZCO, Kahles, S&B, G2R, AMG, Nightforce, Leupold, Bushnell, Burris, and various other optics. But they must all be wrong (except the NF users of course)?

When nameless faceless guys/gals on the internet (myself included) show our tracking results and have real world success, we must be liars or not using our equipment to the correct make believe standard?

When key personnel left S&B and Nightforce to go to Kahles, and then moved on to ZCO, they must've left their pixie dust at NF and totally forgot how to design/build a reliable & repeatable optic?

So to sum up: everybody is wrong and only Formi/Vereor holds the truth?

A saying comes to mind: when you meet an a-hole during your day, you’ve just met one a-hole. When everyone you meet is an a-hole, it’s you. Always fun to chat

We're still waiting on YOU to post up YOUR test results. Anyone can Google and read the work of others. If you're trying to come across as someone out of their league, congrats my man, you've succeeded. Acting like a petulant child isn't getting you anywhere.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

When nameless faceless guys/gals on the internet (myself included) show our tracking results and have real world success, we must be liars or not using our equipment to the correct make believe standard?

Is English your first language? I am specifically, and solely asking about YOUR use.

 

[HighUintas]

@406Smith @Formidilosus

You guys should just exchange numbers and have a beer over video chat. Then come back and make valuable contributions to the OPs thread!

 

[RAM190Hog]

@ Formidilosus or anyone else with a lot of experience with multiple brands / models...

What brands / models would you recommend for average hunter using max range of 400y for antelope, deer, elk. I have seen your writeups on NF, SWFA, etc. I don't know that I NEED it...but I kind of want a little more mag than 9/10...somewhere in the 12-15 range. Would it be safe to assume the erector assembly / system on a SWFA 3-15 would be as reliable as the 3-9?

I experienced the loss of a bull this year; spent a lot of time & money practicing all summer in field positions, could not figure out how I had missed vitals. Upon returning from hunt, found my zero had shifted ~3MOA to right, Leupold VX-6HD. The gun was dialed when I left. 3 hour drive and an 8 mile horseback ride followed. 5 days of hiking, some slips & falls. Who knows? But based on how it was shooting, I probably hit him twice across the brisket. So, that experience led me here to do some research.

Just got the shipping notification back from Leupold. Cust service rep said the notes said they found loose component in the erector system and replaced the system. Scope is on it's way back.

Needless to say, I am search for something that will be more reliable, rugged, and not as susceptible to zero shift from the forces to be expected during a mountain hunt.

 

[Wrench]

The 3-15 is solid as well, but the reticle sucks for me with the open diamonds. If you hunt open stuff....it's probably fine, I tripped mine for the 3x9s as I had issues with them in a hurry in heavy cover.

As to a scope for 400 yards, unless you're shooting something very slow or looking for high precision, I'd simply run a capped turret and not worry about it. You talking about minimum holds for that range.

 

[HighUintas]

@DPReef

I have not yet done a tracking test on my scope, a Maven rs2, although I plan to at some point over the winter.

It's built as a lightweight hunting scope at 12.5oz, so the turrets are capped and not meant to be dialed all the time. But, it seems to me it's pretty high quality and I wouldn't be surprised if it dials accurately and has no rtz issues. It's made in Japan and I've never heard of anyone having a dud Maven scope.... But then again the sample size out in the market is wayyyyy smaller than Vortex or Leupold.

Here's my experience so far:

Bought it used, not sure how many rounds it had on it. I've put about 800 rounds on it with my 7.5 lb .30-06 and a lot of them have been stiff loads. I do baby the glass, but I toss my gun while in the case when putting it in my vehicle or on the ground so that I can discover any potential zero retention issues before being out hunting. I shot over a couple hundred of my hot hunting load without having a zero shift and that's after doing a backpack hunt banging it around a bit. My zero would be correct after dialing to 20 clicks several times.

So, my sample size is exactly 1. And none of it has been scientific. But, it's been a damn good scope. I'll update here after I eventually do a tracking test.

 

[JGRaider]

406 obviously googles out his azzzz on this subject, with very little personal experience. Sometimes it pays to know who you are arguing with (Formid), as he does this sort of thing for a living, US DOD stuff. He sees more rounds fired in a month than 406 has in his lifetime, and it's rather obvious. 406 would make a good politician.

 

[realunlucky]

406 obviously googles out his azzzz on this subject, with very little personal experience. Sometimes it pays to know who you are arguing with (Formid), as he does this sort of thing for a living, US DOD stuff. He sees more rounds fired in a month than 406 has in his lifetime, and it's rather obvious. 406 would make a good politician.

Do you know form personally or did you Google him out your ass? Just curious

Plenty of information out there in Google land, plenty of great shooters putting rounds down range and giving thier opinion on just about everything all comes down to what information you trust.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Do you know form personally or did you Google him out your ass? Just curious

Plenty of information out there in Google land, plenty of great shooters putting rounds down range and giving thier opinion on just about everything all comes down to what information you trust.

There are plenty of great shooters out there giving advice and it does come down to who you can trust. If Form is who/works for what many people believe, then it's unlikely that he'll confirm that enough to satisfy any of the naysayers. Which anyone would admit is awfully convenient, but many of the things he puts out there are easy enough to test for yourself. I, for instance, have owned a Vortex PST that did not hold zero, which eventually lead me to buy a SWFA which I promptly drop tested. It held zero. I, like most, don't have the money or the patience to buy scopes that will eventually fail under minor use and abuse regardless of warranty. I would say Form most likely sees these scopes subjected to much more abuse than the average shooter will ever subject their scope too and most top tier scopes will track well, but a simple drop test of your gear (which is not unrealistic) would be enough to install confidence that your equipment will work under abuse. It's rare to see someone actually do that though even with today's warranties. Ultimately I put my trust more in someone who has potentially seen large sample sizes and is willing to offer rule of thumb recommendations over someone who'll bitch that said person didn't test the scopes in a lab under strict guidelines.

In my opinion It's rare to have an avid/professional shooter who is unsponsored/affiliated/bias towards certain brands so it's best to take everything with a healthy grain of salt.

 

[JGRaider]

Do you know form personally or did you Google him out your ass? Just curious

Plenty of information out there in Google land, plenty of great shooters putting rounds down range and giving thier opinion on just about everything all comes down to what information you trust.

I've never heard of this 406 guy. I have, however, read enough on this board to know he's a clown with no real experience. Otherwise he'd answer Formid's question that's been asked 3 times.

 

[amassi]

This is the best thread on the slide right now

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[fightthenoise]

I don’t get why dudes seem to be picking sides here. Let guys present their info and experiences and come to your own conclusions. This is how echo chambers get made.

 

[amassi]

I don’t get why dudes seem to be picking sides here. Let guys present their info and experiences and come to your own conclusions. This is how echo chambers get made.

White knight syndrome

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[aron]

And just think, hunting season is pretty much over. Could be a long winter with all this bickering

 

[HighUintas]

406 obviously googles out his azzzz on this subject, with very little personal experience. Sometimes it pays to know who you are arguing with (Formid), as he does this sort of thing for a living, US DOD stuff. He sees more rounds fired in a month than 406 has in his lifetime, and it's rather obvious. 406 would make a good politician.

I'm not taking sides, but just to point out the obvious, NO ONE here has personally and publicly vouched for Formidilosus that is a well known professional. If Robby Denning or Ryan Avery got on here and said he is legit, then I'd probably believe it. Formidilosus has never said he works for DOD. He would also be a good politician, albeit the authoritative type.

I think that is the point 406 is trying to make. Don't just take some stranger's word as truth when they don't provide verified credentials. Do your own testing. That is what he is saying.

I don't necessarily believe Formidilosus is making up information, but I also won't take an unverified stranger's statements as absolute truth. Regardless of the reality of his life, he does have some sound information that is worth taking into consideration.

 

[DPReef]

As the OP, there was some good info shared and it led me to think of many other search topics on several gun/hunting forums. I came across new websites and threads that had additional "test results". Worked out for me, a novice at dialing. So thank you all for useful info and allowing me to be a spectator in the convo.....

Unfortunately this thread has a lot of past bad blood built in that obviously started elsewhere. Wasn't trying to troll, really did try to get info/data from people with acknowledgement of the limitation of their perspective data so that we can form or own position because w/o full disclosure of past data no one knows its validity. With that said, its all beneficial, with a hefty grain of salt.....

Was hoping to ask a question that hadn't been asked (although it does overlap). No one has actually answered what i really wanted. Excluding the 4-5 suppliers (NF, SWFA, ....), rank "the rest" one by one based on your own data set (assuming you've done more then a few optics in your safe). The rest can include the most popular brands noted here, Zeiss, Vortex, Swarovski, etc in terms of dialing and their mechanical performance. Im seeing it varies even within a company and its scope model specific .


Thanks for contributing, hope someone can chime in to add additional data if available, not trying to end the thread but would be great if we got back on track.

 

[OXN939]

As the OP, there was some good info shared and it led me to think of many other search topics on several gun/hunting forums. I came across new websites and threads that had additional "test results". Worked out for me, a novice at dialing. So thank you all for useful info and allowing me to be a spectator in the convo.....

Unfortunately this thread has a lot of past bad blood built in that obviously started elsewhere. Wasn't trying to troll, really did try to get info/data from people with acknowledgement of the limitation of their perspective data so that we can form or own position because w/o full disclosure of past data no one knows its validity. With that said, its all beneficial, with a hefty grain of salt.....

Was hoping to ask a question that hadn't been asked (although it does overlap). No one has actually answered what i really wanted. Excluding the 4-5 suppliers (NF, SWFA, ....), rank "the rest" one by one based on your own data set (assuming you've done more then a few optics in your safe). The rest can include the most popular brands noted here, Zeiss, Vortex, Swarovski, etc in terms of dialing and their mechanical performance. Im seeing it varies even within a company and its scope model specific .


Thanks for contributing, hope someone can chime in to add additional data if available, not trying to end the thread but would be great if we got back on track.

I used Nightforce ATACRs for work for years. They were great optics, albeit heavy. I currently own a Zeiss Conquest V4 4-16x44. I have, so far, noticed very little difference between the performance and optical quality of these two out to 500 yards. Although I don't have nearly as many rounds through the Zeiss and have not subjected it to the abuse the ATACRs saw, and likely never will on either of those counts, the Conquest has been extremely consistent so far.

I know this isn't an excel spreadsheet of data, and also that it probably won't hurt very many feelings, so I'm not sure if it's welcome in this thread. If not, please disregard. Merry Christmas!