Ranking the "others" for Dialing

[slowelk]

Here's the tracking results of 150 scopes performed by Frank Galli & Marc Taylor:

View attachment 240103

Help me out - how am I supposed to interpret this? I assume 100 is perfect tracking and rtz, but what is >100 and <100 indicating?

 

[Team4LongGun]

Being that I asked 406... Going from memory, I have seen in the last 12’ish months, and to be clear i wasn’t the one expending all the rounds-



1). 35x (+ maybe a couple) Nightforce NX8 1-8’s. Average round count PER scope- 3,500 rounds. No adjustment, tracking, or RTZ issues. Ajustments were within 2% to 10mils. One had the illumination dial forcibly turned past the stop point breaking the circuit. One had massive ring torque applied (as in 60+ in-lbs). The reticle rotated approx 3°. Both scopes held zero and “tracked” fine until fixed. 6x went through extremely hard use, and evaluation.



2). 15 +/- ATACR 1-8x’s. Average per scope, 3,500 rounds. No issues noted. All adjusted to 1% to 10mils, RTZ was perfect. 8 were prior test scopes with heinous use and very large round counts.



3). 6, maybe 7 SWFA 1-6x’s. Average per scope, 2,00-3,500 rounds. All adjusted within 1% to 10 mils. No tracking, RTZ, or loss of zero noted.



4). 12x Sig Tango 6 1-6x. Average was less than 3,000 rounds. About half had detectable adjustment errors in use, at least 5 had noticeable RTZ errors. All had to be rezeroed multiple times. 7 of them had catastrophic failures.



5). 13x Trijicon Accupoint 1-8’s. Average round count for 12 of them- 3,500 rounds. 2x had reticle rotate. Adjustment within 1% to ten mils. No RTZ, tracking, or zero errors.



6). About a dozen NF NX8 2.5-20x and 4-32x scopes. Average round count per scope- 700-1,500 rounds. A couple with high round counts. No issues noted. Adjustment within 1% to ten mils.



7). Half dozen or so Mark 5’s of various power ranges. All lost zero from side impacts. Most had to be rezeroed multiple times. All adjusted to within 1% except one which was just over 2% off IIRC. Intermittent RTZ issues in a couple.



8). 3x Mark 6’s IIRC. 1x catastrophic failure at 428 rounds. All lost zero from side impacts. All had intermittent RTZ issues. Adjustments of 2-4% error to 10 mils.



9). About a dozen Razor Gen II 1-6’s. Average round count less than 2,000. Adjustment error of up to 4%. Intermittent RTZ errors on around a quarter. The ones that were checked lost zero from side impacts.



10). Multiple S&B SDII, Dual FP, 1-8x’s. Relatively large round counts. Function perfectly, including drops and side impacts.



11). 5’ish SWFA 3-9x’s. Average round count per scope this year 300-2,000. Function perfect. Adjustment 1% to ten mils.

12). Various Bushnell LRHS/LRTS/HDMR’s/etc. All worked correctly. No issues noted. Round counts varied between 200 and several thousand.

13). NF ATACR and NXS’s of various magnifications- all worked correctly. Adjustment within 1%. No tracking, RTZ, or other errors noted.



A bunch of various scopes in either singles or a few, but round counts and/or time with them was relatively limited, or it’s not for me to post about. Kahles, Swarovski, Vortex LHT, etc. The constant is that all scopes can fail. Certain scopes have failure rates way lower than others. Issues with NF, SWFA, certain S&B’s, and Bushnell LRHS/LRTS/HDMR, are extremely rare. Issues with other scopes are common enough it’s almost a certainty.

People will believe what they want. I gain nothing by passing incorrect info. I want and need equipment that works correctly. The more people demand scope function before features, the better for everyone.

This thread is hilarious. Grown men fervently backing unknown internet personalities! However, if you have trained with professionally, or been down range with your mentor you back, my apologies.

@Formidilosis
PM'd you. Give me a shout back. Chances are we work for the same Uncle, part of the same cadre, or there needs to be some infers/alludes/implies cleared up....

 

[JakeM51]

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


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.

Can you tell me why it matters so much who is testing it as long as they aren't doing anything shady? Data is data as long as its true.

 

[aron]

Can you tell me why it matters so much who is testing it as long as they aren't doing anything shady? Data is data as long as its true.

It all comes down to credibility and reliable testing for me to trust the data. It appears 95% of people on the internet are 0.25 moa shooters out to 1000+ yds in all conditions. They might have an off day but even then, they're shooting sub 0.5 moa. You are correct that data is data as long as its true. The problem is a lot of it is not true, skewed, or minimally tested. I'm not saying this at any particular comments on this post but in general.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Can you tell me why it matters so much who is testing it as long as they aren't doing anything shady? Data is data as long as its true.

What causes misses for hunters? That their scope adjusts 101% instead of 100%? Or the scope losing zero? Or the scope one day after a few years of use no longer adjusting correctly?



Data that shows a 1% error in adjustments is helpful, yet only in the most egregious circumstances does it point to possible issues with long term function.


Scope adjustment correctness and tracking is important. However, in the functional uses of a scope it may be the least important aspect.

There are a bunch of scopes on that list, and scopes that lots of people speak well of that will near 100%, almost guaranteed, lose zero from mild side impacts. There are also scopes that consistently and repeatably tend to work ok for a few hundred rounds, and then fail. Some slowly, some spectacularly.
Go back and read how critical Frank was when he was working at Rifles Only and seeing lots of different scopes get used hard. Scopes have gotten better in features and glass. They really have not gotten better about durability and reliability since then, because people are believing the nonsense that there are plenty “of great scopes out there”. That’s not to say there’s something nefarious going on with anyone, but when scopes are actually used in the field with some rough handling- they fail. A lot. And it’s so easily provable and verifiable that it’s almost baffling why people don’t do it.

At no point have I said “trust me”. Take your gear and go use it. Get a solid zero on your rifle. Then drop it on a 1/2” shooting mat/etc. from couple feet on it’s left side. Shoot it again for a group. When it loses zero, figure out what caused it. Fix it. Then repeat. Over and over until your rifle and scope hold zero from a fall/impact on all three sides. That’s just a start, but it’s a big one.

 

[JakeM51]

What causes misses for hunters? That their scope adjusts 101% instead of 100%? Or the scope losing zero? Or the scope one day after a few years of use no longer adjusting correctly?



Data that shows a 1% error in adjustments is helpful, yet only in the most egregious circumstances does it point to possible issues with long term function.


Scope adjustment correctness and tracking is important. However, in the functional uses of a scope it may be the least important aspect.

There are a bunch of scopes on that list, and scopes that lots of people speak well of that will near 100%, almost guaranteed, lose zero from mild side impacts. There are also scopes that consistently and repeatably tend to work ok for a few hundred rounds, and then fail. Some slowly, some spectacularly.
Go back and read how critical Frank was when he was working at Rifles Only and seeing lots of different scopes get used hard. Scopes have gotten better in features and glass. They really have not gotten better about durability and reliability since then, because people are believing the nonsense that there are plenty “of great scopes out there”. That’s not to say there’s something nefarious going on with anyone, but when scopes are actually used in the field with some rough handling- they fail. A lot. And it’s so easily provable and verifiable that it’s almost baffling why people don’t do it.

At no point have I said “trust me”. Take your gear and go use it. Get a solid zero on your rifle. Then drop it on a 1/2” shooting mat/etc. from couple feet on it’s left side. Shoot it again for a group. When it loses zero, figure out what caused it. Fix it. Then repeat. Over and over until your rifle and scope hold zero from a fall/impact on all three sides. That’s just a start, but it’s a big one.

I agree. Thanks for the explanation. But that test only tested the tracking and was never advertised buy the creators as anything else. Durability and reliability can be tested by people other than me and the results shared. What I am trying to say is, just because I haven't tested it doesn't mean I have to buy it and test in to know most of those models are total pieces of junk.

 

[Afhunter1]

My buddy and I each set up 17 rem predator rifles. Mine is a custom cz527 and his is a rem 700. We both use the Burris extreme 6 screw rings to hold our VXR 3-9 with the LR fire dot duplex. Most times we get out of the truck and walk a few yards to a spot and call. We are very gentle with our equipment but this one icy night we were out he had his gun sitting beside him up on its bipod, which were 27” roughly and he bumped it over on its right side. It wasn’t all that hard but when he checked his zero the next day it was 4” right. I check my zero every year and I’ve never had to adjust it but I’ve never hit my gun hard. If I did I’m sure it would be off. I like the Illuminated dot to much to change so I baby my gun and just know that if I fall or drop it that it’s going to be off. I just can’t trust leupolds but I do still have a lot of them and just be careful when I do use them. I know it doesn’t take much of a test to prove they won’t hold zero. His scope didn’t even have a mark on it after the fall.

 

[prm]

It’s been mentioned by others, but cartridge/rifle matters. My heavy .308 Win and medium weight 6.5 have never had a scope issue in thousands of rounds. My 338 Fed in the area of 6lbs has has had four scopes fail over the course of a couple thousand rounds. Three failed with parts rattling around internally or internal components in the FOV, and one just got really wonky dialing. Trying a SWFA 1-6 now. LIke it, a lot, so far.
I share the OPs desire for a solid scope, reliable, and perhaps a bit lighter than the more proven 19+oz scopes.

 

[SDHNTR]

It’s been mentioned by others, but cartridge/rifle matters. My heavy .308 Win and medium weight 6.5 have never had a scope issue in thousands of rounds. My 338 Fed in the area of 6lbs has has had four scopes fail over the course of a couple thousand rounds. Three failed with parts rattling around internally or internal components in the FOV, and one just got really wonky dialing. Trying a SWFA 1-6 now. LIke it, a lot, so far.
I share the OPs desire for a solid scope, reliable, and perhaps a bit lighter than the more proven 19+oz scopes.

Pretty sure everyone in America shares that desire! Why the scope manufacturers can’t figure it out is beyond me.

 

[Kimber7man]

Pretty sure everyone in America shares that desire! Why the scope manufacturers can’t figure it out is beyond me.

Maybe the manufacturers have figured it out and everybody in America won’t accept it?

 

[prm]

Pretty sure everyone in America shares that desire! Why the scope manufacturers can’t figure it out is beyond me.

I think Vortex tried to do that with their newer HD LHT scopes. I don’t have any experience with them to suggest one way or the other whether they’ve built a dependable scope in terms of ruggedness and dials well.

 

[SDHNTR]

Maybe the manufacturers have figured it out and everybody in

I think Vortex tried to do that with their newer HD LHT scopes. I don’t have any experience with them to suggest one way or the other whether they’ve built a dependable scope in terms of ruggedness and dials well.

I certainly commend them for their efforts! Just not a fan of that funky reticle. Give me a duplex crosshair with wind holds please! Swaro 4w or similar.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

12). Various Bushnell LRHS/LRTS/HDMR’s/etc. All worked correctly. No issues noted. Round counts varied between 200 and several thousand.

With those having been discontinued (IIRC) does Bushnell have any in their lineup that you are testing?

 

[Formidilosus]

With those having been discontinued (IIRC) does Bushnell have any in their lineup that you are testing?

The HDMR/DMR Elite Tactical scopes tend to work well. Nothing in the general hunting scope range that I’ve seen.

 

[Billinsd]

I think your example perfectly illustrates why round counts do matter. We need a way to sort out the scopes that won’t stand up to recoil and the only way to see if the scope is gonna hold up to a 7 pound rum is to shoot it on it and see. It’s not a physics problem this is a manufacturing problem. I run a manufacturing plant.

The physics (force) of recoil on scopes absolutely is the problem of scopes failing under recoil. The solution is engineering, testing, manufacturing, quality control, and more testing to prevent this at a price people will pay. Most hunters aren't technical and marketing is what sells scopes, good and bad ones. Big, clear, and HD is what hunters want, like their scopes and binos.

 

[Whisky]

With those having been discontinued (IIRC) does Bushnell have any in their lineup that you are testing?

There is a thread on another forum where a Bushnell rep chimed in stating they are coming out with a LRHS or similar type scope again. I think it's being announced in January. I got the impression if you were a fan of LRHS, you will be happy.

 

[JGRaider]

@Tock-O is right, all I’m saying is use your own brain. For me, my experience falls in line with what many/most well known industry professionals are stating publicly. The sole dissenter seems to be a nameless faceless avatar that goes silent when asked about any credentials or extra info. That’s enough for me to move on. Maybe not for others around here - and that’s cool."

Well 406, instead of running my mouth on an internet forum, I've been out chasing these..........and killed one with a T3X 6.5CM and 139 Scenar, topped with a LRHS.

Show off some mulies!

Colorado second choice tag

www.rokslide.com

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Well 406, instead of running my mouth on an internet forum, I've been out chasing these..........and killed one with a T3X 6.5CM and 139 Scenar, topped with a LRHS.

Show off some mulies!

Colorado second choice tag

www.rokslide.com

Wow. Some of those are freaks!

 

[coues32]

It’s been mentioned by others, but cartridge/rifle matters. My heavy .308 Win and medium weight 6.5 have never had a scope issue in thousands of rounds. My 338 Fed in the area of 6lbs has has had four scopes fail over the course of a couple thousand rounds. Three failed with parts rattling around internally or internal components in the FOV, and one just got really wonky dialing. Trying a SWFA 1-6 now. LIke it, a lot, so far.
I share the OPs desire for a solid scope, reliable, and perhaps a bit lighter than the more proven 19+oz scopes.

If you don't mind sharing the scopes that failed?
I have Luke's old short barreled 358 on my montana, have a older bushnell elite 1.5x4.5x32 but haven't shot it alot. I don't want to have a issue with a scope

Kicking around trying a 1-4 swfa
Have a swfa ultralight 2.5x10 that could throw on it .

 

[Team4LongGun]

Well 406, instead of running my mouth on an internet forum, I've been out chasing these..........and killed one with a T3X 6.5CM and 139 Scenar, topped with a LRHS.

Show off some mulies!

Colorado second choice tag

www.rokslide.com

Your humility is amazing.