Ranking the "others" for Dialing

[DPReef]

I've read several dozen threads and the common response is SWFA, Bushnell, NF, March, and Huskemaw.

How would people rank other manufacturers in for occasionally dialing up to 600 yards (~16MOA).

Zeiss, Swarovski, Leupold, Vortex, Steiner, Trijicon. I know there is a lot of scope differences, but under 25oz (arbitrary) how would you rank it?

 

[SDHNTR]

Under 25 oz, rules out a bunch of em unfortunately. For occasional dialing, I like Swarovski, as I think their 4W reticle is the best hunting reticle on the market and obviously their glass is unmatched. Their weights are sensible too. I have a z5 and 2 z6's and they have all been flawless. I LOVE the Z6 3-18x50 at 20 oz and a custom turret. Granted, I have no interest in routine dialing out to 1200 yards so I don't need or want a 2 lb spotting scope mounted to my rifle. Lets face it, as hunters, most shots are 3-400 and under, I'll take lightweight, good glass and a simple reticle for my primary hunting needs. Some will surely disagree, but for me, so far they have proven 100% reliable and durable. Until someone makes a quality lighter scope with a simple reticle, I'll keep going with Swaro.

 

[Bubblehide]

...

In 2020, there are tons of scopes that will track within a couple percentage points and return to zero correctly. That said, you can't incrementally upgrade optics like you can rifles, so buy the best you can afford.

406Smith, do you have any data on drop and side impact testing?

 

[DPReef]

I'm sort of in your camp but came across these 2 dozen+++ threads related to dialing after sliding my rifle down some metal stairs w/ my current VX6-HD quite hard, unscrewing wind knob and likely letting out purge gas and was looking for a replacement as it goes to service prison (anything to buy another). Fortunate budget is not a restriction and since I also have a Z5 3-18 and two VX6HD, VXR, Vortex LH i'm trying to debate what other scope for me i can buy try out (I can by 1 and only 1 more!). To be honest, I've not done tracking tests and furthest animals i've shot is 300 yards (havn't lost one yet) but I'm out for Auodad which can easily put me in that 400 yard shot.

i'm ok not being at 100% tracking dial if I can sacrifice that 1-2% dialing accuracy for the weight and features I prefer. at 2% RTZ or dialing problems, very fast 308 math at some stretch distances...

300 Yards - 4.5 MOA ....fractional click ~1/4"
400 yards - 7.75MOA........fractional click or <.75"
500 Yards - 11.25MOA....slightly under a click or <1.25"
600 Yards - 15.25.MOA...slightly over a click or ~1.8"

Is that 1.5" accuracy inherent in my hardware that important to me to add 10 oz if the probability is 1 in 100 shots? out of those 100 hunting shots, only a fraction is beyond 300 yards. People hunt with BDC and i can't believe they are that accurate when your distance is between hash marks!

Part of me wonders if failures are due to large MOA box testing and/or frequent spinning. I can easily zero @200 and dial for those more rare 300-500. I'll be testing my dope before every hunt. Hence i was willing to live with "next best" or "good enough". My local range only does 600 so i'm capped there anyways and might shoot further in some random "blue moon".

Long story short, I have a 20oz NXS 2-10x42 in my sights (prefer 14-18 to get a better visual on horns), but i'm having heartburn if i'm being swayed by all this professional feedback i've been reading when for my situation it may not matter?

Everyone either loves or hates certain scopes and their reasons are all valid (most), but nothing is that black and white......perfection matters to a point. To those in competition classes, shooting 1000 yards, jumping between targets its likely a less than perfect scope will affect you. Will it bother me? Now, problem is I dont know what real data is out there and if its 2% or 5% or 10% dialing accuracy. Guess I'll just get a NF to be lazy and get off this computer and go to the range.

 

[Rich M]

Wish you well in your quest.

If I was getting a dialing scope, i'd go with a proven name and brand. Dialing means you're shooting long distance and a gut shot whatever can run a long ways. And a miss can mean a long trip home wondering what went wrong.

If target shooting - just try whatever you want to get.

IMO, you don't need to dial or even touch the scope within 400 yards. Zero at 300 and hold high on the body if its an elk or big deer.

 

[DPReef]

Wish you well in your quest.

If I was getting a dialing scope, i'd go with a proven name and brand. Dialing means you're shooting long distance and a gut shot whatever can run a long ways. And a miss can mean a long trip home wondering what went wrong.

If target shooting - just try whatever you want to get.

IMO, you don't need to dial or even touch the scope within 400 yards. Zero at 300 and hold high on the body if its an elk or big deer.

What do you consider a proven name. The few i mentioned or would you add others?

 

[Formidilosus]

No.

There’s “testing" and then there's "monkeying".

Testing refers to having well thought-out standardized specifications based on the intended use case/performance requirements of whatever is being "tested", that standardized methodology & procedures are being employed in a consistent & unbiased manner in controlled conditions, and that a statistically significant data set is being analyzed. For manufactured items, you really need to be taking samples for each production run based on the total population that is being produced, the determined acceptance quality limit, and other factors.

Monkeying is the make believe internet expert or reviewer that is throwing, beating, dragging, 'smacking' with a mallet, dropping on grass, setting on fire, dunking in frozen water, etc. Riding around in truck or on a quad on a gravel road is not a test. Shooting X-number of rounds from a rifle(s) is not a test and means nothing. Section 4.10 of the US Army TOP 3-2-045 (or similar) is not an appropriate specification for civilian hunters or shooters to refer (and frankly is a poor spec period). Looking at 5 or 10 or 20 random samples that may or may not have been manufactured in the same batch is not statistically significant. Etc,, etc., etc.

So you, seeing one each of 7 scopes is “valid” but people that see dozens of the same scope isn’t? It’s pretty easy to see what is internet nonsense and what probably should be paid attention to, and easily cross referenced.
What you wrote about testing is of course correct, but your conclusions are incorrect. That Leupold Mark 5, Kahles, and AMG have a high probability of losing zero from side impacts. That doesn’t require a DOD test. Shoot a group zeroed, drop them in the left side, shoot a group. Easy.


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?

 

[Wrench]

I have a bunch of scopes but when it comes to stuff that gets twisted, I've come to count on lrhs and swfa. I have a couple zeiss conquest scopes that have not failed me, but I treat them better than the others.

I have a list of scopes I've scrambled that's pretty long and I've just found some that I can trust which is incredibly valuable in a hurry.

 

[DPReef]

This site has very interesting data, not a big data set for each but overall is data with the views (based on a single set). what's missing is something in the 16x and less range.

Tactical Scopes: Mechanical Performance Summary

A great scope is more than just sharp glass. I surveyed 700+ shooters, and mechanical performance wa...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[Rich M]

What do you consider a proven name. The few i mentioned or would you add others?

I'm not into dialing. Really can't help. I always go to SWFA when looking for scopes. They have a forum that might provide some additional insight.

 

[Afhunter1]

Round count means exactly nothing. If you’re using round count as a metric.....well, that’s just a bummer. An optic might live for tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds on a 10 pound 223 and not survive 10 rounds from a 7 pound 300 RUM. Ya know, because physics.

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.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I geeked out with some dialing and tracking tests last spring before covid. Using a surveying total station to measure in an essentially “perfect” tracking reference tool and then compared scopes side by side not mounted on a rifle. Anyone who checks “tracking” by shooting the rifle is fine for hunting purposes and basic testing for your own sanity. But to be a spokesperson for how “reliably” a scope tracks and then comments with shooting tracking results... Thnot useable data in my personal opinion. Now that the office is closed for only on site mandatory employees I wasn’t able to test as many scopes as I’d like.

I was able to test several scopes and found excellent dialing and tracking results from a few brands. Not so great results from other brands. You mentioned “other” brands so I can comment on a couple less than “popular” scopes that dialed and tracked incredibly accurately.

.Meopta MeoPro models. I tested 4-14 x44 and 6.5-20x50. I tested 3 of the 4-14s and 2 of the 6.5-20s. Tracking and dialing were near perfect.

.Zeiss Conquest V4s. Same scope as the MeoPro so no wonder the results were identical. Tested 3 different models with great results.

.Meopta Optika 6 I think it was called. My buddy gave me his Optika 6 and his Leupold Mark 5 to test on my tool. The Optika 6 tracked almost as well as the MeoPro and Conquest. Unnoticeable if the tool wasn’t measured so accurately. The Mark 5 tracked well also. Not as accurate as the others but much better than the Leupold VX-5 and VX-6 that I tested.

.SWFA SS 3-15 x42. On par with the Optika 6. Very accurate dialing.

There are others that tracked “well” and most scopes did in fact dial accurately enough that guys doing track boards and “shooting to check dialing” won’t notice.

 

[Bubblehide]

No.

There’s “testing" and then there's "monkeying".

Testing refers to having well thought-out standardized specifications based on the intended use case/performance requirements of whatever is being "tested", that standardized methodology & procedures are being employed in a consistent & unbiased manner in controlled conditions, and that a statistically significant data set is being analyzed. For manufactured items, you really need to be taking samples for each production run based on the total population that is being produced, the determined acceptance quality limit, and other
...

You left out one key word, repeatable, others as perfect a definition as I've seen.

However, I do not discount w hff at Form has to say, as there is just way to much analyzed experience behind his words.

 

[204guy]

I geeked out with some dialing and tracking tests last spring before covid. Using a surveying total station to measure in an essentially “perfect” tracking reference tool and then compared scopes side by side not mounted on a rifle. Anyone who checks “tracking” by shooting the rifle is fine for hunting purposes and basic testing for your own sanity. But to be a spokesperson for how “reliably” a scope tracks and then comments with shooting tracking results... Thnot useable data in my personal opinion. Now that the office is closed for only on site mandatory employees I wasn’t able to test as many scopes as I’d like.

I was able to test several scopes and found excellent dialing and tracking results from a few brands. Not so great results from other brands. You mentioned “other” brands so I can comment on a couple less than “popular” scopes that dialed and tracked incredibly accurately.

.Meopta MeoPro models. I tested 4-14 x44 and 6.5-20x50. I tested 3 of the 4-14s and 2 of the 6.5-20s. Tracking and dialing were near perfect.

.Zeiss Conquest V4s. Same scope as the MeoPro so no wonder the results were identical. Tested 3 different models with great results.

.Meopta Optika 6 I think it was called. My buddy gave me his Optika 6 and his Leupold Mark 5 to test on my tool. The Optika 6 tracked almost as well as the MeoPro and Conquest. Unnoticeable if the tool wasn’t measured so accurately. The Mark 5 tracked well also. Not as accurate as the others but much better than the Leupold VX-5 and VX-6 that I tested.

.SWFA SS 3-15 x42. On par with the Optika 6. Very accurate dialing.

There are others that tracked “well” and most scopes did in fact dial accurately enough that guys doing track boards and “shooting to check dialing” won’t notice.

Static tests aren't useless, if a scope doesn't track in a fixture obviously it won't work on a rifle. But recoil adds a real, unavoidable variable to tracking and repeatability. Im certainly not smart enough to design a test, but it's worth pointing out.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

 

[Formidilosus]

Round count means exactly nothing. If you’re using round count as a metric.....well, that’s just a bummer. An optic might live for tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds on a 10 pound 223 and not survive 10 rounds from a 7 pound 300 RUM. Ya know, because physics.

Round counts mean nothing? Then why even shoot.

 

[270quest]

It’s only a sample of 1, but I put a Zeiss V4 4-16x50 thru some rough tumbles and bumps in over 30 days afield this fall in the Idaho backcojntry. Put about 400 rounds of a tikka 7 rem mag thru it out to 800 yards turning turrets often and it’s returned to zero and tracked like a champ. Great zero stop and very good optics and it’s around 20 oz...I’ll buy more of these.

 

[Wrench]

Go ahead and reread my posts, then feel free to edit your question.

Also, please post up results from the dozens of each scopes you’ve seen. Please be specific with each scope and let’s stick to percentages per rev.


Round count means exactly nothing. If you’re using round count as a metric.....well, that’s just a bummer. An optic might live for tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds on a 10 pound 223 and not survive 10 rounds from a 7 pound 300 RUM. Ya know, because physics.

I've actually been that guy. 300rum un braked Christensen tube. I broke every scope it wore. My disgust for Swarovski service came after scrambling a 4-12av in about 20 shots.

The Leupold shop told me nothing will take it. Burris posi-loc.....nope.

The ONLY scopes that rig did not kill in short order were the bushnell and a zeiss. Pretty much name any other scope made in 2005 under a S&B price and I broke it on that rig.

 

[sneaky]

Under 25 oz, rules out a bunch of em unfortunately. For occasional dialing, I like Swarovski, as I think their 4W reticle is the best hunting reticle on the market and obviously their glass is unmatched. Their weights are sensible too. I have a z5 and 2 z6's and they have all been flawless. I LOVE the Z6 3-18x50 at 20 oz and a custom turret. Granted, I have no interest in routine dialing out to 1200 yards so I don't need or want a 2 lb spotting scope mounted to my rifle. Lets face it, as hunters, most shots are 3-400 and under, I'll take lightweight, good glass and a simple reticle for my primary hunting needs. Some will surely disagree, but for me, so far they have proven 100% reliable and durable. Until someone makes a quality lighter scope with a simple reticle, I'll keep going with Swaro.

My Z5 5-25 was garbage for dialing. It wouldn't return to zero. Glad I figured that out before I had a custom turret made for it. Put it on a rifle that will never be dialed. I could care less how great the glass is if the scope doesn't track reliably and return to zero.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[DPReef]

Guess a little range action with a HORUS CATs target is in my plans with my small collection of scopes (Leopold, Vortex, and Swarovski)! Let me know if i should use a different target. I won't be putting it through extensive testing like you guys here, baby steps!

Do you guys find the tracking "off" but repeatable or does it tend to not track while also being inconsistent in the offset/error. I understand if for all this money we spend, we want it to work and be perfect. Just trying to figure out what to do and how important it is to me to get a new scope if tracking is not on point.

Seems a consistent error can be managed, although not preferred? Or maybe not....lots of great knowledge and some of the background data really supports everyone's position here - thanks to all.