Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To enter, all you need to do is add an image of yourself at the range below! Subscribers get more entries, check out the plans below for a better chance of winning!
Join the contest SubscribeAnd I remember from wheelers zero hold test for the highpower benchrest scopes that they were the best at retaining zero as well.Despite some things here and there some people don’t like, Kahles has always had a reputation for tracking true. At least the last few years.
From chart, seems like that holds true.
Reminds me a little of what (oh snap, now I can't remember his name) but he used to frequent the Hide a lot back in the Scout days and did videos of tracking tests, I think this is one of them, but I like the idea of a database with multiple examples as any scope can have a bad day through QC/QA.
For those that did not track too well, were the owners asked if they had ever done their own tracking tests? I would be curious how many didn't actually know how much their scope was off by - I use SH 100y tall targets from Box to Bench but always wonder how much margin of error there is. I wonder if it would be a benefit for a similar setup to be available at competitions, one would think a serious competition shooter has already done their own tracking test but I'm sure there's many who don't or maybe who did not do it right, but as has been mentioned, those that fall within 2% (which the majority seem to be) may not be enough to affect your ability to hit the target at long range.
Good information especially as the database grows and we start seeing more trends.
Entry error (fat fingered)? Or does the old NXS compensate for bad DOPE ?
![]()
Here is our scale from @Jackmaster on here, he laminated us a Mil & MOA scale ...
Now that is funny shit right there.Probably stumbled across the thread and joined just to make that comment![]()
Ahh. This makes more sense now since it is % deviation from a single point. I was thinking it was how accurately it tracked for multiple points. Thanks.It means they moved more than the advertised click amount.
So if it was 98%, it would be .2 mils short (reticle would be at the 9.8 mark) if you dialed 10 mils.
If it was 102%, it would be .2mils high (reticle would be at 10.2 on target) if you dialed 10mils
What were they testing, when it failed?They were listed in the order we saw them, some classes have more than one scopes, which you see repeats,
If the scope was just listed as Fail it was well below 10% the M5 was around 50% that was listed as fail, that is the story above it was an M5, they replaced it.
Turret tracking...What were they testing, when it failed?
And I remember from wheelers zero hold test for the highpower benchrest scopes that they were the best at retaining zero as well.
So for the testing such as this and that wheeler test, the kahles have always been outstanding performers. Makes me want one.
Cant afford it so I feel good with my choices in athlon and bushnell for my poor ass. But the kahles always catches my eye.
1 Mil = 3.6 Inches at 100 Yards
...
Yardsticks work
Use a meter stick at 100 meters then.Thanks, so
-->1mil=3.6in@100
Main prob with using mulitple of 3.6 is lack of calibrated decimal-inch rulers
-->10mils=36in@100
Good to go since the "36.0" line ruler common on all yardstick...even fractional.
Couple more "quick and dirty" datapoints if using the "yardstick" approach
5.0mil@100yd 18.0 inch
2.5mil@100yd 9.0 inch
So this gets you a couple points across the usable range.
Again not perfect but idea is to red flag a major issue with tracking.
Use a meter stick at 100 meters then.
YES! Thank you, KillswitchEngage, my brain just not as good as it used to beWasn't that Killswitch?
Very good info. Thanks, Frank.
Over time this will really become statistically significant and I am not aware of any publically available resource like this.
There was a comment earlier how it would be very nice if more people checked their own scopes using a yardstick and all that.
I am really mixed on that, to be honest. One one hand, it would be nice, but on the other hand I have seen so many people screw this up by using a cheap yardstick, measuring the distance incorrectly, not taking into account the angle of inclination, that the data set would really get corrupted.
What Frank is doing there is incredibly valuable because a most of that is taken out of the equation: they are measuring a bunch of scopes on the same carefully calibrated setup.
ILya
There was a comment earlier how it would be very nice if more people checked their own scopes using a yardstick and all that.
I am really mixed on that, to be honest. One one hand, it would be nice, but on the other hand I have seen so many people screw this up by using a cheap yardstick, measuring the distance incorrectly, not taking into account the angle of inclination, that the data set would really get corrupted.
Kind of. When you look at how much they were off ,not one was even 1% off.The ZCO disnt do as well as i would have hoped / expected
Likewise. I expected pure 100% given the price point but an uncorrectable 0.03 is kinda whatever.The ZCO disnt do as well as i would have hoped / expected
Agreed.Very good info. Thanks, Frank.
Over time this will really become statistically significant and I am not aware of any publically available resource like this.
There was a comment earlier how it would be very nice if more people checked their own scopes using a yardstick and all that.
I am really mixed on that, to be honest. One one hand, it would be nice, but on the other hand I have seen so many people screw this up by using a cheap yardstick, measuring the distance incorrectly, not taking into account the angle of inclination, that the data set would really get corrupted.
What Frank is doing there is incredibly valuable because a most of that is taken out of the equation: they are measuring a bunch of scopes on the same carefully calibrated setup.
ILya
Sorry, I wasn't sure if each box represented a different scope, different tester, windage or elevationNo clue what you are asking