Rifle Scopes 150 Scopes tested, Results Posted !

[Baron23]

They're certainly welcome to have their reticle anyway they want it.

I disagree w/you about what I suggested being a solution looking for a problem considering the tremendously kind help some folks needed and got to help level their scopes from reading this discussion and probably others that aren't you who do have a problem even after they set up their scopes and may not know it.

I got this right the first time I did it but it took me awhile, so I'd prefer having something like this the next time I have to level a scope.

Leveling a scope may be a "snap" 4 you but it obviously wasn't for others.

I never said it was a "snap" and people have found it easy to level scopes (yes, with a bit of knowledge) for decades without a longitudinal groove and track on the scope/rings.

I'm not sure why such a hostile response from you....but its really not that important to me.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Convex]

You're not sure because it ain't there. This isn't about you.

If it's not important to you then get a thicker skin and quit bringing it up.

I know you didn't say "snap", I did. That was my characterization.


Yes, like anything many folks with a bit of knowledge can do this easily, some folks unfortunately will have a problem getting this right. You can show some folks how to clean a lens and they will still fuck it up.

That's not judging them, in fact my idea is the exact opposite, which is make it easy for the folks who want that choice.


I think one of its advantages would be to mount the scope w/o the dead level. and plum bob I used, and if I had to choose, I'd choose this to save time.

Like any other idea, some folks will think it has merit, or they'll discount it, that's fine.

 

[supercorndogs]

They're certainly welcome to have their reticle anyway they want it.

I disagree w/you about what I suggested being a solution looking for a problem considering the tremendously kind help some folks needed and got to help level their scopes from reading this discussion and probably others that aren't you who do have a problem even after they set up their scopes and may not know it.

I got this right the first time I did it but it took me awhile, so I'd prefer having something like this the next time I have to level a scope.

Leveling a scope may be a "snap" 4 you but it obviously wasn't for others.

Nope solution looking for a problem, adding extra complexity and cost to the final product. Now if the reticle is 1 or 2 degrees out, you can't rotate the tube and correct it. Now you are adding extra pieces to the outside of a round tube that need to be precisely located and sized for them to work. You have also made something that isn't going to be compatible with most traditional rings.

Bottom line, if one can't mount their scope. Pay someone to do it. Everyone else isnt interested in footing the bill for their safety net.

 

[Baron23]

If it's not important to you then get a thicker skin and quit bringing it up.

Ah...its you that's not important to me.

And let's see how thick your skin is, boyo

 

[Convex]

Yes, those would be valid arguments about the drawbacks and there may be a cost, but I disagree w/this being complex, we're talking about one or two notches on a tube, and machining a groove in the rings.

If you have a groove @ the bottom of the ring, that doesn't stop you from mounting a scope that doesn't have a notch, so you could still rotate that scope to align the reticle you mentioned that's 1 or 2 degrees out. The new rings wouldn't stop you using a scope that didn't have notches, how could it?

It would be compatible w/the scopes you've got/planning to buy.


"Bottom line, if one can't mount their scope. Pay someone to do it.".........


Disagree: I don't believe it's "everyone", for somebody like me or Carbonbased and/or others who know how to mount a scope, it would be a choice, and for those who can't mount their scope, the point would be they wouldn't have to pay someone else to do it.


The scopes you've already got, or planning to buy would fit perfectly/rotate easily in rings that have a groove in the bottom.

 

[Convex]

It's real thick. Other than saying that no response.... LOL

 

[chevy_man]

You're not sure because it ain't there. This isn't about you.

If it's not important to you then get a thicker skin and quit bringing it up.

I know you didn't say "snap", I did. That was my characterization.


Yes, like anything many folks with a bit of knowledge can do this easily, some folks unfortunately will have a problem getting this right. You can show some folks how to clean a lens and they will still fuck it up.

That's not judging them, in fact my idea is the exact opposite, which is make it easy for the folks who want that choice.


I think one of its advantages would be to mount the scope w/o the dead level. and plum bob I used, and if I had to choose, I'd choose this to save time.

Like any other idea, some folks will think it has merit, or they'll discount it, that's fine.

You're trying to market a solution to those without a problem.


I know this might be scary to many here, but I do nothing but look through my scope to level it. Just make sure the vertical stadia looks like it's running straight down to the barrel when I shoulder the gun.

And hey, it works just fine.


But how about you convince an optional company to complicate everything they do in lieu of the 10 minutes it takes to mount a scope with simple and cheap leveling tools. Considering a vast majority of scopes don't get removed from rings unless they're sold, I doubt anyone is going to buy into the massive cost increases.


It would prevent the old "elevation on the left, windage on the top" mounting I've seen a few times now. I just assume anyone that dumb can't be taught.

 

[Convex]

That's been said several times, doesn't change the fact that there are folks out there that have a problem and might prefer a simple solution which complicates nothing since it's a choice.

The more we started to remove scopes from students' rifles the more variations we began to see. These included scopes that were improperly mounted in the rings and levels that were not in the correct agreement with the reticle. Since the Target is level, as is the fixture, we can test both tracking and look at the plumb of the reticle. To relate this to those reading this, we see about 1/3 of scopes in a 12 -16 Person Class is not level and about another 3rd which are not correctly aligned to the bubble level or the level has been knocked off.

There was definitely a problem w/this many people who showed up in this group who tried it and got it wrong w/lowlight and his folks stepping in to help.

There's more around the country who can't get to this class, don't have access to an instructor locally, so I assume they try to get as much info as they can including perusing here and try to level their scopes and get it wrong.

Repeating part of what lowlight said...

"To relate this to those reading this, we see about 1/3 of scopes in a 12-16 person Class is not level and about another 3rd which are not correctly aligned to the bubble level or the level has been knocked off."

If it's so easy nobody would have a problem.

 

[Lowlight]

We continue to see scopes with a cant in the reticle due to mounting. I think I fixed 4 this weekend to include 2 bubbles.

In most cases the rings bit the tube and pull the scope over enough to cause a visible issue.

The tracking part remains close to the same. Most errors .98 - .102 max, I don’t think we’ve seen a .96 in a long time as many have upgraded to new models. The new stuff is pretty good.

Another “test” we do is a return to zero one. After doping rifles to distance I always bring everyone back to zero and check groups.

One common problem is the rings binding. Many know about the scopes were the rings bind the parallax and you don’t get the movement required. Well you can also bind the back ring and influence the elevation and windage. Depending I can move the back ring and fix it. But not always. I have started to notice an uptick in that problem again

Split verticals rings are the biggest problem with this but not always. I had two this weekend with only one being split vertical . In this case I recommend checking with the student because I dont want to use a single instance as something to worry about but at the same time, exercise the turrets and check. Small hiccups can and do appear with some rings and the torque specs.

We make time to remove scopes, look and remount, helping the shooter set up the rifle better for them. Eye relief is the easy word, but it’s not always just that. It’s like your car, adjusting the Seats and Mirrors. Some people want more lean than others.

If you look at our lines after day one, we create clones, to do that 4 or 5 people might need a tweak so the scopes position will move. It’s kinda a comfort thing.

But the story continues the manufacturers don’t like this test cause people still go back and complain. I went to a SH class they checked my scope and it was .98 and the answer is often, those guys are doing it wrong. So we keep quiet, but our results are unmistakable. We identify and fix problems.

 

[Convex]

Asking somebody who sees this close up, I'd ask U in terms of rings biting and binding scopes are they up to the standard of machining you'd expect as a group or is there a variation depending on who makes the rings.

Or is it a matter of the occasional dog showing up.

 

[chevy_man]

That's been said several times, doesn't change the fact that there are folks out there that have a problem and might prefer a simple solution which complicates nothing since it's a choice.

It complicates manufacturing. Anything you add into it too make it not perfectly round means changing a large part of the design internally.

That's why you're not going to get an optic company to buy into it. Increased cost to manufacture, which translates into increased sales cost, and none of us that can use a level are going to pay extra.
Also, none of the guys who have a decent store that will level and install the scope upon purchase will feel the need to pay extra. This is a large part of the hunting market, which is the dominant sales force driving the market.

 

[chevy_man]

Asking somebody who sees this close up, I'd ask U in terms of rings biting and binding scopes are they up to the standard of machining you'd expect as a group or is there a variation depending on who makes the rings.

Or is it a matter of the occasional dog showing up.

What I've seen is that's guys that just run everything up to torque. Set the fat wrench and crank it down!
If you go back and forth in small steps it hasn't ever been an issue for me, even on $30 rings.

 

[Convex]

What I've seen is that's guys that just run everything up to torque. Set the fat wrench and crank it down!
If you go back and forth in small steps it hasn't ever been an issue for me, even on $30 rings.

That is exactly what I do, no matter how long it takes, a few screws-rotations/back n forth, just a little bit at time, and w/a $3.500.00 scope I wasn't going to do it any other way.


And mine had a lot of screws; after I got it leveled I took this shot, here she is all finished up.

 

[Palehorse68]

We continue to see scopes with a cant in the reticle due to mounting. I think I fixed 4 this weekend to include 2 bubbles.

In most cases the rings bit the tube and pull the scope over enough to cause a visible issue.

The tracking part remains close to the same. Most errors .98 - .102 max, I don’t think we’ve seen a .96 in a long time as many have upgraded to new models. The new stuff is pretty good.

Another “test” we do is a return to zero one. After doping rifles to distance I always bring everyone back to zero and check groups.

One common problem is the rings binding. Many know about the scopes were the rings bind the parallax and you don’t get the movement required. Well you can also bind the back ring and influence the elevation and windage. Depending I can move the back ring and fix it. But not always. I have started to notice an uptick in that problem again

Split verticals rings are the biggest problem with this but not always. I had two this weekend with only one being split vertical . In this case I recommend checking with the student because I dont want to use a single instance as something to worry about but at the same time, exercise the turrets and check. Small hiccups can and do appear with some rings and the torque specs.

We make time to remove scopes, look and remount, helping the shooter set up the rifle better for them. Eye relief is the easy word, but it’s not always just that. It’s like your car, adjusting the Seats and Mirrors. Some people want more lean than others.

If you look at our lines after day one, we create clones, to do that 4 or 5 people might need a tweak so the scopes position will move. It’s kinda a comfort thing.

But the story continues the manufacturers don’t like this test cause people still go back and complain. I went to a SH class they checked my scope and it was .98 and the answer is often, those guys are doing it wrong. So we keep quiet, but our results are unmistakable. We identify and fix problems.

While the naysayers will balk at the idea of this procedure, both of my scopes & bubble were corrected. Even though the cant was ever so slight, having both of my scopes corrected, I have no doubt it contributed to me shooting better during the course, especially at longer distances. I intend on ordering a tracker and hopefully get a print out of the exact mil/moa chart Frank used, when it becomes available.

 

[Convex]

It complicates manufacturing. Anything you add into it too make it not perfectly round means changing a large part of the design internally.

I just spotted this.

No.

I designed a camera in 2006, the "Silhouette 612", which was fabricated/machined out of the Steve Grimes shop by Adam Dau. Along the lines we decided on a change to the outside of the lens cone at the back to accommodate the base of the camera and to address that Adam simply made a change to his machines which affected the outside but not the light path that has to travel from the lens back to the film plane through the lens cone.

Nothing inside the lens cone was affected/changed because if that happened the lens cone couldn't perform its function.


The image of the camera out the Steve Grimes archives is here in my about section.

The design of the mounting plate/lens cone/helicoid is me.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/members/convex.183135/#about

Scroll down about 3/4 to the bottom to get to the camera.

 

[Baron23]

Asking somebody who sees this close up, I'd ask U in terms of rings biting and binding scopes are they up to the standard of machining you'd expect as a group or is there a variation depending on who makes the rings.

Or is it a matter of the occasional dog showing up.

Frank is referring to really cheap ass rings like the Vortex vertical split rings…that seem to sometimes be given for free with a scope purchase.

I know this because we talked about it face to face at a clinic last week.

This does NOT include ARC rings which are not cheap shit, work great, and are really a different design…something that Frank clarified last week also.

I love ARC rings. Work great and no issues w can’t when tighten them as is often the case with traditional design rings (and yes, I know there are at least a couple of ways to mitigate this).

Hope this is helpful.

Edit - none of this is in reference to Vortex’s better, traditional design rings that are made for them by Seekins.

 

[Convex]

Yes it is. Thank U Sir.

 

[LeftyJason]

I just spotted this.

No.

I designed a camera in 2006, the "Silhouette 612", which was fabricated/machined out of the Steve Grimes shop by Adam Dau. Along the lines we decided on a change to the outside of the lens cone at the back to accommodate the base of the camera and to address that Adam simply made a change to his machines which affected the outside but not the light path that has to travel from the lens back to the film plane through the lens cone.

Nothing inside the lens cone was affected/changed because if that happened the lens cone couldn't perform its function.


The image of the camera out the Steve Grimes archives is here in my about section.

The design of the mounting plate/lens cone/helicoid is me.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/members/convex.183135/#about

Scroll down about 3/4 to the bottom to get to the camera.

Adding in something will change the manufacturing for sure. Parts that can be done on a lathe will have to be done on a mill turn. Milling takes longer than turning. If you no longer have a symmetrical design on the tube it might distort more because of metal stresses. There are all kinds of trade offs. Also introduces another "standard".

 

[carbonbased]

Rifle Scopes - Why aren't integral scope rails more popular?

By "integral scope rail' I mean something like Zeiss ZM/VM: This mounting system is fairly popular in Europe (Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica and a few others make compatible scopes ) but it is pretty much unheard of in North America. I wonder why? In theory, it seems vastly superior to traditional...

www.snipershide.com

I’ll just leave this here. People on that thread (vs. everyone in the universe) with some experience with integral scope mounts seem to like them and say they are very rigid. @koshkin weighed in as well.

Personally, given the sheer amount of scope mounting confusion in the world…something like that method points in the right direction.

If you are one that likes to purposely cant your reticle, you’d need an adjustable buttplate, I think.

 

[Convex]

He said this

"It complicates manufacturing. Anything you add into it too make it not perfectly round means changing a large part of the design internally."


I can state as a fact from firsthand experience from actually doing this/putting together a camera system, that the last part of this statement is untrue and it can't be any planer.


The last part of this, he's saying you change something on the outside so it's no longer perfectly round, you'll have to make a change to the inside.



Read what I said and look at the camera, we changed the outside of the lens cone (which is perfectly round) without changing anything inside,

End of story.


When it comes to making something else fabrication/manufacturing, anything's possible, but the camera/something I actually put together disproves that if U change the outside of something round you'll end up having to change the inside.

 

[Tictacticaltimmy]

I just use the Arisaka scope leveling tool which levels the bottom of the turret housing to the top of the scope mount base. Doesn't fit every scope mount but it fits all the ones I prefer to use. Is this method inadequate? I can't imagine $800+ scopes or $200+ mounts would not be machined square.

 

[chevy_man]

He said this

"It complicates manufacturing. Anything you add into it too make it not perfectly round means changing a large part of the design internally."


I can state as a fact from firsthand experience from actually doing this/putting together a camera system, that the last part of this statement is untrue and it can't be any planer.


The last part of this, he's saying you change something on the outside so it's no longer perfectly round, you'll have to make a change to the inside.



Read what I said and look at the camera, we changed the outside of the lens cone (which is perfectly round) without changing anything inside,

End of story.


When it comes to making something else fabrication/manufacturing, anything's possible, but the camera/something I actually put together disproves that if U change the outside of something round you'll end up having to change the inside.

Except in the scope most parts are held in place with threaded lock nuts.

Now you're adding material to make the inside round still. You're also losing room for travel of the erector, so you now need to step up tube diameter and weight, or sacrifice travel.


Go tear a scope apart once. It's not a camera lens.

 

[Convex]

I don't have to go anywhere to tear anything apart except the "straw man" you dumped here just now which is showing up later suggesting that what you're saying now is what you said earlier, it ain't.


You made a blanket generalization about everything saying this....

"It complicates manufacturing. Anything you add into it too make it not perfectly round means changing a large part of the design internally."


There's absolutely nothing in the above quote about the difference between camera lenses and scopes and lock nuts, so don't form your lips to suggest that was what you were saying earlier.



That statement came out of your mouth, it's wrong, what you're saying now is different.


BTW: A lens cone isn't a lens, read what I said before you put words in my mouth or yours.