-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes 150 Scopes tested, Results Posted !
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Here is our scale from @Jackmaster on here, he laminated us a Mil & MOA scale that we use, the scale is also leveled with a 4ft Level which gives us a view of the reticle so we can check plumb,
In the second pic Frank ditches the fixture and fancy measuring equipment and trues the scope by the snipers eye.
Entry error (fat fingered)? Or does the old NXS compensate for bad DOPE ?
Numbers over 100 moved more then dialed. Meaning dialed 10mil and scope moved 10.2mil. At least that's what I read.
Yes,
Numbers over 100% means the scope reticle moved more than the turret was dialed, happens
Numbers over 100% means the scope reticle moved more than the turret was dialed, happens
@lowlight Is their a downloadable test target-type file for this? Sorry for asking if this is a stupid question.
Alternatively, maybe another stupid question...
is it fair to say the 10Mil mark@100yds a dead equal to 36inches?
So if we take a "calibrated yardstick" from home depot and run the test at 10mil=36in...and it lines up => OK
is this valid "go or no go" test for a MIL/MIL scope?
IMHO if you chould check one value with an easy to obtain target like a $1 yardstick, maybe more people would flag tracking issues earlier in the process for many people.
Thoughts?
Alternatively, maybe another stupid question...
is it fair to say the 10Mil mark@100yds a dead equal to 36inches?
So if we take a "calibrated yardstick" from home depot and run the test at 10mil=36in...and it lines up => OK
is this valid "go or no go" test for a MIL/MIL scope?
IMHO if you chould check one value with an easy to obtain target like a $1 yardstick, maybe more people would flag tracking issues earlier in the process for many people.
Thoughts?
1 Mil = 3.6 Inches at 100 Yards,
3600 Inches = 100 Yards,
Mils are Base 10, slide the decimal place
1 Mil - 1 Yard @ 1000 Yards,
3600 Inches = 100 Yards,
Mils are Base 10, slide the decimal place
1 Mil - 1 Yard @ 1000 Yards,
- An Angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex
Now that is funny shit right there.Probably stumbled across the thread and joined just to make that comment
Khales are excellent scopes. They sit on all of my precision rifles, with the exception of the wife's gun, which has an older Steiner M5 of mine.
Khales arguably doesn't really excel above it's peers in any one single category, but it performs in every category very well, to make it a great all around scope. The reticle choice is excellent, the tracking is perfect, and I personally love the ergos of the LH windage and the position of the parallax. There's a lot to love with the Khales scopes.
The only scope brand that excites me as much as Khales is Zero Compromise, which is no surprise since the same designer was behind both. I don't own a ZC scope, but love what I see, and perhaps I'll have the opportunity to try one some day. But until then, I'm very happy with my Khales.
This is an awesome thread, I love seeing actual data, rather then the usual rhetoric that gets espoused elsewhere.
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 with minimal testing gear.
Dude please stop trying to explain to me,
I honestly don't need your input, if you are repeating it for yourself, great, but I think I got it
I honestly don't need your input, if you are repeating it for yourself, great, but I think I got it
HD has the yardstick is like 76 cents and its wood...
they don't have similar metric product since construction is all fractiona/inch...AFAIK
Granted if you are in EU and have 100m range and cheap 1m stick
you're laughing all the way to the bank...
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
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
YES! Thank you, KillswitchEngage, my brain just not as good as it used to be
Agreed. Also, nice to see Vortex and Bushnell killing it in the $1500 range
Forgot to add: I use a slightly different setup to do the same basic thing and I am about to receive a collimator so I will be able to do these kinds of calibrations indoors.
I just bough a house, so once I move, I will get it all set up properly. Then, I can help add data to the table without worrying about yardsticks, distances, inclinations, etc.
ILya
I just bough a house, so once I move, I will get it all set up properly. Then, I can help add data to the table without worrying about yardsticks, distances, inclinations, etc.
ILya
Good points...
Just to be clear, my purpose was mostly to flag for the end user a major error (>2-3% etc).
The goal is for somebody with a calbrated 100yd distance target (not so rare at clubs),
to have a sense if they have a problem, so they can do more testing or whatever.
Was not suggesting to contribute this to Frank's database
For that I agree its better to keep a single method/team collecting to control for process errors
I've been checking all my scopes in my backyard. I drafted a calibrated target board, and have a nice flat area with enough range. I've only checked 10 or 12 scopes, but it has been interesting to see the results. I was getting pretty used to seeing 100%, and the first time I saw a 101% I was pretty bummed, LOL. Then I saw how a truly shitty scope tracks 
The ZCO disnt do as well as i would have hoped / expected
To be honest, we disagreed with at least one of those, and the other .03 is really a wash.
When I got called over I saw parallax in the scope, but whatever, a .0X of anything is not correctable
When I got called over I saw parallax in the scope, but whatever, a .0X of anything is not correctable
Kind of. When you look at how much they were off ,not one was even 1% off.
Likewise. I expected pure 100% given the price point but an uncorrectable 0.03 is kinda whatever.
These results in general however are very interesting to see. There’s no bias, just cold hard fact on the tracking of the optics. I hope to attend one of these classes as I know I could benefit from Frank’s instruction, but I would be curious to see how my scope/scopes track under controlled testing as well.
Thank you for collecting this data into one spreadsheet and making it accessible to the masses.
FYI
We did not CHOOSE SCOPES TO TEST, I got more than one message about which scopes are on the list,
They are Student Scopes, all of them, (There might be two of my personal ones in there like the S&B Exos). We pull every scope from students that have Pic rails or rings where we can mount them. (Some have hunting setups can't mount the scope on the rail).
As a student in the class we test YOUR SCOPE, this is not some created list, this is organic, you come to class with X Y OR Z optic it gets checked and added to the list
The NUMBERS ARE PERCENT, 100%, 99%, 98%... a scope that tracks 100 moves 10 mils when dialed 10 mils, a scope that tracks 99 moves 9.9 Mils, and a scope that tracks 101 moves 10.1 when dialed 10 mils.
I have to say, a lot of these questions is making me go, WOW, the amount of misunderstanding is pretty high which is why we see a lot of these questions and problems.
This goes back to shooters wanting to know the Tips and Tricks before even learning the most basic side of the trade.
We did not CHOOSE SCOPES TO TEST, I got more than one message about which scopes are on the list,
They are Student Scopes, all of them, (There might be two of my personal ones in there like the S&B Exos). We pull every scope from students that have Pic rails or rings where we can mount them. (Some have hunting setups can't mount the scope on the rail).
As a student in the class we test YOUR SCOPE, this is not some created list, this is organic, you come to class with X Y OR Z optic it gets checked and added to the list
The NUMBERS ARE PERCENT, 100%, 99%, 98%... a scope that tracks 100 moves 10 mils when dialed 10 mils, a scope that tracks 99 moves 9.9 Mils, and a scope that tracks 101 moves 10.1 when dialed 10 mils.
I have to say, a lot of these questions is making me go, WOW, the amount of misunderstanding is pretty high which is why we see a lot of these questions and problems.
This goes back to shooters wanting to know the Tips and Tricks before even learning the most basic side of the trade.
Agreed.
The data needs to be controlled to ensure its integrity. Having the same person or small group repeat the procedure the same way each time is what will, over time creating statistically significant data we can draw conclusions from. Not to mention the commercial viability of tainting the data to hurt competitors or help ones own brand. Most manufactures and many retails have reps here who read this.
Half the people posting in this thread can't do 4th grade math, as proven by the questions and inability to understand the OP. That does not inspire confidence from user supplied data.
My concern is people will look at the initial posting and either use it to confirm their confirmation bias or think their personal product is poor. There just isin't enough data yet to draw any reasonable conclusions. We really need to see a larger sample size to infer consistent quality across brands and skus. Maybe 98% pass rate is great for a scope. Not so great for an airplane or scuba rig.
To me this looks like the beginning of a very valuable piece of information for not only the end users, but the industry.
Yeah. Some of these questions are blowing my mind.
People have a habit of just jumping in without actually reading the thread.
Majority of Americans on any topic other than firearms/ballistics
Every gun owner on the internet
Every gun owner on the internet
I see that you track the scopes that come to class, is that only in Alaska where you have it all set up or do you bring it to your lower 50 classes as well?
@lowlight @Enough Said
hi Frank and Marc - like others, I would like to offer my gratitude for you collecting this data and make it accessible to members here.
A question, please.
Based on Your experience testing all these scopes, do you see any need to check (And capture data on) horizontal movement as you crank in the elevation or is this just not been an issue with your testing to date?
I did do a tall target test of my two scopes using a Target USA fixture a friend lent me and the Hide target from Box to Bench. I liked that target very much as it’s very visible and easy to read at distance, high quality paper and printing, and frankly they don’t cost very much. Not sure why anybody would want to fuck w a yardstick from Home Depot.
Two things were a bit challenging.
The ground to 100 yds is not level at my local club so I could not verify a solid 100 yard slant range. I used a laser range finder and it has its own unquantified error so there is some uncertainty in my results.
I suppose if I want to really nail it I could use high school football field and run a tape to distance.
The other, I’m almost ashamed to mention, but I had to spend a good deal of time working with the test fixture to get it no shit perfectly level and still have the reticle on the Verified vertical line on the target. I know...I must be some kind of idiot... but every adjustment to the fixture seemed to throw something else out of plumb. I think it being about 100 F/98 % in Maryland that day didn’t help LOL
I did get it done to my reasonable satisfaction but I am really looking forward to hooking up w you guys at a clinic in PA next year and seeing how the pros do it.
thanks again.
hi Frank and Marc - like others, I would like to offer my gratitude for you collecting this data and make it accessible to members here.
A question, please.
Based on Your experience testing all these scopes, do you see any need to check (And capture data on) horizontal movement as you crank in the elevation or is this just not been an issue with your testing to date?
I did do a tall target test of my two scopes using a Target USA fixture a friend lent me and the Hide target from Box to Bench. I liked that target very much as it’s very visible and easy to read at distance, high quality paper and printing, and frankly they don’t cost very much. Not sure why anybody would want to fuck w a yardstick from Home Depot.
Two things were a bit challenging.
The ground to 100 yds is not level at my local club so I could not verify a solid 100 yard slant range. I used a laser range finder and it has its own unquantified error so there is some uncertainty in my results.
I suppose if I want to really nail it I could use high school football field and run a tape to distance.
The other, I’m almost ashamed to mention, but I had to spend a good deal of time working with the test fixture to get it no shit perfectly level and still have the reticle on the Verified vertical line on the target. I know...I must be some kind of idiot... but every adjustment to the fixture seemed to throw something else out of plumb. I think it being about 100 F/98 % in Maryland that day didn’t help LOL
I did get it done to my reasonable satisfaction but I am really looking forward to hooking up w you guys at a clinic in PA next year and seeing how the pros do it.
thanks again.
Sorry, I wasn't sure if each box represented a different scope, different tester, windage or elevation
