-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes 150 Scopes tested, Results Posted !
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
We track scopes in the lower 48 too, Treadproof this last class we tested scopes
We don't do the windage because it's a time thing, plus we don't really push dialing windage in the basic class. At my MHSA classes where the wind is crazy, we have to dial, but in AK we never have to dial anything it is minor.
But all the Marc & Frank Classes have a scope test involved, not all the Frank classes do
We don't do the windage because it's a time thing, plus we don't really push dialing windage in the basic class. At my MHSA classes where the wind is crazy, we have to dial, but in AK we never have to dial anything it is minor.
But all the Marc & Frank Classes have a scope test involved, not all the Frank classes do
Guys this is not meant to be overly complex,
We teach a basic precision rifle class, we used to only test scopes during our PR 2 class because of the time it takes, and since we don't focus on software in PR 1, it's not exactly critical since we dope students out the old fashioned way. Any issues with scope tracking are included in the dope. So there is no issue, it's only if you are predicting and using software does this really show up. However, once we started seeing issues, and combined it with the fact we can catch the issues upfront like a reticle canted in the rings, it became smart for use to expand on this.
Time is the main driver, you have pulled every scope you can, make sure everything is plumb and square to the benches to test, and they test each scope. Going back to us not being able to see what the student sees, we can now go one on one with each student to mount the optic correctly.
Consider guys who are bladed off to the side, 5 degrees, 10, 15 degrees of body angle behind the rifle. That pushes your head closer to the scope. Or if you lower your bipod completely, lay on top of the rifle it pushes the scope forward. We set you up in a position, and a position we feel works for the individual. Is it a one and done for everyone, no, some students might require 3 changes over the weekend to adjust. They don't know what feels good, so after 50+ rounds they need a slight change.
All this moves your relationship to the scope. So we have to adjust the location on the pic rail.
This is a basic test, not some grand statement, that scope on that day performed this way. Or even better, On this day Marc saw this with this scope using our standard. We test all the same, and we feel if we see it with one, it should either show up with the others or at least we are doing them together and they all had an equal chance with the same guy.
You guys are getting too wrapped about the axle over this and now it's creating problems, in typical internet fashion you are taking it too far. If you are out there saying Buy an Athlon because a Zco had a .03 error (which is really just how the math worked out), why because maybe Marc saw an air gap, you're fucking up, and ruining it for everyone.
Basically the feedback, the questioning is making it so I won't post this again... this will be the last time. People can't be counted on to keep things in context, which hurts the overall effort.
We teach a basic precision rifle class, we used to only test scopes during our PR 2 class because of the time it takes, and since we don't focus on software in PR 1, it's not exactly critical since we dope students out the old fashioned way. Any issues with scope tracking are included in the dope. So there is no issue, it's only if you are predicting and using software does this really show up. However, once we started seeing issues, and combined it with the fact we can catch the issues upfront like a reticle canted in the rings, it became smart for use to expand on this.
Time is the main driver, you have pulled every scope you can, make sure everything is plumb and square to the benches to test, and they test each scope. Going back to us not being able to see what the student sees, we can now go one on one with each student to mount the optic correctly.
Consider guys who are bladed off to the side, 5 degrees, 10, 15 degrees of body angle behind the rifle. That pushes your head closer to the scope. Or if you lower your bipod completely, lay on top of the rifle it pushes the scope forward. We set you up in a position, and a position we feel works for the individual. Is it a one and done for everyone, no, some students might require 3 changes over the weekend to adjust. They don't know what feels good, so after 50+ rounds they need a slight change.
All this moves your relationship to the scope. So we have to adjust the location on the pic rail.
This is a basic test, not some grand statement, that scope on that day performed this way. Or even better, On this day Marc saw this with this scope using our standard. We test all the same, and we feel if we see it with one, it should either show up with the others or at least we are doing them together and they all had an equal chance with the same guy.
You guys are getting too wrapped about the axle over this and now it's creating problems, in typical internet fashion you are taking it too far. If you are out there saying Buy an Athlon because a Zco had a .03 error (which is really just how the math worked out), why because maybe Marc saw an air gap, you're fucking up, and ruining it for everyone.
Basically the feedback, the questioning is making it so I won't post this again... this will be the last time. People can't be counted on to keep things in context, which hurts the overall effort.
I'd give it time, its a new idea to many.
maybe a thread for people to post their personal findings (like we have in the range report section).
A lot of people still think the MV off the box is good to go but most have figured out its not a 1 for 1 and that there is context. most people aren't there quite yet with optics.... but give them some time and theyll figure out what they're looking at.
The post wasn’t created to have people make suggestions on how to post. I think that’s the point of Frank’s last post.
I can see how he can be inundated all the time and just feels like packing it in. I don’t blame him. Between the outright mouth breathers and the demands from everyone else, it’s exhausting. I know how he feels, albeit from a very different arena, but people fucking suck sometimes.
I can see how he can be inundated all the time and just feels like packing it in. I don’t blame him. Between the outright mouth breathers and the demands from everyone else, it’s exhausting. I know how he feels, albeit from a very different arena, but people fucking suck sometimes.
Is the cronus that good? I want to stay in the production division of PRS so is the cronus worth it or is it time for the open division with the razor?
Here we go.
Yes. Over a sample size of 5, Frank and Marc can guarantee that none will ever track less than 99% or greater than 100%. Buy with confidence.
Yes. Over a sample size of 5, Frank and Marc can guarantee that none will ever track less than 99% or greater than 100%. Buy with confidence.
Another first time poster coming in hot....
I actually have to take it down and start over,
It's blown up silly in a negative way if your scope didn't perform as expected, guys are beating up everything we did.
So it might need a complete rewrite, which I will just rewrite the first post, it's turning into a stupid conflated bunch of I can buy a $1500 scope and it's every bit as good as $3000 scope because you saw a minor variation. This is done in the field, it's not scientific and you're acting like it's a computer-controlled result which should be taken as gospel
The internet warriors broke it, so now I have to fix it, and based on that, odds are I won't do this again.
It's blown up silly in a negative way if your scope didn't perform as expected, guys are beating up everything we did.
So it might need a complete rewrite, which I will just rewrite the first post, it's turning into a stupid conflated bunch of I can buy a $1500 scope and it's every bit as good as $3000 scope because you saw a minor variation. This is done in the field, it's not scientific and you're acting like it's a computer-controlled result which should be taken as gospel
The internet warriors broke it, so now I have to fix it, and based on that, odds are I won't do this again.
Too bad, it was great little right up. Thanks I enjoyed it. There are probably a lot people adjusting B.C and velocity when they need a solver that lets them adjust tracking error. Its pretty cool our inputs for our solvers are getting so accurate, this has become a thing.
And this is what happens when people don’t understand exactly what’s going on here.
Anything within 2% is going to be all but unnoticeable when shooting.
doubtful even with the clarifications I made we'll do this again,
it just makes everything done look bad to post stupid ship like that ... not just them, but some other too,
Acting like you can pay $1500 because it tracked well and have something better than one at $3000 is crazy, there is more, the questions I was getting were terrible,
I can only blame myself for not writing it up like it reads now, I took a shortcut and ruined it
it just makes everything done look bad to post stupid ship like that ... not just them, but some other too,
Acting like you can pay $1500 because it tracked well and have something better than one at $3000 is crazy, there is more, the questions I was getting were terrible,
I can only blame myself for not writing it up like it reads now, I took a shortcut and ruined it
Don’t worry. One of the IOR boys us claiming on FB y’all got paid by vortex.
The fact that there are so many questions, so much misunderstanding, and so many emotional statements relative to purchase decisions says that this data collection & transparent reporting needs to continue.
I apologize if my question about if you were seeing lateral slew with elevation adjustment added to messing up this thread.
I hope you will reconsider ending publishing this data going forward.
but even if not, you have illuminated for most Of us the importance of testing your individual scope in this way.
again, I apologize to the extent that my one post and question added to the shit storm.
PS - great rewrite of the original post. Thank you
cheers
Last edited:
It’s a sad day to me when folks who spend their lives plying their craft and for a long time spend it helping others, get discouraged by those who serve their own interest. For me, I saw a small sample of the work that they completed. If I counted correctly, 138 scopes out of 150 were within the margin of error, and they were sourced from 21 manufacturers. Some 92%. That is incredible performance across a broad section of the market. Most manufacturers did an acceptable job versus the 2% standard.
I found the post helpful because it was positive and gave people a reference on what to look for based on budget.And for those thinking that the budget doesn’t matter, it does. Go look through them and see for yourself. Don’t believe all the crap people say, believe your eyes. And, it is my opinion you can believe in this list that Frank and Marc posted.
For those with some time on them, go back 20 years. The performance would have been far worse. What a time to enjoy precision rifle. It has never been better.
I found the post helpful because it was positive and gave people a reference on what to look for based on budget.And for those thinking that the budget doesn’t matter, it does. Go look through them and see for yourself. Don’t believe all the crap people say, believe your eyes. And, it is my opinion you can believe in this list that Frank and Marc posted.
For those with some time on them, go back 20 years. The performance would have been far worse. What a time to enjoy precision rifle. It has never been better.
I don't think lowlight did anything wrong. He posted some great info and a good repeatable method. He was clear in what they were doing. You can't fix stupid people. Its their problem not yours.
When you realize that the average person has an IQ of 100.... Which is basically a functional retard.
And then HALF of the population is dumber.......
And a message board is a cross section of society.
With the real irony being this logic will be lost on the same people.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh and shake your head.
When you realize that the average person has an IQ of 100.... Which is basically a functional retard.
And then HALF of the population is dumber.......
And a message board is a cross section of society.
With the real irony being this logic will be lost on the same people.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh and shake your head.
80, 40, 20. A concept that was taught to me in my line of work. The senior mentor gives the student 80% or more of their knowledge. The new student may understand 40% and retain 20%. Frank thank you and your cadre for giving us 100% all the time. Dont let our stupidity discourage your contributions. We appreciate your efforts. New people (myself included) listen the best you can and attempt do your due dilligence to learn. No question is a bad question, but dont perpetuate stupidity. Thanks Lowlight.
This thread reminds me why we can’t have nice things 
I appreciate this, as much bullshit as it caused. The fact that Frank took the time to also go back and re-define parameters after testing shows he is interested in the science, not the "Brand X is the scope of the hide."
Nothing here was presented in a way that would cause me to view it as anything other than a single data point amongst the many. Look at how the data is organized; the scope with the most data has at max 12-15 entries. Does Occam's Razor not say that it is possible they made 15 good scopes, but also have some that don't track as well? In the same process and thought, the scopes who either were not represented with as large a sample size may make scopes whose tracking was better/worse than the results. Again... A single data point represented by a small sample size that continues growing, with an ever evolving refinement of testing protocol.
Keep up the work, it's important.
Nothing here was presented in a way that would cause me to view it as anything other than a single data point amongst the many. Look at how the data is organized; the scope with the most data has at max 12-15 entries. Does Occam's Razor not say that it is possible they made 15 good scopes, but also have some that don't track as well? In the same process and thought, the scopes who either were not represented with as large a sample size may make scopes whose tracking was better/worse than the results. Again... A single data point represented by a small sample size that continues growing, with an ever evolving refinement of testing protocol.
Keep up the work, it's important.
Last edited:
+1 The overall performance of the scopes was actually very good, across brands and pricepoints.
At the same time, one cannot take the process for granted. 12/150 scopes is enough to emphasise testing process is useful.
All I can say is Thank You for sharing this data with us. You do all of us a great service doing what you do in the field.
If guy's don't appreciate it, or claim foul because they don't agree with it, then they are the ones that lose at learning anything from the data shown to them.
If guy's don't appreciate it, or claim foul because they don't agree with it, then they are the ones that lose at learning anything from the data shown to them.
If this is something that you are willing to continue doing, please don’t burn the concept! It is appreciated by many, and a few butt hurt individuals are ruining it. It is valuable and most importantly independent information. The fact that you don’t pick the scopes being tested or aren’t sent them for trial is invaluable for many reasons. Please re-consider continuing the testing as time allows and just shut down the comments if necessary. Thanks for your time and effort on this one guys.
Maybe those IOR fanboith, instead of running to Facebook, which by the way is the worst possible place on the internet for good information, should instead just run their own tall target tests. Then they’d know. But they didn’t. They ran to mouth breather corner to stroke each other off while not actually becoming any smarter. That alone speaks volumes.
Last edited:
This is appreciated and enjoyed by those of us who see it for what it is Frank. Thank you to both you and Marc for putting this together. I know many of us would enjoy seeing this as part of a continued (shared) AAR to your classes, but I definitely understand the hesitation. 
Man, why do all you dumb fucks got to go and shit on everyone's ham sandwich? Frank and Marc compile invaluable and unbiased data, then share it with everyone, then all the window licking Dur Hurrrs got to go and fuck a great thread all the way up. "wElL wHaT aBoUt ThIs...."
Smh
Smh
I think it's pretty cool Frank took the time to create this thread with stats for us to check out! Who else would do that?!
I advise to make a seperate thread with continuing updates of stats and make it a locked sticky. People can be people here on this thread doing what they do.....
Thanks Frank and Marc!
I advise to make a seperate thread with continuing updates of stats and make it a locked sticky. People can be people here on this thread doing what they do.....
Thanks Frank and Marc!
Sign up for a class and bring one!
Off topic but curious if they were Park Service HRT types of more nuisance animal sharp shooters
Is that available for purchase somewhere ?
Majority of Americans on any topic other than firearms/ballistics
Every gun owner on the internet
id say it’s the opposite.
Read most of the replies to obvious questions on any gun site.
Its more of the top pic rather than the libtard-commi in pic 2.
If you havent noticed.....the dumb fucks greatly outnumber the ones capable of independent thought. Surrounded on all sides.
Yea and most people don't understand they have one of the most dangerous jobs, many times with backup hours away at best if you even have radio service.
A m4 with an acog is not a gunfight you want to get into with a crazy hunter and his scoped 300wm 500+yards away.
Chassing drug dealers/grow ops, poachers and crazy hill people all by yourself is no joke.
I spent a year fighting to upgrade our FLEOs gear ( hard armor, armored inserts for their trucks, lpvos, nods, thermals, med kits, sat phones,ect) to make them more survivable. The sad thing is many of the local sherrifs refuse to provide mutual aide and you may have one officer responsible for millions of square miles of land.
Mad respect for park rangers and other resource cops, especially out west and up in AK.
Makes perfect sense why they would take precision rifle training, especially after burns.
Last edited:
Some of us understand and appreciate the info that was collected.
MAGA. (Making America's Glass Accountable) Thanks alot for your time.
