Rifle Scopes 2014's Best Scope ShootOut

[orkan]

Wow, really?

Yes really... so far as that is an adequate reply for someone trying to justify their choices based on what is going on somewhere other than where they are.

This doesn't mean I hate you Dogtown, or even anyone outside the good ol' USA... so don't go reading into shit and keep things in context. OK my friend?

 

[Mr.T]

Tracking is measured and remeasured perfect and no it does not sit on a 200 round per year rifle. Its on a .284win tacticool rig that shoots enough and travels with aiplanes to the matches. Last station Finnsniper . google it up (interestingly there were a couple of Recons there.)

Would you rather have the parallax closer to you, or farther away?

It is probably a bit more out there ,but actually not that big of a deal once you get used to it. I shoot more BR than tactical so am used to rifles with AO scopes and scope is a stuby one so the paralax ring is not that far away as you might imagine,
https://precisionrifle.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/best-tactical-rifle-scopes.jpg

Does the parallax knob control parallax AND focus in parallel?

Seems to ,No problems in this department. Thing works as advertised

Are the parallax settings forgiving?

Its very forgiving in my experience.

Is the parallax-free setting easily achievable?

From what i have seen yes but it might be deceptive as focus is quite tolerant i have no way of measuring that

Venturing into personal preference territory, just a tiny bit...
Would you rather have a parallax knob that rolled left right, or toward and away from the target?

no preference in terms of which direction i would associate with range

The only issue i see in Recon would probably be the eye relief variation with min max magnification. other issues i have yet to find

 

[Bluedog]

Tracking is measured and remeasured perfect and no it does not sit on a 200 round per year rifle. Its on a .284win tacticool rig that shoots enough and travels with aiplanes to the matches. Last station Finnsniper . google it up (interestingly there were a couple of Recons there.)



It is probably a bit more out there ,but actually not that big of a deal once you get used to it. I shoot more BR than tactical so am used to rifles with AO scopes and scope is a stuby one so the paralax ring is not that far away as you might imagine,
https://precisionrifle.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/best-tactical-rifle-scopes.jpg




Seems to ,No problems in this department. Thing works as advertised


Its very forgiving in my experience.


From what i have seen yes but it might be deceptive as focus is quite tolerant i have no way of measuring that



no preference in terms of which direction i would associate with range

The only issue i see in Recon would probably be the eye relief variation with min max magnification. other issues i have yet to find

Finally someone with actual experience. Thank you.

 

[calz]

Cal, I have a question, so four scopes passed the tracking part of the test but of those four only two passed the tracking and cant test? The only two to pass both parts were Kahles and USO?

The Hensoldt ZF 3.5-26×56, Kahles K 6-24×56, US Optics ER25 5-25×58, and Valdada IOR RECON Tactical 4-28×50 were all perfect at 5, 10, 15, and 20 mils on my click calibration test. The Hensoldt was the only one of those 4 that had any measurable amount of reticle cant, and it was only 0.5% (which is very slight). TimK said he has found 5% in a Leupold Mark 4 before, so 0.5% may be splitting hairs. But I wanted to just publish what I found, and leave the conclusions up to the reader.

 

[calz]

For some its business for others its hobby and pastime but both are necessary for a complete picture. There will of course be tensions between (one accusing another either of brand bias emanating from business deals and others emanating from lack of experience or statistical/numbers perspective) but in the end a potential buyer who does his job and reads both and evaluates both will benefit.

In perfect world manufacturers would publish their reliability data and most common type of failures for their models and independent testers would be able to test with good sample size and standard methodology but there is but and we all know it and have to accept that won't happen.

If anything that can be taken away from either Lowlights/Orkan/et al experience or Calz is a simple fact that WHATEVER scope you buy make sure you test it and make 100% that its functioning the way it should. You go and buy a scope (based on anyones recommendation) put it on a rifle and go and shoot chances are (and apparently pretty good) that something will be off. As to the particular brand in question (IOR) i would guess there are good reasons for strong antibias on this site and considering my own experience and those of others in my vicinity for a good reason. Whether this is valid** or not time will tell and for all of us its good that there is such wide choice of good optics to choose from and that manufacturers know that once they loose reputation for being reliable and true its extremely hard to come back.

Edited:**valid for new models aka Recon etc... in reference to IOR

Great point. I couldn't agree more. The results I'm publishing are just one piece to the puzzle, and as I'm writing the summary of the entire test (which will likely be the one post most people read), I'm hoping to encourage this type of balanced approach. I'm definitely going to reiterate that this is all based on a one scope sample size (mostly), and that actual results may vary. There is absolutely no replacement for testing your own scope. That is why I actually didn't publish that this scope was off by 3 clicks in this direction. I just said how much it was off, without a direction ... so that people wouldn't apply that correction factor to their own scope and assume it was identical.

Anyway, just wanted to voice that I agree with your view here:

... in the end a potential buyer who does his job and reads both and evaluates both will benefit.

 

[calz]

I have a question for calz: How did you get that IOR recon? Did you call a dealer and order it yourself, paying money for it, without telling them your intention of testing? or: Did you call up IOR or their distributor/primary dealer and inform them what you intended to do? What about the rest of the scopes in your test?

I'm all about full disclosure, so I listed where each scope came from in the first post: Tactical Scopes: Field Test Overview & Rifle Scope Line-Up | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

I totally get what you're saying, and honestly I REALLY wish I could have bought 5+ scopes from random retail shelves across the nation. I just didn't have $350,000 to drop on this test. Once again, just trying to do the best I can with my 100% out-of-pocket budget.

 

[calz]

Personally I have bought a number of scopes from Leupold, NF, S&B, Vortex, etc. based on general forum reviews with some being very nice and others... not so much. When I base my research on vetted competition shooters such as Lowlight, Rob01, JasonK, Knight11B4, BigJoe, A10XRifle, Maser, etc. I know the information is based on not just extensive use but abuse. The experience these gentlemen and others have with gear (via sponsorship or personal purchase) pushes the items to the limit. None of the items bought by me on their recommendation has shit the bed. ... My advice would be figure out how you want to use your gear. Be it tactical competitions, benchrest, spray and pray, stalk hunting, etc. and find multiple people knowledgeable (comp shooters, hunting guides, etc.) about it. Find out what they have used, how they used it, if it worked well, why or why not. That way you will have multiple valid data points from reliable sources to base your decision.

I obviously fall in this camp too. I've written 15 posts on the gear the top precision rifle shooters are using (like this one: Best Rifle Scope ? What The Pros Use | PrecisionRifleBlog.com). Anytime you're making a major purchase, it's good to look at what experts in that field are using ... because the guys in the know probably aren't using crap products. That is true for HVAC systems, cars, computers, stereos, ... anything really. Even if a shooter is sponsored, they aren't going to use a product that is going to handicap their performance. The guys at the top are WAY too competitive for that. Look at what experts are using, read lots of reviews, ask questions on forums, and when you finally buy one ... get it from a place with a good return policy, just in case you still don't like it.

 

[Dead Nutz]

The overall mechanical performance ratings are out and the IOR Recon scored a near perfect 99 out of 100 points. With mechanical performance being what matters most to most shooters this is pretty impressive. The ATACR came in 2nd with 96 points, followed by the hensoldt and the beast. I personally don't have a use for a FFP, so I will be giving the ATACR some attention in the coming weeks.

 

[steve123]

Thanks Calz! Very interesting and informative.

 

[Mr.T]

Great test and appreciate the considerable effort was put into making it .


*March owners must be feeling a bit down as the scopes tested are doing their best to finish among the last nearest competiion being half price.LOL

 

[Redmanss]

Great test and appreciate the considerable effort was put into making it .


*March owners must be feeling a bit down as the scopes tested are doing their best to finish among the last nearest competiion being half price.LOL

Yeah, because nobody wins with March Optics... March Scopes Official Site

What's that saying? Oh yeah, "believe the bullet".

 

[Mr.T]

Yeah, because nobody wins with March Optics... March Scopes Official Site

What's that saying? Oh yeah, "believe the bullet".

400$ Weaver T36 wins these kind of matches all the time and that doesn't make it best scope of the job it just good enough . In BR weight is the driving factor to many scope choices. March is very light for given magnification.But still wouldn't be in my top 5 choice for a tactical scope .

 

[Redmanss]

There's winning matches at the local shoot-off, and then there's holding world records along with national and world titles. March has more than a few under their belt. A test like this isn't getting March owners overly disparaged like you insinuate.

 

[orkan]

Astonishing.

Despite it being pointed out by Frank, myself, and others that this test holds almost no weight... people want to continue making idiotic blanket statements which put certain brands on a pedestal or other brands in the gutter. That "what the pro's use" argument is equally invalid, as it does not account for sponsorships or business relationships. I suppose every race driver that has a Monster uniform, Monster hat, Monster car, and has a Monster drink in his hand at the finish line must also think it's the best drink ever, right? Hell, he wouldn't be drinking it if it didn't help him win! Most of the guys winning, would still win if you swapped their rifle with someone else as long as the trajectory was known.

This trend of drawing conclusions where there are none to be drawn can end anytime, and the world would be better for it.

 

[Dead Nutz]

There's winning matches at the local shoot-off, and then there's holding world records along with national and world titles. March has more than a few under their belt. A test like this isn't getting March owners overly disparaged like you insinuate.

Agreed, but I was expecting them to do better. I believe cal even got a second one and it didn't fare much better if at all.

 

[bward]

I just got around to testing the March 5-40x56 I purchased a couple weeks ago, and unfortunately my results nearly match the test identically. Over a range of 10 mils my clicks were off by 2.38%.

 

[sharac]

Interesting. Another good thing coming from such an article is that more people will test their scopes and more and more will speak out (if they find any errors) which will force all manufacturers to do even better. There are bound to be some false positives also due to end user testing error but in the end i think a measure of good scope or the accepted level from end user has just gone up one step.

 

[calz]

Interesting. Another good thing coming from such an article is that more people will test their scopes and more and more will speak out (if they find any errors) which will force all manufacturers to do even better. There are bound to be some false positives also due to end user testing error but in the end i think a measure of good scope or the accepted level from end user has just gone up one step.

Well said. I personally will be more diligent about testing my scopes after this experience. And I think your right, the "measure of good scope or the accepted level from end user has just gone up one step."

 

[Rob01]

What amazes me is the amount of people who don't test their scope's tracking and reticle. It's one of the first things I do when getting a new scope I will be using for matches. I need to know if that scope is working correctly. Just because the scope is from a high end name brand doesn't mean it will track out of the box. There is a better chance it will but the phrase "trust but verify" is what I go by.

 

[calz]

I just published the final post in this series, which has all of the overall scores and is an executive summary of the whole project.

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary & Overall Scores | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

Thanks to all the guys on the Hide that have helped me with this project. I'm going to say the majority of input and help formulating the tests came from members on the Hide, so I appreciate it.

I know parts of this test have been controversial, but I'm hoping a data-driven approach to scope comparisons has been helpful and enlightening as well.

 

[LawnMM]

Nice job all around, regardless of what folks think you put a lot of time in and its made for good reading. I particularly like the cost of performance breakdown that shows the relationship between performance and cost.

 

[RyeDaddy]

Calz, you are a hero. Thank you for the hard work and the objective and straight forward, easy to make sense of presentation. You'll never get back the time you spent doing this but I suspect it was at least a little fun and you will forever have our gratitude.

 

[Bounce]

Thanks especially for your huge contribution of effort, objectivity, and professionalism. It's going to make the scope search for many a lot easier.
Skip

 

[shamir]

Thanks calz - this is definitely one of the most detailed, thorough, and data driven scope comparisons out there. Its persuaded me to go out and test the tracking of my scope, even if it tested perfectly in the comparison.

Also, if you ever hear back from March on the calibration error, please do update the post. The March would have done much better if it hadnt been for that. You should also test the new Vortex Razor and the March 3-24x52 when you can.

 

[JayCarver]

Thanks for taking the time to do this and publish the results in this manor.

 

[liemha]

thank you for the result

now do the poor man version ($500-$1000)

really want to know how the Sightron SIII 8-32x-56mm perform because i'm about to make my purchase

 

[Capt Academy]

Tag

 

[Magnumdood]

I'm all about full disclosure, so I listed where each scope came from in the first post: Tactical Scopes: Field Test Overview & Rifle Scope Line-Up | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

I totally get what you're saying, and honestly I REALLY wish I could have bought 5+ scopes from random retail shelves across the nation. I just didn't have $350,000 to drop on this test. Once again, just trying to do the best I can with my 100% out-of-pocket budget.

calz,

Your review was great! I enjoyed reading it. That was a tremendous amount of blood, sweat and tears for zero compensation.

 

[haldir]

I just published the final post in this series, which has all of the overall scores and is an executive summary of the whole project.

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary & Overall Scores | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

Thanks to all the guys on the Hide that have helped me with this project. I'm going to say the majority of input and help formulating the tests came from members on the Hide, so I appreciate it.

I know parts of this test have been controversial, but I'm hoping a data-driven approach to scope comparisons has been helpful and enlightening as well.

looks like bushnell offers the most bang for the buck....thanks for doing this.

 

[liv4spd]

I just published the final post in this series, which has all of the overall scores and is an executive summary of the whole project.

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary & Overall Scores | PrecisionRifleBlog.com

Thanks to all the guys on the Hide that have helped me with this project. I'm going to say the majority of input and help formulating the tests came from members on the Hide, so I appreciate it.

I know parts of this test have been controversial, but I'm hoping a data-driven approach to scope comparisons has been helpful and enlightening as well.

Always nice to have some extra, quantifiable, information for which to help draw a conclusion - thank you for your efforts, sir.

 

[KUSA]

It looks like my decision to get a BEAST was a good one. It was barely edged out by the SB 5-25 for #1 but at the price I got it for and considering it has a real warranty I'd buy it again.

 

[RRW]

You should also test the new Vortex Razor and the March 3-24x52 when you can.

^
With all the positive feedback so far I would be interested to see how the new Vortex would rate among the scopes tested.

 

[Cobracutter]

Lots of confirmation Bias...all around

 

[XOR]

I just got around to testing the March 5-40x56 I purchased a couple weeks ago, and unfortunately my results nearly match the test identically. Over a range of 10 mils my clicks were off by 2.38%.

Your scope is not off. March scopes use Army mils, not the USMC mils used in this test. The testing of the March scopes was likely done to the wrong unit. This is probably why the two March scopes tested had nearly identical results. They are calibrated for a different mil unit.

All you need to do is change your ballistics software to use Army mils and not USMC mils and all will be well with the March scopes.

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

Your scope is not off. March scopes use Army mils, not the USMC mils used in this test. The testing of the March scopes was likely done to the wrong unit. This is probably why the two March scopes tested had nearly identical results. They are calibrated for a different mil unit.

All you need to do is change your ballistics software to use Army mils and not USMC mils and all will be well with the March scopes.

So the Army and the USMC use different Mil distances?

 

[XOR]

So the Army and the USMC use different Mil distances?

March calibrates their turrets to NATO mils, not USMC mils according to the manufacturer. I believe the Army uses the NATO standard if I'm not mistaken. The difference is whether the unit of measure is a mathematical mil measure of 1/6283 or the NATO version that is 1/6400. March is using 1/6400 from what I've been told.

Angular mil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not know how this test was done and if it took into account the difference in mil calibrations.

Maybe calz can comment on what mil unit he tested the March scopes against. I really don't know.

 

[sharac]

Difference is less than 2% and that still doesn't explain the variation between two models?

 

[XOR]

Difference is less than 2% and that still doesn't explain the variation between two models?

Parallax adjustment being off could explain the rest of the error.

But if the wrong mil unit was being used for the comparison the 2% error that was reported is now near 0%. The March scopes were maybe tested against the wrong mil unit compared to the other scopes. Again, I don't know. Calz will need to comment.

A March owner could go into the ballistics software and select army mils and the mil drop should be correct for the scopes.

The only debate then about the March scopes should be if they should use the NATO mil or the USMC mil like the others. That's a business decision for the company to make.

 

[sib1948]

Parallax adjustment being off could explain the rest of the error.

But if the wrong mil unit was being used for the comparison the 2% error that was reported is now near 0%. The March scopes were maybe tested against the wrong mil unit compared to the other scopes. Again, I don't know. Calz will need to comment.

A March owner could go into the ballistics software and select army mils and the mil drop should be correct for the scopes.

The only debate then about the March scopes should be if they should use the NATO mil or the USMC mil like the others. That's a business decision for the company to make.

The March scopes were definitely unfairly judged. Both my 3-24X and 5-40X performed flawlessly the 2 years I used them. Can't wait for Orkan to receive my TT525P!

 

[para1505]

Not trying to hijack thread but oh shit I never knew there is to different mil measurement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Redmanss]

<---Pats self on back for dragging feet on March 3-24x52 purchase.

If March did in fact choose to use the 1/6400 artillery style mils, I would say that is a huge mistake. No, it's not a huge difference and if known it could compensated for, but what type of spotter sighting adjustment optics are available? The whole M-22 binos and that's it?

I would love to hear the reply from the manufacturer on this issue. I personally will not consider a March scope until it is answered and if it is in fact 1/6400, they're out of the picture for me. Yeah, I know that is a bit harsh, but as a consumer I want to know what I'm purchasing with $3k of my hard earned money. Two scopes sent to Calz and another from bward isn't a fluke, it's a pattern.

Just when we think a mil is a mil, that might not be the case...

 

[jdboy]

Not trying to hijack thread but oh shit I never knew there is to different mil measurement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ARMY: 3.375 moa multiplied by 1.047” = 3.53” @ 100 yards
USMC: 3.438 moa multiplied by 1.047” = 3.6” @ 100 yards

 

[para1505]

Thanks a lot Redmanns would u happen to know which one US Optics use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bward]

They must have just spit the business decision and gone with army turrets and a standard mil based reticle. They screwed up on the turrets. I can see a little room for argument if the reticle matched the turrets, but it doesn't.

Parallax adjustment being off could explain the rest of the error.

But if the wrong mil unit was being used for the comparison the 2% error that was reported is now near 0%. The March scopes were maybe tested against the wrong mil unit compared to the other scopes. Again, I don't know. Calz will need to comment.

A March owner could go into the ballistics software and select army mils and the mil drop should be correct for the scopes.

The only debate then about the March scopes should be if they should use the NATO mil or the USMC mil like the others. That's a business decision for the company to make.

 

[Redmanss]

Every current scope manufacturer (aside from the now questionable March) uses 1/6283. There was one scope Leupold put out that had a mildot reticle metered in 1/6400 that was US Army issued back in the 80s, Marines used 1/6283 for their (our) Unertl reticles, hence the "Army vs. Marines" thing. The Army has since converted to the true mil system for shooting optics, and I would be quite surprised if there was any of those optics in the US Army system short of some NG units.

Artillery adjustments are measured in 1/6400 for an even numbered system and goes back a loooonnnggg time that it's been that way. Lensatic compasses are also calibrated in the same manor for giving O-T direction, and the M-22 binos have a 1/6400 mil scale in them for calling lateral adjustments with the same scale.

As a side note, I don't want to fan any flames to this unjustifiably in the classic "I read/heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who read it on the internet", and will edit these posts appropriately if March comes out to state otherwise. I'm hoping they can shed some light on these questions via http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/members/james-a-kelbly.html or come on here personally in some way.

 

[Mr.T]

Now you are stretching playing March apologet in only ones who would use different mil are Russians and my be Finns but in both cases you would know what you have .

If March does indeed use different mill and no one knows about it its even worse.

A March owner could go into the ballistics software and select army mils and the mil drop should be correct for the scopes.

LOL good one

March owner could test how wrong the scope tracks and then just input the correction in the dope card ,Apllied Ballistics offers that function , but March owner doesn't need to pretend to have a different measurement system , just a tracking error.

 

[lennyo3034]

So I have a March on a .308. It sends 175 SMKs at 2620 fps. If I enter 2600 fps into the ballistics calculator, it accounts for the 2% almost exactly. I still can't blame the scope for my misses.

Would I prefer it be 1/6283 instead of 1/6400? Absolutely. Is it a dealbreaker? Probably not.

I conducted another ladder test and it was maybe 1/2" low at 10 mils elevation, which equates to 5" at 925 yards. Not nothing, but plugging the lower velocity puts me right on.

This result won't have me selling the March, but will come into play when I look into buying my next scope.

 

[Lowlight]

So the guys debating the error factors figure what percentage error there is in reporting 22x vs 26.15x

word came down today from a 3rd party regarding the S&B 3-27x tested in the shoot out. The same scope used.

They put put the scope on a machine and when the ocular was properly adjusted they measured the magnification for the scope at exactly 3x on the low end and 26.15x at the high end. A far cry from 22x reported.

So if we are debating 1 or 2% errors from a manufacturer what do we do when the machine measured results vary by 4x ? Does it call into question anything else? Like for instance would a scope with a centered erector test different against a scope with 50MOA dialed into it, when compared side by side?

 

[Dead Nutz]

Stay away from the scopes that don't work properly. The Recon tracked perfectly in the mechanical test. Has an absurd amount of elevation (38 mills) and the second largest field of view of the lot. It cost less than every SCOPE above it except one. And it is the top rated 50mm objective.

I personally won't be getting one because I have no need for an ffp. I leaning ATACR. I really wish Steiner would come out with their new one so I could at least consider it.

Interesting thing about the mils. I thought I read a thread long ago about that and low light or someone with some knowledge said all SCOPE manufacturers were using the USMC version.........only the US military could have two versions of mils.

 

[ptosis]

So the guys debating the error factors figure what percentage error there is in reporting 22x vs 26.15x

word came down today from a 3rd party regarding the S&B 3-27x tested in the shoot out. The same scope used.

They put put the scope on a machine and when the ocular was properly adjusted they measured the magnification for the scope at exactly 3x on the low end and 26.15x at the high end. A far cry from 22x reported.

So if we are debating 1 or 2% errors from a manufacturer what do we do when the machine measured results vary by 4x ? Does it call into question anything else? Like for instance would a scope with a centered erector test different against a scope with 50MOA dialed into it, when compared side by side?

Here we are! I was expecting it.
As a consequence, this puts into question the results of "optical performance" tests, as these depend on "18x", which was very likely set wrong.

Thanks for getting it through an other independent test.