Rifle Scopes AK Precision Rifle PR 2 Scope Results

[Lowlight]

During our Alaska Precision Rifle 2 course, we remove all the scopes from the class and do a tall target test.

We started recording all sorts of data in our course manual book, so that means data is being compiled for every AK class we hold.

Before you start digging into the Data, understand the two NF scopes that were not recorded as 100% were both MOA scopes that both recorded a value of .2499 or .25" at 100 yards.

We measure to the foot from the top of the scope and we have a shooter downrange lining up the value alongside the reticle. So we try to be as accurate as physically possible.

This data was double-checked by not only us but the owners in most cases.

 

[ShtrRdy]

Was this done by only using the reticle or was it done by dialing?

 

[spife7980]

Was this done by only using the reticle or was it done by dialing?

How would one do a turret tracking test without adjusting the turrets that you are trying to check?

 

[ShtrRdy]

How would one do a turret tracking test without adjusting the turrets that you are trying to check?

I don't see mention of turning turrets so I'm just trying to get clarification. Lowlight mentions removing all the scopes.

 

[Lowlight]

Reticle only are you high

Of course, it is a Tall Target Test how do you do that without turning the turrets to check. We tested their tracking using the adjustments.

A barber pole is used to check a Reticle Accuracy

 

[Tokay444]

Is the data posted somewhere else? I'm not finding it the thread.

 

[Lowlight]

sounds like you are blocking the image of the book

 

[TheGerman]

Was this done by only using the reticle or was it done by dialing?

Yes. And we only checked the car's 0-60 time while in reverse gear.

 

[Tokay444]

sounds like you are blocking the image of the book

Thanks. I'll try a different browser.
Edit. Oh yeah. It was totally my browser. Lame.

 

[Lowlight]

 

[Tnc]

I’m dumb so please explain how a scope tracks at better than 100%

 

[spife7980]

I’m dumb so please explain how a scope tracks at better than 100%

If you move it what should be 10 mils but it actually goes 10.1 mils then its over 100%

 

[Tokay444]

I’m dumb so please explain how a scope tracks at better than 100%

It's not a grade. It's an amount of actual vs amount of dialed.

 

[Jknox1030]

I’m dumb so please explain how a scope tracks at better than 100%

Is not 100% accurate... It's amount of adjustment per clicks... Think distance vs accuracy

 

[Jknox1030]

Athlon had a really good showing... Large number and they seemed to track well... Interesting.

 

[308pirate]

If you move it what should be 10 mils but it actually goes 10.1 mils then its over 100%

Math is hard...............

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Is "tall target" relative to Frank?

Ahh, short people jokes, good times, good times; but seriously... Athlon did indeed have a good showing. At N=4, it rounds to well within any margin of error.

 

[ShtrRdy]

Were the NF scopes that had 100 % the NXS model?

 

[Lowlight]

No ATACRs, just all Mils models,

I don't think we had any NXS models

We only had 2 NF MOA scopes and both tracked .25" vs .262

 

[Lowlight]

Funny

Here I was complaining about MOA and the only two NF scopes to show an error were both MOA models which tracked .25 vs .262

This is the same thing we saw with several Leupolds and yet they said we were wrong. In this case we did not have any Leupold's in the class, but last month we tested 4 Parks Dept Mk 4 Scopes and only 1 tracked correctly, the worst case we saw 89% of actual.

MOA is an issue, you can debate it, but the facts don't lie

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

MOA is an issue, you can debate it, but the facts don't lie

Sound to me like MOA is not the issue, but more of a MFG's issue. However it matters little what system you use if you never know what you have. Much like grabbing a rack gun thinking it will go bang an print were your looking.

 

[Franko]

Would you happen to have tracking data for other courses as well? More data points would better for any conclusions that we want to draw.

 

[spife7980]

Even within this small sample you can see there is enough variation that you should verify it for yourself.

Much like the controversial accurate shooter zero holding test the only real conclusions that can be drawn are that everyone can put out a turd.

 

[Long Range 338]

Reticle only are you high

Nice, you went 1980's on his ass. That tall test target gives me another theory to test.

 

[Lowlight]

we just started recording the results this cycle but we have tested scopes every year for the last 4 hence the tool we made because of the errors we noted.

The manufacturer is your only access to the system, if they are wrong, the system is wrong. The fact is we see more errors statistically with MOA based scopes, just like I noted in the other thread, this adds validation to it.

If you want more numbers just LOOK we have been reporting this information for a while now, but the MOA trolls want to come in and minimize it in order to hide the truth and protect their egos.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

If you want more numbers just LOOK we have been reporting this information for a while now, but the MOA trolls want to come in and minimize it in order to hide the truth and protect their egos.

I doubt that is the reason. To blame a system because the mfgs can't get it right is not the systems fault.

 

[Franko]

we just started recording the results this cycle but we have tested scopes every year for the last 4 hence the tool we made because of the errors we noted.

The manufacturer is your only access to the system, if they are wrong, the system is wrong. The fact is we see more errors statistically with MOA based scopes, just like I noted in the other thread, this adds validation to it.

If you want more numbers just LOOK we have been reporting this information for a while now, but the MOA trolls want to come in and minimize it in order to hide the truth and protect their egos.

I have been following the discussion on MOA vs MIL and I understand that MIL is better. I asked about the data points because I want to be able to get a better grip on just how significant the error that MOA introduces actually is (is MOA on average within 1%, 2%, ect. of MIL).

I'm an MOA guy that understands MOA is inferior. I am just trying to figure out if switching over to MIL is worth what rebuying scopes and being the odd man out (everyone I shoot with is MOA and I don't expect that to change anytime soon) is going to cost me.

So, from what you are seeing out in the real world, just how far off is MOA from MIL and how well can the difference be minimized by buying a better brand of scope?

 

[AMTGMC]

I have been following the discussion on MOA vs MIL and I understand that MIL is better. I asked about the data points because I want to be able to get a better grip on just how significant the error that MOA introduces actually is (is MOA on average within 1%, 2%, ect. of MIL).

I'm an MOA guy that understands MOA is inferior. I am just trying to figure out if switching over to MIL is worth what rebuying scopes and being the odd man out (everyone I shoot with is MOA and I don't expect that to change anytime soon) is going to cost me.

So, from what you are seeing out in the real world, just how far off is MOA from MIL and how well can the difference be minimized by buying a better brand of scope?

Sounds like nothing wrong with those nightforce scopes except they are labeled wrong. I think Frank's point with the MOA thing is it's become generic. MOA, Shooters MOA not the same. If those were labeled SMOA then they are 100%.

 

[Desert Raven]

Man, this is frustrating, but I really appreciate you sharing this data, Frank. I have a SFP ATACR 4-16 in MOA on my hunting rifle. You know, it’s maddening when you spend your money on what you are told is “the best”, “alpha class” , “buy once, cry once” ya da, ya da, ya da, and then I find out this. Mine is also at .25. Oh well. Lesson learned.

 

[koshkin]

we just started recording the results this cycle but we have tested scopes every year for the last 4 hence the tool we made because of the errors we noted.

The manufacturer is your only access to the system, if they are wrong, the system is wrong. The fact is we see more errors statistically with MOA based scopes, just like I noted in the other thread, this adds validation to it.

If you want more numbers just LOOK we have been reporting this information for a while now, but the MOA trolls want to come in and minimize it in order to hide the truth and protect their egos.

Frank, with the scopes that had the MOA issue, did the reticle match the turrets? Or was the reticle in MOA and turrets in in/100y?

That is the thing I find most maddening and one of the reasons I virtually stopped looking at MOA scopes. I can live with almost any angular system if push comes to shove, as long as it is repeatable, but if the reticle does not match the turrets, I am done.

ILya

 

[Rearden Steel]

I doubt that is the reason. To blame a system because the mfgs can't get it right is not the systems fault.

To which MOA system do you refer? The fact that question exists is the problem, whether manufacturers created it or not.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

To which MOA system do you refer? The fact that question exists is the problem, whether manufacturers created it or not.

Fact, there is but one MOA system.
Whats called shooter MOA is nothing but IPHY. People mixing them up are the ones who are confused,. Many people are not only math challenged, but even with a ruler right in from of them have issue knowing what to knob after the first shot. Mil became tacticool only due to the GWOT an thats good as it fills that craving in the new guys, to be like.
It matters little which of the three you use( MOA IPHY or MIL) if you know it, but to buy off the shelf an assume it's correct screams newbie. Easy to spot them,... anywhere. Some intently try to mix up the systems, why would that be, what do they gain? Laughing,....

 

[jdodd]

Athlon had a great showing, might have to consider them in the future.

 

[NVScout]

During our Alaska Precision Rifle 2 course, we remove all the scopes from the class and do a tall target test.

We started recording all sorts of data in our course manual book, so that means data is being compiled for every AK class we hold.

Before you start digging into the Data, understand the two NF scopes that were not recorded as 100% were both MOA scopes that both recorded a value of .2499 or .25" at 100 yards.

We measure to the foot from the top of the scope and we have a shooter downrange lining up the value alongside the reticle. So we try to be as accurate as physically possible.

This data was double-checked by not only us but the owners in most cases.

So 8 out of 18 didn’t adjust to what they are supposed to , 6 in mil and 2 in moa? From that sample it seems like mil has more issues ..... if the moa scopes were adjusting in .25” increments wouldn’t that put them at 95.4 % ?

 

[ShtrRdy]

So 8 out of 18 didn’t adjust to what they are supposed to , 6 in mil and 2 in moa? From that sample it seems like mil has more issues ..... if the moa scopes were adjusting in .25” increments wouldn’t that put them at 95.4 % ?

I think Frank stated that 16 of the scopes were mil and 2 were moa. So 37.5% of the mil scopes were off and 100 % of the moa scopes were off.

 

[spife7980]

I think Frank stated that 16 of the scopes were mil and 2 were moa. So 37.5% of the mil scopes were off and 100 % of the moa scopes were off.

.25/.262=95.4%

 

[Lowlight]

We ran them 36 Inches

So 36 / 1.047 = 34.3

34.3 / 35 = 98%

The scopes ran to 35 inches

 

[ShtrRdy]

.25/.262=95.4%

I was trying to address NVScout's assessment that "mil had more issues".

 

[NVScout]

Am I missing some thing ? If they were adjusting in .2499 then it’s actually .9996 per 1 moa of adjustment. .
9996 x 34.3 = 34.28. Obviously you can’t dial 34.3 on a 1/4 moa scope so there is already error but if you could it would have ended up at 34.28 ?!? If you dialed 34.3 and ended up at 35 that puts you at 1.020 right ?! Which boils down to .255 per click. Is my math F’d??

 

[NVScout]

I was trying to address NVScout's assessment that "mil had more issues".

It was a smart ass statement coming from our last discussion just to raz frank ?

 

[Lowlight]

Stop being a fucking asshole, we did it on the line in real-time,

I am clearly rounding some numbers and pulling shit from memory, we had an ENTIRE FUCKING CLASS Of 17 Students standing there while we ran the numbers

We do it all in real time, one scope at a time so stop being a fucking TROLL and understand we used a Scope Tool, 36 Inch ruler with a person watching the scope and then another downrange with a pen confirming at the target (ruler) and then running the numbers

 

[NVScout]

Stop being a fucking asshole, we did it on the line in real-time,

I am clearly rounding some numbers and pulling shit from memory, we had an ENTIRE FUCKING CLASS Of 17 Students standing there while we ran the numbers

We do it all in real time, one scope at a time so stop being a fucking TROLL and understand we used a Scope Tool, 36 Inch ruler with a person watching the scope and then another downrange with a pen confirming at the target (ruler) and then running the numbers

Not trying to be an asshole at all, just trying to make sense of it. I built a tool as well. I copied killswitchs humbler and took a few scopes out. I tested a 4-32 Nx8 , 5-25 Mark 5 and a VX6, the nx8 and mark 5 were dead nuts to 32 on B2B precision Rex grid. The VX6 actually tracked rich picking up 1/4 moa at 10 moa and by 20 moa it was at 20.75 moa. What’s gets me is you post shit like Leupold adjust in IPHY or SMOA and now NF adjust in .25” when your math doesn’t add up. Mis Information doesn’t help anyone, we all know you have a hard on for MOA but at least be accurate with your info. Call me an asshole I’m just trying to better my self and my gear, YOU and this group have help me do that.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

We ran them 36 Inches

So 36 / 1.047 = 34.3

34.3 / 35 = 98%

The scopes ran to 35 inches

I tend to believe if you ran them to 36 MOA it should have been 36 X 1.047 which is 37.69 ??? At 36 IPHY it should have been 36.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Saw the thread and thought an AK precision rifle for PRS, this will be interesting. Then realized AK as in Alaska not AK as in Avtomat Kalashnikova.

 

[NVScout]

I tend to believe if you ran them to 36 MOA it should have been 36 X 1.047 which is 37.69 ??? At 36 IPHY it should have been 36.

It’s just the way he worded it. 36” would be easier to see. So to get the reticle to land on 36 they were dialing 34.25.

 

[Lowlight]

We have a line at the Board at 36".

So correct I believe it was supposed to be 34.25 on the scope that is how we ran it

We wanted everything to fall in the same location and the ruler is marked that way

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

All these scopes have the same knob mileage on them, or are they mostly new?

 

[Birddog6424]

Athlon had a great showing, might have to consider them in the future.

Is that what you got out of that?

I see that one of the Cronus', their most expensive scope, didnt track properly. I've seen tracking tests performed on 4 Cronus' now, including these two. I've seen one pass, the one in this test.

I'm not bashing Athlon, I think they are a decent optic. I'm just pointing out that it seems like it wasnt that great a showing.

 

[srt-4_uk]

Is that what you got out of that?

I see that one of the Cronus', their most expensive scope, didnt track properly. I've seen tracking tests performed on 4 Cronus' now, including these two. I've seen one pass, the one in this test.

I'm not bashing Athlon, I think they are a decent optic. I'm just pointing out that it seems like it wasnt that great a showing.

Meanwhile, there was also an ATACR and S&B that didnt track properly. Must have been a bad showing by them too.
On the plus side, 100% of the Burris scopes that tested passed...

 

[Birddog6424]

Meanwhile, there was also an ATACR and S&B that didnt track properly. Must have been a bad showing by them too.
On the plus side, 100% of the Burris scopes that tested passed...

Do you see people posting that it was a great showing for S&B or Nightforce? Well I dont either..

Lighten up Francis