3/4 were 100% and 1/4 was 99%. That’s definitely a good showing for this sample. The only time its not a “good showing” is if it’s outside of the manufacturer’s spec and allowable error.
I’m not an Athlon fan, but this batch looks good.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes AK Precision Rifle PR 2 Scope Results
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
3/4 were 100% and 1/4 was 99%. That’s definitely a good showing for this sample. The only time its not a “good showing” is if it’s outside of the manufacturer’s spec and allowable error.
I’m not an Athlon fan, but this batch looks good.
It's all meaning less until the age an mileage of the scopes being tested are known. Testing a brand new scope at a class vs a scope that has seen years upon years of knob'ing is not valid info in my book. I would guess though that the worn out won't track scope, has a owner that might know it's issues if any, an the target conferms that fact as well.
If your want to do a true scope side by side, by 3 of each of every Mfg'er from different shops an test them all right from the box.
If your want to do a true scope side by side, by 3 of each of every Mfg'er from different shops an test them all right from the box.
With all due respect why is it all meaningless data? Aren’t we paying the big bucks to have a scope that tracks spot on for more than the 15 minutes you mess with it after breaking the seal on the box? This seems to be data from a field test showing which ones tracked from class shooters, maybe I misread that. I don’t know about the class or who’s there didn’t matter but I find it interesting to see what scopes were used and how they did within the tests.
It would be interesting to get a sample of sealed scopes from manufacturers and pop them open to see who sends broke shit but this seems like good data from scopes that had actually been used.
So you believe a new scope being tested against an old scope is a valid test? Erector's do wear & springs do get weak after years of use. If your just vetting the rets only I'm good with that but, not things that move an turn,...
I'm having a fixture made soon and will test a sample of about 10 Schmidt PMII 5-25s ranging from built in 2003 to 2019. Also will have Razors, AMG, and others to test. I'll post up my results once I finish.
I think its a valid test for sure, probably depends on what you're trying to test but the scope either tracks or it doesn't. I see/hear your point though as well, but I do see value in testing: new vs old, new vs new and old vs old to see which ones (if any) may lose precision over time. I agree parts wear over time and maybe the .10 becomes .098 multiply that X # of Mils and now you're off a bit.
very few if any of the scopes were "Years" old
Most of the models were current, some of these brands have not existed for Years,
More moving the goalposts BS
Most of the models were current, some of these brands have not existed for Years,
More moving the goalposts BS
Laughing,
I'm not the one downing a system over mfg errors or the mfgs trying to help FNG's, ever how wrong they(mfg's) may be.
I get it's easier/faster to teach with everyone on the same page, an one odd man out extends the paid time. Seen this for years in many venues. Experienced it myself having to explain the difference between different mfg's way of achieving, the same end goal. However to say one system is the be all vs others is short sighted in the big picture of the shooting sports.
Where do I find the "use by date" on my scope? 
great question
the system is flawed, and was written as flawed even back at the turn of the century, I had a podcast listener send me a page out of a book from the 1920s that said MOA was a flawed system.
If i can find the page i will post it forget how he send it over
Got it
the system is flawed, and was written as flawed even back at the turn of the century, I had a podcast listener send me a page out of a book from the 1920s that said MOA was a flawed system.
If i can find the page i will post it forget how he send it over
Got it
great question
the system is flawed, and was written as flawed even back at the turn of the century, I had a podcast listener send me a page out of a book from the 1920s that said MOA was a flawed system.
If i can find the page i will post it forget how he send it over
Got it
This made my day. Love whoever the sarcastic asshole that wrote this.
Spot on and funny as shit.
Laughing,... Guess we better tell all those dead guys an targets that were killed/hit with a flawed system. Then again it's easier/faster to teach one tool over the tool box.
great question
the system is flawed, and was written as flawed even back at the turn of the century, I had a podcast listener send me a page out of a book from the 1920s that said MOA was a flawed system.
If i can find the page i will post it forget how he send it over
Got it
That's hillarious. Whoever wrote this should have lived in the age of Youtube....
Frank, can I use this page? I have an idea.
ILya
Tons were killed by 4x scopes too... does that mean we should sell our 25x variable power scopes and replace them with fixed 4x because the "numbers" are in its favor?
Of course, I don't own this screenshot and I am sure it's available on Amazon.
Of course, I don't own this screenshot and I am sure it's available on Amazon.
PS,
who always talks about Money in terms of adjusting your scope
ME
Mils = 10 pennies is 1 Dime ... funny how that translates to everyday life so much better to a system unused in any other aspect of our lives.
who always talks about Money in terms of adjusting your scope
ME
Mils = 10 pennies is 1 Dime ... funny how that translates to everyday life so much better to a system unused in any other aspect of our lives.
You have other tools that have that on them? When I look at a tool one can quickly see it's usage most of the time, however many tools have to be inspected to find that out. Just like everyone worries about hours on an engine, hours in reality say nothing, but start attempts do.Where do I find the "use by date" on my scope?
I don't have a use by date on me but I find those that use their back to make a living don't seem to last as long as those who use their mind. You may have seen differently, don't know.
No because X power is not a system. But now that you have brought that up. With the advent of XX power what have we won past 8-8-45 using them? Seems the higher tech levels we get to the less we come out ahead? The perception is there yet history is history,... Smart this an that but, the cave dwelling AK's used in the GWOT are still not beat?
So what I got out of that is that you always need to have your own dope. Don't trust the ballistic calculators to do better than close.
So long as it tracks repeatable, I can make a dope chart no matter how far off it is, so long as I'm shooting and confirming my adjustments.
So long as it tracks repeatable, I can make a dope chart no matter how far off it is, so long as I'm shooting and confirming my adjustments.
How do you account for environmentals? You can’t shoot at 1000 yards one day write the dope down come out a week later and expect to hit dead center. The issue with the tracking error is it’s not always linear in deviation
A Ballistic cal is a good tool but knowing your gear comes first. It matters little how your scope tracks as long as you know it. Knowing the D/A an your gear is the winning move.
I do as well and have been for over three decades.
Working construction I saw the transition to tenths first in commercial and more recently in residential.
I welcomed the change as doing the math to figure heights, slopes and offsets was certainly cleaner.
Everyday at work I’m working with fractions and decimals.
I vastly prefer working with decimals.
Where do I find the "use by date" on my scope?
It’s the last 4 numbers of the serial number.
Lol. You go through and test each click so you know which ones are the ones that are off?
Nope but I know where it's not, based on what I dial, my newest scope is 15years old, an I know where each of them will be based upon past data. I don't use anything but targets at distance to gather data. Once you have many hard points, it's easy to take a WEWAG for good/close enough. I've 308 to 1200yds, 300wm to 1600 an 338LM to 1800 an I see no need for the way/how I shoot to believe I need something better than real world data. Most of it also includes DA corrections an angle, no battery's required. If I was starting new, I'd most likely be toting battery's, but these sticks are long in the tooth.
As long as the Ballistic Calculator knows the Error, it can account for it, and all of these scopes are within Spec of each other
Scope truing should always be the first step in calibrating or "truing" your ballistic calculator
Scope truing should always be the first step in calibrating or "truing" your ballistic calculator
By that logic, the, “clicks” don’t mean a single thing, and as long as you never shoot at distances other than those you’ve already shot at, they may as well be graduated in Franks.
Your chances of making a first round hit at something you haven’t shot before, on the same day you already shot it, are greatly diminished. Even with Frank’s app, because it assumes the error is linear.
Last edited:
Your right about one thing clicks don't mean shit but the amount of MOA up on does. If your counting clicks you have along ways to go,... You need much more experience than your expressing here, right now.
I don't count clicks, and I don't shoot "moas". I bought the correct system the first time and verified it tracks properly with a tall target test.
So you brought up clicks why? You can buy an shoot what you like, I could care less, but your response above is telling. It matters little what you use because bullets holes or impacts on target are always truthful.
I haven’t missed a first round hit yet, because I know my turrets track exactly what they should, and my solution relies on it.
Well Mr expert your the only person I know of that ever made that claim because I can give you a list a mile long of world class shooters that would never make that claim. Your the worlds expert an don't know it yet, teach me how to read the wind that good and build the perfect position for every FFP will you?
You need to quit digging,...
Edit to add, tell us where you shoot an what comps, as we should have someone near you that would love to watch you shoot?
Frank might even have a open spot somewhere for you to show your ability's. If your in the SE US I know a lovely place were you can show us how it's done. I'm sure many here will show up an watch.
Tell us about your gear?
Last edited:
But he’s right. I haven’t shot a lot.
But I’m also not going to agree that the “clicks don’t matter.” Turret tracking is paramount.
Clicks don't matter, Turret tracking only matters for those w/o enough experience on that scope. It matters little if the erector is off or not as long as you know it. Anyone that thinks they can just pickup XX gun, with XX scope, using XX ammo an make a FRH at distance on a small target is wishful thinking at best. We have lots of guys shooting high end gear, with years upon years of experience that will to a man tell you your claims are not reality, no matter what you have read, researched or believe. Come out an shoot HardRock an show us how it's done, all you have to do to clean it, is shoot MOA for 20 rds @ 600, 800, 900, & 1K
it's never been cleaned to date an many a guy has tried, Benning, Bragg, that shit hole in Va an other world class shooters. I'd like to see it done, come show us how, will ya?
Maybe he shot at a 25 yard target the first time he went target shooting and everything after that has counted as +1. I enjoy how someone gathers a data point and another person calls it meaningless without ever contributing any meaningful data. It's always easy to be critical instead of a critical thinker.
So that means:
1: you’re full of shit
Or
2: you haven’t been shooting long enough to have an opinion
I already admitted to not having been shooting very long. Certainly not in the decades of years.
I got into precision rifle building and shooting last summer. My scope does track, and I do try to read more than I post.
I’ve always managed to be on target with my first round up to 800. Farthest I’ve had avaibable so far.
I know the misses will come, but it won’t be because my, “clicks don’t matter.”
Last edited:
After thinking it over, an before this gets out of hand, I think we need to leave the boy alone for awhile,...
I shoot my LRSU milk jug silohette.
But yes, not nearly as much as I’d like to.
My ES is usually single digits. It creeps to about 10-13 if I can’t find shade for my ammo box, and I’ve never really had to fight wind.
I know the misses will come, but I know it’s going to be me. Not my system.
Similar threads
