Rifle Scopes High End Tactical: Part II

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I average between 750 and 1000 rounds, & on the AR scopes about 500 rounds because recoil isn't as big a factor.

I am doing the video of the Bushnell now and I had it on 3 different rifles, including the one used for the Manners Stock / Cerakote destructive testing. I really beat the piss out of it. So, I can say I have been shooting that since June, and just finished the review process in Oct.

I would say I averaged about 200 rounds per outing.

 

[sharac]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Redmanss: Agree completely and i understand also having scope on a safe queen for 20years or on a rifle in combat zone(s) will make a difference. What i find totally unacceptable (again with possible low percentage of lemons) is that when paying serious money you might get crap or that during normal use (not abuse) they would turn into one...

Yeah mechanical stuff gets broken, you get dings, scratches whatever i just find it intolerable to have it happen during normal conditions (correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think Lowlight intentionally dings, bangs and throws scopes around just for the fun of it...) especially when you (companies with big names that is) claim to have best scopes and you price them as such. I fully expected my Hawke to go dead on me in the first few weeks of shooting. I got surprised and it still works now if a 300$ scope can do it (by no means combat or harsh conditions mind you - did fall from the table though) 2500$+ scopes also should several times over...

I know world is not absolute however it's not rare that we as consumers get to easily attached to brands and stop demanding absolute best in products we buy... (as you can see several companies started producing great optics for good prices and are really starting to kick big boys off their "lazy" asses)

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you be more specific on the subject? I would expect that high end scopes ABSOLUTELY must track and work as intended, especially since a lot of them are meant/targeting for "serious" customers (military, LE)... Any less would be a shocker... </div></div>

Sharac, I absolutely get what you are saying. You are right, they SHOULD track right. But that doesnt mean they do.

You think that if your shelling out $1500 US for a scope, it should track right.

Well, Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Which is why I am so concerned with the tracking, as my $200 nikon buckmasters can track true, but it doesn't have 1/3 the features im looking for.

Which is why you can see my annoyance. After reading a razor review recently, which was actually tested properly, the tracking issues were dissmissed as ok. Well, thats not good enough for me. it was almost 10% out.

Any scope I buy for over $1000 MUST track properly, which is why I put the emphasis on it so much.

If you get me

Chris

 

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Here is a just a tiny sneak peek to give you an example.

I took the rifle & scope to the RIfles Only tower after shooting it at 100 yards, doing the typical box testing I do. At the tower I shot the rifle from 300 yards to 1000 yards getting dope the along the way. Then, on the way back I simply strapped it to the back of the 4 Wheeler. I averaged about 30MPH traveling the 650+ yards back to the Carbine pit and the 100 yard deck.

This shows the impact the ride had on the optics from a cosmetic standpoint, but I didn't stop there, I immediately went and checked zero on the scope to note any change.

I will say, out of the box, and even during use, I found the Bushnell 4200 Elite 3-12X to have very good glass. It was bright, positive and definitely well beyond the sub $1000 price tag the scope has. It's a FFP Mil / Mil scope so it has all the features, but simply saying it's as sharp as a tack, or clear as crystal doesn't help anyone, as been stated, unless you plan on possibly hunting at dusk or dawn in moderately heavy vegetation where you need to pick a set of horns out of the trees, does this scope prevent me seeing a target at 1000 yards, or hindering my ability to impact the target. No... It has very good glass and i think they invested some money with the HD Rain Coat... but that is only one of the story.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack... it's clear the reviewer has a passion for this, and I have no doubt in my mind personally he will do an excellent job.

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After reading a razor review recently, which was actually tested properly, the tracking issues were dissmissed as ok. Well, thats not good enough for me. it was almost 10% out.</div></div>

Link? 10% is a LOT. I'd like to see this review and their setup, etc.

John

 

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After reading a razor review recently, which was actually tested properly, the tracking issues were dissmissed as ok. Well, thats not good enough for me. it was almost 10% out.</div></div>

Link? 10% is a LOT. I'd like to see this review and their setup, etc.

John</div></div>

Here is the review he is talking about:

Optic Review

It clearly demonstrates the importance of checking the mechanics of every scope, for all things because some of the small issues don't show up unless you actively look for them. They get taken as part of the firing solution.

It's why some of the debates around the science of shooting is questioned because people aren't doing the most basic of checks on their equipment, let alone themselves...

 

[Swan]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After reading a razor review recently, which was actually tested properly, the tracking issues were dissmissed as ok. Well, thats not good enough for me. it was almost 10% out.</div></div>

Link? 10% is a LOT. I'd like to see this review and their setup, etc.

John</div></div>

Here is the review he is talking about:

Optic Review

It clearly demonstrates the importance of checking the mechanics of every scope, for all things because some of the small issues don't show up unless you actively look for them. They get taken as part of the firing solution.

It's why some of the debates around the science of shooting is questioned because people aren't doing the most basic of checks on their equipment, let alone themselves...
</div></div>

Crnkin quoted a Razor review and tracking being almost 10% off. Curious where this review is as well. Thinking maybe it was a "regular" Viper??? Pretty skeptical of any Razor HD being off that much.

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Swan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After reading a razor review recently, which was actually tested properly, the tracking issues were dissmissed as ok. Well, thats not good enough for me. it was almost 10% out.</div></div>

Link? 10% is a LOT. I'd like to see this review and their setup, etc.

John</div></div>

Here is the review he is talking about:

Optic Review

It clearly demonstrates the importance of checking the mechanics of every scope, for all things because some of the small issues don't show up unless you actively look for them. They get taken as part of the firing solution.

It's why some of the debates around the science of shooting is questioned because people aren't doing the most basic of checks on their equipment, let alone themselves...
</div></div>

Crnkin quoted a Razor review and tracking being almost 10% off. Curious where this review is as well. Thinking maybe it was a "regular" Viper??? Pretty skeptical of any Razor HD being off that much. </div></div>
Yeah,

That was the now infamous "Jon A" Viper PST review, *<span style="font-weight: bold">AND</span>* it was still only off 3%. My first Razor was off 2-3% and was the biggest reason for it's return. The current one I own is off 1% and I can live with that. At the end of the day field data makes it all irrelevant, but I'd like my scopes to be as accurate as possible.

Another reason I check my scopes optically over 10 mil and 5 mil windage. Most people can't shoot within +-1% so a box test won't necessarily show this error.

John

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Damn. This site is like guilty until proven innocent. But fortunately I understand your culture, its ok

Definitely a Razor sorry boys.

And the reviewer actually knows how to test a scope. (Like Ilya).

But it is only about 7% out in that test. In the first test he was out by about 3%. Super repeatable. Not.

Frank, you need to do more tests. I really enjoy your blunt honesty and open mindedness. When I come over next I may have to stop over in CO. Do you hunt much?

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2142167

Chris

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Sorry, I hope that reference is ok with Vu!

PS. Its interesting the PST tracks better, isnt it?

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Damn. This site is like guilty until proven innocent. But fortunately I understand your culture, its ok

But it is only about 7% out in that test. In the first test he was out by about 3%. Super repeatable. Not.</div></div>

Chris,

Sorry if you think this is a rough crowd. This has been a fairly tame thread. No one has been banned and it hasn't been locked.

I for one am a strong believer in citing work and giving references. It's just lends a LOT more credibility to your statements. There are so many internet "experts" out there just spouting bullshit.

Thanks for the picture and link. I do remember reading that review now, and have to say I'm still confused. I saw that second target and just sorta' dismissed it because there is a dot marked POA and it's not even on a line, then I see the shots obviously missing high and then this statement, "This target almost matches up perfectly with the original track test I did prior to mounting the Razor on my Newman Precision 308win." I guestimated his tracking accuracy at 1% from looking at the first target and actually studying it instead of reading what he said. "I did notice that my impacts would land .1mil to .2mils high as I came up in elevation.." But if you look closely, the original group was high. Every hit was high. Huh? That second target looks like a lot more than that. So I just WTF'd and moved on.

This is why I check my scopes in a vise against a "cross" of 6 ft verticle and 3 feet horizontal. There are crosshair target dots at 10 mil up/down and 5 mil left/right. I can move the turret and watch the reticle move, see if it jumps or tracks smoothly and then see EXACTLY where it comes to rest without the shooter error or rifle accuracy affecting my judgement about the scope. Once I convince myself that the scope tracks mechanically and optically, THEN I shoot it and do the same thing. Recoil does have an influence on the internals of some scopes and is another variable that needs to be isolated.

Another thing. We won't accept 3 round groups on this site but will call them adequate for judging a $3000 scope with regard to tracking?

In order for shooting to *accurately* portray what the scope is doing, each adjustment would need at least 10 rds. with the mean center of the group being the actual POI. If we use proper test methods we will achieve more credible results.

Until I better understand what was going on with that second target, I'd have to say that the sample Vu had was very close to mine and that is off roughly 1%. Not sure what Vortex's standard is, but 1% really doesn't matter to me that much unless I'm shooting without field data over 1500 yds. and then wind is usually a far bigger factor for my followup, so a couple tenths adjustment of vertical is not big deal. As long as the error is repeatable and I know what it is, I can adjust for it.

John

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

You need to absolutely sure of your distance when testing a scope. 5% off in distance means a 5% error in the scope. That is 105 yards or 95 yards instead of 100. Need to doublecheck the range, somehow.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Ilya, PM sent.

 

[SONIC SAAMI]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

tag

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniperaviator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You need to absolutely sure of your distance when testing a scope. 5% off in distance means a 5% error in the scope. That is 105 yards or 95 yards instead of 100. Need to doublecheck the range, somehow. </div></div>

Very true, that is a good point that needs to be addressed by every scope reviewer.

I understand the hide's 5 shot (or something) group policy. I wont go into that right now, thats a different debate in itself.

Now remember this group is shot at 50m, why is that important? Come on, you know why.

Next, we are NOT testing the rifles accuracy. What are we testing?

Vu Stated this rifle is capable of 1 hole groups at 50m. Its been tested. It may not do that all the time, but we know what it can do.

Each and every group was high. Each and every group was about 5-9% higher than measurement in mil's that was entered compared to the group centre.

Maybe if every 2nd group was high you would have leverage.

There are 28 rounds on this target. EVERY SINGLE SHOT is between 5-9% higher than it should be. To be able to say it is within only 1%, would take a .5 mil circle drawn around the group, with the top shot of the group touching the top of the circle. Sorry, but if this rifle was a .5 mil shooter (about 1.4 MOA) then Vu wouldnt have used it, and then for every single group to be wrong, well you catch my drift.

I understand that you think 1% is acceptable. It is probably the limit at what I would accept, yeah, i'd probably keep it.

I also understand you are emotionally attached to the Razor, and trying to defend it. But this particular scope that was tested, needs to go back to the factory, or on ebay. If you were shooting to 1000 yards, you would miss your POA with a 308 by 50cm, or about 20 inches.

I dunno, I give up, I'm over it, but I wont be buying one.

Chris

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Quick update: Hensoldt 4-16x56 has been shipped to me for a true apples-to-apples comparison.

Also, a Hide member with a 3-12x56 turned out to live very close to me, so we are going to meet up at the range as well.

I'll keep you posted with updates.

ILya

 

[River Runner]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Looking forward to this...

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand the hide's 5 shot (or something) group policy. I wont go into that right now, thats a different debate in itself.</div></div>

It's actually the point, but you're obviously lost here. Shooting three shots, UNLESS THEY ARE ALL IN ONE HOLE, tells us little about the rifle OR the scope. Study "statistically relevant sample size". There'll be a test.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vu Stated this rifle is capable of 1 hole groups at 50m. Its been tested. It may not do that all the time, but we know what it can do.</div></div>

Except, more often than not,it printed several different POI, leaving us to wonder, where was the rifle *really* shooting? (see above)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Each and every group was high. Each and every group was about 5-9% higher than measurement in mil's that was entered compared to the group centre.</div></div>

We ARE talking about the second target, right? Because the only problem I see with the first target is that the weapon was not properly zeroed and all shots are .1 mil high as a result.

Here's what I see:

POA - 1 mil = 1.2 mil actual
1 mil-2 mil = 1.2 mil actual
2 mil-3 mil = .9 mil actual
3 mil-4 mil = .9 mil actual
4 mil-5 mil = 1.1 mil actual
5 mil-6 mil = 1 mil actual
6 mil-7 mil = 1 mil actual
7 mil-8 mil = 1.2 mil actual
8 mil-9 mil = 1 mil actual

This target is all over the map. Either the scope failed or the shooter was having a bad day, but these two targets look NOTHING alike.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I also understand you are emotionally attached to the Razor, and trying to defend it. </div></div>

Actually, you don't know shit about me and I'll thank you to keep your speculations about my relationship with my scope to yourself. My scope is just a tool. It does it's job. I do mine. It stops doing its job. It goes.

I try extremely hard to remain objective about my pursuits. Emotion does not put bullets on target. If I'm wrong I admit it.

John

 

[jasonk]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILYA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quick update: Hensoldt 4-16x56 has been shipped to me for a true apples-to-apples comparison.</div></div>

For the testing records: The scope ILYA is getting is brand new, never been mounted to a rifle, never been tested, etc etc. I didn't want anyone to think that he got a scope that was tested and tweaked for evaluation and reviews....this is scope that was bought by an end user (ME) and is a perfect representation of the average Henny.

 

[Swan]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

I think this review/thread is a total waste of time and will not sway any opinion about any optic because we are all attached emotionally, physically, sexually or whatever to our scopes. Just admit it.



All that aside, I can't wait to read the entire review and see which pretty scope wins!

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand the hide's 5 shot (or something) group policy. I wont go into that right now, thats a different debate in itself.</div></div>

It's actually the point, but you're obviously lost here. Shooting three shots, UNLESS THEY ARE ALL IN ONE HOLE, tells us little about the rifle OR the scope. Study "statistically relevant sample size". There'll be a test.</div></div>

Three shots in one hole tells nothing more than three shots in three holes. 5 shots in an infinitely variable scenario tells statistically sfa more than 3 shots. The only way to statistically eliminate your rifles error is to shoot constantly until the hole gets no bigger. That in itself posses problems, like the whole infinitely variable conditions thing.

The POI are different because of this infinite variable.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Each and every group was high. Each and every group was about 5-9% higher than measurement in mil's that was entered compared to the group centre.</div></div>

We ARE talking about the second target, right? Because the only problem I see with the first target is that the weapon was not properly zeroed and all shots are .1 mil high as a result.

Here's what I see:

POA - 1 mil = 1.2 mil actual
1 mil-2 mil = 1.2 mil actual
2 mil-3 mil = .9 mil actual
3 mil-4 mil = .9 mil actual
4 mil-5 mil = 1.1 mil actual
5 mil-6 mil = 1 mil actual
6 mil-7 mil = 1 mil actual
7 mil-8 mil = 1.2 mil actual
8 mil-9 mil = 1 mil actual

This target is all over the map. Either <span style="font-weight: bold">the scope failed</span> or the shooter was having a bad day, but these two targets look NOTHING alike.</div></div>

Yep second target, I cant figure out why your attacking me for saying anything other than that.

You've hit the nail on the head though. The scope failed, which is my point?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, you don't know shit about me and I'll thank you to keep your speculations about my relationship with my scope to yourself. My scope is just a tool. It does it's job. I do mine. It stops doing its job. It goes.

I try extremely hard to remain objective about my pursuits. Emotion does not put bullets on target. If I'm wrong I admit it.

John </div></div>

I don't know 'shit' about you, which is why I didn't make any personal attack on you, and I'd appreciate the same in return thank you. It appears my speculation was correct. Imagine that.

Chris

 

[jrob300]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know 'shit' about you, which is why I didn't make any personal attack on you, and I'd appreciate the same in return thank you. </div></div>

I guess I missed the "personal attack".

I've been responding to your grandiose, unsupported claims of a Razor being off in tracking 10%. You STILL have not shown that.

If your original assertion (which I must of missed) was that the scope went to shit between target 1 and target 2, then yes, I would agree with you. If so, your case was a bit hard to follow, at least for me, but I am a bit slow. So, what you've proven is that a scope failed. It DID track fine from the factory. Who knows what happened between target 1 and 2. I'd either return the scope, have somebody else shoot, get a new rifle, ammo , something... OR do a mechanical check like I do and take the shooter/rifle out of the equation.

And BTW, for me the three most important attributes of a scope:

1). Tracking (so we do agree)
2). Reliability
3). Low light performance

I have found that these three things make good scopes great, no matter the price point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It appears my speculation was correct. Imagine that.</div></div>

You just keep speculating. You're bound to be right someday.

John

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Haha.

I must admit I am emotionally attached to one scope brand more than any other.

But I just ordered a Falcon menace to test out. I have seen just as many good reviews as bad ones on the falcon, so I thought why not risk it. Only $400 NZ second hand, so the risk is somewhat reduced. (retail is $670 here).

I am looking forward to the review, I think the point that we all value tracking has been put to Ilya, so cant wait to see what comes of it all!

Chris

 

[Bevan]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Falcon menace? Prepare for disappointment

 

[sharac]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Emotions get you "killed". There is a lot of attachment people make to their tools (while there should really be only one attachment to the tool - and that one comes with being a male and born..). I think rifles/scopes are a mild version of it, knives, cars take it even higher...

I don't look at this review as a holy grail of scope sorting and people swayin but as an objective look on a whole lot in comparison. For me personally it will also be relevant as his eyes seem to be somewhere in ballpark of mine (i was surprised by quality of Hawke and as was later confirmed that i am no blind bat by Ilyas review of 4-14 model - though i got many smart remarks regarding a 300$ China gizmo).

Bottom line is we should wait a bit and i'm sure Ilya will give us plenty of material to bitch, attack, argue or cheer about.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Sharac - common sense as always from you. As long as Ilya says my 3-12 is the best in the world I promise to be unemotional, objective and level headed about the review...

Seriously though, as long as the mechanics are true and the parallax is fine then I'm happy with the rest. I already know it's got 'fantastic glass'... in regards to distance shooting, well, I'll just have to wait until the Tango arrives and then I'll know for sure what it can do.

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After reading a razor review recently, which was actually tested properly, the tracking issues were dissmissed as ok. Well, thats not good enough for me. it was almost 10% out.</div></div>

Link? 10% is a LOT. I'd like to see this review and their setup, etc.

John </div></div>

LOL. PUMP YOUR BRAKES HOT ROD. 10%?!

First of all, 10%?! Nope, if you actually read the review, I indicated that I was .1 to .2 mils high at the longer distances compared to my Premier 5-25X. That is not 10%

If you JUST look at the target, it could of been a shitty day for me on the rifle. Maybe too much Starbucks in the AM, who knows. Also realize it was done with a .22 LR. It is a bad ass 22LR, but still a 22. A puff of wind or bad fundamentals can easily string out groups. Does it mean the Vortex is broken? HELL NO. That test was done after I shot the F-Class match, it tracked and held zero good enough for a 2nd place finish there.

Like Frank, I do not shoot until I get a lil 1 hole group to post on the internet. We post real world results, not ones we get after lobbing a freaking 1000 rounds down range to get the desired results on paper.

The Vortex Razor HD I tested tracked high, .1 to .2 mils at the given distance. I noticed it more from 800 to 1K.

After the first practice session to gather real world dope, the scope tracked perfectly to the numbers I gathered. Where a guy would run into a problem would be in this scenario:

Shooter has 100yd zero and decides to go out to shoot out past 600. Shooter has no real world data for his scope, ammo, and rifle. Shooter bust out his fancy Iphone and punches in some numbers. Even if these numbers were dead nuts, shooter will shoot a lil high at distance. No big deal, dial down, write down data, good to go.

If you are going to look at my reviews and quote from them, read it and use ALL the data presented. Do not pick one part out and say, "LOOK!, 10%!." If it was 10%, it would of been almost a full mil off at 1K.

 

[popeye089]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After reading a razor review recently, which was actually tested properly, the tracking issues were dissmissed as ok. Well, thats not good enough for me. it was almost 10% out.</div></div>

Link? 10% is a LOT. I'd like to see this review and their setup, etc.

John </div></div>

LOL. PUMP YOUR BRAKES HOT ROD. 10%?!

First of all, 10%?! Nope, if you actually read the review, I indicated that I was .1 to .2 mils high at the longer distances compared to my Premier 5-25X. That is not 10%

If you JUST look at the target, could of been a shitty day for me on the rifle. Maybe too much Starbucks in the AM, who knows. Also realize it was done with a .22 LR. It is a bad ass 22LR, but still a 22. A puff of wind or bad fundamentals can easily string out groups. Does it mean the Vortex is broken? HELL NO. That test was done after I shot the F-Class match, it was tracked and held zero good enough for a 2nd place finish there.

Like Frank, I do not shoot until I get a lil 1 hole group and post it on the internet. We post real world results, not ones we get after lobbing a freaking 1000 rounds down range to get the desired results on paper.

The Vortex Razor HD I tested tracked high, .1 to .2 mils at the given distance. I noticed it more from 800 to 1K.

After the first practice session to gather real world dope, the scope tracked perfectly to the numbers I gather each and every range session. Now where a guy would run into a problem is in this scenario:

Guy has 100yd zero, decides to go out and shoot out past 600, has no real world data for his scope, ammo, and rifle. Guy bust out his fancy Iphone and punches in some numbers. Even if those numbers were dead nuts, guy will shoot a lil high at distance. No big deal, dial down, write down data, good to go.

If you are going to look at my reviews and quote from them, read and use ALL the data presented. Do not pick one part out and say, "LOOK, 10%!." If it was 10%, I would of said 10% at 1K, which would of been a full mil almost.



</div></div>
As we all would say in gramar school........ DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Mah bad. Pecked away on my blackberry since I was sent a PM and asked to respond to this thread.

 

[pklin1297]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Thanks Vu for clarifying...

Awaiting review.

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Pete, here you go. The review of the scope was done.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...916#Post2112916

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Fair enough Vu.

If I dial 1 mil, and get 1.1 mil out, that's 10% when I went to school. In your second pic, 9 mils came out to 9.6 ish. That was 7% back then.

Your reviews are great, in fact, the best tracking test I have seen in stills. (videos can always explain tracking easier).

I agree with you about the group tests! Thats why I said that. 3 shot groups tell enough. 5 shots tell sfa more, the only way to make an ultimate test is to shoot until the hole gets no bigger, and then a 3 axis graph is better again. You already knew that, which is why you 'only' shot 3 shot groups.

Keep it up, I just draw different conclusions off your review, I am a big fan of your work, In no way was I intending to disprove or attack you!

Chris

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bevan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Falcon menace? Prepare for disappointment </div></div>

If this damn 3-20 S&B would hurry up, i wouldn't have had to!

My expectations are low for such a cheap scope, so hopefully, It wont be too bad.

 

[Witch_Doctor]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

So buy countersniper right

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Burn...

 

[Bevan]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Just get the 4-16


shit I've gone 3-12 on my 6.5x47, 4-16 is too heavy/long and 12x at 1km = same as unmagnified at 83 meters so plenty

 

[Bevan]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

4-16 from Roedale is under 3k NZ btw

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Had a very interesting day with Ilya and about 20k worth of scopes. Did a lot of side by comparisons and it was great to be able to compare the best in the business one after another. I didn't get a chance to mount the scopes and fire them however he'll be doing that later today. I've sent him my thoughts and will let him compile and post when he's ready.

 

[hochung]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

It was nice meeting you guys.

I looked thru some of the scopes ILYA had there. Premier, USO, Hensoldt, and my S&B. They were all nice. So I won't be writing any scope review.

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had a very interesting day with Ilya and about 20k worth of scopes. Did a lot of side by comparisons and it was great to be able to compare the best in the business one after another. I didn't get a chance to mount the scopes and fire them however he'll be doing that later today. I've sent him my thoughts and will let him compile and post when he's ready.

</div></div>

I got your e-mail, thanks.

By next Saturday, I will have the mounts here, so I will be doing a lot more shooting than today. Stop by.

ILya

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If one test scope happens not to track but is tops in all other ways, I'd not cast it aside and call it scrap metal. </div></div>

But will you mount it to a rifle and fly across the country to shoot it in a match?

And Frank, did the Bushnell keep its zero after the bumpy ride??

 

[Lowlight]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

No, the Bushnell did not maintain zero, it always required an adjustment and when I blew the rifle and scope up, it took about 10 rounds to start working again, but then did work properly again after the 10.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Thanks, I just found the review....nice job as always.

I'm looking forward to what Ilya finally puts to paper on the scopes tested.

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Quick update:

Just got off the phone with Jim Kelbly and I may be able to get my hands on a prototype of the first FFP March scope in the country in time to include it in this article.

It will not have the exact reticle that will go into production, but the rest of the scope should be pretty much finalized. I will not have it for too long, so we'll see how extensive of a test I'll have time for.

ILya

 

[19818119]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Looking forward to this review, going to have some great head to heads.
Rath

 

[Rthur]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

Ilya is the march FFP going to be 2.5-25 or something different? That would make an interesting FFP.
Rthur

 

[crnkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If one test scope happens not to track but is tops in all other ways, I'd not cast it aside and call it scrap metal. </div></div>

But will you mount it to a rifle and fly across the country to shoot it in a match?

</div></div>

My point exactly

I wouldnt actually throw one out, but what use is it to me? About as much as a toilet paper cardboard tube with duct tape.

But if someone wants to buy a scope like that off me, then by all means I will try to cut my losses and sell.

WOW. Ilya, you have some pulling power. Now, Im getting anxious to see the test.

Chris

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rthur</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ilya is the march FFP going to be 2.5-25 or something different? That would make an interesting FFP.
Rthur</div></div>

I think it is a 3-24x model. I'll have the specifics when it gets here.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

In the meantime, I am having a blast with the scope on hand:

ILya

 

[elmerdeer]

Re: High End Tactical: Part II

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ILYA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the meantime, I am having a blast with the scope on hand:

ILya </div></div>\

WOW,is all I can say, cant wait!
Elmer