i agree, just never knew that, being just an average joe, hunting and shooting milk jugs. Now i know my Strike eagle is a "budget" optic for playing around with. Live and learn.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Loss of Zero. Please Help!
- Thread starter Ohioguy47
- Start date
You've been out voted 2:1, "its the scope" , mounts, with barrel issues a distant third....ThIng is, the groups are consistent, not scattered/flyers. It does sound like shooter related.
Last edited:
It's a process to diagnose the issue here, I would like to see an image of the rifle and scope set up to see the back ring.
The first issue is probably closer to a shooter problem as noted above, some people settle Into their shooting and then when they start over on another day, things are off, that is not uncommon but saying 1 to 2 Inches of shift seems a bit large, even for a shooter problem. It's not impossible, but does seem big, I would definitely look at the shooter as being a component of this problem.
Secondly, the optic and rings, it's more than torque, it's placement of the rings with some scopes. Torque can definitely be a problem, and is often a contributing factor, but the placement of the rings can have an effect. The rear ring in this case.
As we have seen in the past with binding the parallax you can also bind the gimbal in the back. We recently had a student in class up in Alaska. As we do with each class, we dope the students out to 1000 yards. Then once we finish that, analyze their dope and give them a class on recognizing errors, we return to 100 and check zeros. We often have scopes that don't return to zero correctly. (Unfortunately in this case the Vortex PST is a known suspect)
After noting his rifle did not return to zero I did not like his ring placement I changed it, and this is a multi part process. I removed the rings, remounted the scope, and then zeroed it, extended it to distance and shot, then returned to 100 and checked zero again. Noting we fixed the problem.
Tracking is not always what it seems, we have been having a lot of discussions regarding tracking because we test every scope in class now. The results are so inconsistent, not with big numbers or major problems, but in the fact the results don't always align to what we are seeing at distance. Having had scopes not test 100%, many of the owners will call the companies and try to get something done about it. Having a scope that tracks 98% or even better is not gonna be a problem with 99.9% of the shooters out there, but we do see an occasional 96% or worse, which should. At the same time we have seen several 101 to 105% too and that should appear downrange just as much as a 96% scope would. But it doesn't always translate to a problem
this has moved me into a position of not testing scope tracking beyond gross movement in the last few classes. The complaints are not worth the effort and honestly we see more problems off the tracking tool than we see on the tracking tool. That sounds very odd or contradictory in many ways, but what we see shot to shot is not the same as what we see on the tool.
You can hang a scope up, or ride right over the burr, (for lack of a better description) in most cases it's the rings, in some cases it's the torque, but again, not in every case which is the rub.
How to best describe this, everyone has a story of someone who felt their scope was NOT peforming up to standard. You send it in and they tell you it's fine, only to have it act funny once it's mounted again. Rings.... look at placement just as much as torque value in these cases.
The shooter adds a lot into this equation so I would not over look it, but my first choice to fix it is swapping rings, at least their placement, and then going on the lower end of the values vs the higher end first.
The first issue is probably closer to a shooter problem as noted above, some people settle Into their shooting and then when they start over on another day, things are off, that is not uncommon but saying 1 to 2 Inches of shift seems a bit large, even for a shooter problem. It's not impossible, but does seem big, I would definitely look at the shooter as being a component of this problem.
Secondly, the optic and rings, it's more than torque, it's placement of the rings with some scopes. Torque can definitely be a problem, and is often a contributing factor, but the placement of the rings can have an effect. The rear ring in this case.
As we have seen in the past with binding the parallax you can also bind the gimbal in the back. We recently had a student in class up in Alaska. As we do with each class, we dope the students out to 1000 yards. Then once we finish that, analyze their dope and give them a class on recognizing errors, we return to 100 and check zeros. We often have scopes that don't return to zero correctly. (Unfortunately in this case the Vortex PST is a known suspect)
After noting his rifle did not return to zero I did not like his ring placement I changed it, and this is a multi part process. I removed the rings, remounted the scope, and then zeroed it, extended it to distance and shot, then returned to 100 and checked zero again. Noting we fixed the problem.
Tracking is not always what it seems, we have been having a lot of discussions regarding tracking because we test every scope in class now. The results are so inconsistent, not with big numbers or major problems, but in the fact the results don't always align to what we are seeing at distance. Having had scopes not test 100%, many of the owners will call the companies and try to get something done about it. Having a scope that tracks 98% or even better is not gonna be a problem with 99.9% of the shooters out there, but we do see an occasional 96% or worse, which should. At the same time we have seen several 101 to 105% too and that should appear downrange just as much as a 96% scope would. But it doesn't always translate to a problem
this has moved me into a position of not testing scope tracking beyond gross movement in the last few classes. The complaints are not worth the effort and honestly we see more problems off the tracking tool than we see on the tracking tool. That sounds very odd or contradictory in many ways, but what we see shot to shot is not the same as what we see on the tool.
You can hang a scope up, or ride right over the burr, (for lack of a better description) in most cases it's the rings, in some cases it's the torque, but again, not in every case which is the rub.
How to best describe this, everyone has a story of someone who felt their scope was NOT peforming up to standard. You send it in and they tell you it's fine, only to have it act funny once it's mounted again. Rings.... look at placement just as much as torque value in these cases.
The shooter adds a lot into this equation so I would not over look it, but my first choice to fix it is swapping rings, at least their placement, and then going on the lower end of the values vs the higher end first.
Last edited:
I just LOL and walk away. It's like the C class forever idiots in USPSA always screwing around with their pistols or changing pistols every couple of years whenever a new hotness comes around.
Lot of new info for me. I usually get Seekins PMR rings and rail. I bed the rail and torque the rings to Vortex’s 15-18 inch lbs. Am I ok there or fooling myself?
It's an interesting dynamic,
Because we remove every scope, we see a wide variety of results:
We do test each one, within reason, and honestly the results don't always match reality, which is part of the problem.
Some set ups go right back to zero, hitting almost exactly where we left them prior to removing the optic. Others are wildly off the mark, better than 3 inches off, which I consider a lot.
Can you look at something, tall target test it and make a ruling, maybe if you hit the point of noticeable extremes, but 90% of the time you can't. Using the optic is the only real test I have found. That means dialing elevation, and shooting, then coming back to confirm. Working out the turrets tells the tale better than anything so far.
As I noted, torque values are not the entire picture here. 15-18Inch LBS is definitely the safe zone. But since we can't see inside the tubes, how do we know the Tube is in spec? We have seen some tubes vary vs others. So the possibility of binding the mechanism is very possible.
Most of these are mass produced and only batch tested. They get a load in, maybe 1000 of them, and pull 5 out, give them a look on the collimator and call the ship good. It's easy to overlook things.
Next to the bullets we shoot, which are mass produced by the millions, the Optic is the weakest link in the system next to the shooter. We try to minimize the potential for error by picking brands with a solid reputation. Which again, a contradiction of terms, the Popular Scopes are the most common, so of course we'll see more problems with them. It's a weird numbers game we play and it's not very good game to begin with.
The pairing of scopes and rings is becoming something I look at more and more. That is coming from someone who figures, I bought a decent set of rings, it'll be fine. Well that is not always the case...
Lastly the issue of torque is becoming a problem. The ever present, quick and dirty torque drivers we are using are not scientific tools people think. We are cracking aluminum with them, because they can and stack values. The practice of constantly checking torque every time you pull the rifle out is an issue. A bigger one that we realize. In fact I filmed the recent Spuhr mount video and saw a screw slip on camera. If you are checking torque, you need to unscrew the bolt first then retighten from loose, not hit it heavy every time.
If you are pulling out the rifle, checking torque, just in case, you are probably creating an issue. stop doing it.
Because we remove every scope, we see a wide variety of results:
We do test each one, within reason, and honestly the results don't always match reality, which is part of the problem.
Some set ups go right back to zero, hitting almost exactly where we left them prior to removing the optic. Others are wildly off the mark, better than 3 inches off, which I consider a lot.
Can you look at something, tall target test it and make a ruling, maybe if you hit the point of noticeable extremes, but 90% of the time you can't. Using the optic is the only real test I have found. That means dialing elevation, and shooting, then coming back to confirm. Working out the turrets tells the tale better than anything so far.
As I noted, torque values are not the entire picture here. 15-18Inch LBS is definitely the safe zone. But since we can't see inside the tubes, how do we know the Tube is in spec? We have seen some tubes vary vs others. So the possibility of binding the mechanism is very possible.
Most of these are mass produced and only batch tested. They get a load in, maybe 1000 of them, and pull 5 out, give them a look on the collimator and call the ship good. It's easy to overlook things.
Next to the bullets we shoot, which are mass produced by the millions, the Optic is the weakest link in the system next to the shooter. We try to minimize the potential for error by picking brands with a solid reputation. Which again, a contradiction of terms, the Popular Scopes are the most common, so of course we'll see more problems with them. It's a weird numbers game we play and it's not very good game to begin with.
The pairing of scopes and rings is becoming something I look at more and more. That is coming from someone who figures, I bought a decent set of rings, it'll be fine. Well that is not always the case...
Lastly the issue of torque is becoming a problem. The ever present, quick and dirty torque drivers we are using are not scientific tools people think. We are cracking aluminum with them, because they can and stack values. The practice of constantly checking torque every time you pull the rifle out is an issue. A bigger one that we realize. In fact I filmed the recent Spuhr mount video and saw a screw slip on camera. If you are checking torque, you need to unscrew the bolt first then retighten from loose, not hit it heavy every time.
If you are pulling out the rifle, checking torque, just in case, you are probably creating an issue. stop doing it.
Great stuff! I have resisted the whole lapping of rings thing in leu of quality rings and bases.
When I do have an issue, I assume it’s me. It usually is. The main thing I want to learn is proper procedures and protocols to prevent creating issues. Then proper testing to diagnose a scope issue quickly.
I don’t check my torques all the time but once in a while or if there is an issue. If something moves I loosen and re-torque properly. That’s rare. I did put witness marks on the last base I bedded and installed. I just look at those and call it good.
I would not lap any modern rings... if you need lap rings made on a CNC Machine you made the wrong choice
This whole, lapping and bedding rings, like Spuhrs is crazy, and ruining a lot of stuff,
If you want to bed your base, have at it, but really, it's 2021, our shit is being made on great machines. Tolerances have improved in the last 35 years.
This whole, lapping and bedding rings, like Spuhrs is crazy, and ruining a lot of stuff,
If you want to bed your base, have at it, but really, it's 2021, our shit is being made on great machines. Tolerances have improved in the last 35 years.
I actually resisted bedding rails too but I found that on my factory Rem 700 and Savage actions, I could push on the front of the base while lightly screwed in place and see light under the rear. Push on the rear no light under the front. Apparently Remington’s & Savage’s machining is still in the dark ages.
If I saw the same on a custom action and felt the need to bed the rail, that would be disappointing to say the least. Like you said with modern CNC and all......
Neither of those companies have updated anything
You are talking 1960s technology when it comes to those, but honestly if you are buying those today, you are probably not lighting the shooting world on fire and most likely would make very little difference in your shooting.
I am taking more of the modern stuff, but rings to rails are mostly updated and modern, legacy actions not so much
You are talking 1960s technology when it comes to those, but honestly if you are buying those today, you are probably not lighting the shooting world on fire and most likely would make very little difference in your shooting.
I am taking more of the modern stuff, but rings to rails are mostly updated and modern, legacy actions not so much
Yes, I've spoken to their customer service, they are very nice and helpful. This would be after the elevation turret came off in my hand, the scope being a Vortex PST. They fixed it for free. I sold a bunch of Burris, Redfield, and Leupold scopes to buy my 1st "good" scope, an SWFA 5-20 as I am "not rich".
Now I have a Vortex range toy that I have no faith in for any other use. So there are now two anecdotes in a single thread which has taken this weird turn. Here's the thing to me about Vortex, the Razor is first tier and the PST line is second. But I can buy a Nightforce SHV, which I'd consider to be their 3rd or 4th tier and probably have zero problems. Yes, it costs more $ hopefully for less aggravation.
If the OP would actually rejoin the conversation I'd love to know if he did or would try another scope just to test. Hell, I'd loan him one of mine if he was closer to me.
I've been troubleshooting various broken pieces of crap for more years than I'd like to remember so I'd really just like to know what the problem is. Too many times has someone posted a problem and gone away without telling everyone what actually resolved the issue.
Sometimes I've even PMed the OP after the fact to ask if they ever figured it out. But you can't search the forum and find the answer that way.
