Rifle Scopes Scope Tracking Target MIL

[phillik747]

I have created a scope tracking target for 100 yards based off of the 1 mil = 3.6in. Let me know how it works for you and I'll be happy to make some adjustments here and there.
I don't have my scope yet and wanted to make some targets for fun. I'll be making on in MOA also.

Below is a photo of the target. PM me with your email and I'll send you a PDF of the target. Be sure to print the target with the borderless option turned off.

Do not print this image, it will be off on its measurements.

Kyle

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

Not to be rude, but that helps no one.

7" isn't enough to detect any problems with tracking as some errors won't show up until you compound them enough. At minimum you should use 18" or more... you should check tracking the complete distance your rifle needs to reach 1000 yards.

it's a good effort, but sort of wasted.

One example, there was a new scope on the market a bunch of years back. It was advertised with .5 MOA adjustments, however due to an internal error it only adjusted .43MOA -- you wouldn't know that until you adjusted it more than 12MOA. so 7" would have missed the problem.

The days of the 8 1/2" X 11" Box Test are over... that is for gun rag writers who's job it is to make everything look good.

 

[Jeff808]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

LL, will you demonstrate how to box test a scope?

 

[DBONE536]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

Need To Try That

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to be rude, but that helps no one.

7" isn't enough to detect any problems with tracking as some errors won't show up until you compound them enough. At minimum you should use 18" or more... you should check tracking the complete distance your rifle needs to reach 1000 yards.

it's a good effort, but sort of wasted.

One example, there was a new scope on the market a bunch of years back. It was advertised with .5 MOA adjustments, however due to an internal error it only adjusted .43MOA -- you wouldn't know that until you adjusted it more than 12MOA. so 7" would have missed the problem.

The days of the 8 1/2" X 11" Box Test are over... that is for gun rag writers who's job it is to make everything look good. </div></div>

I agree with you LL. I made it small due to my printer's paper size limit. I can make this as large as someone wants with more dots but they will probably have to head over to some graphics place to print it on a plotter. I'm not a MIL master by any means but I was also hoping to accomplish making the graph equal to one click=one line at 100 years, ~.36 inches.

Keep some ideas flowing, I'd like to make a useful target.
Thanks,
Kyle

 

[Rob01]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

When I do tracking tests on my mil scopes I go atleast 10 mils up with a mark every full mil. 5 mils for a box test.

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I do tracking tests on my mil scopes I go atleast 10 mils up with a mark every full mil. 5 mils for a box test.</div></div>

I'll put something together tonight. Do you do any lateral tracking? How helpful would the grid be, like above?

Kyle

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

Print out like 10 of them and overlay them. Just make the dots on the top of one sheet sit perfectly over the dots on the bottom of the next sheet. Then you can spool 5 of them together into something useful @ 100 yds. Of course, you'll need 16 of them for a full box edge, 25 if you want a complete grid.

Or you can just take a piece of cardboard, slap a bunch of small shoot-n-see's on it, pick an aiming point, measure the delta with the reticle, dial, and see if it hits or not.

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: phillik747</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to be rude, but that helps no one.

7" isn't enough to detect any problems with tracking as some errors won't show up until you compound them enough. At minimum you should use 18" or more... you should check tracking the complete distance your rifle needs to reach 1000 yards.

it's a good effort, but sort of wasted.

One example, there was a new scope on the market a bunch of years back. It was advertised with .5 MOA adjustments, however due to an internal error it only adjusted .43MOA -- you wouldn't know that until you adjusted it more than 12MOA. so 7" would have missed the problem.

The days of the 8 1/2" X 11" Box Test are over... that is for gun rag writers who's job it is to make everything look good. </div></div>

I agree with you LL. I made it small due to my printer's paper size limit. I can make this as large as someone wants with more dots but they will probably have to head over to some graphics place to print it on a plotter. I'm not a MIL master by any means but I was also hoping to accomplish making the graph equal to one click=one line at 100 years, ~.36 inches.

Keep some ideas flowing, I'd like to make a useful target.
Thanks,
Kyle </div></div>

Kyle,

Taking the above concepts, design your targets with horizontal line that would represent marker for stacking the targets vertically.

That way, you would take five targets (each with 7.2" of target), representing 36" vertically or 10 mils, that can be stapled on target backing. The paper would overlap of course, but the alignment line would keep the target area exactly 2 mils (7.2") high.

Bob

 

[Rob01]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: phillik747</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I do tracking tests on my mil scopes I go atleast 10 mils up with a mark every full mil. 5 mils for a box test.</div></div>

I'll put something together tonight. Do you do any lateral tracking? How helpful would the grid be, like above?

Kyle </div></div>

5 mils lateral with a box test but I am more worried about elevation as I hold for all my wind.

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Kyle,

Taking the above concepts, design your targets with horizontal line that would represent marker for stacking the targets vertically.

That way, you would take five targets (each with 7.2" of target), representing 36" vertically or 10 mils, that can be stapled on target backing. The paper would overlap of course, but the alignment line would keep the target area exactly 2 mils (7.2") high.

Bob

</div></div>

Bob that is good idea. I'll work on some sort of overlap marks.

I have made the grid based off a 1/10 mil turret. If there are any with a different increment let me know and I'll make a target for that setup.
Kyle

 

[KTDLS7]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

phillik747,

Very nice start! What application did you use to develop the target? I have AutoCAD (somewhere) and was thinking of loading it and start putting something together. You piqued my interest to get off dead center.

PM sent

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

I made the target with photoshop.

I was also thinking of doing some targets like the ones on Top Sniper, but that is for another day.

Kyle

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

Ok here are some overlap targets one in 8.5x11 and the other in 11x17. Again PM me if you want them. I've got to get them posted on rapidshare or something.

Kyle

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

For those of you that have a plotter I have created a PDF that is 20x40. That gives you 10 MILs in elevation!

Again pm me if you want a copy. Please include your email in the message. I know it's in the profile, I'm just lazy.

Kyle

 

[hibc]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

You could also print sections and tape them together to make it full size instead of going to a printing shop.

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hibc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You could also print sections and tape them together to make it full size instead of going to a printing shop.</div></div>

That is what the overlap targets are for. Notice that there are half dots at the top or bottom so both the 11x17 or the 11x8.5 can be used for the same target, a little mix and match.

Again all the images that are posted are not to scale. I have them in PDF's to keep them as true to scale as possible.

Kyle

 

[phillik747]

Re: Scope Tracking Target MIL

All PM that requested the targets should have received them. I haven't sent out the plotter version yet due to trying to make the data size email-able.

Thank you all for your interest and suggestions,

Kyle

 

[Requiem]

Sorry to revive this thread, but does anyone still have these targets? I pm'd the OP, but it seems he's been inactive on the board for a while.

 

[Lowlight]

For your Plotter Version I would put that grid area at the bottom of the page, as you are always dialing up, with Zero Stops do you are not dialing down.

So the zeroing, grid, should be low.

 

[TiroFijo]

I just put a measuring tape at 100 m, or quickly mark lines every 10 cm on the paper...

IMO the scope tracking test should be done first with the rifle settled on sandbags, vice of something like that, and just moving the turrets, A LOT, left/rigth, up/down, NOT firing.

 

[TheOtherAndrew]

Bought a new scope new gun etc. so figured Id make sure everything is accurate by making a box/grid to test the turrets (mRad).

I chose to use a distance of 109.36yd (328.1ft - 100m) because that makes my measurements on the target much easier at 10cm per mrad. I bought a 40"x60" piece of foam board from local Office Depot. Started with drawing (sharpie) the vertical line (~12mrad tall - 48") - later when attaching target to stand will use a plumb bob to orient target correctly. Then drew a horizontal line (10mrad long - 40") perpendicular, about 5-6" from bottom, of original vertical line (Leupold Mark 5 - allows -.5mrad below zero stop which i also intend to test). I marked off 10cm grids using pencil and making a dot with sharpie at all 5mrad increments.

Plan is to shoot a 5 shot group off to the side first, then start my progressions through tracking target made (the pre-zero makes sure gun is dialed in correctly, warm barrel, and gives me a 'cone of inaccuracy' to refer to later on when analyzing all the shots (i.e. is it bad turrets, scope cant, or just random error from the bullet itself - assuming I do my part each shot).

*I am wondering though how many shots do people normally take to get a good idea of their scopes tracking? The way Ive set mine up calls for a total of 60 shots (basically the impacts should end up looking like a "$" at end....considering ammo these days I am thinking may scale that back - how many shots do y'all usually take for this kind of test, to get an accurate read on things?

 

[JakeM]

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

Zero.

Check velocity.

Get 800 yard data off Kestrel/AB app.

Shoot target.

Is data off? If yes, check inputs, consider lighting conditions, etc. Check tracking as last resort.

If no, shoot more. Be happy.

That's my process.

 

[_Windrider_]

Zero.

Check velocity.

Get 800 yard data off Kestrel/AB app.

Shoot target.

Is data off? If yes, check inputs, consider lighting conditions, etc. Check tracking as last resort.

If no, shoot more. Be happy.

That's my process.

I usually check tracking first. If it’s off I want to send it back before I waste too much ammo but it’s not the only way or the right way, just my.

oh yeah, holy necro post.

eta, @lowlight targets from box to bench are hands down the best tracking targets I’ve used.

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

I usually check tracking first. If it’s off I want to send it back before I waste too much ammo but it’s not the only way or the right way, just my.

oh yeah, holy necro post.

eta, @lowlight targets from box to bench are hands down the best tracking targets I’ve used.

Jesus, I didn't even catch that it was a necro.

I guess I am spoiled that I have never had a scope that wasn't bargain basement crap NOT track. After the 3rd or 4th test I got tired of it and just shoot the damn things.

 

[TheOtherAndrew]

Just a noob trying to enjoy the sport.

Jake - I dont get the green emoji looking thing - did I offended you?

6mm - I am shooting more, question was actually if Im shooting too much! Also learning how all the stuff works together (practicing), while also testing other unknowns/variables. I get it you've been shooting 800+yds since I was a toddler....main thing Id point out is that if ur 'data' were to be 'off' dont you want to know why - or at least eliminate a few of the common reasons off the bat?

Dillhole (lol, no disrespect meant) - I get the necro comment, but meh I didn't feel [it] warranted a completely new posting.

*All in all I think Ill just do it the way I first intended - 60 shots - practice my steps/fundamentals...either way Im sure the process will help me improve and I can learn some things about my gun/scope. Maybe one of these days start making those 800yd shots too?!

 

[JakeM]

Just a noob trying to enjoy the sport.

Jake - I dont get the green emoji looking thing - did I offended you?

6mm - I am shooting more, question was actually if Im shooting too much! Also learning how all the stuff works together (practicing), while also testing other unknowns/variables. I get it you've been shooting 800+yds since I was a toddler....main thing Id point out is that if ur 'data' were to be 'off' dont you want to know why - or at least eliminate a few of the common reasons off the bat?

Dillhole (lol, no disrespect meant) - I get the necro comment, but meh I didn't feel [it] warranted a completely new posting.

*All in all I think Ill just do it the way I first intended - 60 shots - practice my steps/fundamentals...either way Im sure the process will help me improve and I can learn some things about my gun/scope. Maybe one of these days start making those 800yd shots too?!

Not at all, just having fun.

 

[_Windrider_]

Just a noob trying to enjoy the sport.

Jake - I dont get the green emoji looking thing - did I offended you?

6mm - I am shooting more, question was actually if Im shooting too much! Also learning how all the stuff works together (practicing), while also testing other unknowns/variables. I get it you've been shooting 800+yds since I was a toddler....main thing Id point out is that if ur 'data' were to be 'off' dont you want to know why - or at least eliminate a few of the common reasons off the bat?

Dillhole (lol, no disrespect meant) - I get the necro comment, but meh I didn't feel [it] warranted a completely new posting.

*All in all I think Ill just do it the way I first intended - 60 shots - practice my steps/fundamentals...either way Im sure the process will help me improve and I can learn some things about my gun/scope. Maybe one of these days start making those 800yd shots too?!

U do you man. No one is saying there is a right or wrong way. The more shots you take the better you’ll get. We just like to poke fun round here.

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

6mm - I am shooting more, question was actually if Im shooting too much! Also learning how all the stuff works together (practicing), while also testing other unknowns/variables. I get it you've been shooting 800+yds since I was a toddler....main thing Id point out is that if ur 'data' were to be 'off' dont you want to know why - or at least eliminate a few of the common reasons off the bat?

I addressed the "why" of data being off. In my experience, it's more likely that it's an input error on the ballistics solver (velocity, bad BC, bore height, typo on zero range, etc) or some other form of user error.

If I checked all of that, and couldn't show it was some other external factor (light/mirage) then yes, I'd check tracking.