AccuracyGear ReviewsLong Range ShootingMarksmanshipRifle Scopes

Scope Tracking Test Results 2020

In the Field Scope Tracking Test 

Sniper’s Hide Target USA Scope Testing Fixture

As many shooters have read in the Sniper’s Hide Forum, or have heard on the Everyday Sniper Podcast, during our precision rifle classes we removed and test scopes for tracking.   The genesis behind this was twofold, first, we used to only accomplish this in our PR 2 class, and second, it solves a rifle set up problems we often observe.  Today we do it in all our basic Marc & Frank PR Classes. 

When we dope a rifle at distance the data needed to hit the target is that value.   In other words, if you dial 8.5 Mils to hit a target, that is all you need, unless the environmental conditions changed enough.    Under these same conditions, 8.5 is my answer.  If you are looking to predict a solution in software, you want to give the software all the variables that may influence the accuracy of the prediction.  So, if your scope tracks at 98% of actual, you want to tell the software to correct for the variation.  Instead of reading .1 Mils it would be .098. That is why we tall target test, it is one of the variables.  This also gives you a baseline for that particular optic.  If something is amiss down the road, you now have a model to use where you repeat it and attempt to identify the problem. 

The more we started to remove scopes from students’ rifles the more variations we began to see. These included scopes that were improperly mounted in the rings and levels that were not in the correct agreement with the reticle.   Since the Target is level, as is the fixture, we can test both tracking and look at the plumb of the reticle.   To relate this to those reading this, we see about 1/3 of scopes in a 12 -16 Person Class is not level and about another 3rd which are not correctly aligned to the bubble level or the level has been knocked off.   

Pulling a scope gives us more than one training opportunity during basic class.  We can point out the issues above, also we can demonstrate parallax using their optic and after testing is completed, we can help with rifle set up.  The line goes from Marc testing all the Optics to Me assisting the student with set up, mounting and initial rezeroing.  Each step is controlled, each task is done by the same people.  If we do see an error, we put several eyes on it and come to an agreement as to what we are looking at.  Many of these variations are minor, top or bottom of the reference, or minor gaps between the reticle and target. 

We conduct our Test at 100 yards, mainly because that is universal for the ranges we use. But also, because we are shooting alongside the testing, so setting everything up at 100 is easy.   With most of the modern scopes we use, seeing is not an issue, but it can be. 

We do not choose the scopes that are tested. 

Any scope on the list was a student’s scope.  There are a few I brought to class with me as part of a review, so it might be included, but all scopes were brought to the course by a student. 

All testing is done with the students as learning exercise, and If any variation is noted it is double checked by more than one person. 

Our biggest point of variation is atmosphere and parallax.  This is the reason we have the same person check the scopes.  Same pair of eyes every time with multiple layers of back up.  Seeing the chart is not a big deal and early on, we had someone downrange to confirm on the ruler up close what the tester was seeing back at the line.  Today we have a better easier to read chart and as noted we always triple check a variation. 

So, to recap the results and to understand what we are looking at: 

  • 100-yard tracking of the Shooter Personal Optic giving us a baseline. 
  • Identifying Variations that can be used to correct Ballistic Software 
  • Reticle Plumb as well as adjusting external Levels to the Reticle. 
  • Parallax Demonstration 

We see this test as a field method and consider 2% of 100% to within spec. If we are dialing 10 Mils of elevation, or 36 MOA, being .2 Mils off or .75MOA is an acceptable amount of variation for us.  It’s less than 1 MOA at 10 Mils or 36MOA.   Today that puts most shooters beyond 1000 yards. 

How to read the Chart

Percentage of 100

The chart is rewritten in a percentage of 100.  A scope that tracked 99% moved the reticle 9.9 Mils when the optic was dialed to 10 Mils.  A scope that tracks 101% moved the reticle 10.1 Mils when 10 Mils was dialed on.  Scopes can vary in both directions. 


If the scope failed, and you see “FAIL” it never made it to the line. The scope was replaced with a spare that we carry.  If you see an Asterisk the scope failed but was not replaced on the line. 

It’s not really a pass or fail exercise unless there is a problem with the optic. If the scope was listed as FAIL, it did not complete the test or track well enough to get a measurement.  As an example, we had a scope marked as fail where you dialed 48 MOA on the turret and the reticle moved 29 MOA.  That was considered a FAIL and replaced on the line. 

The purpose is to give you a baseline and establish the value for your ballistic software.  If we identify a bigger problem, we are saving time as normally the scope is replaced and sent back.  We have had very positive customer service results with all the optics that needed service.  

We have been testing scopes for several years, however we have only been recording the data in our God Book for the last few.  That is why the sample set is 150 scopes vs a higher number. 

Other factors 

Just tracking alone is not really enough. There are reticle considerations, there are optical considerations.   As an example, a lower scope might track 100% but have issues with resolving targets under harsh conditions like heavy mirage.  The Top Tier Scopes tend to “see” the targets better.  We had a situation just this year where I was on a lower cost optic and was asked to engage a target, I insisted was no longer present on the range because I could not see it through the optic.  I moved to a different rifle and immediately saw the target.  

There are reticle considerations, features, and long-term use.  

Because of the math, the number might read to the second decimal place, but our scopes cannot adjust down that far.  If the error was less than 1%, odds are the math worked out that way and it was a case of the reticle showing air around the line.  Resolving the line that far at 100 can be an issue.  So, take those numbers for what they are, the thickness of the reticles we are using, and minor inconsequential numbers.  A .03 error is a blink of the eye, it’s a rounding error that should take into the context of the scope’s ability to dial or hit a target which might be 2 MOA inside.

Best Practices we may look at moving forward. 

I recently spoke to Jeff Huber at Zero Compromise to discuss some of the feedback we were getting from the early test results.  The information was put out initial in a way that allowed a lot of open interpretation. This gets imaginations to run wild and the internet fired up with all sorts of misinformation.  These are random samples, not some large control group.  

Using 50 Meters to test then doubling the results may give us a little finer detail to really nail the reticle and ruler relationship.   If one was creating a test chart a different color test target might aid in following the black scope reticles.  Black on black can create the variation of .00 offsets we see with several optics.  

Measuring to .1 or less is not easy in the field.  You want the fixture to be as secure as possible. We use a 30LBS and the bench needs several people to move it because it is made of composite materials.  You can’t let anyone touch the bench or fixture during the test or it will influence the reticle’s location on the target.   The process has been refined over the years. 

Scope companies have specialized tools and collimators to do this type of testing. How and where you conduct the test can have a noticeable impact on the results.  We have set up and identified issues by finding the scopes all appear to be tracking wrong.  We had a laser rangefinder that was 3ft off once, gave the scopes a tracking result of 103%. We stopped and completely reset the test; it was obvious when it happened.  You would not expect at $4000 laser to be a yard off, but we found it. 

The best way to use this chart is to play the odds.  When buying a scope look at the features that are important to you.  First consideration should be on the reticle as that your point of interaction.  If your brain bucks the reticle layout, you’ll never be truly comfortable behind it.  Then look at your budget and work within that budget.  This is where you can help create divisions between the choices.  I have two choices both $1500, the one with more success might be better odds, but we guarantee nothing here.  We test, observe, and report, the rest is your call, just don’t’ think you are beating the odds buying a $1000 scope because you saw at 98% with a more expensive one.  You do tend to get what you pay for, and many might consider these numbers a bit subjective. 

How we move forward will depend on the reaction from the community.  If people want to overly their personal bias to what have provided, it can create a negative atmosphere around this kind of information.  You start bad mouthing companies because you believe they should have performed better, well that is just not fair.   Keep this information in context, understand the limitations of what we are doing and please do not jump to conclusions or insert bias where non exist. 

We see value in this as noted above, whether the results continue to be public will depend on the fallout.  Right now based on the questions being field, more education on the subject needs to presented because people confuse what this means or how to use it. 

Owner of Sniper's Hide, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, Aliens, & UFOs
Hat tip to Kahles...not the biggest sample, but the only one with significant representation to post straight 100s...

Thanks for taking the time to do this.
    True, But I think the Bushnell (5 total /all 3 different scope versions) and the Vortex were equally if not more impressive. All 5 Bushnell's were perfect 100
      How are you making that determination? Out of all the samples, there were four total failures. Two of those failures were Vortex.
        My only guess is that the "Failed" scopes either broke or tract so exceptionally bad that it is not usable.
        • C
        • October 5, 2021
        Vortex has several lines of scopes. The Diamondback Tactical is a cheaper Chinese made scope. The non-PST Viper might have been a PI-made scope. Their PST Gen II, AMG, Razor Gen I, and Razor Gen II seemed to have great results. This chart didn't do a good job identifying all of the manufacturers and models with inconsistent abbreviations and spelling mistakes/errors.

        BLUF: For Vortex you want to stick with the Japanese made scopes (Razor) or American-made Glass (AMG), or their PI-made (Viper) scopes. Athlon's Cronus is the only line made with Japanese glass but their Aries and other lines made in China seem to have great results as well.
        • H
          Hendrik kiliaan
        • June 21, 2023
        I only saw the 2 vortex failures, which are the other ones?
      I use a Hawke 30 mm tube Sidewinder 4x16x50 and love it. I engage targets out to 1,030 yards and have never let me down in 10 years.
    How's about the Burris xtr iii ?
    Any update to the list?
Nice to see the results, thanks for the write-up Frank.
Which Athlon Ares scope is on the chart? I'm casting an educated guess the ETR rather than the BTR but that can be a lot like assuming that I don't like to do.
    • S
    • December 6, 2020
    The original Ares was just that - Ares, until the separate BTR and ETR came out.
Are You checked torque at the rings?
If there is to much torque You have problems.
Amazing how most expensive isn’t always better
    The interesting test would be after one year of use re-test and see the differences. I think that is win the more expensive will shine.
I saw this when it came out, but finally had the time to read the whole thing. Great information, out would be awesome to keep updating it with other optics as you continue. I don't have any of the listed scopes but sisters to what were there. I've thought about making a ranging board to test my optics on as well, half a sheet of plywood with mrad on one side and moa on the other
    • S
    • December 6, 2020
    Thanks for the great idea.
This is an interesting peek into what feels like the voodoo world of optics, information that exists up in the rarified nose bleed air of an arena only a few hundred people on the planet can actually use and benefit from. For the rest of us it's anecdotal, nothing more than a curious time killer bound to increase the anxiety of most anal retentive types and cause all kinds of arguments, most of which will not be understood even by those having them.
Myself, I found it interesting enough to pause and read the article and most of it I believe I understand just well enough to know that while it's interesting, it's useless for me personally.
Kudos to those who take the time to evaluate these products and present the info to the readers. That's a fair amount of work that should be recognized.
Very informative, structured, post, Frank. Thank you for putting in the time to expand the initial posting and really make the meaning of the data clear.

Sweet, looks like Ill just be picking up another Razor HD gen 2 for current build
I am impressed you published this data. I have listened to the podcast in the past and knew you were collecting it, but never thought it would be shared. Kudos for posting your findings, its not hard to see the risk of doing so. When it comes to gear reviews, you call balls and strikes as you see them. Buyers should appreciate this.

I am also surprised that the differences between brands weren't more significant. The lesson here is to buy the features you want and test your scope vs "avoid this brand like the plague." (except IOR...still avoid that) :ROFLMAO: After all, a 1%- 2% error doesn't result in ANY error on target...if you know about it.

I get that this data was obtained while determining correction factors. Are you gathering any data regarding the repeatability, or precision, of turret adjustments? I imagine testing every scope's tracking multiple times to determine adjustment precision could be a giant time-suck in a class situation, but from the text it seems you already double-check the scopes with accuracy variations. Have you noticed any trends on adjustment precision?
Frank, thank you for this. Will you please confirm that the Leupold MK V, scope #4, is "90" (and not something else like 99). Just ruling out a typo.

Thank you
    90 is correct. That scope has been rebuilt and resides in MN.
True, But I think the Bushnell (5 total /all 3 different scope versions) and the Vortex were equally if not more impressive. All 5 Bushnell's were perfect 100 and Vortex razor II rocked it
Kudos to the Bushnell (5 total /all 3 different scope versions) and the Vortex were equally if not more impressive. All 5 Bushnell's were perfect 100 and Vortex razor II rocked it
Really appreciate this information. Know it had to take a good bit of effort to compile.

Any plans to do something akin to this with respect to light transmission?

Clarity might be tougher, but would think that could be done electronically as well (calculate variance from a known original) so it wouldn't be subjective.
It's nice to see the Bushnells tracking well.
Thanks for taking the time to release this information and put it in context. Very interesting!
Very cool to see this data. I've already shot my wad on scopes, but it's really neat to see this kind of stuff.
  • J
  • November 17, 2020
Which IOR Valdada model scope was it?
Anyone know which Vortex Strike Eagle was tested? I'm assuming its the 5-25x56. Thanks
Solid data. Thanks for sharing!
@lowlight will do the Eotech Vudu 5-25 that you have on your Vudoo rifle? I would like to know how it does.
Great info! Thanks
Awesome test!
@lowlight, I was in the MN class and a Leupy MK 5 had ghost clicks when adjusted above 20ish MOA and I thought that was classified as a fail. Id assume that is the 90% result in the table?
Thank you for all the effort in the evaulation. Great test, and great to see so many options for long range shooters from $-$$$. Personally, I recently upgraded from Leupold mark 4 from the 90s which was an awesome scope and still performing to a new generation of scope and when checking all the scopes out I could try out, I was overall really impressed with the quality/utility overall of offerings from all price points. I recall when the Leupold was the only game in town for an outstanding scope, and they still are imho, but there are also many other fine competitors with optics made in the USA and abroad! Great to see such good tracking of the scopes which is one of the most important features to me.
Thanks Frank and Mark for this wonderful data!
Great test! Thanks for all the hard work!!
Fascinating. Thank you for sharing this information.
Frank, thank you for your tremendous effort. It’s extremely beneficial.
Great work it’s nice to see a non biased test done. No swaros tested do they not fit the precision rifle agenda.
  • G
  • February 1, 2021
Best site very good blog <a href="" rel="nofollow ugc">best long range scope</a>

I get all information from this after so many searches.
i remember a guy doing this sometime back. lots of emotional people back then....
Great post. Very good info. to us making a scope buy.
This was real good information Frank. Thank you.I have a Tract Toric ELR 4.5-30x56 FFP and I was glad to see it.I really like it too.I was hoping to see a Delta Stryker 4.5-30x56 HD FFP.
This is a good show of good scopes
Great info. I’d hate to be the guy buying a leupold mk v and have it only trac 9 mile when I dial 10. Yikes
Why do scopes not track? Is it because a click does not register internally? New to this and want to understand tracking more completely.
This comment is to Frank (author of this article)..... any chance of getting the dimensions of the base you use to do your testing. I purchased the riser from the company "Targets USA" but they have no intention of making more of those bases. ANY help would be greatly appreciated. ( an outline of the base would be great as well as the location of the holes )
I'm using the original SH tracking thing and I put a 25# lead radiation shield brick on it to weigh it down, so it won't move - I learned this was necessary because if I tracked a scope multiple times I was not getting repeatable results. Getting everything perfectly level (the target and the scope) is also essential and time consuming. I use an 8 foot ruler and track it up 90ish MOA - the higher you track, the more it magnifies small errors which may not be noted if you don't track high enough up. Finally, the lasers we use in the field are not accurate enough for this work. Get a Leica Disto D2, accurate to 1/16th of an inch. And measure in the dark. Or use a 100 yard tape - just make sure it's pulled taught/straight.
Any chance there is the updated version of this chart?
    I think someone got upset and they quit publishing results?

    I would love to see an updated chart as well! It helps everyone make more informed buying decisions, and pushes manufacturers to put out a better product.
      According to the last podcast they still do it but don’t publish the results. One or more manufacturers got their panties in a bunch (I believe)….
I’ve recently returned to the Hide. Work and Life, what can I say, but seeing this article reminded me of the cornucopia (yes I wrote cornucopia) of information that the knowledgeable folks here share with us. I read through the article a couple of times and after a couple of looks and re-reads is certain portions, I got it. I got it and I appreciate it. I personally found it very interesting and this does have to be taken in context just like many tests require to be fully understood and used to one’s benefit. It’s unfortunate that theee metrics are not currently shared for what we reason. Most of all it reminded me why I joined the SH in the first place. So I know this is 3 years after the fact, but thank you for sharing all you did. It also inspired me to look at your classes. The things you described were fundamentals that many shooters never even take time to address or become skilled in. Thank you!
Unfortunately this just goes to show, that censorship when it comes to poor product performance is very much alive and active, even on forums. Even here we're seeing testing information being withheld because a manufacturer is or might be butt hurt over how their product stacks up.

There's a lot of shooting components where real scientific processes is not employed for comparisons. Look at the level of optical comparison that camera lenses go through and it would be easy to do the same for rifle scopes. We don't see it because manufacturers don't want their products compared in a lab. As long as those comparisons don't happen (just like tracking tests) the consumer doesn't know whose products are good or bad. Then between marking hype and a few folks under "sponsorship" to sing your products praises on all the forums you can drive a lot of misinformation. Bore scopes are the same, for decades almost no one had them and manufacturers enjoyed that they could cut a LOT of machining/manufacturing corners and no one ever knew. Heck even barrel cleaners now it's easy to compare what works to what doesn't with a bore scope that now anyone can get for under $100.

It's like the old saying "The best thing the devil ever did was convince people he didn't exist". As long as shooting companies can keep people from getting real scientific comparison data on products, the consumer can be easily mislead with marketing hype and paid for forum praise.