I would be interested to see your test results with the new Arken scopes. Some might snark, but I am curious to see how they stack up to the other budget scopes.
Rifle Scopes 150 Scopes tested, Results Posted !
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
LoL, i bet it did. That shit is hilarious. I think in our class last year, we had 100% pass rate. I dont remember anyone's failing.
It is the only way to get a table top short enough for the HMFIC.
Last edited:
We stopped recording the data,
We have no plans to provide results as everyone is saying we have no clue what we are doing,
So it's not happening anymore, or at least not the same way as before and definitely we are not giving out the information
It's a closed project
Thanks for your reply and keep up the great work!
Understood on not wanting to ruffle feathers. Judging from some of the comments, I would wager that many readers skipped the verbiage in this post and went straight to the test results (validation is a wonderful thing, when taken in moderation).
I took the Frank and Marc clinic this past Sep (which was awesome) incl everyone pulling their scope and Marc doing a tracking test w the fixture.
Range to target, diopter and parallax settings were def addressed even to the point of knocking parallax off at one point and seeing what that looks like then setting it back.
To my view, it was all done very correctly and precisely.
I also believe we had 100% pass rate incl my Mk 5 5-25. Lol
A year previous I borrowed a friend’s fixture and tested the two scopes I have now and both passed. This provided real confidence and eliminated another variable as a the source the outcome.
I have no idea what manf raised a ruckus and I’m not asking. But I do think this is a very valuable and valid test to do on your scope.
Just my 2 cents.
Range to target, diopter and parallax settings were def addressed even to the point of knocking parallax off at one point and seeing what that looks like then setting it back.
To my view, it was all done very correctly and precisely.
I also believe we had 100% pass rate incl my Mk 5 5-25. Lol
A year previous I borrowed a friend’s fixture and tested the two scopes I have now and both passed. This provided real confidence and eliminated another variable as a the source the outcome.
I have no idea what manf raised a ruckus and I’m not asking. But I do think this is a very valuable and valid test to do on your scope.
Just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
I really appreciated the data because any mechanical device can have issues. It's funny that if even with every scope being subjected to the same "flawed" test, patterns will emerge and panties will bunch. It would be nice if the response was more like "Hey, we'd better figure this out". Letting the masses interpret simple raw data to inform themselves is soooo 2019.
Well, that sucks. I really liked your testing methods. But I understand. Maybe someday in the future? Who knows...
Marc and Frank testing mine (idk if I've already posted this pic in this thread).
Marc and Frank, thank you for taking your personal time to compile this information and share it with the rest of us! This is great information that will help a lot of us and we are appreciative! Also Happy Birthday!
Sorry for the "people that don't read so well" and butthurt peeps/groups.
Very Respectfully,
Stefan
Sorry for the "people that don't read so well" and butthurt peeps/groups.
Very Respectfully,
Stefan
hahaha...now, I know that @Enough Said is a former hard ass Marine SSgt....but he really needs to upgrade his chair! LOL
Dear Sir,
Though I understand your frustration, I encourage you to reconsider and keep providing the information even at the risk of offending the sensibilities of the thin skinned or certain corporate interests.
The optics market is awash with hype and a dizzying array of choices which make it difficult to make an informed decision when purchasing a scope. Consequently, interviews and tests such as this are an invaluable tool for those of us who are not loyal to any particular brand but simply want the facts. I know of only one other attempt to quantify performance on this level: (https://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/01/tactical-scopes-mechanical-performance-summary/)
and results of that project are a bit dated.
We're living in a golden age of choices for firearms and optics yet there is a dearth of hard data on what makes a great rifle scope. We need more tests like this and more interviews with folks like Jeff Huber.
I appreciate your efforts and looks forward to more info.
Regards,
A Aron
Whiny little bitches ruin EVERYTHING
That's freaking bush league I loved this compilation.... Was Leupold pissed that they haven't made a relavent scope since 1985? I'm dying too know who's crying....
I think keeping companies honest like this only further drive qc and better products for the market... Hardly anyone has the resources to sit down and compare 10 brands and see all this data.... Don't wanna hear about it? How about you make sure your reticle is straight and your turrets track from the factory and let your product speak for itself.....
There was an active campaign to dismiss our findings and to paint us as improperly executing the tall target test.
Lots of, "You're not doing it right", "you can't read the scopes as we set them up", "you're doing it too far, not far enough", the problem is, once it goes from the small advances towards us to select influencers, we become the bad guys. They no longer have to prove it, we have to prove our worth in doing it.
Now we simply look at the setup in the rings, (1/3 of the class is canted in the rings), we then check the gross adjustment, is it set up to reach 1000 yards, or will it top out early. A few scopes were not zeroed correctly initially so we fixed them, stuff like zero stops in the way, etc. Then we demonstrate Parallax, which due to this type of testing we do, has changed. So we see diminishing returns.
The recording of the results was something we added to our God Book, that same God Book helped develop Weaponized Math as we recorded information from every student. We simply stopped recording and backing up the tests because if we did see scopes that didn't test at 100% we confirmed it with both the students and all instructors.
It's hard to say how to respond, often we had one scope test at 100% and another at 98% so our question was, how come one is 100 and one is 98, that it was just a general observation, but still we are doing it wrong. That charge can only hurt our cause not help it so we stopped.
Lots of, "You're not doing it right", "you can't read the scopes as we set them up", "you're doing it too far, not far enough", the problem is, once it goes from the small advances towards us to select influencers, we become the bad guys. They no longer have to prove it, we have to prove our worth in doing it.
Now we simply look at the setup in the rings, (1/3 of the class is canted in the rings), we then check the gross adjustment, is it set up to reach 1000 yards, or will it top out early. A few scopes were not zeroed correctly initially so we fixed them, stuff like zero stops in the way, etc. Then we demonstrate Parallax, which due to this type of testing we do, has changed. So we see diminishing returns.
The recording of the results was something we added to our God Book, that same God Book helped develop Weaponized Math as we recorded information from every student. We simply stopped recording and backing up the tests because if we did see scopes that didn't test at 100% we confirmed it with both the students and all instructors.
It's hard to say how to respond, often we had one scope test at 100% and another at 98% so our question was, how come one is 100 and one is 98, that it was just a general observation, but still we are doing it wrong. That charge can only hurt our cause not help it so we stopped.
It would’ve been nice to get enough data to come up with stats on years in production and service/failure rates.
I wonder where the elite tactical line falls in, how many years in production vs how many warranty returns/repairs compared to some of the other highly recommended brands. The DMR2 particularly, seems to be a pretty solid choice, being they are getting old in scope years and still fly off the shelves. That’s from the reputation of reliable service I figure.
I wonder where the elite tactical line falls in, how many years in production vs how many warranty returns/repairs compared to some of the other highly recommended brands. The DMR2 particularly, seems to be a pretty solid choice, being they are getting old in scope years and still fly off the shelves. That’s from the reputation of reliable service I figure.
Last edited:
Sadly there are always those guys and they never help, they just point fingers to cover their own short comings.
Again, thank you for sharing and taking the time to produce this.
V/R
Stefan
It's just odds, we have a lot of scopes in our list, you are simply looking at batches and trends, the problem is exactly what is happening here, emotion.
Invested interest in how a particular scope performs, rather than how their own scope performs we are calling balls and strikes and people are pissed at the Umpire. Test your own damn scope and we wouldn't have to.
In every single situation, class, ranges, shows, when someone walks up and asks me, "Hey what do you think of SCOPE X" I already know you own it and will most likely not answer you.
Honestly, the mid-range options, the $1250 to $2200 is a crapshoot, it's 50/50 whether it will track 100%, the odds change to 75% - 25% after you go up from $2200, but there is still a 25% chance it will be off a tiny amount.
Rarely do we see scopes under 98% or 102% and that means .2 mils out of 10 mils of travel, still less than a minute. But people want to make a big deal out of .2 mils when most software can easily correct it. We are giving the owner information he might not have before. Also because we dope the rifles and don't rely on software upfront, the answer is correct regardless of how the scope tracks. We MIGHT see the data trend of alignment but it still works, it's not going .9, 1.0. 1.1. it might go 9., 1.3, 1.6 vs smaller increments but it still works to hit the target. Errors are cumulative and this is identifying errors.
Invested interest in how a particular scope performs, rather than how their own scope performs we are calling balls and strikes and people are pissed at the Umpire. Test your own damn scope and we wouldn't have to.
In every single situation, class, ranges, shows, when someone walks up and asks me, "Hey what do you think of SCOPE X" I already know you own it and will most likely not answer you.
Honestly, the mid-range options, the $1250 to $2200 is a crapshoot, it's 50/50 whether it will track 100%, the odds change to 75% - 25% after you go up from $2200, but there is still a 25% chance it will be off a tiny amount.
Rarely do we see scopes under 98% or 102% and that means .2 mils out of 10 mils of travel, still less than a minute. But people want to make a big deal out of .2 mils when most software can easily correct it. We are giving the owner information he might not have before. Also because we dope the rifles and don't rely on software upfront, the answer is correct regardless of how the scope tracks. We MIGHT see the data trend of alignment but it still works, it's not going .9, 1.0. 1.1. it might go 9., 1.3, 1.6 vs smaller increments but it still works to hit the target. Errors are cumulative and this is identifying errors.
If you had just given every scope a participation ribbon and referred to it by its preferred pronouns, none of this would have happened.
Last edited:
Frank, are you no longer doing actual elevation tracking accuracy and return to zero in the clinics? I kind of thought that we did that at Miflin but I'm easily confused.
We didn't do an actual tracking test unless you specifically asked Marc to give it a value, it was basic.
We are just running it 10 mils and making sure it moves that far as we have had scopes that have stopped at 8 mils or less.
But we did not record tracking at the PA class or any others after June, I stopped at that point.
We are just running it 10 mils and making sure it moves that far as we have had scopes that have stopped at 8 mils or less.
But we did not record tracking at the PA class or any others after June, I stopped at that point.
Frank & Marc,
Thank you for this post, my biggest take-away was the methods used in the testing, or better yet, "how" and "what" to test on a scope regardless of brand, model or cost. I would say that those individuals that had the good fortune to have their scopes tested during the class they attended were fortunate it was included in the admission cost, it would certainly make for a better class to know what their equipment anomalies were at the beginning, and not throughout the whole shooting phase. Whatever the individual owner had subjected their scope to before the class, the testing done early on gave an opportunity to correct anything done incorrectly or haphazardly beforehand.
I understand your decision to end conducting these tests and publicizing the findings, the emotional responses to the original post, IMHO, just revealed alot of "buyer's regret" and less appreciation for the nuggets of information contained.
Have a safe, enjoyable, and reflective "Veterans Day", we earned it and remember those who have fallen.
Thank you for this post, my biggest take-away was the methods used in the testing, or better yet, "how" and "what" to test on a scope regardless of brand, model or cost. I would say that those individuals that had the good fortune to have their scopes tested during the class they attended were fortunate it was included in the admission cost, it would certainly make for a better class to know what their equipment anomalies were at the beginning, and not throughout the whole shooting phase. Whatever the individual owner had subjected their scope to before the class, the testing done early on gave an opportunity to correct anything done incorrectly or haphazardly beforehand.
I understand your decision to end conducting these tests and publicizing the findings, the emotional responses to the original post, IMHO, just revealed alot of "buyer's regret" and less appreciation for the nuggets of information contained.
Have a safe, enjoyable, and reflective "Veterans Day", we earned it and remember those who have fallen.
We have no plans to provide results as everyone is saying we have no clue what we are doing,
That is a shame, the relatively high number of scopes going though your class coupled with the off the shelf nature of their acquisition made for some excellent data. I was even hoping you would add reticle cant (within the scope not scope canted on the rifle) to the results at some point. I am not surprised some companies got pretty butt hurt about it all though. While overall QC stardards across the industry seem to have improved dramatically in the last few years (a trend we doubtless had something to do with), it is pretty clear that the QC standards are much higher from some makers than others.
Sadly, a converse trend I have also noted in the last few years is less willingness to subject a product to evaluation by those not controlled by the company. I have certainly had more companies refuse a review offer or simply ghost me than in the past. Not sure if the reason for this is the ease of getting astroturfed social media exposure, sales being so good increased exposure is superfluous, a change in thinking amongst the advertising professionals, or a case of advertisers getting to know more fluently the meticulousness with which I review products. All in all I expect it just leads to fewer reviews that likely would have been bad anyway. Not the worst outcome.
That is a shame, the relatively high number of scopes going though your class coupled with the off the shelf nature of their acquisition made for some excellent data. I was even hoping you would add reticle cant (within the scope not scope canted on the rifle) to the results at some point. I am not surprised some companies got pretty butt hurt about it all though. While overall QC stardards across the industry seem to have improved dramatically in the last few years (a trend we doubtless had something to do with), it is pretty clear that the QC standards are much higher from some makers than others.
Sadly, a converse trend I have also noted in the last few years is less willingness to subject a product to evaluation by those not controlled by the company. I have certainly had more companies refuse a review offer or simply ghost me than in the past. Not sure if the reason for this is the ease of getting astroturfed social media exposure, sales being so good increased exposure is superfluous, a change in thinking amongst the advertising professionals, or a case of advertisers getting to know more fluently the meticulousness with which I review products. All in all I expect it just leads to fewer reviews that likely would have been bad anyway. Not the worst outcome.
That's the problem with today's society (everywhere). They pressure you into not speaking up because it might jilt their narrative. I've been out of the shooting game for 15+ years (a story unto itself) and very recently decided to start up again. When I was competing, info was never a problem, but I never used scopes. Getting truthful, honest evaluations of scopes is a godsend too many of us who do not have a chance to even see some of them, let alone use them. I made a scope decision based on info from you guys testing/evaluating them and am planning on purchasing another scope IF I CAN FIND MEANINGFUL/HARDCORE EVAL's. Yeah, I know....I can't really go wrong spending $3+ on any of the top tier scopes, but the info you guys provide will alone me, and others, make a decision right for what I want.
Again, THANKS!!!
Again, THANKS!!!
The issue is,
People were freaking out over .1 mils. They immediately ran out and called the companies thinking they will get it "fixed" when it's not broken. They have a spec like anything else, and these results are all within spec for everyone. But the bad press from getting a .99% on our test was too much for both consumer and company to handle. Sure you'll probably need to see it appear downrange, and the further you shoot the more it might appear so the software can adjust it. But people complained.
They paid $2000+ and got a .099 vs a .100 and people hated it.
they didn't try to educate the consumer just turn off the message so they didn't have to hear it. They know very few will actually test any scope, so the fact we did it every class made it a blemish on too many souls.
If consumers were not running around passing judgment on a .099 we'd still be doing it, but instead, it became a tool against the companies.
People were freaking out over .1 mils. They immediately ran out and called the companies thinking they will get it "fixed" when it's not broken. They have a spec like anything else, and these results are all within spec for everyone. But the bad press from getting a .99% on our test was too much for both consumer and company to handle. Sure you'll probably need to see it appear downrange, and the further you shoot the more it might appear so the software can adjust it. But people complained.
They paid $2000+ and got a .099 vs a .100 and people hated it.
they didn't try to educate the consumer just turn off the message so they didn't have to hear it. They know very few will actually test any scope, so the fact we did it every class made it a blemish on too many souls.
If consumers were not running around passing judgment on a .099 we'd still be doing it, but instead, it became a tool against the companies.
When you think about the relatively tiny amount of movement per click it is amazing that most manufacturers achieve the level of tolerance they do.
Is a shame that the chance to educate end users that it is just another tuning factor that every decent ballistic calculator allows you to compensate for was not or couldn't be taken by the manufacturers.
Is a shame that the chance to educate end users that it is just another tuning factor that every decent ballistic calculator allows you to compensate for was not or couldn't be taken by the manufacturers.
I guess more education is needed. But who is responsible for that? The manufacturer, the individual or both. Obvio it’s both but we all know one wants it spoon fed and the other doesn’t want anyone to know that it’s possible to not track 100%. The manufacturer’s don’t want anyone doing a tall target test and most individuals don’t even know what the results mean as demonstrated in your post. 99% tracking and a plumb reticle is GTG. 99% and a canted reticle……now we have a problem.
That is why we will continue to pull scopes,
we see enough canted in the rings to continue the practice in order to correct the issues. We can't see through your scope until we pull it off. Even this past weekend, I corrected a reticle on a student's rifle. No way they can see the reticle clearly based on my observations. So I fixed it and then asked if it looked better.
Pulling the scopes has value, we will certainly include that value, but we are just not doing the tall target test to the same degree nor are we making their results public.
Adjusting the reticle, resolving and demonstrating parallax, correcting a cant in the rings, all have value.
we see enough canted in the rings to continue the practice in order to correct the issues. We can't see through your scope until we pull it off. Even this past weekend, I corrected a reticle on a student's rifle. No way they can see the reticle clearly based on my observations. So I fixed it and then asked if it looked better.
Pulling the scopes has value, we will certainly include that value, but we are just not doing the tall target test to the same degree nor are we making their results public.
Adjusting the reticle, resolving and demonstrating parallax, correcting a cant in the rings, all have value.
Accepting outcomes that’s not what people want to hear comes with age.
I want my scope to track 100%, but I also want data and sometimes it’s a hard pill to swallow, but numbers don’t lie.
Scope and bullet threads are the worst for this.
I read carefully how the testing was done & the setup for each scope. I see no problem but, more to the point, I see no practical alternative either.
You've said that people are saying you don't know what you're doing so, do these guys have a practical alternative for field testing scope tracking?
From what I see of the testing you & the guys did, it appears to me to be perfectly valid outside of lab testing equipment. If people are going to insist that your form of testing was invalid in some way, I think the burden of proof lies with them to explain why &, supply an alternative method for the average guy to field test his scopes tracking.
I can understand you not wanting to continue with publishing the results in that format but, I don't think it unreasonable that you insist on an acceptable alternative. If the nay sayers can't come up with an alternative or a valid reason why the results are erroneous, that information should be published so we can know why the information is being censored.
Regards...............Barelstroker.
.1mil: its my experience, when I was competing, 99% of shooters (golfers, racers, etc) have to have something to BLAME, because it can't be them! I'll put up $$$, to the whiners: if they can shoot to within .1mil @ 600 yds...the $$$ is theirs! OF course, they'd have to come up with the same amount of $$$....and they won't. Yes, I have done this several times at ranges because I got tired of hearing the bitching. Doesn't make me many friends, but its shut them up.
You're spot on.
Every time I shoot in a half way descent breeze & look at the resulting azimuth data that my app spits out, it's plain to see the elephant in the room. If my scope was 0.2 Mil out, it makes two tenths of fuck all of difference to the final outcome. Guys get all head up about this tracking BS & completely ignore the real issues.
And as you've pointed out, can the vast majority of shooters ability even match these miniscule tracking errors?
I say stuff the nay sayers & ass hurt companies & publish the data anyway.
I believe it will benefit the companies in the long run by giving some much needed perspective on the issue.
This year's clinic at MCSA was a great experience. Frank tested 2 of my scopes and I'm beyond grateful. I would love to get a scope tracker and the scale from @Jackmaster...I cannot find where to download it, but I'm still looking. Everyone should have their scoped checked.
Ah, what scope tracker and scale?
@Palehorse68
Well, here is the Snipers Hide scope tracking target
Store - Box to Bench Precision
Snipers Hide 100 Yard Scope Tracking Target - MIL - MOA - For Milliradian and Minute of Angle Scopes - True Minute of Angle - Precision Shooting -
www.boxtobenchprecision.com I have bought them…still have a bunch here somewhere. I did not see what Frank brought this year but this is def what we used the past two years.
As for the fixture….Targets USA but it is pretty dang $$.
Scope Tools
Scope Tool Scope track testing base. Design for Marc Taylor with Alaska Precision Rifle and Frank Galli with Sniper's Hide to check the scopes ability to track properly and return to zero on a...
www.targetsusa.com
Thank you !!!!@Palehorse68
Well, here is the Snipers Hide scope tracking target
Store - Box to Bench Precision
Snipers Hide 100 Yard Scope Tracking Target - MIL - MOA - For Milliradian and Minute of Angle Scopes - True Minute of Angle - Precision Shooting -
I have bought them…still have a bunch here somewhere. I did not see what Frank brought this year but this is def what we used the past two years.
As for the fixture….Targets USA but it is pretty dang $$.
Scope Tools
Scope Tool Scope track testing base. Design for Marc Taylor with Alaska Precision Rifle and Frank Galli with Sniper's Hide to check the scopes ability to track properly and return to zero on a...www.targetsusa.com
That targetusa scope fixture has never once been in stock when I have popped over there. What gives?@Palehorse68
Scope Tools
Scope Tool Scope track testing base. Design for Marc Taylor with Alaska Precision Rifle and Frank Galli with Sniper's Hide to check the scopes ability to track properly and return to zero on a...www.targetsusa.com
Dunno, call them and ask. Prob make them to order. It’s not a high volume product, right?
Ahhhh didn’t think they might be using the Aadland “always-out-of-stock” biz model. I’ll try that!
Some folks just don't understand the precision that these manufacturers do come up with or the idea of "within spec", and precision doesn't mean perfect, nothing is.
Coming from cameras to scopes I've always wondered about this so let me know what I'm missing in asking this question.
I have an 8x10 metal view camera, which you transport anywhere folded up.
Before you shoot w/it, you unfold it, and mercifully you can get the front/rear standards lined up vertically and parallel via a series of indents (notches popping into recesses).
Since half the battle with scopes is setting them up right from the start, wouldn't it eliminate frustration and the wasting of time/ammo to add a system of indents/notches to the scope/tube, and matching recesses to whatever is holding the scope in place (assuming the machining is 1st rate).
Again, let me know what I'm missing.
Coming from cameras to scopes I've always wondered about this so let me know what I'm missing in asking this question.
I have an 8x10 metal view camera, which you transport anywhere folded up.
Before you shoot w/it, you unfold it, and mercifully you can get the front/rear standards lined up vertically and parallel via a series of indents (notches popping into recesses).
Since half the battle with scopes is setting them up right from the start, wouldn't it eliminate frustration and the wasting of time/ammo to add a system of indents/notches to the scope/tube, and matching recesses to whatever is holding the scope in place (assuming the machining is 1st rate).
Again, let me know what I'm missing.
I’m with you, brother.
The euros sort of have it figured it out with machining a rail on the bottom of certain scopes.
Not sure what the drawbacks are, but that appears pretty simple to use.
The euros sort of have it figured it out with machining a rail on the bottom of certain scopes.
Not sure what the drawbacks are, but that appears pretty simple to use.
If I understand you correctly, you would like to see some sort of crenellations that match up with the same in the rings?
If so, then no….IMO that’s not a good idea. While we set out rings in “crenellations” on the PIC rail, we can then tune that with small adjustments to the scope’s position in the rings. Get the scope and rings where they are close then you can fine tune by sliding the scope fore/back in the rings.
An indent is usually a small notch on one part where you slide it/swivel it till it seats in a recess on another part.
Thinking about what you just said about sliding to fine tune the position of the scope, a small notch on the scope which could seat along a "groove" at the bottom of the rings would seem to me to address forward and backward keeping the reticle oriented in the same position.
In fact wouldn't that help the ability to fine tune/slide forward-backward-repositioning the scope-taking it on and off w/o worrying about even slightly changing the position/orientation of the reticle.
Last edited:
Not everybody wants their reticle parallel to the vertical axis of the gun. Some like a bit of cant so reticle is level with the gun in the shoulder pocket…particularly if shooting off hand.
Leveling a scope is really not a big task to my mind so doing something like you suggest seems to be a solution looking for a problem. But others certainly may view it differently.
Cheers
They're certainly welcome to have their reticle anyway they want it.
I disagree w/you about what I suggested being a solution looking for a problem considering the tremendously kind help some folks needed and got to help level their scopes from reading this discussion and probably others that aren't you who do have a problem even after they set up their scopes and may not know it.
I got this right the first time I did it but it took me awhile, so I'd prefer having something like this the next time I have to level a scope.
Leveling a scope may be a "snap" 4 you but it obviously wasn't for others.
I disagree w/you about what I suggested being a solution looking for a problem considering the tremendously kind help some folks needed and got to help level their scopes from reading this discussion and probably others that aren't you who do have a problem even after they set up their scopes and may not know it.
I got this right the first time I did it but it took me awhile, so I'd prefer having something like this the next time I have to level a scope.
Leveling a scope may be a "snap" 4 you but it obviously wasn't for others.
Last edited:
I'm in the process of making these available. I have a proof print on the way to make sure they printed to scale properly
Shut up and take my money hahaha!!! Seriously, let's us know when an order can be placed.
