Rifle Scopes Is anyone out there doing thorough tracking tests on their scopes?

[Nailedit]

More thorough than say clicking and using POI at 100yards as an approximation? What standards does a scope have to meet before you state that it "tracks perfectly"?

I came across this youtube channel that has a few tracking tests (Lil Chantilly - YouTube) and assuming they were careful in their measurements, I find it a little discouraging as I shop around for glass that even these $2k+ scopes aren't delivering 100% tracking accuracy. They do seem to be precise though in that they are repeatable and return to zero correctly.

I'm just wondering what sort of error is acceptable, and are all the serious shooters doing similar testing, taking note of the corrections they need to make, or should one expect more accurate tracking from the get go? I'm just trying to build some realistic expectations before I finalize my decision on glass.

 

[zackm]

With scope tracking repeatable is king. You are correct every scope even the high dollar ones need to be calibrated. Notes need to be taken to show what tracking is really doing when adjustments are made. As longs as you do your part test and shoot your distances and your scope is repeatable you are good. As long as your scope move consistently you are good. There is no substitute for due diligence and note taking

 

[Starbuck]

Calibrate all your scopes. Even the best can have errors. 5% is acceptable to me, and if I know the error factor, it is easliy compensated for in your firing solution. Field Firing Solutions has a utility to compensate for tracking error, I dunno about other ballistic calculators, but FFS is the bomb.

http://www.lextalus.com/Articles/Scope Calibration.pdf

 

[D.ID]

I use to but eventually concluded it was waist of time much like the chronograph followed by a truing to eliminate inconsistencies.
I had to conclude that I do not care if my bullet is traveling at 2800 vs 2850 or if my scope is tracking .25 vs .26125 vs .27.
As long as it is repeatable and predictable, the rest is purely academic.

 

[TallShot]

I use to but eventually concluded it was waist of time much like the chronograph followed by a truing to eliminate inconsistencies.
I had to conclude that I do not care if my bullet is traveling at 2800 vs 2850 or if my scope is tracking .25 vs .26125 vs .27.
As long as it is repeatable and predictable, the rest is purely academic.

I agree somewhat.

There's comes a point where there's so much minutiae work, that it becomes burdensome and not worth it.

 

[Rob01]

I test every scope I get for tracking. It is the main job of the scope. It's a rifle scope and not a spotter so if it doesn't track then it's useless. Any mid to high end scope today should track especially when there are scopes under $1000 that track. If a scope was off I would send it back to the manufacturer for testing. You need to be able to know and trust your equipment.

I shoot my tracking test as i know my rifle and my accuracy and as long as the bullet hole is touching or very close to the line I am happy. You can also lock the scope in and turn the knob and watch where the crosshair moves. If you go out to 10 mils or 40 MOA you will see if it's just ammo difference or actual tracking problem as the shots will start walking if the scope is off. I have had scopes that were at 11.3 mils of actual travel at 10 mils dialed on. You could see them starting at 1 mil being 1.1 and then at 2 mils being 2.2 etc. Doesn't always happen that way as I have also had a scope that was fine to 15 MOA and then was off and when hitting 25 MOA is was off more.

Here is a recent tracking test of the Vortex Razor II 4.5-27x56 I did. I call this tracking perfectly. The shot at 8 mils was me canting and pushing the shot right but I went to 9 and then 10 and then dialed back down to 8 and shot again. I also use the same tracking chart to check the reticle subtension which you should also do with every scope.

 

[BGE541]

I test every scope I get for tracking. It is the main job of the scope. It's a rifle scope and not a spotter so if it doesn't track then it's useless. Any mid to high end scope today should track especially when there are scopes under $1000 that track. If a scope was off I would send it back to the manufacturer for testing. You need to be able to know and trust your equipment.

I shoot my tracking test as i know my rifle and my accuracy and as long as the bullet hole is touching or very close to the line I am happy. You can also lock the scope in and turn the knob and watch where the crosshair moves. If you go out to 10 mils or 40 MOA you will see if it's just ammo difference or actual tracking problem as the shots will start walking if the scope is off. I have had scopes that were at 11.3 mils of actual travel at 10 mils dialed on. You could see them starting at 1 mil being 1.1 and then at 2 mils being 2.2 etc. Doesn't always happen that way as I have also had a scope that was fine to 15 MOA and then was off and when hitting 25 MOA is was off more.

Here is a recent tracking test of the Vortex Razor II 4.5-27x56 I did. I call this tracking perfectly. The shot at 8 mils was me canting and pushing the shot right but I went to 9 and then 10 and then dialed back down to 8 and shot again. I also use the same tracking chart to check the reticle subtension which you should also do with every scope.

Nice looking test... you dont mind me asking was this done at 100 or (m)? What was this spacing between "mil" marks?

Thanks.

 

[Rob01]

Nice looking test... you dont mind me asking was this done at 100 or (m)? What was this spacing between "mil" marks?

Thanks.

Thanks. Have had different variations in the past but this has become the easiest. I also make sure the target is mounted perfectly vertical using a level so I can check my scope reticle levelness as well as when shooting it.

Done at 100 yards and lines are 3.6" apart, which is the inch equivalent for 1 mil at 100 yards.

 

[HodgdonExtreme]

[MENTION=70]Rob01[/MENTION] - That's a good basic test and easy to perform. An issue with it, however, is it depends on the accuracy of the rifle, the ammo, and the shooter. I think you make mention of this in your post; I just wanted to stress that point so anybody reading this is keenly aware of those sources of potential error.

A more elaborate and difficult "collimation" test will eliminate the rifle/ammo/shooter variables.

I believe the test rig in LiL Chantillys videos was built by [MENTION=29324]Runamuk[/MENTION] who can probably explain it in detail.

 

[Lowlight]

You can repeat their test with a 4ft Level, it's really simple, or you can simply use a yardstick and mark every 3.6"

it's not rocket science, and really just requires an accurate measurement to the target, not via a laser range finder or taking the range's word for it. I use a 300ft tape measure to confirm the distance from the turrets to the target.

But FFS has a great tool to help calibrate the scope tracking

 

[Rob01]

[MENTION=70]Rob01[/MENTION] - That's a good basic test and easy to perform. An issue with it, however, is it depends on the accuracy of the rifle, the ammo, and the shooter. I think you make mention of this in your post; I just wanted to stress that point so anybody reading this is keenly aware of those sources of potential error.

A more elaborate and difficult "collimation" test will eliminate the rifle/ammo/shooter variables.

Yes it definitely does and that's why I mentioned knowing my rifle and skills. If a new shooter is shooting a 1 MOA rifle then it wouldn't be the best way to test it but even in that example it's a better way then not testing it at all.

If someone has a way and tools to do the collimation test that would be the most accurate way.

 

[Lowlight]

Exactly what Rob said,

Get one of these if you don't trust yourself shooting it

 

[Nailedit]

Thanks for the replies.

I have to ask, to those of you who have a good bit of experience with various optics, at what price range do you typically find mechanical functionality (namely tracking) to sort of level off and hit a plateau?

In other words, things like illumination, zero stops and locking turrets aren't a necessity for me, so if im mainly after good repeatable tracking with acceptable glass, at what price point would I be spending a lot to gain very little?

 

[D.ID]

Not all scopes in a given price range share equal value.
Like all things there is no universal dollar amount that guarantees you get what best serves your specific balance of features and refinements.
You can get a $300 scope with the best tracking in the business and you can buy a $1400 scope that does not repeat reliably.
There are "smart" (researched) scopes in every price range from $200 to $3000. What level of refinement your willing to pay for is the first question, followed closely by what "features" your willing to pay for.
FOR ME: that "diminishing return" reflex kicks in shortly after 1 maybe 1.5K but I know people that hit that same feeling at $400 bucks, others that spend 2.5k and feel they gained something worth doing.
I am not any kind of "optics expert" and am even leery of most who claim to be but the one sure and for certain truth is: What ever equipment level YOU trust and appreciate will likely require a huge step up to improve on. That level..............yet to be determined. Research carefully and consider your sources carefully......find a way to see for yourself whenever possible.

 

[M40_A1]

[MENTION=70]An issue with it, however, is it depends on the accuracy of the rifle, the ammo, and the shooter.

Which is why I would think a well-fitting laser bore sighter would give better results. Any down side to using one for this purpose?

 

[JC Steel]

I think Snipershide also has a MIL based paper target maybe 36 inches tall. Level that and you can get up to 10 mils

 

[Voltron]

I could be totally off bases on this, but shouldn't a mil based scope be tested at 100 meters? In my thoughts I would think there would be a discrepancy with accuracy between shooting the test at 100 yards and 100 meters. If someone could explain my though to confirm or correct my thought. Thanks!

 

[jdr724]

1MIL=3.6" at 100 yards and 10cm at 100 meters so as long as you are using the correct measurements for the correct distance you're good

I could be totally off bases on this, but shouldn't a mil based scope be tested at 100 meters? In my thoughts I would think there would be a discrepancy with accuracy between shooting the test at 100 yards and 100 meters. If someone could explain my though to confirm or correct my thought. Thanks!

 

[Voltron]

It also depends on what your scope's notion of 1 milliradian is, because the NATO milliradian differs from the mathematical definition of a milliradian.

A mathematically accurate radian is that part of a circle where 2 * PI radians is a full circle, and a milliradian is 1/1000th of a radian, so a full circle is equal to approximately 6283 milliradians (2000 * PI).

But the NATO definition of a milliradian for use in ballistics is that a full circle is split into 6400 NATO milliradians.

Anyway, the difference is not very large, with mathematically accurate mrads, 1 mrad is 100 cm @ 1000 m, with 1 NATO mrad, it is 98.2 cm @ 1000 m. For this reason, if your scope uses mathematically accurate mrads, 1 mrad is about 3.44 MOAs, but if it uses NATO mrads, then 1 mrad is 3.375 MOAs.

The distance of the reticle's movement per click is tan(angle) * distance, however, at longer distances this is not exactly equal to the change in point of impact, because of the difference between changes to the line of sight and changes in the bullet's trajectory.

degrees = MOAs / 60
MOAs = degrees * 60

degrees = MRADs / (PI * 1000) * 180
degrees = (MRADs / 6400) * 360 [with NATO mrads]
MRADs = (degrees / 180) * PI * 1000
MRADs = (degrees / 360) * 6400 [with NATO mrads]

MOAs = MRADs / (PI * 1000) * 10800
MOAs = (MRADs / 6400) * 21600 [with NATO mrads]
MRADs = (MOAs / 10800) * PI * 1000
MRADs = (MOAs / 21600) * 6400 [with NATO mrads]

* I found this on another forum and it makes me wonder what manufactures use for the mil measurement.

 

[jdr724]

Test it and let us know what you come up with for your scopes................Thanks?