So here’s the problem, new scope I mounted right before a PRS match and my dope seemed to be off at longer distances. After trying to figure out what I was doing wrong I decided to test the tracking. I shot a group at zero then 2 at 5mil and 2 at 10mil all @100yrds. Problem is with 5mil the point of impact is moving 19” instead of 18 and at 10mil it’s moving 37-37.5”. Doesn’t seem like much but shooting .5mil high at longer ranges makes a difference. Do you guys see anything I could be doing to cause this or just a tracking issue? I shot the groups round robin to see shifts. View attachment 8682707
Mark 4hd tracking issue
- Thread starter Ragin_cajun
- Start date
Not for nothing but you may want to edit the pic to take out the personal information from the shipping label.
Before sending it to Leupold for evaluation I'd mark out a grid on a piece of cardboard, 10 mils X 5 mils and lock the gun down and do a tracking test that way to see if the scope is tracking properly. I'm sure Leupold will take care of it if you want to send it in for piece of mind too.
Before sending it to Leupold for evaluation I'd mark out a grid on a piece of cardboard, 10 mils X 5 mils and lock the gun down and do a tracking test that way to see if the scope is tracking properly. I'm sure Leupold will take care of it if you want to send it in for piece of mind too.
Not really a velocity issue. Simply shifting the point of aim at 100yrds and it’s not lining up
Velocity would be a possible issue if the test was done at longer ranges. Test simply compares the point of impact change compared to the scope adjustment. No matter if is a 22creed or 22 pellet gun that test would be the same if you get the drift
I’d check it at longer distances and with a chronograph as mentioned.
I had to send in a MK4HD a few months back that wouldn’t track and Leupold replaced it with a new unit (after I hounded them for over a month).
Mine seemed to track fine out to ~600 yards (~3.5 mils)… but at 750 (~5 mils) and at 1000 (~9 mils), it was clearly off enough to where I didn’t even need to bother with a tall-target test to see that it was fucked up.
I had to send in a MK4HD a few months back that wouldn’t track and Leupold replaced it with a new unit (after I hounded them for over a month).
Mine seemed to track fine out to ~600 yards (~3.5 mils)… but at 750 (~5 mils) and at 1000 (~9 mils), it was clearly off enough to where I didn’t even need to bother with a tall-target test to see that it was fucked up.
He’s telling yall that it’s not tracking.
A chronograph has nothing to do with it.
OP, trust your tracking test provided it’s actually at 100 yards. You can push it off like that but you’ve observed it at various points now.
A chronograph has nothing to do with it.
OP, trust your tracking test provided it’s actually at 100 yards. You can push it off like that but you’ve observed it at various points now.
It's a Leupold... That's a feature op
Huh?
I re-read the OP’s initial post and can’t see where he’s telling us anything that rules out tracking?
That said, I guess the OP could double check his math after he chronos his gun,
Doing it the way he’s doing it is iffy at best, guessing 5 mils will print 18” high without knowing one’s true MV and BC is kind of pointless/indecisive.
He’s got to chrono it if he wants to do it the way he’s doing it, but even then it depends on the math. Using a tracking target or taking it out further would be far more decisive.
Last edited:
Not from what he wrote. His test is not a tracking test ( checks repeatability) but seems to be about checking that it matches known dope.
He said the new scope wasn't "tracking" with his existing dope, and then did a tracking test.
Definitely looks like a normal tracking test, which it has indeed failed.
The way I read the OP, he shot at group at his zero. He then fired (2) shots at 5 mils, and another (2) shots at 10 mils. Unfortunately for him the shots didn't land where he thought they should
That would be a form of tracking test.
I would repeat it by drawing 1 mil marks up to 10 from a zero, lock his optic or rifle down, and just adjust the scope and see if everything lines up. If it doesn't his original tracking test is confirmed and the scope needs to go to Leupold.
That would be a form of tracking test.
I would repeat it by drawing 1 mil marks up to 10 from a zero, lock his optic or rifle down, and just adjust the scope and see if everything lines up. If it doesn't his original tracking test is confirmed and the scope needs to go to Leupold.
I've never heard of muzzle velocities changing click values. Tell me more.
They change impact points dope is based on bullet ballistics and measured velocity
Using the ol’ cookie-cutter “1 mil at 100 = 3.6 inches” doesn’t tell the whole story.
The opposite he tells us exactly that the scope is not tracking.
How much the reticle moves has zero to do with velocity. He adjusts the turret 5 mils and instead of going 5 mils it’s going more
3.6”=1mil@100yards and 3.6x5=18”
19”/3.6=5.278
37-37.5/3.6”=10.27-10.42
And if those all stay the same: at 100yards, how much should the scopes adjustment either scale or jump from what has been dialed?
If your velocity made a difference in how your reticle tracked - imagine trying to spot for the guy next to you who is shooting a different cartridge.
"Come up 1.5 mils, Bob"
"1.5 mils for a Creedmoor or an ARC?"
"Come up 1.5 mils, Bob"
"1.5 mils for a Creedmoor or an ARC?"
No he states that the point of impact is different than expected, not that the scope reticle moved to a different place. But who cares he still does not know what a tracking test is.
It doesn’t matter as far as mils… it’s one’s distance in inches per click on target that changes with MV and distance.
That’s why when spotting we don’t say “come up 8 inches Bob” (because then the number between a Creed and an ARC would be different).
ETA: I guess I’m not getting or am confused by what a test like this, using a tape measure, would prove/disprove. I understand that it shouldn’t have anything to do with MV or trajectory at 100 yards… but I wouldn’t do it like that. I’d wanna know my true MV and then take it out to see if it prints where my calculator says it should, and then do a tracking test if it didn’t. IDK if one can nail down differences of an inch or so at 100 as being decisive as far as tracking issues without going a little deeper into the weeds.
Last edited:
The point of impact changes based upon dialing the turret. When one dials the turret 5 mils, one expect it to go 5 mils. Not 5 and some change. He seems to be one of the few that does understand how scope tracking works.
I should have known better than to step foot in the scope section
OP
Get a tall target marked in mils and confirm your amount of error at the extreme ranges of the scopes travel - without firing any ammo. If it is fixed % of error you can adjust your dope accordingly and/or send the scope back for repair.
Get a tall target marked in mils and confirm your amount of error at the extreme ranges of the scopes travel - without firing any ammo. If it is fixed % of error you can adjust your dope accordingly and/or send the scope back for repair.
Last edited:
It's always 3.6" = 1 Mil. Strelok Pro was saying 0.4" per click, and like a dumbass I assumed it was smarter than me (but now know it must just round up 0.36 to 0.4 since there's no room for the next decibel) and was talking out my ass. I own it.
@spife7980 and the others looking down their noses at me have been correct all along. I was confusing the relationship of MV to POI as somehow interacting with this instead of thinking of it strictly as a scale/ruler.
Sorry to be a dumbass (and I don't even have booze to blame it on lol).
@spife7980 and the others looking down their noses at me have been correct all along. I was confusing the relationship of MV to POI as somehow interacting with this instead of thinking of it strictly as a scale/ruler.
Sorry to be a dumbass (and I don't even have booze to blame it on lol).
