Mark 4hd tracking issue

[Ragin_cajun]

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

Edit: This edit is being added to address some questions or things that have been raised in this post. First I always shoot over a chronograph but it doesn’t matter in this test. Since we’re 100% testing impact shift at 100yrds then velocity, BC and all other influences do not matter (we’re only testing impact shift). Secondly I have already adjusted my data in the kestrel to match what the issue is, so that’s not really a concern.
The main reason for the post was to see if this is a common issue with the mark 4hd. I ask that because I have two Mark4 hd 6-24 scopes and suspect a similar issue with both. I bought a pr3 reticle for my 6.5 being built now and the pr2 reticle for 6gt. I received the pr3 reticle first so I threw it on and and shot a PRS match and found at longer distances I was shooting high compared to the (untrued data in the kestrel) and also when compared to friends guns running the same bullet and velocity as me. Right after that match the pr3 reticle came in so I swapped it onto the gun and went to true my data. Doing that is when I saw the actual tracking issue. I’ve been extremely busy so I haven’t had the time to run more tests but next week before sending it back to Leupold I will compare the two scopes side by side on a verified chart to see how much shift I am getting.

 

[oldrifleman]

Same exact model and brand scope?

 

[Ragin_cajun]

Same exact model and brand scope?

New gun and scope.

 

[oldrifleman]

Is the velocity of the round the same old gun to new?

 

[Trigger Monkey]

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.

 

[Aftermath]

I'd be using a chronograph and re-evaluate.

 

[Ragin_cajun]

Is the velocity of the round the same old gun to new?

Not really a velocity issue. Simply shifting the point of aim at 100yrds and it’s not lining up

 

[Ragin_cajun]

I'd be using a chronograph and re-evaluate.

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

 

[CK1.0]

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.

 

[spife7980]

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.

 

[Huskydriver]

It's a Leupold... That's a feature op

 

[mmlook]

send it in, and they'll take care of it

 

[MarshallDodge]

It's a Leupold... That's a feature op

They've been known to let a few slip out the door

 

[CK1.0]

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.

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, because speed/MV absolutely affects how much a click = distance per inch. ETA: this is wrong and not really what I meant, I meant making sure MV and POI were legit.

If he’s going 2800fps a click at 100 yards would be 0.4”, so 5 mils would print 20” above his zero. So If he isn’t sure how fast his gun is going, then looking for 18” at 100 yards with 5 mils dialed on the scope may not even be the correct number to be looking for. I realized it's always 3.6" = 1 Mil. Strelok Pro was saying 0.4" per click and I assumed it was outsmarting me (but now know it must just round up 0.36 to 0.4 since there's no room for the next decibel).

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.

 

[oldrifleman]

He’s telling yall that it’s not tracking.
A chronograph has nothing to do with it.
OP,

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.

 

[beetroot]

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.

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

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.

 

[diggler1833]

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.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

I've never heard of muzzle velocities changing click values. Tell me more.

 

[diggler1833]

I've never heard of muzzle velocities changing click values. Tell me more.

That's only for MOA shooters...

 

[oldrifleman]

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

 

[CK1.0]

I've never heard of muzzle velocities changing click values. Tell me more.

Using the ol’ cookie-cutter “1 mil at 100 = 3.6 inches” doesn’t tell the whole story.

 

[spife7980]

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, because speed/MV absolutely affects how much a click = distance per inch.

If he’s going 2800fps a click at 100 yards would be 0.4”, so 5 mils would print 20” above his zero. So If he isn’t sure how fast his gun is going, then looking for 18” at 100 yards with 5 mils dialed on the scope may not even be the correct number to be looking for.

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.

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

They change impact points dope is based on bullet ballistics and measured velocity

And if those all stay the same: at 100yards, how much should the scopes adjustment either scale or jump from what has been dialed?

 

[diggler1833]

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?"

 

[oldrifleman]

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?

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.

 

[CK1.0]

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?"

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.

 

[spife7980]

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.

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

 

[Long Range 338]

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.

 

[Long Range 338]

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).

Wut?

 

[Delightful Sandy Brown Ghoul]

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 use a Chronograph for this issue, thinking of sending mine soon

 

[Huskydriver]

They've been known to let a few slip out the door

That wasnt a slip...op got a .mil version upgrade

 

[Huskydriver]

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.

Uh.....

 

[CK1.0]

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).

 

[Sossa]

A lot of people use MK5s in PRS and win with them; it's one of the most popular optics these days. I've shot five 3.6-18s and three 5-25 MK5s a lot, and none of them had any problems, tracking issues, or zero retention issues, and some of those were on comp rifles. My two VX5HD 3-15s have also been perfectly reliable. If they had the problems that are only discussed on this forum based on one person's flawed tests, you wouldn't see that level of use.

 

[Mike Casselton]

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

I have this heavy mofo just for checking scope tracking.
It'll help confirm if your scope tracks properly or not.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It needs a new camo sponge paint job.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

I have this heavy mofo just for checking scope tracking.
It'll help confirm if your scope tracks properly or not.

View attachment 8683083

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. It needs a new camo sponge paint job.

Needs a giant floppy rubber dong suction cupped to the top of the post as well so you have a proper wind flag when doing tracking tests.

 

[Baron23]

he still does not know what a tracking test is.

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.

This ^^.

IMO, the OP's way of doing a "tracking test"...well, isn't.

Tall target like this (or really anything with say a 36" vertical line erected at 100 yards...exactly 100 yards and exactly vertical...use a plumb bob).

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

Set either rifle with scope or just scope (if you have a fixture to do that with) in a fixed and level position. A lead sled type thingy will do or really any way that will hold the rifle/scope dead steady in position while you exercise the elevation turret.

In this manner you have isolated the scope erector from any other factors....like your shooting, ammo, whatever.

And you will be able to quantify the error in vertical and determine if it skews a bit laterally with elevation movement.

Its actually quite easy to do....I'm a moron with tools and such and I can do it.

 

[NateVA]

If they had the problems that are only discussed on this forum based on one person's flawed tests, you wouldn't see that level of use.

The droptesting isn't perfect but it's also not nothing. Though the main gripe against Leupold is zero retention, not tracking.

But why wouldn't you see the level of Leupold use if the droptesting is accurate? Most hunters shoot a few rounds a year (badly) and wouldn't notice a zero shift even if they had one. For PRS guys, is a zero shift during travel to a match even that big of a deal? I guess it depends on how common it is to have zero check ranges at matches, no idea on that one.

 

[Long Range 338]

Leupold has had its fair share of tracking issues with the Mark 5 series, I’m sure the Mark 4 does as well…. Overall they are still well enough regarded

 

[Ragin_cajun]

This ^^.

IMO, the OP's way of doing a "tracking test"...well, isn't.

This is where I disagree with most people I guess. In a situation where a rifle shoots sub half inch groups like this one does there’s no need to do anything else. I could perform a tracking analysis and see exactly how much error is in the tracking but that’s honestly a waste of time. No tracking analysis is perfect because you will always introduce error. If you mount it to the table then there’s parallax errors unless you’re using a tacticam and even then there’s the chance. Your platform is the most stable when you’re shooting so if you’re at 100yrds and you shoot a group then adjust your scope 5mil shoot another group and the groups aren’t 18” apart then your tracking is off. It’s a very simple pass or fail situation that doesn’t need analysis or chronographs or bc, either it moves the impact to where it should or it fails. I was initially just curious if others had tracking issues before this post took off into left field but