Rifle Scopes Return to zero failures
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
What NF scope re we talking about when it comes to windage issues?
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
They were a gift and all I had on the day I mounted the scope. I took them off today!
Now I'm interested in how this happens.
Interesting. Historically, Mark 4s had a hysteresis issue: adjusting up and adjusting down did not get you to the same spot, so a lot of people developed a habit to overshoot when adjusting down and then adjust up a few clicks to get to the desired setting. Another problem they used to have (may be resovled on newer scopes) was that the scope needed settling after adjustment, so your first shot after twisting the turrets would be a little off, from where the next shot would go.
When I test scopes, I do a test where I fire a shot, adjust one mrad up and fire another shot, adjust back to zero and fire a shot, adjust two mrad up and fire a shot, then go back to zero and fire a shot, then adjust up by three mrad, and so on, until I have a three shot group at all elevation adjustments I am testing and a larger group at the zero setting. This what I usually start the tracking test with. If there is significant problem with the scope, I will usually see something weird in this test. If the scope has a hard time returning to zero, I will usually see a vertically elongated group at the zero setting.
For the record, this test was inspired by a 4.5-14x50 Mark IV that was driving me nuts years ago.
ILya
When I test scopes, I do a test where I fire a shot, adjust one mrad up and fire another shot, adjust back to zero and fire a shot, adjust two mrad up and fire a shot, then go back to zero and fire a shot, then adjust up by three mrad, and so on, until I have a three shot group at all elevation adjustments I am testing and a larger group at the zero setting. This what I usually start the tracking test with. If there is significant problem with the scope, I will usually see something weird in this test. If the scope has a hard time returning to zero, I will usually see a vertically elongated group at the zero setting.
For the record, this test was inspired by a 4.5-14x50 Mark IV that was driving me nuts years ago.
ILya
Ugh, I have some Warne's on a SSG04, and the "seem" to be working fine. Time to put them to the test.
Going past zero and coming back up was common practice when I started shooting long range. I still do it. I set all my zero stops 1 MOA low and dial back up. Leupold is famous for lash in the parallax. Always start setting from infinity and dial it out in one direction. If you go past perfect, dial back to infinity and start again. I have tape wrapped on all my parallax knobs with 100, 300, 600 and 1k marked. I dial in a bit short and fine adjust depending on temp.
The tall target test has been around since WW2. We're not blazing any new ground here. It's simple and cheap if you have access to 100 yards/meters, a string and a 40" piece of paper. To be honest, I'm surprised to read shooters trying to figure out ways to do this without shooting the 10-20 rounds it takes. Seeing how the system works together under recoil is important. There's more to the equation then just the scope. I understand wanting to eliminate everything else and checking the scope. That said, what's it tell you if your rings or a flexed base is causing the the erector cell to bind? No matter what you're going to be tracking down an issue.
Good thread topic.
The tall target test has been around since WW2. We're not blazing any new ground here. It's simple and cheap if you have access to 100 yards/meters, a string and a 40" piece of paper. To be honest, I'm surprised to read shooters trying to figure out ways to do this without shooting the 10-20 rounds it takes. Seeing how the system works together under recoil is important. There's more to the equation then just the scope. I understand wanting to eliminate everything else and checking the scope. That said, what's it tell you if your rings or a flexed base is causing the the erector cell to bind? No matter what you're going to be tracking down an issue.
Good thread topic.
American Rifle Company ring user here with Razor Gen 2s. I've had absolutely no problems with ARC rings or scopes in elevation shift or return to zero. I check my torque values and test my rifle, scope and ammunition at regular intervals...the tall target test is part of that regular maintenance schedule.
Maybe I should ask if I am "doing it right", then. I try to position the rings equidistant from all features of the tube. This is to say "in the middle of the straight-aways"
Were there any MK6 or MK8's? Do the MK6/8's use the same erector assy or pertinent parts?
What do you mean "crumbled", was consistently 0.5mil off, and never more, or was worthless as shit, like 2-3mils god knows which direction?
Good. I was pretty sure I was doing it right, but when you are "pretty sure" but don't KNOW, is when you're usually shitting the bed in your sleep.
This is my standard practice as well, but like you, I have nothing other than intuition that indicates that it is the ideal approach. Unfortunately, there have been some applications that in order to get the eye relief where I need it, I have had to mount the scope such that the erector assembly is closer to the front ring than I would like.
Regarding vertically split rings, this is the first I am hearing about the problems that they can cause... and it concerns me, given that I have more than one set of Warnes. FWIW, I will say that when I install ANY ring, I look up the recommended torque spec/procedure and use a Borka adjustable torque driver (http://www.shooterstools.com/Pages/ATD/atdkits.html) to snug everything down. For the Warnes, for instance, following the instructions, I first tighten the lower screws to 25 in/lb (15 in/lb each, then 20, then 25... alternating back and forth at each torque value to ensure that each screw is clamping evenly), get my scope positioned, and tighten the upper screws to 25 in/lb (following the same procedure as the lowers). I'll have to do some testing to ensure that I'm not having any hysteresis issues...
This video might be helpful to those who don't know what's inside a riflescope. This is from Nightforce, but all variable scopes operate the same.
https://youtu.be/lessgd3_314
https://youtu.be/lessgd3_314
You can tall target test without shooting ...
Yes ... and no.
There are just too many variables involved tall target testing with out without shooting for it to be more than an indication. This is the great dichotomy of Tactical style shooting; we owe more to short range BR than we are prepared to admit to ourselves. The short range BR community has travelled this river a long time before PRS, the F-Class community has done so too. This type of knowledge is out there.
For us, we are not able to bang metal plates so we are aiming for X rings and V bulls out to the longest range. It is a different philosophical approach but still calls for the same thing, accuracy under extreme pressure. A tall target test for that will only tell us a small part of the story.
The ultra-short range box test will tell you as a shooter, and definitely as an instructor, so much more.
What are you talking about?
The Humbler works perfectly and is not a shooting evolution?
You still run the scope through its paces and has nothing to do with recoil on the system. You can see the curves in the adjustment and know it is not shooter induced cant. You can move it through 100% of the usable travel and see the small quirks in the reticle movement. The secret is securely attaching it so it does not move. I am all about shooting it, but I can do it just as accurate better without shooting it.
Shooting it can and does induce shooter error into the situation. With a Tall Target test not being shot you can line everything up perfectly, even small changes in the reticle position show up. You want us to think a new shooter who might be able to hold 5/8" of an inch at 100 yards is doing it better shooting it?
Sorry you're wrong, and cannot hold the accuracy necessary without properly securing the system.
PS I have been demonstrating and talking tall targets for better then 15 years. We used a Barber pole to check this stuff back in the day. No discipline has a leg up on this ... especially them. They can zero at a given range and do not adjust. What you are talking about is recoil movement in the reticle vs a tracking problem. or errors in POI with magnification changes. We are talking TRACKING not the small movement in POA vs POI they are. This is significant stuff, not the percentage of a 1/4 inch stuff they are obsessing over.
The Humbler works perfectly and is not a shooting evolution?
You still run the scope through its paces and has nothing to do with recoil on the system. You can see the curves in the adjustment and know it is not shooter induced cant. You can move it through 100% of the usable travel and see the small quirks in the reticle movement. The secret is securely attaching it so it does not move. I am all about shooting it, but I can do it just as accurate better without shooting it.
Shooting it can and does induce shooter error into the situation. With a Tall Target test not being shot you can line everything up perfectly, even small changes in the reticle position show up. You want us to think a new shooter who might be able to hold 5/8" of an inch at 100 yards is doing it better shooting it?
Sorry you're wrong, and cannot hold the accuracy necessary without properly securing the system.
PS I have been demonstrating and talking tall targets for better then 15 years. We used a Barber pole to check this stuff back in the day. No discipline has a leg up on this ... especially them. They can zero at a given range and do not adjust. What you are talking about is recoil movement in the reticle vs a tracking problem. or errors in POI with magnification changes. We are talking TRACKING not the small movement in POA vs POI they are. This is significant stuff, not the percentage of a 1/4 inch stuff they are obsessing over.
"They can zero at a given range and do not adjust."
That is what they a good for. But saying that Tall targets are the solution for the shooter is also - not wrong - but not fully effective. As a training tool it will take the shooter only so far along the journey but what you experienced in Alaska needs more than a Tall Target because there are bigger problems there.
I think the over reliance on "snipers" looking rings is letting you down. They look sexy on a rifle but you can see problems for long range accuracy. As I said, shooting metal give you only part of the accuracy story. Same same trigger weight and pull. Same same head position.
And we were not talking about the Humbler. We were talking about the scope on the rifle and identifying problems in equipment versus technique.
Before you write angry, head outside and try a 10m box test. I think you will be interested in how you go because it offers a great opening lesson for an advanced class.
That is what they a good for. But saying that Tall targets are the solution for the shooter is also - not wrong - but not fully effective. As a training tool it will take the shooter only so far along the journey but what you experienced in Alaska needs more than a Tall Target because there are bigger problems there.
I think the over reliance on "snipers" looking rings is letting you down. They look sexy on a rifle but you can see problems for long range accuracy. As I said, shooting metal give you only part of the accuracy story. Same same trigger weight and pull. Same same head position.
And we were not talking about the Humbler. We were talking about the scope on the rifle and identifying problems in equipment versus technique.
Before you write angry, head outside and try a 10m box test. I think you will be interested in how you go because it offers a great opening lesson for an advanced class.
Frank I've been using the Hyskore sighting and cleaning vise from Cabelas for doing my tall target test. It isn't perfect however it is solid enough, if set on a solid bench, to hold the rifle still while I dial it up and down and side to side. I hate to pull scopes off to test them then have to re-mount and re-zero the thing so this vise works good. It's a repeatable test and gives me a confidence in my scopes. My current NF Atacr F1 is on the money through 16 mils and both of my Razor Gen II were perfect.
Please, you get sighters, you can use a different scope every time with variations in tracking and "Rezero" for the range. The sighters allow you to adjust and fine tune to the conditions.
What is the difference doing it at 10m vs 100m if the optic is secured and not moving ? I am still dialing it up as far as you are, and the angle grows being at distance. I can see the curve in the reticle. I will skip the 10m test and know I am setting the scope up as intended. You say 10m, the next guy 25m etc.
Rings ? So my Spuhr mount is a problem ? What High Speed "Rings" are you using that trump my Spuhr mount as I am sure Hakan would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Our rings are an issue... We are talking about a scope that slips to over an 1" off ZERO not some tiny variation in dope at distance.
We are tall target testing on paper, not steel... measuring the movement same as you. When we return to zero, and it's 1.5" off where we started we don't need calipers to see we have a problem.
What is the difference doing it at 10m vs 100m if the optic is secured and not moving ? I am still dialing it up as far as you are, and the angle grows being at distance. I can see the curve in the reticle. I will skip the 10m test and know I am setting the scope up as intended. You say 10m, the next guy 25m etc.
Rings ? So my Spuhr mount is a problem ? What High Speed "Rings" are you using that trump my Spuhr mount as I am sure Hakan would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Our rings are an issue... We are talking about a scope that slips to over an 1" off ZERO not some tiny variation in dope at distance.
We are tall target testing on paper, not steel... measuring the movement same as you. When we return to zero, and it's 1.5" off where we started we don't need calipers to see we have a problem.
we are also across the course shooters, attacking targets from alternate positions, not in the prone, not using $1000 front rests. We engage targets off tripods, we shoot moving targets, we shoot unknown and odd distance targets so tracking matters to us too. Engaging at a 833 yards needing a 1st round hits means we don't have convertible sighters to fall back on.
Lastly,
Cause you are so superior, we haul our own gear. We carry it on our backs and not wheel it to a line 25 yards from our car. I walked 10.6 Miles last week at the Sniper's Hide Team Challenge. (with a 9year old ) We don't call time out in the rain, we fall down, we bang our gear around. We shoot angles, not flat line distances, we even transition to support side shooting because you can't take the shot right handed. Because we are timing things a 2oz trigger does not work. Drop your rifle on the butt, it will fire, not mine. I did it at Shot with Bix & Andy triggers, when it released he said, "oh you know that" ... of course we do.
Different disciplines require different ways of attacking the problem. My scope adjusts .36 not .18, if the variation is inside .36 do I care, not if the dope says 7.08 mils I can only dial 7.0 or 7.1 I cannot adjust a fraction of the whole mil.
Take you out of your comfort zone and most of you fall apart because you have no fundamentals. Zero follow through because the majority are using free recoil.
Cause you are so superior, we haul our own gear. We carry it on our backs and not wheel it to a line 25 yards from our car. I walked 10.6 Miles last week at the Sniper's Hide Team Challenge. (with a 9year old ) We don't call time out in the rain, we fall down, we bang our gear around. We shoot angles, not flat line distances, we even transition to support side shooting because you can't take the shot right handed. Because we are timing things a 2oz trigger does not work. Drop your rifle on the butt, it will fire, not mine. I did it at Shot with Bix & Andy triggers, when it released he said, "oh you know that" ... of course we do.
Different disciplines require different ways of attacking the problem. My scope adjusts .36 not .18, if the variation is inside .36 do I care, not if the dope says 7.08 mils I can only dial 7.0 or 7.1 I cannot adjust a fraction of the whole mil.
Take you out of your comfort zone and most of you fall apart because you have no fundamentals. Zero follow through because the majority are using free recoil.
Attachments
Frank - you are writing that to the wrong person. I hump my gear like you do. Just because it is a different country does mean we do the same stuff. I teach the same stuff. I encounter the same problems. We are on the journey to the same place.
Please explain the "Rings" and how the ones you are using are better than the ones I am using ?
Mine just shipped back to them for repair. The elevation turret essentially unscrewed itself to no more clicks, just turning free. This scope was not purchased with competition or LR in mind but still disheartening to hear this news as well. Vortex has lived up to its reputation for needing the warranty for me.
At this point I have to ask, is anything less than the Razor not worth buying from them?
I've got Farrell rings. In no way am I say they are "better" than your Spuhrs. I just have my rings set up on a Picatinny rail so that there is no pressure on areas which could affect internals - be that elevation, windage or lenses. Crushing of the tubes is, as you know, a rookie error, and a big cause of scopes being sent back. I can see why you use Spuhrs and I see the diagonal split is a way to avoid crush issues but on your rifle, I would choose a thinner ring set up with the scope are using. That is my choice and would be my decision based on my experiences. But again, we have travelled different paths on this same journey.
I took a look at the La Rues and the Chinese copies and can see why they are popular but sometimes the old ways are still better. And we owe that knowledge to the SR bench guys who feed this technology we know take for granted.
I took a look at the La Rues and the Chinese copies and can see why they are popular but sometimes the old ways are still better. And we owe that knowledge to the SR bench guys who feed this technology we know take for granted.
Funny I have used and continue to use other rings like Badger, NF, etc, and never had a mounting issue or crushed a tube. (Until Premier really) I must get lucky a lot.
And no BR shooters had to come on and explain to me how to mount a scope. We have a lot more Scope Manufacturers on here explaining the mechanics of their products vs BR Shooters telling us how wrong we. And I have visited a lot of companies going behind the scenes, so maybe I got lucky or picked up a few tips.
Now, inexpensive scopes, mounted with cheap rings, overtightened can be an issue, that is for sure. I seem to recall major drama on here when Mark LaRue showed up to argue the superiority of his stuff, but nobody really fell for that. Well before your time around here.
I am willing to bet the bigger issue is me showing no love to March Scopes vs Farrell Rings being the answer.
And no BR shooters had to come on and explain to me how to mount a scope. We have a lot more Scope Manufacturers on here explaining the mechanics of their products vs BR Shooters telling us how wrong we. And I have visited a lot of companies going behind the scenes, so maybe I got lucky or picked up a few tips.
Now, inexpensive scopes, mounted with cheap rings, overtightened can be an issue, that is for sure. I seem to recall major drama on here when Mark LaRue showed up to argue the superiority of his stuff, but nobody really fell for that. Well before your time around here.
I am willing to bet the bigger issue is me showing no love to March Scopes vs Farrell Rings being the answer.
You are the exception Frank. Guys starting out don't know this stuff and don't know how we came to the decisions we have made.
Spuhrs are good. But I don't think they are the ideal solution. And why bring March up? None present in your training group so of course they did not fail!
As flagged, there is something missing in the basics here but without plugging an instant download of 30 plus years shooting into the new kids, I am at the point of identifying training options that identify issues early then empower the shooter to work through the solutions. Hence the box test scenario. Quick, easy, instructive.
Spuhrs are good. But I don't think they are the ideal solution. And why bring March up? None present in your training group so of course they did not fail!
As flagged, there is something missing in the basics here but without plugging an instant download of 30 plus years shooting into the new kids, I am at the point of identifying training options that identify issues early then empower the shooter to work through the solutions. Hence the box test scenario. Quick, easy, instructive.
So hauling your shit from the trunk to the bench is humping your gear? And no dude our technology doesnt come from benchrest or belly benchrest. you guys are like never ending broken records.
As far as Farrell rings and base. i had a farrell picatinny base on a remmy. i lost so much windage i thought it was the action or barrel.. i try a nightforce and badger base and I got it back so thats what i think of your mighty Farrell product.
Badger is my favorite. They never fail.
+1 for Badger
6.5rookie is that you?
Well, this just went to shit. Too bad, it started out with some good info.
as to the tall target, I get that you can strap a rifle down and run it up 40 MOA and back down, etc. Not saying that's a useless test, I just personally like to shoot it. If I start out with a 3 shot
3/4" group fine. As long as my 5 MOA (or however I mark my come ups) adjustments and falls into my error size and the last two or three shots fall into the zero group I can't ask much more from the system or myself. Maybe I'm just old, lazy and ignorant.
At least some new shooters are seeing their is no golden idol to worship. You have to put in the time testing you shit, period.
as to the tall target, I get that you can strap a rifle down and run it up 40 MOA and back down, etc. Not saying that's a useless test, I just personally like to shoot it. If I start out with a 3 shot
3/4" group fine. As long as my 5 MOA (or however I mark my come ups) adjustments and falls into my error size and the last two or three shots fall into the zero group I can't ask much more from the system or myself. Maybe I'm just old, lazy and ignorant.
At least some new shooters are seeing their is no golden idol to worship. You have to put in the time testing you shit, period.
Hey FatBoy. I agree.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
http://www.opticstalk.com/leupold-zero-point-boresighter_topic1630.html
I don't think this is around anymore but I use it to bore sight and check zero on the bench. Sort of a short elevation back to zero test before actually checking it out.
I don't think this is around anymore but I use it to bore sight and check zero on the bench. Sort of a short elevation back to zero test before actually checking it out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you have these guys you're talking to write something to post here of their finding with split rings having rezeroing issues?
Details of their findings and maybe some facts from any testing they may have performed?
How can clamping a scope East/West vrs North/South effect it?
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
The weak link is the recoil tab balanced between the vertical split Warne rings. It is just sort of floating there under pressure. I grabbed a cheap pair of Weaver's off the shelf at the LGS and the problem of my wandering zero went away.
it was explained in some detail, but I was in the airport and walking on a plane so no real notes beyond my cliff notes.
The erector assembly has some parts that can be bound up if you apply the pressures to the sides vs standard rings.
They were pretty clear they do not consider them in any capacity good for a precision rifle set up. Something we have been saying for years around here.
I am not a fan of the Warne or Zeiss branded vertical split ring but, in haste I have used them because they were there. I believe that " floating" recoil tab gets locked down when the lower screws are tightened. More investigation and a rethinking are likely in order. Most interesting topic!
This is certainly interesting but numbers are small for a good study and I think the one thing that is really missing is how did each student in the class mount their scope and their rail? Allen wrench vs torque wrench, what ft # of torque, use of loctite, etc.
Is this a certain brand or type of scope, or "all" scopes?
I am one who quit doing tall target tests on high end optics. Last 2 I ran on was vortex razor gen 2 and Nightforce beast. They were both great. Can't remember actual numbers but were excellent.
So I got curious about my tangent theta 525 and Kahles 624i. I would like opinion to see if my tests are similar to others' high end optics. Here are my results (all 3 shot groups in inches).
TT 0: 0.325 group, 2.5 mils: 0.312 group +9 2/8", 5.0 Mils: 0.703 group (1 poor shot) +18 4/8", 7.5 Mils: 0.102 group +27 5/8", 10.0 Mils: 0.570 group +36 3/8".
Kahles 0: 0.269 group, 2.5 mils: 0.290 group 9 1/8", 5.0 mils: 0.415 group + 18 3/8", 7.5 mils: 0.719 group ( 1 poor shot) +27 5/8", 10.0 mils: 0.330 group +36 3/8".
I am sure most know that should b +9", 18", 27", 36". Would you guys think these are good numbers? How do they compare to your setups?
Thanks for your help.
So I got curious about my tangent theta 525 and Kahles 624i. I would like opinion to see if my tests are similar to others' high end optics. Here are my results (all 3 shot groups in inches).
TT 0: 0.325 group, 2.5 mils: 0.312 group +9 2/8", 5.0 Mils: 0.703 group (1 poor shot) +18 4/8", 7.5 Mils: 0.102 group +27 5/8", 10.0 Mils: 0.570 group +36 3/8".
Kahles 0: 0.269 group, 2.5 mils: 0.290 group 9 1/8", 5.0 mils: 0.415 group + 18 3/8", 7.5 mils: 0.719 group ( 1 poor shot) +27 5/8", 10.0 mils: 0.330 group +36 3/8".
I am sure most know that should b +9", 18", 27", 36". Would you guys think these are good numbers? How do they compare to your setups?
Thanks for your help.
See the March box test here ===> https://www.facebook.com/MarchScopes/posts/1350390761725802
This was using the March 5 - 40 x 56 FFP on an air rifle. Worth trying to replicate with your centre fire tests. As a training tool, it is also very useful.
This was using the March 5 - 40 x 56 FFP on an air rifle. Worth trying to replicate with your centre fire tests. As a training tool, it is also very useful.
Looks to to me like it isn't tracking true. The adjustments to the windage caused an elevation change. And adjustments to the elevation changed windage. At 10 yards on that target its almost unnoticeable, but at distance it will be larger.
this is assuming that he was lining up the reticle with the crosshairs on the target.
Similar threads
