Author Topic: Scope Testing Uncensored  (Read 1825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DanDeMan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Scope Testing Uncensored
« on: February 19, 2004, 01:20:45 PM »
Guys and Gals,

As a service to the shooting fraternity, the following are my findings after extensive scope testing from several years ago.  As a disclaimer up front, I have no vested interest in any scope manufacturer nor any ax to grind.  Like the Dragnet line, “Just the facts Mam”, I’m attempting to relate the facts as I found them after hundreds of hours of testing so you can make a better decision concerning the purchase of a quality scope for silhouette.

First the setup.  After a number of years of frustration with Leupold tracking problems (24X and 36X BR), both catastrophic breakdown during matches and lack of consistent tracking, this shooter embarked on an extensive testing regime.

The test rifle was an Anschutz 2002 compressed air rifle.  This rifle will shoot 5-shot, round, one-hole groups all day at 60 feet indoors.  An indoor, 60-foot range was used as well as a sturdy benchrest setup.  RWS R10 Match pellets were used for all testing.  All scopes were setup so that they were in the middle of elevation and windage during the testing for tracking repeatability.  The scopes were also tested at extremes of windage and elevation and the tracking results recorded.  The results were very insightful.  At the extremes of elevation and windage tracking for all but the Sightron deteriorated dramatically.  No scope should be used that is less than one complete revolution from the top of elevation.  At that range tacking is almost none existent in some scopes.  The same holds true for windage.  A scope MUST be setup so that the windage and elevation are centered somewhere between pigs and turkeys for all silhouette disciplines.

The test procedure was to shoot with the elevation and windage in the middle of travel for 5-shots to create a baseline.  Next, the elevation was adjusted up 2 MOA and another shot was fired.  This was repeated so that there was a total of 10 MOA of elevation added to the base line or 5 shots every 2 MOA of upward adjustment.  The scope was then adjusted for 2 MOA of right windage, a shot fired and then the elevation was decreased 2 MOA and a shot fired.  This was repeated for a total of 10 MOA or 5 shots.  This total process was repeated again and should have produced an up, then right, then down, then right, then up pattern that looks like what is called a “square” wave.  This procedure was repeated at the extremes of elevation and windage.  Well over 5,000 rounds were fired during the several months of testing.

The following scopes were tested:

Leupold 24X BR new style – 3 scopes
Leupold 36X BR new style – 2 scopes
Leupold 24X D-series – 2 scopes
Leupold 6.5-20 – 2 scopes
Sightron – 24X – 1 scope
Weaver 10X old MicroTrack – 1 scope
Weaver 36X new MicroTrack – 1 scope
BSA Chinese – don’t remember model - $100 scope – 1 scope
BL 4200 – 6-24X – 2 scopes

The best tracking scope was the Sightron.  It produced a pattern that looked like it had by done on graph paper.  It was truly amazing.  I don’t know how long the Sightron will keep its tracking consistency, but it blew away all of the other scope’s in tracking ability.  The downside is that it has the poorest quality glass.

The poorest tracking scopes were the Leupold new style BR 24X and 36X, not the D-series.  The $100 Chinese BSA tracked better than these Leupolds.  After much research I found out that Leupold had been installing poor quality parts in their tracking systems for a few years and knew it was a problem but shipped them none the less.  The Leupold D-series tracked about the same as the Weaver and B&L scopes.  The best glass was in the B&L scopes.  Several of us looked through the scopes to assess glass quality so that call is not just my own.  The Leupolds were just behind the B & L scopes in glass quality.  Some of the Leupolds, 24X and 36X BR new style shot shotgun patters even though they had just been returned by Leupold for warranty work.  The new Weaver MicroTracks are MicroTracks in name only.  Their tracking system is made in Japan by the same company that makes most of the scopes made in this country.  I talked to the gentleman that developed the real MicroTrack.  He verified that the new Weaver MicroTracks were a cheap knockoff that had nothing in common with his original design.  The old T10 MicroTrack tracked much better than the new Weaver (fake) MicroTrack.

There you have it, uncensored.  I’m sure a few manufacturers will be less than pleased, but nothing like the displeasure of some of their customers.

Post Mortum:  If I were to seriously look at purchasing a top quality scope for silhouette at this time, I’d look at the Zeiss Conquest series.  They have a reputed excellent tracking system (I have not tested it yet) and incredible glass (I have looked through several and compared them to Leupolds.)

All the best,

Dan Theodore
All the best,

Dan Theodore

Offline shootingpaul

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 207
    • http://www.shootingpaul.netfirms.com/
Re: Scope Testing Uncensored
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2004, 01:30:20 PM »
yaaahooooo!
thanks Dan!, I hope Kendal is reading this, because he was very sceptical as to the B&L's.  well i am glad that someone did such a testing.
shootingpaul

please feel free and visit my site at:
http://www.shootingpaul.netfirms.com

GOLF COURSE? - A TOTAL MISUSE OF THE PERFECT RIFLE RANGE!

Offline Metalhead

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Scope Testing Uncensored
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2004, 02:22:17 PM »
Dan, very well said...I would agree that the Sightron has the best tracking system, as well as the worst glass....Let's hope for an uprade in optics quality on their part....much more than 10 power is sort of froggy...eh ?

What you really failed to elaborate on when talking about how important it was that your scope be on target in the middle of it's adjustment range was the myriad of scope mounting assemblies that actually marry the scope to the rifle.

Most guys.. well the majority, after finally buying a competive rifle...then a good quality scope...just cant stand the thought of bringing the two together with something of equal quality....go figure.

What's your thoughts on the marriage of scopes to rifles....Cheap...or custom ?   Is having your turret adjustment in the middle of it's travel range really that important ?..Because if it is, IMO, most guys are not paying attention to this theory.

As you know, I've built hundreds of custom ring assemblies...for shooters all over the country and Canada...any height, any configuration, any rifle, any tube diameter, and any amount of taper built into the base.

This is an interesting topic....One of which I actually a little bit about....

Thanx,  Marv

Offline Slowstdy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Gender: Male
Scope Testing Uncensored
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2004, 01:48:39 PM »
Hi Dan
Thanks for posting these results, I think they are proving what I have thought for a while.
I have 2 of the Leupold X24 BR scopes, and I am sure that they track differently. (both are used on TC's one .22lr and the other .22 Hornet.) 1 click on one scope moves the POI more than the other. But when I have them set up this does not matter so much. My question is, did you test repeatability? i.e up 10 clicks, up 10 clicks and then back to zreo. As you can imagine I shoot 3 matches a month and practice as much as I can, so I am always adjusting my scope elevation, also both are on 3" high rises, so I have to change the position for every animal. Up until now, I have thought it was me or the different range, light conditions, etc,  as some times, the spot the trigger broke on, is not the spot the bullet hit, and this is repeated for the next 10 animals. I am a much better shot now than I was, so I can call my shots and am pretty sure when things are not right. As my coach said tonight when we were discussing your post.... "the better you get the worse you realize you shoot". Sorry I know I shoot IHMAS but I am moving into NRA next year and have just bought a Anschutz 1712 so I am sort of a Rifle Silhouette man. Sorry to ramble.
Thanks Dave
Cheers
Limey
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Offline B_Koes

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 207
Scope Testing Uncensored
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2004, 08:11:00 AM »
Dan - I'm curious as to what the metrics for optics quality you used.  I've been a happy user of the Sightron 24x scope that you mentioned.  I am very pleased with it, but was curious as to how you measured optics quality.  I've used Leupold, B&L, Bushnell and Simmons and I don't see any drop-off in optics quality.  Either my eyes are bad or quality of optics aren't that vital when nearly all of the shooting is done during the day.

Offline DanDeMan

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Scope Testing Uncensored
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2004, 07:53:32 AM »
B_Koes,

We looked through the scopes to determine which ones allowed more light to hit our eyes, clarity, sharpness of images and general observations on how well each scope rendered what we were looking at.

Also, after many matches with Leupolds, Sightron, B&L 4200's, new and old Weavers it is obvious which ones have better glass.  The Leupolds and B&Ls allowed one to see the hits and misses much better when shooting SB in low light conditions.  That is not a trivial thing as most top shooters are spotting their hits and misses through their scopes when shooting SB.  In low light conditions it was difficult to see the hits and misses with the Sightron and to a lesser extent the new Weaver.  The old Weaver T10 was very dark also.
All the best,

Dan Theodore