Scope testing begins at 7:20 ...also, go subscribe please! My Mistake - I say 3.6" is a mil at 100y then I put text in there saying MOA. I said it right then wrote the wrong thing and by the time I noticed, I had already uploaded the video. Ugh, my old brain. lol
Nice video. Check out TiborasaurisRex. He has a tracking test stick like your level. Marks a line every 25 millimeter on the level and scope at 25 meters away. 25 Milllimeters at 25 meters equals 1mil. Lock the scope in a vise and dial up. Check out his Arken 4-16 tracking test video. He goes over his method for checking tracking. That’s what I have switched to to test scopes.
That test only shows where the reticle tracks relative to the changes in elevation and/or windage dials of the turrets. To learn how your scope actually tracks you have to shoot groups at original zero and then shoot groups with the turrets dialed in specific increments. Then when the actual point of impact distances are measured between your zero group and the other group(s) you see the real tracking of your scope and learn what percentage tracking error your scope has. All scopes have tracking error, no matter the brand, model, or cost. Even Schmidt and Bender, Nightforce, etc have errors in tracking, but those higher quality scopes typically have much smaller percentage error than lesser quality scopes. Only by knowing the tracking error of your scope and then applying that tracking error into your ballistics/firing solutions calculations can you be assured of knowing what you will get when you dial in an adjustment on your turrets. This is obviously more important as the distance to target increases. For long range shooting it’s a critical step.
Is hysteresis ever a concern? If you dialed back to your 100yd zero, any chance POI would not be the same? The nerd in me wants to dial up and back down (then maybe up again!) to make sure the tracking is both plumb AND repeatable, but not sure if it’s really something that’s likely to be an issue.
Hyster.... dang bro, I had to look that up. You're not wrong though, and I do always check that. I forgot to mention it in the video. I also did not mention checking the windage dials. Some people swear by that, however the vast majority of people in competition just hold over for wind and don't dial. Each to their own I guess.
You should always do a mechanical tracking test without the rifle so you eliminate shooter error from the equation. Its always good after verifying everything to shoot and see how the shooter performs with the equipment.
So it must be worth a dime from what I saw. Your statement is miss leading. I interpreted it, until I watched the video, that it wasn't worth a dime because it wouldn't track well.
Question. If I'm doing this test where the bench is on an elevated position at the range, should I be using true horizontal distance to find the 100 yd mark?
Are you suggesting that the downward angle might cause the test to be inaccurate? You don't have to worry about angle at 100y unless you are really high in the air. I'd have to run the numbers, but you shouldn't have to worry about that.
This is more a test of your expected 1000 yard dope than a tracking test. Tracking would be to shoot, dial up 10 mil, shoot again, measure for 36". Dial back down, shoot to test return to zero. That's a vertical tracking test. Dial right or left 1 mil, shoot. Dial back to zero, shoot. Horizontal tracking. Can do right or left horizontal at each vertical level if you want. That's the purpose of all those boxes on the target you were shooting at. If you really want to test the scope & rifle, dial, shoot one, dial, shoot one, and go around the whole target that way until you have a group at each box. Tracking, repeatability, and return to zero. Just my opinion. Your rifle, your target.
Thanks for your opinion. All I care about is vertical tracking at the top of the range. Everything else is close enough to not matter at short distances.
Tyson LOL sucks to correct someone and then get corrected. 😉 I’m digging the irony. Let’s just not forget that we wouldn’t be having fun unless I screwed up first!
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork I get what he was saying, was probably just a typo anyway. Just wanna make sure a new enthusiast isn't misinformed. Love the channel Joel!
@@RobsReloading guess when you own all the property for a long ways, you don't have to worry about that. Also, downrange there's a very large hill that catches the bullets. Thick woods beyond that.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork You tested to make sure that what ever you dialed on your turret had that point of impact shift vertically on your target and not going left or right as you dial up. Dialing up 9 or 10 mil would verify the same thing as long as the point of impact was 9 or 10 mil (what ever you dialed) above your point of aim. 1000 yards really has nothing to do with it.
rustynut1967 ok I see what you’re saying now. 1000y is just a common distance in competition these days so I picked it for that reason. I would argue you need to test as far out as you can, because errors sometimes don’t show up at closer ranges. Call it 8-10 mils vs. 4-5 if you want. Same concept.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork That makes sense.Going further out would pretty much assure anything closer would be fine. When you originally measured 36" I thought you would dial 10 mils at 100' to verify.
@@rustynut1967 Yeah there were a couple of mental errors going on in this video admittedly. I should have just used a .308 for this test and everything would have been fine. I switched to a 6.5CM at the last minute and it complicated things. I'm only 45 but I think my brain is like 70 years old...
@@robertdillard4844 I didn’t like this scope. Thought I made that clear. Also, you’ll get a lot further if you’re kind to people. Remember kindergarten? Do unto others…
I was watching another of your reviews before this one. When you got to the part where you told us how they heavily discounted the optic for you to buy it, I stop the video and moved on. Admittedly my comments here were influenced by that video as well. Good day to you sir. I have no further need of this conversation
@@robertdillard4844 you’re missing the point entirely if that’s all you’re paying attention to, but that’s typical of most complainers. (Selfish. “Do what I want or i have no use for you”)
i would explain all this with out using yardage that’s all relative to your load and rifle nothing to do with the scope. but it has been very helpful thanks
Scope testing begins at 7:20 ...also, go subscribe please! My Mistake - I say 3.6" is a mil at 100y then I put text in there saying MOA. I said it right then wrote the wrong thing and by the time I noticed, I had already uploaded the video. Ugh, my old brain. lol
Nice video. Check out TiborasaurisRex. He has a tracking test stick like your level. Marks a line every 25 millimeter on the level and scope at 25 meters away. 25 Milllimeters at 25 meters equals 1mil. Lock the scope in a vise and dial up. Check out his Arken 4-16 tracking test video. He goes over his method for checking tracking. That’s what I have switched to to test scopes.
Thanks. I can't watch that guy. Too wordy for me, but I acknowledge he knows a lot of stuff.
That test only shows where the reticle tracks relative to the changes in elevation and/or windage dials of the turrets. To learn how your scope actually tracks you have to shoot groups at original zero and then shoot groups with the turrets dialed in specific increments. Then when the actual point of impact distances are measured between your zero group and the other group(s) you see the real tracking of your scope and learn what percentage tracking error your scope has. All scopes have tracking error, no matter the brand, model, or cost. Even Schmidt and Bender, Nightforce, etc have errors in tracking, but those higher quality scopes typically have much smaller percentage error than lesser quality scopes. Only by knowing the tracking error of your scope and then applying that tracking error into your ballistics/firing solutions calculations can you be assured of knowing what you will get when you dial in an adjustment on your turrets. This is obviously more important as the distance to target increases. For long range shooting it’s a critical step.
Great video, going back to the basics and fundamentals to make sure your gear works prior to wondering why you can't hit the barn door at 700 yards.
Thanks for watching!
Joe, AWESOME video!
Thank you.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork and wow brain fart could not type on phone.. Joel. =)
Schmidt amd Bender has entered the chat!
My ears! From listening, my pockets! They feel robbed!!!
ha. thanks for watching.
Is hysteresis ever a concern? If you dialed back to your 100yd zero, any chance POI would not be the same? The nerd in me wants to dial up and back down (then maybe up again!) to make sure the tracking is both plumb AND repeatable, but not sure if it’s really something that’s likely to be an issue.
Hyster.... dang bro, I had to look that up. You're not wrong though, and I do always check that. I forgot to mention it in the video. I also did not mention checking the windage dials. Some people swear by that, however the vast majority of people in competition just hold over for wind and don't dial. Each to their own I guess.
A plumb bob works really well to make sure the tracking line is plumb.
agree. Thanks.
Oh, really good idea... but then you also need to plumb up your scope/rifle
Unless the wind is blowing
Cool im gonna do this test this weekend
Thanks for watching
You should always do a mechanical tracking test without the rifle so you eliminate shooter error from the equation. Its always good after verifying everything to shoot and see how the shooter performs with the equipment.
I can see the merit of that. Thanks for watching.
Alot of people can't handle the thought
Of how good some scopes are because
They spend four thousand or more on the one they use in competition !!
thanks for watching.
Excellent
So it must be worth a dime from what I saw. Your statement is miss leading. I interpreted it, until I watched the video, that it wasn't worth a dime because it wouldn't track well.
Question. If I'm doing this test where the bench is on an elevated position at the range, should I be using true horizontal distance to find the 100 yd mark?
Are you suggesting that the downward angle might cause the test to be inaccurate? You don't have to worry about angle at 100y unless you are really high in the air. I'd have to run the numbers, but you shouldn't have to worry about that.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork Yes that was exactly what I was worried about lol. You read my mind. Thanks for the quick reply.
@@samh1390 no problem. Thanks for watching and commenting.
You shouldn't be shooting really high.....
What rifle are you shooting ?
Custom rig. Defiance action 6.5CM. Bartlein barrel. Trigger Tech trigger. McMillan stock.
This is more a test of your expected 1000 yard dope than a tracking test.
Tracking would be to shoot, dial up 10 mil, shoot again, measure for 36". Dial back down, shoot to test return to zero. That's a vertical tracking test. Dial right or left 1 mil, shoot. Dial back to zero, shoot. Horizontal tracking. Can do right or left horizontal at each vertical level if you want.
That's the purpose of all those boxes on the target you were shooting at.
If you really want to test the scope & rifle, dial, shoot one, dial, shoot one, and go around the whole target that way until you have a group at each box. Tracking, repeatability, and return to zero.
Just my opinion. Your rifle, your target.
Thanks for your opinion.
All I care about is vertical tracking at the top of the range.
Everything else is close enough to not matter at short distances.
Wow bro cool video you nail it
Thanks
I think you can true your ballistic calculator with the error you find in the tall target test.
Refreshing to see someone talking and using mils
Definitely commonplace in this community. 👍
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork Good to hear. New to your channel but so far all the content is presented as it should be. Good stuff.
@@ArkansasBadBoy thanks. Glad to have you.
You had it correct. 1 MIL = 3.6" @ 100 Yards, 1 MOA = 1.47" @ 100 yards.
yeah I know. I said it right then wrote the wrong thing and by the time I noticed, I had already uploaded the video. Ugh, my old brain. lol
Uhh I think you mean 1 moa =1.047" @ 100yds
Tyson LOL sucks to correct someone and then get corrected. 😉 I’m digging the irony. Let’s just not forget that we wouldn’t be having fun unless I screwed up first!
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork I get what he was saying, was probably just a typo anyway. Just wanna make sure a new enthusiast isn't misinformed. Love the channel Joel!
@@tyson9539 Thanks!
I really appreciate how nice your range is! What part of the country you in?
Missouri
It's kinda wierd you are shooting off a nice bench, yet have no backstop behind the target?
It's a private range. Why is it weird?
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork with that nice shooting area, I would have expected a nice backstop to prevent rounds from exiting the rear of the range.
@@RobsReloading guess when you own all the property for a long ways, you don't have to worry about that. Also, downrange there's a very large hill that catches the bullets. Thick woods beyond that.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork looks like a sweet setup. Would like to build one for my own range. BTW excellent content on the channel, subscribed today!
@@RobsReloading thanks!
How wide is the target?
You lost me when you said you was testing for 1000 yards. The yardage doesn't matter, your testing tracking and verifying your turret is calibrated.
please explain. I'm always open to learning new ways of doing things.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork You tested to make sure that what ever you dialed on your turret had that point of impact shift vertically on your target and not going left or right as you dial up. Dialing up 9 or 10 mil would verify the same thing as long as the point of impact was 9 or 10 mil (what ever you dialed) above your point of aim. 1000 yards really has nothing to do with it.
rustynut1967 ok I see what you’re saying now. 1000y is just a common distance in competition these days so I picked it for that reason. I would argue you need to test as far out as you can, because errors sometimes don’t show up at closer ranges. Call it 8-10 mils vs. 4-5 if you want. Same concept.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork That makes sense.Going further out would pretty much assure anything closer would be fine. When you originally measured 36" I thought you would dial 10 mils at 100' to verify.
@@rustynut1967 Yeah there were a couple of mental errors going on in this video admittedly. I should have just used a .308 for this test and everything would have been fine. I switched to a 6.5CM at the last minute and it complicated things. I'm only 45 but I think my brain is like 70 years old...
When do u put the bubble level on
The tall level?
You use it to make sure the target’s vertical line is square.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork sorry I meant when do u put the bubble level on the scope
@@joed3539 I usually mount that when I’m mounting the scope to the rifle.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork thank u
Did it return to zero? Seems like you stupidly left that out
Thanks for calling me stupid. Great way to earn respect.
@@PrecisionRifleNetwork not looking for your respect. I'm looking for objective reviews that aren't bought and paid for by manufacturers
@@robertdillard4844 I didn’t like this scope. Thought I made that clear. Also, you’ll get a lot further if you’re kind to people. Remember kindergarten? Do unto others…
I was watching another of your reviews before this one. When you got to the part where you told us how they heavily discounted the optic for you to buy it, I stop the video and moved on. Admittedly my comments here were influenced by that video as well. Good day to you sir. I have no further need of this conversation
@@robertdillard4844 you’re missing the point entirely if that’s all you’re paying attention to, but that’s typical of most complainers. (Selfish. “Do what I want or i have no use for you”)
i would explain all this with out using yardage that’s all relative to your load and rifle nothing to do with the scope. but it has been very helpful thanks
thanks for watching