OSOK Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 I hope i'm not putting this on only to find its been looked at before but to anyone interested in long range shooting i've found these tests the best i've come across even if the bias is towards FFP Scopes . OSOK http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 Wow, some eye opening results here, I'm surprised at the poor scores of some models / brands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 Interesting stuff - I think I'm taking a shine to the Leup Mk6 3-18x44 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggersqueezer Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 i'm running an atacr and was supprised it only came 10th.sounds like the testers see 1st focal as a big thing,so considering i like second focal i'm happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 Hi Ronin, take it you mean March............a little apples and oranges comparing a 42mm objective to 50 / 56mm scopes me thinks. Also dont think team March were disadvantaged using them at the F Class Europeans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 Hi Ronin, take it you mean March............a little apples and oranges comparing a 42mm objective to 50 / 56mm scopes me thinks. Also dont think team March were disadvantaged using them at the F Class Europeans No I don't think they were and I've got one of the 5`40 x 56 FX's, the optical clarity is as good as anything I've ever owned and no issues at all with tracking or ajustments. A shame they didn't test the 4`16 PM11, would have liked to se how that fared (one of my favourite scopes, despite perceived "low power" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 Ronin, 4-16 PMs seem not to have a good rep here with parrallax issues. Not so many 5-25PMs in use but not seen anything bad at all with the few I have had. Now moved onto March scopes mainly. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryh Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 I saw this report a little while back. I own March scopes, does this make me not want to use them - no, is this a reasonable set of tests, yes but a 42mm against a 56mm is not going to give the same results (the 56 being about 77% larger area!. Never noticed any adjustment inaccuracies, will go and check though. Worst case is I use a different figure in any tables - fixed. What cannot be fixed is silly / embarrassing names -'The Beast' FFS! - I'm a bit long in the tooth for standing in front of the mirror killing zombies and don't get me onto the stooopid size of elevation turrets (4" overall height???) or silly levers that you did not know you needed (pity S&B are being swayed in this respect by the US market - but that's where the $$ are I suppose?) But this is very much a personal thing, look what you need from a scope, look through them, handle them. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 I saw this report a little while back. I own March scopes, does this make me not want to use them - no, is this a reasonable set of tests, yes but a 42mm against a 56mm is not going to give the same results (the 56 being about 77% larger area!. Never noticed any adjustment inaccuracies, will go and check though. Worst case is I use a different figure in any tables - fixed. What cannot be fixed is silly / embarrassing names -'The Beast' FFS! - I'm a bit long in the tooth for standing in front of the mirror killing zombies and don't get me onto the stooopid size of elevation turrets (4" overall height???) or silly levers that you did not know you needed (pity S&B are being swayed in this respect by the US market - but that's where the $$ are I suppose?) But this is very much a personal thing, look what you need from a scope, look through them, handle them. T If you look at the bar chart breakdown of scores (the horizontal black-green-blue-red bar chart 1/4 of the way down the page); Concentrate on the green 'optical' score; the tiny 42mm is scoring middle of the pack amongst 50mm and 56mm scopes. Pretty surprisingly, optically, the 42mm beats the 56mm Kahles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSOK Posted October 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 It seems clear to me to only take what's important to you from this and ignore the other , I personally would value Tracking , Elevation & optics from his categories and from that point the clear winner is the Hensoldt followed by the IOR and then the ATACR , giving any scope top spot that doesn't track perfectly seems utter nonsense to me . It would appear that there are clear winners and losers within these tests but as for the middle ground scopes thats down to the individuals needs . OSOK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Osok,that is well put.Of course if your favoured scope is near the top of the list,that is somewhat reassuring.But the author makes a few relevant points 1) The sample is small-only one scope each-understandable,but within model variations do occur 2) The technical measures are very welcome,and cast some doubts on hitherto 'personal' opinions,eg wrt 'brightness'-maybe in the (imperfect) eye of the beholder! 3) The scores are actually rather close especially at the top-so may mean little especially as: 4) The weightings seem ultimately based on subjective criteria-even if those of shooters,so: 5) a small change in the 'weighting' of any one variable/criterion would nudge a scope into a different ranking (cf 3). 6) The criteria/weightings are of course for a particular user group-perfecty appropriate,but other groups might well have rather different weightings (OSOK's point-tracking might dominate for some-see it yes,but the aim is ultimately to hit it).Clearly FFP is a preference for this group,so SFP will 'suffer". 7) OSOK's point-consider Your needs/preferences -factor that into the choice-rankings may not have done so. 8) eg-if you have a specific reticule preference,check it is available in your choices....they all won't be,and this might weigh very heavily for you. But it is otherwise a very useful piece of work,about as realistic as any one comparative test will get,and a whole lot better than most/all others. I didn't pick up on specific warranty/repair costs etc....so there might be other considerations beyond the 'technical/useage'.UK prices might vary?Of course,new models will appear too...it's in the nature of the ...errr....'beast'...a rose by any other name...,of course! But a very good resource baseline,used sensibly. Let's look forward to a similar test for other shooting uses eg LR target or varminting. gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gun Pimp Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Great scope test! Pity the max. magnification was circa 25X as serious long-range target shooters - F Class, benchrest etc. will certainly be using much more powerful optics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 To be fair to him, he makes it clear that he is only testing tactical style scopes. He also publishes all his weighting criteria and says that anyone is absolutely free to come up with their own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 It seems clear to me to only take what's important to you from this and ignore the other , I personally would value Tracking , Elevation & optics from his categories and from that point the clear winner is the Hensoldt followed by the IOR and then the ATACR , giving any scope top spot that doesn't track perfectly seems utter nonsense to me . It would appear that there are clear winners and losers within these tests but as for the middle ground scopes thats down to the individuals needs . OSOK I'm not understanding what the tests are saying in terms of mechanics. Boils down to Accuracy vs Consistency. I get the impression that scopes that may be perfectly consistent are being marked down if they're not clicking spot on 1/6283 of a circle. Whereas It actually matters naught whether they're 1/6200, 1/6300 or 1/6400 - as long as they do that every single time. A stopped watch is more accurate than one that's working but permanently minutes slow - the stopped watch is exactly right twice per 24hrs; the 5 mins slow watch is never right - but it is consistent, and therefore more useful. Can anyone distil that from what's written - have they been marked for accuracy or consistency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds1 Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 now seems popular in the US to have scopes with christmas trees, flip switches and brakes......and thats just the "Beast"........wonder how many more brownie points one gets for bolting a kitchen sink on ...... a ltlle sarcastic perhapse, maybe just a reflection of the difference between US and European needs......that or I am getting more jaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSOK Posted October 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 My take is that these scopes are being marked on accuracy of adjustment , Do they deliver the adjustment , travel etc that they are stating they do and according to his results only four scopes do that over a 20 mil travel . I have always thought that the weakest part of any rifle build is the scope and when we really think of what we are asking the scope to deliver then the scopes that have failed don't suprise me but the four that tracked perfectly simply amaze me . The suprising discovery to me was scopes that have tracking values that differ from say 0-10 compared to 10-20 because we all would assume that if we missed our target with 20 mils on ( i must stop talking in the dark side terms ) 60-70 moa then we just got something wrong and we were expected to miss ? Even some better Ballistic programs have built in elevation correction factors to correct for what elevation we think we are putting on compared to what the scope is actually putting on . OSOK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Was the tracking measured in true mil, military mil or something else ... What equipment were the testers using - was it conducted in an optical lab to get the accuracy needed to give a true reflection on what the scopes were actually doing. This is where test such as these fall down. Not really a scientific test, but certainly an interesting read and the author is to be applauded for taking the time to conduct it. Wether any true judgment can be drawn is another matter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.