I have asked the same question of the ones that know.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Apparently so.
Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk
Printable View
I have asked the same question of the ones that know.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Apparently so.
Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk
I think problems tend to arise when we mix those two categories up, and we expect one scope to do it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitage
'Featherlight' and 'reliable tracking/drop proof' don't go together in the same sentence. It's the same as wanting to build a 'long range precision rifle', but then trying to make it as light as possible. You'll just end up working against yourself.
In the event you wanted to put together a carry rifle for shooting out to 300m max, and you're not willing to mount a boat anchor of a scope on it (Nightforce and the likes), there are ways of working around the reduced durability of a lighter scope.
1) A straight tubed/low magnification scope can be chosen. These can be mounted very low, and the width of the objective lens won't exceed the width of the rifle. If you were to drop your rifle, there's less chance of a straight tubed scope getting damaged, versus a 30,40,50mm objective scope where the objective bell hangs out to either side.
Some good models to look into are: Kahles Helia 5 1-5x24....Leupold VX3HD 1.5-5x20...Leupold M8 4x or the newer FXII 2.5x Fixed power...Swarovski Z6i 1-6x24...
I've owned several of the 1-8x varieties. Aside from the extra weight (500gr<) the exit pupils get rather small at 7 & 8x, and the image gets too dim and eye placement isn't all that great. With the low power variables, 1-5 or 1-6x will do the trick, and the scope will be lighter and less bulky to boot (which is kinda the whole point to begin with).
2) You can do as @Moa Hunter suggested and wrap foam or inner tubing around your scope to give it some padding. I haven't tried this, but it might be worth a shot.
I had a chat with someone about this today. You can't have everything. It's important to define what it is you're trying to achieve and select the appropriate tool for the job. If long-range precision is what you're after, you're going to have to carry a heavy rifle and a heavy scope. If you've got to carry it over long distances, you better hit the gym.
Alternatively, you can just stalk in closer, which means you can get away with a lighter rifle and a lighter scope.
As for rangefinders - they can be handy for determining if an animal is within MPBR. Owning a rangefinder doesn't necessarily mean you've got to shoot long-range/start dialing, nor does it automatically turn you into a long-range shooter. Range estimation (and double checking with the RF) can be a fun way to pass time, or determining how far certain landmarks are from an animal.
There is actually no need to shoot live ammo or be at a range in order to test a scopes tracking. I ordered a few bits and pieces to let me test tracking at home. will start giving it a go once they arrive. All you need is about 25 meters of open space and a second scope. This should mean that anyone can do it at home.
Just guessing here... but are you going to mount both scopes rigidly together so one is reference and one is test? If so, how are you planning to account for parallax in either scope at only 25m?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimitsu
I have watched a few vids re parallax and it would seem , at shorter ranges , unless you are trying to shave the eyebrows off a fly it doesn't really amount to a huge difference .
There's several good videos on YouTube covering this from several scope manufacturers inc loopy . There's also plenty of vids with tracking tests for specific scopes . There's one guy , cyclops I think he calls himself , who does nothing but scope testing vids covering tracking specifically .
I like and use reticles like this. This is representative of 140gn sgk 6.5*55 zeroed around max point blank range sighting on fallow at 300m distance. No in-field dialling required. Offset is for 10mph crosswind.
Attachment 172966
Top dollar scopes can lose zero, have crap glass and not track.
Nothing is a given, treat each scope as a rule onto itself.
Obviously the better the materials and build quality, the better chance you have of it being good, but bear in mind we are essentially asking for a top quality optic with micrometer like precision which is also durable.
Outside of the hunting world, it would not be unreasonable to spend $5k USD per unit on such a thing if your life depended on it.
Trouble is, there is no guarantee/warranty in the world that will magically get you a new scope in the middle of nowhere when you need it. Always good to have back up iron sights!
Just because you have a Leupold/S&B/Swaro/Leica scope, it does not mean it does not require thorough testing. Had a S&B PMII Ultra Short 5-20x crap out on me, Day 1, as turrets buggered. Chromatic aberration also present when turned up to max. They repaired it for free but not my confidence hence why I sold it.
Brand names and price tags mean nothing, it's all in the end product. Sadly, marketing seems to do the heavy lifting now, not performance in the field.
Just look at Sako for example!
I would like to hear how this test works. Would appreciate some update/thread once you have tested it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimitsu
But while I'm not sure.... I'm guessing from the thread replies, that most hunters just don't use rangefinders and don't dial. Therefore most hunters are not that interested in these types of tracking tests.
For them as long as it stays on "1 1/2 inches high at 100 yards then she will be right Mate".
You would be wrong again.
Or should that be incorrect?
You tell me oh England master
What's with the 'England master'?Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Didn't you also block me like MickyDuck?
So why do you guys block me, then choose to read my posts, and then reply to my initially blocked post?
Just do us all a favour and keep me on your ignore/block list.....cheers
Yes you were on my blocked list ( the one and only on the list)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitage
This thread title couldn't escape my attention regardless of the Author.
No I don't read your posts or topics as a rule but this one stuck out.
Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk
These make me smile how the app works the distance out to within a yard and yet the chances of the 'scope being set exactly (in this instance) on 12 power or the 12 power actually being correctly calibrated is about zilch. They do seem to work though, albeit with a not inconsiderable margin of error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody
Still better than hold over and hope though.
Ive used the Swarvo one and Tract. The Tract ballistic reticle and program are excellent. By adjusting the zero you can get some really close round numbers. On my 300 saum Im sighted in for 230 yards and its all round numbers (3/4/5/600 yds) on the reticle. It works at 15 power and despite what I said above, it does line up pretty well. I still dial the 'scope if over 300 yards and if Ive got time. Ive shot deer out to 400 using the reticle though.
https://tractoptics.com/impact-ballistics#:2
if you dont want your one sided posts to be read and replied to...try writing balanced ones....you dont have to agree with others points of view,but at least have common decency to allow others to have different wants to your own...AGAIN read title of thread....
if "we are wrong" by implication...something else will be more right/correct for your needs.
you like high magnification and dependable dialing...because you shoot long range and like to twiddle n fiddle...FAIR ENOUGH
but be a big enough man to accept others have different requirements from scope.....
if you dont like answers maybe you shouldve asked "is repeatable dialing up more important than light gathering" in which case you would have replies that were relevant to the question asked....not answers relevant to the one you DID ask....
@Tahr. The particular app derives its reticle picture only from the ballistics table which I verified prior, in this instance it replicates both the ballistic calcs plus windage etc and matches it to the nominated specific reticle. Ive found it to be good. It changes the reticle subtensions matching the mag x.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
In the case of the b&c reticles I dont zero at 100 yards for them either. Instead I zero at 200m or pbr and then verify shot fall at other ranges. Then I blaze these so they are visible from my firing point and rotate the mag x until the graticles subtensions match up. This way my crosshair is dead on @200. At 100 I can hold about 3" low, first graticle below is 300 and so on. Pretty quick in the field. So the mag x is not set at max; it is set so the graticles match the actual known fall of shot. Even on my Leupy 2.5-8*36 I have found it good as far as 600 yards tested on NRA range.
And actually, if you look closely at the image I posted you will notice the second graticle is 302 m and this is holding slightly differently to the yellow aim mark on the deer. I like it :)
