Thread: How well do your cheap scopes track?

I've been mucking around with the 22 a lot lately and been dialing using the Nikko Stirling Panamax 3-9 that came on it.
I was not expecting it to be amazing/perfect and I know 22lr is not the best for testing this either but I though it would be a good way to spend the arvo.

Anyway I've been getting some slightly unexpected results when shooting out past 100m so I set up a target with a 29.1mm grid @ 50m and got shooting.

All shots are aimed @ the centre target taking 1x shot at each target by dialing accordingly. Then repeating until each target has 5x shots.

I think this shows that the Panamax is quite repeatable but it shows approximately the same MOA error I've been getting while shooting further out. This is a big error % wise given its only @ 6MOA of elevation.

I guess my question is are there any cheap scopes out there that track 100% on or is this pretty par for the coarse?

depends what you call cheap, i have a bsa phantom on one of my rugers and it stays true and groups damn well, also great in lowlight

I would say thats pretty bloody good! May not be exactly as dialled, but you are well on the way to knowing what your rifle/scope combo can do. keep the info and just dial accordingly. I have one of those big ass Konus scopes for my sons 17HMR, thought it would be a good cheap option just for playing around. Turns out it tracks and dials very consistently, a very underrated scope.

A generalization is that with optics you get what you pay for.
Theres always a compromise somewhere.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

My Bushnell AR4.5-18 (relatively cheap scope) is readily repeatable and returns to zero well. The only hitch with it was that each click is worth 0.31MOA. Easy enough to place into my ballistic app to allow for the correct correction though.

Originally Posted by Matt-P.Nth

My Bushnell AR4.5-18 (relatively cheap scope) is readily repeatable and returns to zero well. The only hitch with it was that each click is worth 0.31MOA. Easy enough to place into my ballistic app to allow for the correct correction though.

Up to what range can you get out of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve only taken it to 450yd with my 308 (the point I run under 1000ft/lbs) which is about 50in of drop (8MOA). When I’m home tomorrow I’ll have a play with it and see how much more MOA of play there is.

Here's a report I did on my $200 leapers scope.

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....st-fire-28359/

It has about 15% over adjustment in elevation.

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....-review-44270/

a 2-16x44 scope

@Bagheera Awesome review and cool little scope! I might do a similar test to yours, looks like a good way to get better % errors. Thanks for sharing.

@Ultimitsu Another great review and that looks like great value. I'm not sure I'd want to try bring one in atm though!

It looks like the Panamax might not be doing to bad and need to learn corrections for the error. Cheers guys

Actually one last thing. The Panamax has a half mildot reticle and I set up target with 10mm square @ 50m to see what magnification it would be spot on @ and to my surprise, it would need @ least 1x or 2x more power to get it to work.

I suppose this is pretty common as well?

Originally Posted by suthy

Actually one last thing. The Panamax has a half mildot reticle and I set up target with 10mm square @ 50m to see what magnification it would be spot on @ and to my surprise, it would need @ least 1x or 2x more power to get it to work.

I suppose this is pretty common as well?

Panamax mildot reticle is calibrated for 10X. So you're right, you need 1X more power.

It seems to be pretty common even on more expensive scopes for ajustments to be not quite the 1/4moa per click. Some of this may be due to weak detents meaning you add an extra one when winding on or possibly the fact that the milling needs to be accurate to within a thou or so. My sightron does .3 per click and a vx2 .2. If you know then its all good no matter what it shifts as long as its consistent.