Scope Checker Usage Caution

[Fred Bohl]

Test of 3 identical target scopes using: Panda F-Class action(glue-in); McMillan Tooley MBR stock; switch barrels 6BR and 308 WIN; Fixed frozen reference scope and Field & Cave Checker.

Trial 1 – Initial with 6BR 105gr loads – all 3 scopes held POA solid.

Trial 2 – 308 WIN 168gr loads – scope #1 held POA solid, scopes #2 & #3 shifted POA < 0.1MOA

Trial 3 – again 6BR 105gr loads – scope #1 & #3 held POA solid, scope #2 shifted POA < 0.1MOA

Trials 4,5 and 6 repeated results of trial 3.

For this particular type of target scope, it would seem to be fine for 6BR, dubious for 308 WIN, and may even have suffered permanent damage (#2 scope) in 308 WIN trial.

The trials above were all shot free recoil with a 13.5 lb. rifle plus 4.5 lb. for two scopes four rings and F & C checker (18 lb. total).

Based on the above results and IMHO it would be very helpful to include test configuration, weight as fired, cartridge fired and free recoil firing as standard for future test results reporting.

 

[KenOath]

Some very interesting points there, wonder how the scopes would have gone with an unbraked heavy magnum??

 

[Fred Bohl]

Some very interesting points there, wonder how the scopes would have gone with an unbraked heavy magnum??

I doubt if any of the three would survive.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Test of 3 identical target scopes using: Panda F-Class action(glue-in); McMillan Tooley MBR stock; switch barrels 6BR and 308 WIN; Fixed reference scope and Field & Cave Checker.....

.....The trials above were all shot free recoil with a 13.5 lb. rifle plus 4.5 lb. for two scopes four rings and F & C checker (18 lb. total).

Based on the above results and IMHO it would be very helpful to include test configuration, weight as fired, cartridge fired and free recoil firing as standard for future test results reporting.

Totally agree. The scopes need to be tested on the rifles that will be using them.

Cant test a scope on a 6BR, BRA, or Dasher then go throw that same optic on a large magnum rifle and expect the scope to perform with the same results.

So many people say, "oh this scope is solid"...Ok, for what cartridge, load data, and rifle weight? Is the rifle wearing a brake? And I'm sure some scopes are solid for their intended use, but we don't want to be misleading that an optic is totally solid no matter what you throw at it.

 

[KenOath]

Totally agree. The scopes need to be tested on the rifles that will be using them.

Cant test a scope on a 6BR, BRA, or Dasher then go throw that same optic on a large magnum rifle and expect the scope to perform with the same results.

So many people say, "oh this scope is solid"...Ok, for what cartridge, load data, and rifle weight? Is the rifle wearing a brake? And I'm sure some scopes are solid for their intended use, but we don't want to be misleading that an optic is totally solid no matter what you throw at it.

Makes me wonder if any scope can withstand ongoing hits from a large magnum?

 

[alinwa]

Some very interesting points there, wonder how the scopes would have gone with an unbraked heavy magnum??

Just a note..... braked magnums are much harder on scopes than un-braked.

Brakes discombobulate a lot of scopes.

 

[dkhunt14]

I think if you shoot a brake and big gun, depending on them four little screws to hold two heavy scopes is asking alot. Matt

 

[savagedasher]

Doesn’t a break take away from the recoil ?
I can’t tell you a muzzleloader is as hard on a scope as any gun I have .

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I think if you shoot a brake and big gun, depending on them four little screws to hold two heavy scopes is asking alot. Matt

Not trying to offend in any way, but your statement does not apply for effecting scope testing in any way.

The style of rail the scope checker attaches to on a receiver is completely irrelevant. A rail can move all it wants to under the scope checker. The only thing that matters is that the two optics on top of the scope checker remain solid on the dual rails which are all machined out of one solid piece of 7075 aluminum.

Where the bullets hit on the paper means nothing.

That being said, it would be wiser to use a scope checker on an action with an integral rail or at least 8-40 screws to avoid any damage to scope mount screw threads.

 

[dkhunt14]

Not trying to offend in any way, but your statement does not apply for effecting scope testing in any way.

The style of rail the scope checker attaches to on a receiver is completely irrelevant. A rail can move all it wants to under the scope checker. The only thing that matters is that the two optics on top of the scope checker remain solid on the dual rails which are all machined out of one solid piece of 7075 aluminum.

Where the bullets hit on the paper means nothing.

That being said, it would be wiser to use a scope checker on an action with an integral rail or at least 8-40 screws to avoid any damage to scope mount screw threads.

I bet it can shear the screws if not pinned. Those little screws weren't intended for 60 ounces of scope. The gun recoils and the scopes are like dead weight. Matt

 

[dkhunt14]

Doesn’t a break take away from the recoil ?
I can’t tell you a muzzleloader is as hard on a scope as any gun I have .

A brake tends to snap a scope in both directions. They are hard on scopes. A clamshell is even worse. Matt

 

[savagedasher]

What would the recoil be like without?
I put a break on all my muzzle loader and non has had scope problem they sure did before .

 

[dmoran]

@savagedasher
Even though recoil is recoil, a brake on a muzzleloader is subject to +30,000-psi less pressure to baffle then a brake on a highpower rifle, which is why what a brake is capable of doing to a scope on a highpower rifle is not comparable to that of a muzzleloader.

 

[tom]

Just a note..... braked

You ain't just a kidding. And any other thing with screws. The only times I've broken mounts or loosened bases, back when there wasn't internet to learn from others experience, has been on braked rifles. I destroyed a comp scope on a braked dasher, it didn't require a tester to know it was "junk".


@Fred Bohl
A few things I noticed while doing quite a few scope checks. A lot the darn things shift on the first (sometimes second) shot after mounting. One day I had switched scopes to be tested, got them to co witness. About that time the sun popped out causing some mirage, so I went and farted around with some other stuff until the clouds came back over. When I sat down, they were no longer looking at the same point, it was about .3+ moa off. I now mount, fire a few, let sit for a while so everything has the temperature equalized, then adjust to co witness and proceed. Just some of my experiences that can throw a monkey wrench into things.

Tom

 

[Ledd Slinger]

All I'm saying is if you're gonna shoot the scope on a larger rifle, braked or not, you better test it that way. The test above by Fred Bohl proves this point.
And if you cant figure out how to mount rings and bases so they dont come loose or break on the rifle you are using, better come up with a different method for mounting and probably buy better quality products

 

[Ledd Slinger]

BTW, i dont screw around with 2 piece scope rings anymore on rifles with heavy recoil and/or large amounts of muzzle blast from a brake. I have gravitated to only using Spuhr or NightForce Xtreme Duty one piece mounts. For one, they offer perfect ring alignment on every one I have checked. Secondly, they provide excellent hold and have a much less chance of moving under recoil than 2 piece rings.

Actually getting to the point where I'm about to say "to hell with all 2 piece scope rings on everything". They hold no advantages over one piece mounts other than slightly less weight.

 

[dmoran]

Rings lapped and bedded to a pinned rail, is better solution then a 1-piece that gets bolted to a rail - IMO
If I had a big caliber gun, I would entertain a 3 ring setup (maybe even 4), lapped & bedded.

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

As @dmoran states, One of the reasons i use 2 sets of rings on large caliber rifles, all 4 rings are lapped, base is JB'd to the receiver & all 4 base screws are 8 x 40 (gun has no brake & weighs 30 Lbs.) but the scope has held P.O.I.



I've seen "braked" 50's destroy scopes & mounts. - literally shear screws on bases & seen scopes "walk" in rings that were not mounted with the exerted recoil taken into consideration.

 

[FatBoy]

Am I reading something wrong? Two scopes seemed to shift less than 1/10MOA (thinner than any reticle I have ever seen) and they are deemed to be bad? What have I missed that has me thinking this is no big deal?

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Rings lapped and bedded to a pinned rail, is better solution then a 1-piece that gets bolted to a rail - IMO
If I had a big caliber gun, I would entertain a 3 ring setup (maybe even 4), lapped & bedded.

Put a one piece mount on top of that pinned rail and you'll have an even stronger setup. When you get around to actually testing scopes and scope rings rather than just assuming things, you'll see why I say what I'm saying.

I guarantee if I put a rod matching the scope tube diameter in any one of your single scope rings, i could very easily twist either ring out of alignment with minimal force. Up, down, left, right, doesnt matter. I've tested it many times with different rings. Some larger 6 screw rings are stronger than others, but none are as strong as a one piece mount.

And I dont even use release agent when bedding rails to receivers anymore. Glue and screw just like many folks do their BR rifle actions. Release agent on the screws of course...