Scope Click Values

[RGRobinett]

Was curious because we don't often get air that clear/clean around here. Most days, the "target" which came with the scope checker isn't of much use here. I agree that, using the checker, without shooting, the tracking/return can be checked with reasonable precision. I'd venture that few, if any, available optic can provide the human eye with a non-degraded image - back when I was checking that end (resolution), in late 1990's and early 2Ks, only the best scopes would provide 75% of the humans capability. RG

 

[JFrank]

Randy, 300 feet. Real easy to see when you're splitting a 1/16 (1/32). And I was confident to make a call to the nearest quarter point of the 1/16 (1/64) on the better days. (Remember there is a tape measure here to focus on) I felt that was about the best my human eye could do when testing p.o.a. shift also. I think sometimes when testing for shift, and a scope doesn't show a shift until the 3rd, 4th, etc.. we may just not be able to resolve much under .015". The frozen 36x I had before the 45x couldn't resolve quite as well.

Tom


PS, I got me a 40-60 March Highmaster now. And since we don't need frozen scopes to test what this particular discussion is about, maybe I get down to the 128th


How do you all read the picture below. It's not quite to scale, the reticle in my 45 is not quite as large as this example I put together.

View attachment 1088832


I'd call it about 11.015625" (ish)

Tom
Forgive me for interrupting but are you saying you can verify a scope to this degree?

 

[tom]

Tom
Forgive me for interrupting but are you saying you can verify a scope to this degree?

It depends on the day. POA testing "if" the clicks work out to where I can align exactly perfectly corresponding with the fixed scope, yes I can see very small movement. Sometimes it's hard to put a "for sure" number on it, but you can certainly see it's no longer where it HAD been. I'll look in my notebook when I go out in the shop next, and see what I all wrote on these tall tape tests.


See edit on my post 24
Tom

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Scope testing has to be done on good days with no mirage. 50 yards may even be a better distance. 1/8 moa shifts look huge and are very obvious. Your eye is capable of seeing thousandths of an inch, especially when comparing things. 1/32 moa shifts are certainly visable.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Also i forgot who makes it but i have seen a 30lb rest made for scope tracking with a pic rail and adjustable feet to level it and aim. That would solve the shooter error.

If a person were to put a scope checker with two optics on top of it that would work well.

In my personal opinion, a person needs to have two optics on a scope checker to test tracking or they are just wasting their time.

 

[eric32]

Well I am going to disagree, here is why.

Using just one scope, you can check it against a target of X number of MOA or MIL.

You can determine if your scope is off however many number of clicks thru a range of elevation. Then scale your actual click value vs perceived click value.

 

[JFrank]

It depends on the day. POA testing "if" the clicks work out to where I can align exactly perfectly corresponding with the fixed scope, yes I can see very small movement. Sometimes it's hard to put a "for sure" number on it, but you can certainly see it's no longer where it HAD been. I'll look in my notebook when I go out in the shop next, and see what I all wrote on these tall tape tests.

Tom

Thanks Tom
I certainly haven't tested any scopes to this degree, I' find this very interesting.
Regards
Jim

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Problem with one scope, is as soon as you start clicking you have no reference to be certain the whole mount has not moved, or the target has not moved. The amount the mount would have to move to effect results could be measured in ten thousandths of an inch. Click in 20 moa, then check the reference scope to be sure nothing has moved, if its has you can recenter the ref scope, then you can be 100% sure in your measurements.

 

[X-Caveman]

If a person were to put a scope checker with two optics on top of it that would work well.

In my personal opinion, a person needs to have two optics on a scope checker to test tracking or they are just wasting their time.

I don't see much use in a single railed stand regardless of how solid it is, either. It's got to sit on something. How do you know the entire system didn't move without a reference optic? The most minuscule movements sour the results.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Well I am going to disagree, here is why.

Using just one scope, you can check it against a target of X number of MOA or MIL.

You can determine if your scope is off however many number of clicks thru a range of elevation. Then scale your actual click value vs perceived click value.

I'm not sure I see the logic you are trying to convey?

As stated by others, a scope moves off reference zero start point from the force of your hand turning the turret, even if only just a very small amount. Doesnt really matter if it's on a 30 lb rest. Having a second optic as a reference zero verification would not affect anything you are describing with testing a scope. The reference optic just makes all those checks and tests a lot more accurate.

 

[eric32]

Then to overcome that just return the scope to starting zero to make sure the system is still zero'ed to the initial point.

I guess were we differ is the amount of precision achieved vs shooter ability differs. Also in what context the equipment is being used.

 

[dkhunt14]

Then to overcome that just return the scope to starting zero to make sure the system is still zero'ed to the initial point.

I guess were we differ is the amount of precision achieved vs shooter ability differs. Also in what context the equipment is being used.

I believe you are and Ledd Slinger are talking Apples to Oranges. I believe one is talking checking elevation travel and one is talking scope checking. For checking elevation travel, it doesn't matter what bases or if two scopes. Matt

 

[eric32]

I believe that to be the case, i am re-reading the post seems like he is speaking of the after recoil RTZ, rather than Turret RTZ. Maybe?

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I believe that to be the case, i am re-reading the post seems like he is speaking of the after recoil RTZ, rather than Turret RTZ. Maybe?

No. Recoil testing is a whole different ball of wax that requires a frozen solid reference scope and shooting multiple rounds, etc. Not gonna dive into that on this thread.

Tracking tests with a scope checker is a really simple concept once you grasp it, but would take too long to type out if I tried to explain every detail. Probably better with visual references. If you've never seen or used a scope checking device it may be hard to visualize what's goin on. I'll try make a video so you can see exactly how we go about it. I was planning on making videos for my YouTube channel on scope ring bedding and various optic testing anyhow.

 

[X-Caveman]

Here's the way I see the conversation going...

In one camp, folks are trying to make something that isn't gonna move when you crank the turrets. The other side is saying, "That's a lot easier said than done, and how do you ever know for sure? Plus, the target could move. Let's use a two scope system so we can be re-align the reference scope (that we don't molest) after all of the cranking. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the test fixture or target moved."

Then again, maybe I misunderstand...

 

[eric32]

I think you are spot on, and that makes sense. i see both sides to the same end state.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

FYI, if any of you guys are looking for good tracking test tools, ACE Harware 'obliviously' supports tall target tracking tests

They have 72" machined aluminum rulers and 300 ft. logger's tapes. I think it was only about $40 for the double yard stick and 300' tape.

They also have machined aluminum sticks in 48" if you want something a little easier to mount and pack around.

 

[_Raining]

What are people doing to level the target? We are talking about measuring scope error in the 1-2% range, but if the target is tilted towards you then just 6 degrees of tilt will translate to .5% perceived error (if i did my math correctly).

 

[Ledd Slinger]

What are people doing to level the target? We are talking about measuring scope error in the 1-2% range, but if the target is tilted towards you then just 6 degrees of tilt will translate to .5% perceived error (if i did my math correctly).

Do you see the hole in the top of my 72" double yard stick? That hole is dead center. Hang it from a nail and gravity does all the work on leveling it for me. Acts just like a plumb-bob. Then I drilled a small 5/64" hole at the bottom so I can secure it with a large thumbtack or small finish nail if the wind is trying to blow it around. Sometimes I need to use a level to set it up if the wind is blowing too hard.

 

[eric32]

That is super smart, i am putting that in the mental bank.