What is the latest in scope checkers?

[chkunz]

There have been a lot of posts from time to time on "scope checkers" but I did not pay much attention but now I have a interest in checking a scope for tracking and repeatability. I am considering making one and am thinking about the concept of having two picatinny rails where I can mount two scopes side by side and keep one scope in line with the center of a grid while I exercise the test scope.

I would prefer buying something that works rather than starting my own research project. Have you tried something that is currently available that works?

 

[dmoran]

Field & Cave have a couple different models:
- Link to: F&C Picatinny Scope Checker - Upper Mounts
- Link to: F&C Picatinny Scope Checker - Lower Mount

 

[memilanuk]

Pretty sure that @Field & Cave has the only one that is readily available on a commercial level. The other ones... ya have to know a guy, to get a phone number... and hope someone answers...

 

[Dud]

In my mind, using a laser to check alignment is probably less trouble. There are mounts that piggyback off of a scope tube or laser bore sighters that fit in the barrel. If you have a good way to hold your rifle steady, either should work pretty well.

I think it probably makes more sense to spend time making good test target that allow you to get vernier style measurements for alignment than buying a scope checker and getting two scopes lined up.

A laser probably isn't as good at checking to see if recoil is making your zero shift but that problem is pretty obvious without a scope checker or laser.

 

[X-Caveman]

There have been a lot of posts from time to time on "scope checkers" but I did not pay much attention but now I have a interest in checking a scope for tracking and repeatability. I am considering making one and am thinking about the concept of having two picatinny rails where I can mount two scopes side by side and keep one scope in line with the center of a grid while I exercise the test scope.

I would prefer buying something that works rather than starting my own research project. Have you tried something that is currently available that works?

If you don't want to test for reticle movement under live fire, one of our $70 uppers is all you need. That said, mounting it on a rifle & using a mechanical front rest will make your testing soooo much easier. Rather than trying to rigidly mount it to the bench or something, simply line the scope that you haven't monkeyed with back to POA. You'll need one of our lowers to do that.

While I'm not well versed in any procedures using a laser, I do respectfully disagree with reticle movement being easy to detect without some sort of a scope checker. I suspect there are many record holding shooters that would agree with me.

 

[chkunz]

If you don't want to test for reticle movement under live fire, one of our $70 uppers is all you need. That said, mounting it on a rifle & using a mechanical front rest will make your testing soooo much easier. Rather than trying to rigidly mount it to the bench or something, simply line the scope that you haven't monkeyed with back to POA. You'll need one of our lowers to do that.

While I'm not well versed in any procedures using a laser, I do respectfully disagree with reticle movement being easy to detect without some sort of a scope checker. I suspect there are many record holding shooters that would agree with me.

Thanks, this looks like what I am looking for. The concept that I had in mind was similar to your upper test bed with the two picatinny rails. But then I have to mount that to something and that something will have to be aligned with the test grid, doable but a pain. Using your lower, if I understand correctly, allows me to mount the upper test bed to the picatinny rail on my rifle and then use my bench rest equipment to conveniently aim all this at a test grid. I really like this concept, thanks for the response.

 

[Dud]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory of a scope checker is to align two scopes on parallel mounts and then use "the scope that you haven't monkeyed with" as a reference as you do a box test or whatever with the other scope.

It seems to me that it's just as easy to add on a laser, align it to a reference point and not monkey with the laser as you do a box test or whatever with the scope. It's just a cheaper product that does the same thing in a different way.

Thinking about ways to ensure reliable results, I think the best improvement would be to eliminate the least consistent part of a scope checker, the human. A cell phone camera adapter on the eyepiece would let you compare pictures, count pixels to get better readings and see if the laser reference moved.

 

[X-Caveman]

Thanks, this looks like what I am looking for. The concept that I had in mind was similar to your upper test bed with the two picatinny rails. But then I have to mount that to something and that something will have to be aligned with the test grid, doable but a pain. Using your lower, if I understand correctly, allows me to mount the upper test bed to the picatinny rail on my rifle and then use my bench rest equipment to conveniently aim all this at a test grid. I really like this concept, thanks for the response.

Precisely. You've got it.

 

[X-Caveman]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory of a scope checker is to align two scopes on parallel mounts and then use "the scope that you haven't monkeyed with" as a reference as you do a box test or whatever with the other scope.

It seems to me that it's just as easy to add on a laser, align it to a reference point and not monkey with the laser as you do a box test or whatever with the scope. It's just a cheaper product that does the same thing in a different way.

Thinking about ways to ensure reliable results, I think the best improvement would be to eliminate the least consistent part of a scope checker, the human. A cell phone camera adapter on the eyepiece would let you compare pictures, count pixels to get better readings and see if the laser reference moved.

I don't know enough about lasers to speak intelligently. How stable is the beam from "walking", how stable is it under recoil, how will it be rigidly mounted, what's the beam diameter at 100 yards, how are you going to confirm that it's lined up to within about 1/32" at 100 yards (you can't use the scope your checking)? My suspicion is it's probably a viable concept, however I doubt a dime-store variety laser is up to the task.

Scope checkers are proven, developed & reasonably priced. Most guys have multiple scopes already, so you're looking at about $200 for the rig. If you want to get serious about POA stability under live fire, a frozen scope is a nice add and will increase that $. Still, given what we pay for everything else in this hobby - many of which are consumables - I think it's a bargain.

 

[Jet]

Testing my scopes on a scope checker in the off season has become an annual ritual for me now. Do it at the same time as fire forming brass. My decision is based on what I've observed over the past two years with my personnel scopes and scopes owned by other LR shooters.

 

[chkunz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory of a scope checker is to align two scopes on parallel mounts and then use "the scope that you haven't monkeyed with" as a reference as you do a box test or whatever with the other scope.

It seems to me that it's just as easy to add on a laser, align it to a reference point and not monkey with the laser as you do a box test or whatever with the scope. It's just a cheaper product that does the same thing in a different way.

Thinking about ways to ensure reliable results, I think the best improvement would be to eliminate the least consistent part of a scope checker, the human. A cell phone camera adapter on the eyepiece would let you compare pictures, count pixels to get better readings and see if the laser reference moved.

Something else that I thought of, once I have gon thru the scope checker process with the two scopes, I can simply reverse the role of the two scopes without any change to the set up and check the other scope. This allows me to check two scopes with one set up. What do you think of this idea?

 

[X-Caveman]

Something else that I thought of, once I have gon thru the scope checker process with the two scopes, I can simply reverse the role of the two scopes without any change to the set up and check the other scope. This allows me to check two scopes with one set up. What do you think of this idea?

Yes you can. If you are doing tracking tests, tall target tests, box tests, POA stability under magnification change, etc, I see no problem. If you are testing for POA stability under live fire, hopefully you will get zero movement. If you do, you know BOTH scopes are solid in that regard. If you get some movement, that complicates things a bit. If that ends up being the case, reach out to me via PM and we can discuss some methodology to help you sort things out.

 

[chkunz]

Yes you can. If you are doing tracking tests, tall target tests, box tests, POA stability under magnification change, etc, I see no problem. If you are testing for POA stability under live fire, hopefully you will get zero movement. If you do, you know BOTH scopes are solid in that regard. If you get some movement, that complicates things a bit. If that ends up being the case, reach out to me via PM and we can discuss some methodology to help you sort things out.

I was not thinking about testing for stability under live fire but after thinking about it I think I should and this tool would allow me to do that with the same set up as the tracking test.

The change in the NRA and CMP high power rifle competition rules in recent years allowing scopes has resulted in a lot of people like me with no prior experience with scopes now deeply depending on them and having to learn how to use them. Just like we do load accuracy testing we must now do scope testing but first we need to learn what and how to test. This includes learning what tools and experience of others we can draw on to do this.

 

[Geronimo Jim]

I took someone's advice on this forum and bough several Kahles 10x50's and just don't worry about shifts.

 

[chkunz]

I would like to have a conversation with someone who has used the Field & Cave scope checker. I would like to get some first hand feed back on how to use it and how well it works. It looks like what I am looking for.

 

[group therapy]

If you don't want to test for reticle movement under live fire, one of our $70 uppers is all you need. That said, mounting it on a rifle & using a mechanical front rest will make your testing soooo much easier. Rather than trying to rigidly mount it to the bench or something, simply line the scope that you haven't monkeyed with back to POA. You'll need one of our lowers to do that.

While I'm not well versed in any procedures using a laser, I do respectfully disagree with reticle movement being easy to detect without some sort of a scope checker. I suspect there are many record holding shooters that would agree with me.

AND non-record holders

 

[ridgeway]

There is high end manufacturers that totally discredit scope checkers. IMO, they are flat out in denial that their products May have issues at some point. When you see POA issues with your own eyes, you will be a believer in movement...

 

[Alex Wheeler]

There are also some some very large manufacturers that do not discredit scope checkers, and even use them in development. Not everyone uses scope checkers or believes in them but the market sure seems to follow those that do. Kahles would be a prime example, no one was using them a few years ago, I heard less than 30 were sold nation wide the year before scope tests were posted. I would bet the small group of guys that checked them and posted results here gave Kahles about a 100 fold increase in business. F-class followed pretty quickly as well and now they are sponsoring their teams and large events. That goes for other products as well. Testing is key, others will follow. Its only a small minority that have a very strange resistance to improvement.
One thing to consider about checking a scope, .001" movement at a ring is almost 3/4" at 100 yards. Consider that when thinking about how to hold them when testing.

 

[sscoyote]

I use a Bushnell Magnetic Grid Bore Sighter to check for reticle movement with mag and parallax change as well as approximating zeroing. Awhile back I had an optic that had a slight sticky spot in the magnification ring, and when I superimposed the reticle along the grid whenever it hit that spot the reticle jumped all over the place and was obviously detached. Sent it back to the company and when I got a "replacement" it did the same thing. Didn't see it at all when holding the rifle and even benching it.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the theory of a scope checker is to align two scopes on parallel mounts and then use "the scope that you haven't monkeyed with" as a reference as you do a box test or whatever with the other scope.

It seems to me that it's just as easy to add on a laser, align it to a reference point and not monkey with the laser as you do a box test or whatever with the scope. It's just a cheaper product that does the same thing in a different way.

Thinking about ways to ensure reliable results, I think the best improvement would be to eliminate the least consistent part of a scope checker, the human. A cell phone camera adapter on the eyepiece would let you compare pictures, count pixels to get better readings and see if the laser reference moved.

No. Verifying turret correction factor is just one of the multiple uses for a scope checker. But using two scopes on a checker will still give you more accurate calculation results than using a laser.

The scope checker design was originally intended for testing reticle movement under recoil with live fire. The idea is to have one mechanically frozen scope for reference (reticle cannot move) and the scope being tested beside it on the checker. Align them with identical POA on target and fire multiple rounds.

Here's an example of some tests I conducted in the past. Have more test results but no photos of them at the moment. But this will give you an idea of how I personally conduct scope testing.

- The first scope has zero reticle movement in all tests against the frozen reference optic, but a good amount of POA shift in the middle of the magnification levels.

- The second scope has no reticle movement initially, but then has reticle movement during the first 2 rounds fired after dialing the turrets. This one was done at 50 yards so 1/16" of reticle movement is significant at long range.





Now a person could still use a scope with small reticle movements in a competition that allows sighter rounds before record groups as long as the reticle movement is a repeatable pattern and you know exactly when the scope will be solid. Maybe not so good for PRS competition and hunting.


I will conduct a turret tracking correction factor test after the recoil testing. Much more accurate to use a scope checker on a tripod with 2 optics and a level.measurement at an exact known distance than it is to conduct a live fire tall target scope tracking test.
Instead of firing groups from a rifle (which can cause reticle movement), I use a second scope as a zero reference while dialing the other scope for tracking checks. Reference optic doesnt need to be frozen for a tracking test on the checker because there is nor recoil. Any high magnification scope will work as a reference optic.