Thread: Scope tracking

I check with a Bushnell collimator over the range of the scope. It is instructive to see the range of tracking error induced by changing the adjustments on a scope, particularly, second focal plane scopes.

All mine get checked. my pst2 (4 years old)was 1% out(under) but return to zero has been perfect, hate to think how many times its been dialed to max and back. consistent dialing error is easy to fix.
My ahtlons have been perfect 100% true tracking.
just fitted a delta stryker have only tested the first 15mils but it ok ok far.

https://www.snipershide.com/precisio...-results-2020/

Some information can be found here.

Originally Posted by stagstalker

Leupold VX5 3-15x44 has always been flawless and dials true to MOA.

Swaro Z5 3-18x44 has always returned to zero without issue but what I have found is it doesn’t dial true MOA. It’s more like shooters MOA or maybe even a little less. I do recall Greg Duley writing something about how an MOA on a Swaro is often 0.975” or something. Doesn’t cause me an issue, just need to adjust my ballistics app to shooters MOA and make sure I true it and adjust MV to make everything marry up.

I check calibration on all scopes where I intend to dial, especially if intended range past 500 yrds. Most Leupies (VX6 & VX5) dial closer to IPHY (1.00 in per 100 yards) rather than true moa 1.05 in @ 100yd.
Swaro's I've tested a Z3 4-12x50 and Z3 both dial less than IPHY, and the Duley figure of 0.975 seems about on the money.
For calibration I use a tall box set at exactly 100 yds measured from the scope erector with a large sheet of white paper marked at inch and 1/2 inch graduations. Rifle fixed in a stable bench vice & aligned at top of box at zero inch mark. Dial up 10 moa and read off the poa on box. For true moa it should move 10.5 in. IPHY = 10.0 inch. etc

quick edit on above post, the 2nd Swaro was Z5 3.5-18x44

Ive never met a Leupold that I have trusted. Although I have a very excellent vx6 2-12 that hasn't let me down - but I don't trust it. Its tarnished by its many pre- deceases.
Does anyone know if Leupold have ever modified or improved their erector systems between models (e.g the various VX iterations)?

C’mon guys
You know that “without a photo - it didnt happen”
Even those virtual box tests could be backed up wit a pic through the scope and the grid.

Same photos as always: post once and then just provide the link when called upon....
https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....tml#post238269

The other face of the white painted bar is marked up with lines spaced at 72.7mm for 2½ MOA intervals at 100 metres.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Ive never met a Leupold that I have trusted. Although I have a very excellent vx6 2-12 that hasn't let me down - but I don't trust it. Its tarnished by its many pre- deceases.
Does anyone know if Leupold have ever modified or improved their erector systems between models (e.g the various VX iterations)?

@Tahr I was told by a tech at Leupold USA that the older Vx6, such as you have, was redesigned and built sturdier when they brought out the newer VX6 HD line. They all finally have an upgraded dual spring erector system.
So according to Leupold, the newer VX6 HD's are a different beast than the VX6 non HD.

Tracking test S&B PMII

Full story

Briefly:
100m on 1cm grid
50cm Diamond layout
Shots one at a time on each target in random order, so the scope had been dialled between every shot.

Repeat test a few years (about 1000 rounds) later:

Sorry, I can't quickly see where I first posted this.

Reposting of an old tracking test on a Leupold VX-1 2-7x32



Not nearly as intensive as the tests on the S&B.
100m 1 inch grid
3 shots in middle target to demo grouping
then 1 shot box test 5 MOA on scope scale up right and back.
Shots numberd in order fired. It came back close to where it started.


The another 5 MOA box down and left.
Red marks show where the aiming points were.
The two left hand shots were off the paper but I've marked where they hit.



Within the limitations of so-so grouping, using a modest power scope, it does adjust what it says.

That's a pretty basic tracking test. Its demonstrating great performance over the range of adjustment used for sighting in, which is why this basic scope has been so popular.

I guess if you don't plan to post them you may not have photographed your targets but surely someone else has old ones in a pile somewhere they could put up here and show us ?

Originally Posted by rupert

I check with a Bushnell collimator over the range of the scope. It is instructive to see the range of tracking error induced by changing the adjustments on a scope, particularly, second focal plane scopes.

What do you mean by this @rupert ?