Reasonable Expectation(s)???and left and right?

[Beelzebub]

At what price should you reasonably expect a scope to "track" up or down?

At what price should you reasonably expect each click to actually be 1/4" at 100 yards? So say I have 200 grain 308 round with an SD of 3 over an average of 50 shots in a days time. Even if I allow some for equipment variances and I do a scope dope run on a couple of the calculators on the internet, should I reasonably expect the calculator and actual clicks not to have a difference of almost 2 mills at 800 yards?

Today I finally made it to the 1100 yard range with a couple of friends. I was very disappointed with all 4 scopes in so far as them not being repeatable in returning to previous distances and getting the same results. And being so far from "projected" scope corrections at distances.

While none of the 4 mentioned scopes were night force or upwards of a $K, they were all over $500.

On my way home I decided I was dabbling in too many "ice holes" and maybe should concentrate more on 2 or 3 guns instead of a dozen. Instead of trying every new bullet and designer powder(s) that come out, stick with what has performed well in the said rifles and just try to improve upon that.

Now, for the million dollar question. If you had a grand to spend on a scope in the 32-40 horsepower range what would you put on your list? Side focus or AO is fine, but would like to have an MOA over a MilDot.

I thank you until you are better paid,
Bee

 

[WeiserBucks]

32-40 HP? I don't understand. However, if you need a scope that tracks on a budget, go straight to SWFA .

 

[dok7mm]

Prior to panic, I would suggest a tall target test, to find out your click movement and if it's repeatable.

If you truly have a 3 sd over 50 shots, sounds as if you have good loads.

$1k hardly separates you from the
"over $500" scopes.

 

[gohring3006]

I was going to say, that most scopes 1000$ and under always need some "truing up" with the click value. But Weiserbucks just reminded me of the great SWFA. They have blown away scopes costing thousands more. And do it consistently. In other words not just one hand picked Super Sniper, but every one they try.

Tracking strait up can also be a issue. The key is, being a precise enough shooter with a precise enough gun to notice.

 

[Beelzebub]

Just a little humor my friend. 32-40 magnification!

 

[Beelzebub]

I was going to say, that most scopes 1000$ and under always need some "truing up" with the click value. But Weiserbucks just reminded me of the great SWFA. They have blown away scopes costing thousands more. And do it consistently. In other words not just one hand picked Super Sniper, but every one they try.

Tracking strait up can also be a issue. The key is, being a precise enough shooter with a precise enough gun to notice.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I feel like the gun, the ammo and I are all three up to the task of shooting a group at 800 yards tight enough to notice that the point of impact has moved as much as 60" from one volley at 800, one volley at 400 and then back to 800 again. I'm talking about a difference of 2 mills after scope changes and then back again.

MOA scopes didn't do as bad as MilDot scopes, but they were disappointing also.

Not saying NWFA isn't a great value. But tonight is the first I've heard of them. All I usually hear is Vortex and NF.

 

[gohring3006]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I feel like the gun, the ammo and I are all three up to the task of shooting a group at 800 yards tight enough to notice that the point of impact has moved as much as 60" from one volley at 800, one volley at 400 and then back to 800 again. I'm talking about a difference of 2 mills after scope changes and then back again.

MOA scopes didn't do as bad as MilDot scopes, but they were disappointing also.

Not saying NWFA isn't a great value. But tonight is the first I've heard of them. All I usually hear is Vortex and NF.

Sometimes these problems are not the scope. Cheap bases and rings are probably more common for causing problems than scopes. Considering you're using a scope brand with a rep for reliability.
If you tighten a scope and bind it from cheap rings or base, then it affects tracking. Using a cheap scope, with cheap rings on a cheap base is a disaster for tracking. Not saying you're using cheap stuff, but I think its relevant to the topic.

 

[Beelzebub]

Sometimes these problems are not the scope. Cheap bases and rings are probably more common for causing problems than scopes. Considering you're using a scope brand with a rep for reliability. If you tighten a scope and bind it from cheap rings or base, then it affects tracking. Using a cheap scope, with cheap rings on a cheap base is a disaster for tracking. Not saying you're using cheap stuff, but I think its relevant to the topic.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

DNZ, one piece 20 moa

 

[WeiserBucks]

If you want 32-40X magnification and reliability, get your check book ready . You're looking at March and S&B .

If you want a realistic long range optic, let us know.

 

[jpd676]

I gree SWFA scopes are great; I have several and can't complain about any of them. The cost of the scope isn't the important part, you need to read reviews and see what experiences people are having. I have had excellent results with Sightron SIII also, they make an 8-32 model in moa and mil. I haven't had great results with Vortex unless its in their upper end scopes.

 

[Rich Coyle]

No Vortex for me!

 

[Canhunter35]

I have a sightron stac. Tracks great, I've taken it to 1k back and every where between. If ur looking for a better scope.
Aside from rings and scope error, Are you parallax free? Everything must be jiving to dial 20+ Moa and be exact.

 

[Zen Archery]

You get what you pay for. Just saying.

 

[Rifleman97]

NXS series as well as the beast and ATacR are excellent at tracking. Schmidt is even better. (Never had a march but I hear they're good too)
The nightforce SHV series is not tested for tracking so don't trust them. SFWA is the cheapest scope I'd ever trust to track well all the time, and one of the few under a grand I'd trust. At 1100 yards you should be looking at a 20-25 power scope unless you've got an F class gun where getting 10 shots in 3" is the goal with a super fine reticle. Some people say 10-15 is enough for 1000 and they're right, but I have bad eyes so a little extra (20-25x) is what I prefer.
Check your rings, and also you don't need to shoot the gun to test tracking. Get an MOA grid target and put it at a measured distance (for example. 25, 50, or 100 yards) and lock the gun down on a bench so it can't move. You can move the turrets to the top left corner, down to the bottom left, over to the right, and back to the top right and then to center. If the reticle doesn't move in accordance with the moa, or when it does it isn't consistent, it's the scope. If it is consistent, then do the Same test, and then shoot the gun at the center. Do it again, shoot at center, if your groupings changed position From the first group to the last, but the reticle moved the correct amount along the moa (or mil) grid, it's something else, most likely your mounting solution.
My test might be a little flawed but it's worked well for me in the past.