Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Three scopes on one rifle
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ken Howell" data-source="post: 13506" data-attributes="member: 23"><p>Yote, you've just pinwheeled one of the reasons I don't like variables — because I've found over and over that I can't trust 'em.</p><p></p><p>When I worked for the Army, I mounted and bore-sighted scopes free for anyone on the post, irrespective of whether they'd bought the rifle, the scope, or the mount from me. Also, as president of the proving ground's rod-and-gun club, I took my "portable shop" to the post small-arms range each sighting-in day just before hunting season, and bore-sighted a passel of scopes there. So I think it's safe to say that during those years, I bore-sighted and checked hundreds of variables, from more makers than I ever knew there were.</p><p></p><p>When bore-sighting a variable, I ran the magnification up and down, noticing whether the reticle stayed "on point" at each magnification. Very, very, very few did! Most carved a circle on the grid, like a filet knife coring an apple.</p><p></p><p>That was disturbing enough. Even more disturbing was the fact that neither price nor name nor reputation was any index to whether or how nearly the reticle stayed "on" at more than one magnification. Some of the most expensive, big-name scopes were among the worst, and some of the cheapest (ever see soft aluminum screws in a scope?) stayed right on (THAT DAY — no telling how they'd do a day later).</p><p></p><p>I now have three methods of checking scopes — this one, modified, and two others. Instead of just noticing the movement of the reticle with a change in magnification, my new variation of the above is to note for record, with dots on a grid chart, where the intersection of the cross-hairs lies on the grid at each magnification.</p><p></p><p>FWTW, the other two checks are </p><p>(a) how many numbers on an optics test target I can see at x hundred yards (numbers 1 through 6, ranging from a 60% gray for the "1," down to a 10% gray for the "6"), and</p><p>(b) two densitometer readings on a white card — a direct reading on the card, taken over or alongside the scope, and a reading on the image of the card, taken through the scope.</p><p></p><p>When you just take a squint at a scene through a scope, you can't tell by eye alone what's in that scene that you can't see through the scope, or how good that scope is, relative to another one. Also, just looking at a scene through a variable, it's almost impossible to see the reticle move with magnification change unless you have a rigidly fixed reference grid to show that movement.</p><p></p><p>Trouble is, my checks show some shooters a few things they don't really enjoy seeing!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ken Howell, post: 13506, member: 23"] Yote, you've just pinwheeled one of the reasons I don't like variables — because I've found over and over that I can't trust 'em. When I worked for the Army, I mounted and bore-sighted scopes free for anyone on the post, irrespective of whether they'd bought the rifle, the scope, or the mount from me. Also, as president of the proving ground's rod-and-gun club, I took my "portable shop" to the post small-arms range each sighting-in day just before hunting season, and bore-sighted a passel of scopes there. So I think it's safe to say that during those years, I bore-sighted and checked hundreds of variables, from more makers than I ever knew there were. When bore-sighting a variable, I ran the magnification up and down, noticing whether the reticle stayed "on point" at each magnification. Very, very, very few did! Most carved a circle on the grid, like a filet knife coring an apple. That was disturbing enough. Even more disturbing was the fact that neither price nor name nor reputation was any index to whether or how nearly the reticle stayed "on" at more than one magnification. Some of the most expensive, big-name scopes were among the worst, and some of the cheapest (ever see soft aluminum screws in a scope?) stayed right on (THAT DAY — no telling how they'd do a day later). I now have three methods of checking scopes — this one, modified, and two others. Instead of just noticing the movement of the reticle with a change in magnification, my new variation of the above is to note for record, with dots on a grid chart, where the intersection of the cross-hairs lies on the grid at each magnification. FWTW, the other two checks are (a) how many numbers on an optics test target I can see at x hundred yards (numbers 1 through 6, ranging from a 60% gray for the "1," down to a 10% gray for the "6"), and (b) two densitometer readings on a white card — a direct reading on the card, taken over or alongside the scope, and a reading on the image of the card, taken through the scope. When you just take a squint at a scene through a scope, you can't tell by eye alone what's in that scene that you can't see through the scope, or how good that scope is, relative to another one. Also, just looking at a scene through a variable, it's almost impossible to see the reticle move with magnification change unless you have a rigidly fixed reference grid to show that movement. Trouble is, my checks show some shooters a few things they don't really enjoy seeing! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Three scopes on one rifle
Top