Which scope has the most accurate turrets? :)

[green 788]

Just wondering...

Which scope or scopes on the market have proven to have accurate enough turrets for dialing up shots at extended ranges?

I know that my Weaver Grand Slam can hang with the best of them... but it does not have target turrets--which is something I'm looking for on my next scope.

I also prefer exposed (tactical style) turrets...

Ideas?

Dan

 

[Eaglet]

Gentlemen,
I would also like to hear your opinions on this one.
Please start typing, come on!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Jimm]

Hey Green man ! ,

My experience is limited to a few mfgs. , they are Leupold, Nikon , and Nightforce.

1. inexpensive Leupolds ( below vx3) have exhibited tendencies to not move the poi until a lot of correction is dialed then wham ! your twice too far,

2. Leupolds ( vx3 and mk4 ) have responded accurately to changes and have been dialed way up for a shot then back to zero and they are on . One such Leupold was sent to the Leupold custom shop for target style turrets ( $ 54.00 per dial ) and has performed as it shuold ever since . That was a vx3 4.5x14x40. The mk4 has the exposed style turrets and is like a slot car , in a groove so to speak.
3. The Nikon is a 4.5x14x40 sf( side parallax adj. ) Haven't been out too long but has made a name for itself with me at least . It will do what you tell it to .< over and over and it has finger adj. dials ( no coin needed ) under a twistof cover and it also has revolution gradations marked on the turret so you can range and dial with the big boys and still get back to your zero even if you forget how many times you went around .
4. Night force works as it should , repeatable as a Mk4 , They are on par with the Mk4 's as far as optics and function( I am speaking about one 5.5x22x56 ) I couldn't tell any diff in brightness in the middle of the day . Will have to compare early/late . I will say that I feel like the Leupold has a more refined look about it but that is an aesthetic judgment on my part . I'm not sure the extra dollars for a NF is justifiable .
You might consider buying a used Leupold of the vx3 level and sending it to the Leupold custom shop to have the targer style turrete installed . They are not exposed but for long range work it is not a big deal tio take m off and putem back on when your done . You can als have your reticle changed to one you may like better at the same time.


Just depends on the dollars you want to spend , probably the best deal going is the Nikon . By the way they are bright as or maybe a tad more than the vx3 Leupolds in my opinion .

Happy choosing ! Jim

 

[Buffalobob]

Old Redfields - 6X18 accurange. Up and down all day long.

 

[BountyHunter]

Leupolds can "hang" if going up a couple clicks and then jump up. Cecil Tucker in TX makes a conversion that stops that. Looks like the NF model. Premier conversions replace the springs and normally correct that.

Almost all will have varying click values inspite of what they say on top. Way to test is to set up 30" line at 100 yards and lock gun in cleaning vise and click to end of line from one end and count clicks and then divide to determine actual value. YOu can do it also on 24". Might be true 1/4 and might be .278 also. Got to check.

BH

 

[green 788]

Jimm,

You wrote: "The mk4 has the exposed style turrets and is like a slot car , in a groove so to speak."

Can you elaborate on that? The Mk4 is the one I'm considering, a 3.5 to 10 with illuminated TMR reticle...

But I want the M3 version. It has a bottom stop, which I think will be nice. (I once cranked 10 MOA too low on my Bushnell Elite 10X and hit the ground under a deer! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif ) I know the clicks are coarse, but with the hash marks on the TMR reticle I think it'll be no problem to dial to the nearest MOA and hold over/under...

Dan

 

[green 788]

Bounty Hunter, is what you say true of the Mk4's as well? And does Premier make them more reliable?

I'm a total novice on high dollar scopes... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Dan

 

[Jimm]

Green,

I spent a day ranging rocks out to 800 and dialing the 8.5x25x50 mk4 up and down , rock at 410, rock at 805 , rock at 670 etc. At the end of the day dialed back to zero and shot my 100 yd. target . Dead on .

If you are going to range and dial then do so, don't range ,dial , then put in less than full value of your program only to then use a reticle for adj,. The TMR is a good ret but I would reccommend going one way or the other . This is not to say that I wouldn't reccommend knowing how to use both methods , simply saying don't mix them !

 

[Guest]

I was a Leupold and NF fan until I discovered IOR. Great glass and great turrets. Priced right too!

Do some research.

 

[Bart B]

This may come as a surprise to most folks, but the most accurate adjustments (1/4th inch at 100 yards movement for a 1/4th moa change on the scope) have gone out of favor. They are the externally adjusable target/varmint scopes made by Lyman, Unertl, Fecker, Litschert, El Monte and a few others.

Such scopes had micrometer adjustments that moved the scope exactly .0005000-inch per click. When the adjustment mount was exactly 7.200-inch behind the front mount, that made the change per click exactly 1/4th inch at 100 yards. Do the math and you'll see why.

But these scopes often preloaded the barrel with different amounts of tension when they were pulled back and twisted one direction after each shot. This inconsistant preload caused small accuracy problems.

The internal adjustment target scopes that came out in the 1980's were better and enabled better accuracy. Albeit at a slight error in exact sub-moa adjustments. But repeatability was more important than exact movement per click. And I think it still is. The Weaver T Micro-Trac system was and still is one of the best.

It's hard to measure exact per-click movement without a calibrated collimator. Scope companies know exactly how much their products move per click and some may willingly tell you if you ask.

You can easily measure repeatability with a collimator (never ever the worthless 'boxing' of groups so often touted) by putting one in the muzzle, moving the reticule to it, then counting off 2 clicks in one direction and counting 2 back; the reticule had better be back to exactly the same place.

 

[Eaglet]

0.0005" / 7.2" X (3600" = 100yards) = 0.25000" = 1/4" = Beautiful! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[green 788]

Yep, you can't do nothin' with ol' Bart! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif We're fortunate that he has come here. He's got a wealth of knowledge to share...

I guess I'm going to lean toward a Mk4 Leupold. Mainly because I have learned that if I don't like it I can probably get more than I paid for it on ebay! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I got the "dial a shot" bug a couple years back when I picked up a Bushnell Elite 3200 fixed 10X mildot scope for 150 bucks. I figured it would be a good 22-250 scope. I just hoped it would hold zero well, I never dreamed it would be repeatable. But since owning that little scope, I have learned that it is more repeatable than it has any right to be. The glass isn't bad at all either, and I could almost just buy a couple more of them and perhaps be happy. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I've done a little "closet cleaning" in the last couple weeks and I've sold some stuff. I keep thinking that if I ever buy a 1000 dollar scope that I'll believe it was "worth it." In the past, I've been a strong advocate against spending that kind of money on a scope. But I just figured "what the heck." I'll give a "good scope" a try and see if I can really tell a lot of difference. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. I have used my cousin's Nightforce 12-42 BR scope on various occasions (he generally leaves that rifle with me) and I haven't developed the impression that I "need" one of those. The glass is very good, but the turrets don't have a bottom stop, which I definitely do want--and I hate 1/8 MOA clicks! The Mk4 M3 has the bottom stop, and coarse 1 MOA clicks. Sounds interesting. And for 130 dollars Leupold will put the M1 1/4 MOA turrets in it if I decide I don't like the M3's.

But I could talk myself out of this before the end of the week. We'll see!

Ramble over... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Dan

 

[Eaglet]

Sounds to me like you have it pretty well planed out! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I have been using a Weaver Grand Slam 4.5x14 and it's amazing
how repetitive it is. The numbers are hard to see already but I also feel I have to try something like a Nikon Tactical scope with them good looking turrets!
The process of talking your self into it and then out of it if necessary is kind of fun. Enjoy it! Good Luck!

 

[green 788]

Eaglet,

I have a Grand Slam as well, and I would say that these are the standards by which all other scopes--including the 1000 dollar and up class--should be judged for turret repeatability. It just doesn't get any better than "perfect," and the Micro-Trac seems to be just that.

But the numbers do wear off of the turret caps and that makes it hard to see where you're dialed to. I think if Weaver would do something about those faint gold painted numbers on the turrets and on the AO, they'd have a much improved product.

Even with a short-coming or two, the Grand Slam is one of the best scopes (this side of a thousand bucks) on the market...

Dan