I have owned several options and have worked with and helped out a buddy with several options.

options from $700 to $3000.


Tracking and turrets are far more important than optical performance.

A scope that tracks and has a bit of chromatic aberration is better than a scope that doesn't track but has incredible glass.

When you buy a precision rifle scope, the turrets are worth more than the glass.

Turrets that require voodoo and three allen wrenches to set the zero stop kinda suck. Simple turrets are a pure joy.

Vortex Razor Gen 3 turrets are far and away the best I have tried. Tangent Theta turrets are supposed to be really really good but a $5k optic is not in my wheelhouse.

If you buy an optic with set-screw zero stop. Be very careful not to overtighten those screws. You will make a divot in the brass ring that will precluded you from adjusting that zero stop without invoking warranty work.

Clamping type tension zero stops are mechanically superior.

So for a guy who doesnt know anything about precision rifle optics, and who also doesnt want to google it, what do you mean by tracking?

For what it's worth, I'm starting to connect some dots on my first bolt gun and ultimately glass, so I'm not asking simply because I don't know, I need to educate myself.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
So for a guy who doesnt know anything about precision rifle optics, and who also doesnt want to google it, what do you mean by tracking?

If you dial 5.3 mils in your scope. It needs to move your bullet 5.3 mils.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Be very careful not to overtighten those screws.

A good tip.

The Nightforce spec for the screws that hold the windage and elevation turret caps is 4 inch-pounds. I have the Fix It Sticks 4 in-lb torque limiter for that purpose and I seem to use it a lot. Leupold has a 5 in-lb torque limit on its similar screws, but I use the 4 in-lb limiter with them and my other scopes. The 4 in-lb setting seems to work fine and I haven’t had problems with screws loosening using that limit.

The Fix It Sticks limiter is a bit of an expense, but like the many other torque limiters I have, it’s a great peace of mind to not be stuck with just the “tighten enough, but not too much” guidance that was common in my youth.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
So for a guy who doesnt know anything about precision rifle optics, and who also doesnt want to google it, what do you mean by tracking?

As stated, if you dial 5.3 milliradians, the point of impact should shift by 5.3 mils, not 5.2 or 5.4 ₥.

This is an issue that gets a fair amount of discussion among precision rifle shooters, and decent scope reviews will examine the accuracy of particular models. One method to do that is the “tall target” test (search on that) which involves shooting groups on a measured target, but with the proper equipment it can be determined optically.

Not only should a 5.3 ₥ elevation adjustment move the POI 5.3 ₥, but it should do it exactly vertically from the start. It’s possible for poor tracking to also move the final position left or right of vertical, and that can be more of a concern.

Various ballistic solvers (calculators) have features to adjust for inaccurate tracking. I’ve never had to use them, but as I understand, the user can say something like that an adjustment of 5.0 ₥ moved the POI 4.8 ₥ and the solver will take that into account when telling us how many clicks to adjust the sight.

One other tracking issue is whether the adjustment returns to where it started: I.e., if I dial up 5.3 mils, then back down 5.3 mils and shoot a group, will the group be at the same place as it was before the adjustment? This is an issue that gets less discussion these days, but is still important.

Well, I know enough to know that tracking is important!

Most of my trigger time on a decent optic is on my 1-8 ATACR or my NF 2.5-10 and they've always moved whatever input I dial on the turrets. I'm not sure I realized it was possible for scopes to NOT translate the dialing to the POI accurately. I've messed with a few guns that are not .1 MIL adjustments and they can be annoying, I want to say they were .25MIL adjustments.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One other tracking issue is whether the adjustment returns to where it started: I.e., if I dial up 5.3 mils, then back down 5.3 mils and shoot a group, will the group be at the same place as it was before the adjustment? This is an issue that gets less discussion these days, but is still important.

Interesting question. I dial when I can versus holding, I've never seen a bad "return to zero" but it's worth confirming.

Dang, this whole "you dont konw what you dont know" stuff is kinda wild.

The “box” test to check return to zero is something I used to see discussed more in the past, but if someone has a question, or just wants confirmation, this is how it’s performed:

Fire a group. Dial up X amount (a foot or more at 100 yards) and shoot a group. Dial left X amount and shoot a group. Dial down X amount and shoot a group. Dial right X amount and shoot a group. The final group should be the same place as the first. The box test checks return to zero involving both elevation and windage. Actually, the whole dialing sequence can be performed without shooting except at the beginning and end. If, however, the adjustments are large enough, they will also confirm tracking accuracy.

I believe that the explosion of interest in precision rifle competition has resulted in great advances in scope sight manufacturing because if a competitor or reviewer were able to demonstrate that a model had a tracking flaw, that would be the kiss of death. I won’t get into the politics of where scopes are made these days, but there are many that (for whatever reason) get very good reviews while being priced much less than a Vortex or Leupold, and certainly much, much less than Tangent Theta or Zero Compromise.

I also agree with IndianaBoy about optical quality versus tracking. As the Dark Lord of Optics opined some years ago, what matters is Can we see the target? If yes, then do things like chromatic aberration matter all that much? Blurriness, though, does matter, and can be an issue. The same is true of “tunneling” if we’re selecting a low power magnification for maximum field of view. I also wonder how tracking accuracy of some of the cheap scopes will hold up in the long run.

Optics decisions should be made on rifle use and personal needs, which may produce significantly different optimal scopes.

IMO precision rifle can include disciplines where the one shoots from one position, shoots at fixed distance targets, is allowed sighting shots. Like those who shoot strings at 300, 600, or 1000 yard targets from prone or bench. Repeatable tracking helps here, but sighters compensate for errors. Optical clarity means more here than tracking.

Now I personally consider "precision rifle" more along the lines of steel matches and PRS events. Multiple targets, multiple distances, shot from various positions, 1 or 2 rounds per target, no sighters, tight time limits. As such, accurate and repeatable tracking is paramount. The only alternative to good turret tracking is an accurate and well-designed “Christmas Tree” reticle.

All of a scope’s characteristics come into play in competition, but at various levels, depending on the course. I’ve shot field matches where only the absolute clearest glass allows the shooter to find targets. A match in Craig, CO was notorious for a stage called “10 to 10”. They set 10” square plates from 200 to 1000 yards, in increments of 100 yards, across a sage flat to a gentle rise starting at 600 yards. Late in the day, the initially white-painted plates were stripped to a dull gray – similar to the color of the dirt. Late in day, we shot into a low sun, with the sunlight often on our front scope lens. Tough for even ED glass.

CA can be a problem in any match where the plate is close in color to the backstop. Lesser scopes may not show a crisp line at the edge of the steel plate. I often saw this in stages with “prairie dog” steel targets. Strip the paint from hits, splash the target with dirt from near misses, and a 6-10” PD target at 250-300 yards might be nearly invisible. Many folks don't notice CA until they look at a high-contrasting colors with a solid edge separating the colors. Like a white road speed limit sign against a dark background. Or a target paster that's a mix of bright orange and black.

The best shooters use their scopes to track their own shots. A scope that’s superbly clear in the center, but gets hazy away from the center isn’t a good steel match optic. Lackluster clarity away from the center crosshairs is way too common with compact length scopes – even those from really high-end companies. I’ve seen it firsthand with March and S&B – shooters see the shortcomings, but the companies and their promoters poo-poo it. Compact length scopes seem to have more CA issues, too.

Accurate and repeatable tracking isn’t easy to maintain on a scope that is constantly being dialed for elevation in the field. Cheap Chinese scopes don’t do well here. I’ve seen one of Athlon’s best scopes go tits up during its first match. It happened to a good buddy in my squad. A classic response to scope turret issues is “it worked just fine until if failed…”

Expensive scopes can have tracking issues, too. S&B was long considered the best of the best. Then for a few years they put out PMII scopes that failed after a few months in the field. I know 2 buddies that had a combined 3 S&B PMII scopes fail. Frank Galli of Snipers Hide also have a couple of S&B PMII that failed. I initially liked S&B, but won’t buy one now. Nevertheless, I have a good buddy who seems to have a gazillion S&B scopes, and all of them are flawless.

Vortex’s early high-end scopes didn’t hold up to constant elevation dialing. This was a primary reason some of their initial sponsored PRS shooters sold their Vortex scopes after a year of competition. Fortunately, Vortex seems to have solved their issues. Fortunately, Vortex has a great warranty. I like Vortex scopes.

Leupold had a reputation for “scope lash” many years ago. Their turret clicks were mushy, and you often had to dial past your intended elevation by a couple clicks, then go back to the intended elevation to get an accurate setting. They seem to have fixed that issue, but I got rid of my Leupolds and am not interested in new ones. Like S&B, Leupold had many years of dip-shittery, where they used MOA turrets with mil-base reticles.

I have a number of Nightforce scopes. All track well and have stood the test of time, use, and abuse. NF hasn’t always had the best glass, but their tracking is durable and spot on. NF's zero set system is more involved than others, but once set, it's pretty much bombproof.

Tangent Theta (& Premiere before that) have great tracking, great longevity, and positive click feel. Had TT offered the MOA reticles that I like from the beginning, I probably would have a fleet of TT scopes.

There are other brands with good reputations for turrets & glass. The short list includes Kahles, Leica, Steiner, Zeiss, and ZCO. Burris, Trijicon, Sig are in a lower tier. At some point a shooter should just pick a company or two that they’re comfy with, and stay there as long as things don’t go south. People who buy a bunch of different scope brands “to keep my shooting from getting boring” are likely not very accomplished nor committed shooters. IMO they choose variety in their equipment, in an attempt to spice up repetitive & unimaginative training.

Thanks, fritz, excellent comments as usual, and especially the examples you cite to help understand when the optical issues matter most.

I see review after review gushing about how wonderful Chinese scopes are, but they are all literally based on immediate out of the box performance, not how they turned out after a couple of seasons of competition use. There was a Canadian YouTuber who would point out their failings if they existed, but otherwise such comments were about unheard of. The guy on one channel I sometimes watch once made the comment that a scope he was reviewing (sort-of) wasn’t any “Chinesium,” and yet then he continues to extol the virtues of the Chinese stuff: delicious irony.