15 vs 20 moa base

Posts like this remind me why I left CGN. Too many keyboard commandos on here to readily deliver bad advice. The more I train, shoot and compete, the more that I've come to realize that most people on the internet (and especially CGN) are full of ####.

No wonder CGN is turning into a graveyard in the precision rifle world.

Best of luck.

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/scope-testing.3928325/

You might finds this an interesting read... and it has nothing to do with CGN and us lying folk....

I would suggest you review your statement about those that competed at the F class Worlds. I have had the privilege of shooting with them on the team and individual level. you are indeed talking about some of the best shooters, in this sport, in the world. I suspect you have no connection with those who have trained, commited resources and tested to compete with 400'ish of the best in the World?

A number of scopes went down... not speculation, not maybe the shooter doesn't know what they are doing... the scopes failed, and with it podium finishes.

Don't tell an Olympic cyclist they don't know how to adjust their tire pressure... Don't suggest that the top Cdn shooters don't know a thing or two about their optics.

Jerry
 
The test results, procedures and tools used are buried in the text.

The opening post shows what the test helps you diagnose... then you have to sort through all the other posts to see the rest of your info.

I know many that have invested big dollars in their gear are very hesitant to discuss their gear might not work. With the volume of shooting top F class shooters do, we see alot of stuff go down. That is actually not the "problem"... stuff wears out with use. What concerns us is being able to KNOW a scope is acting funky BEFORE we crash and burn at a match.

The tests weren't a brand bashing thing... it was more top level shooters trying to figure out why things didn't work and how to diagnose their problems. And the number of scopes they found with problems sure raised alot of eyebrows.

I know a few F class shooters who have invested in this type of scope testing platform... the problem is figuring out how to freeze the slave scope.

Regardless of the part or component we use, we test and test and test... sometimes we find bad primer lots, barrels, powder, brass... and yes, scopes.

Then we fix it and life is good. Sh!t happens...

Jerry
 
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/scope-testing.3928325/

You might finds this an interesting read... and it has nothing to do with CGN and us lying folk....

I would suggest you review your statement about those that competed at the F class Worlds. I have had the privilege of shooting with them on the team and individual level. you are indeed talking about some of the best shooters, in this sport, in the world. I suspect you have no connection with those who have trained, commited resources and tested to compete with 400'ish of the best in the World?

A number of scopes went down... not speculation, not maybe the shooter doesn't know what they are doing... the scopes failed, and with it podium finishes.

Don't tell an Olympic cyclist they don't know how to adjust their tire pressure... Don't suggest that the top Cdn shooters don't know a thing or two about their optics.

Jerry

Guess you F-classers better keep your scopes on a 600 yard zero.

Not saying that scope failures don't happen, in fact I believe in my previous post that I said ALL scope brands will have failures. Of course, high end brands will have less failures.

A couple of scopes failing at a large event is not unheard of, nor does it mean we should keep our scopes on 600 yard zero for fear of failure.

You guys sure know how to be dramatic.
 
Precision junkies just sense when something is wrong in ways most guys wouldn't or couldn't.

It starts with a very accurate rifle and handloads that are proven over time.

The degree of failure might be so minor for the average shooter that it would get lost in the wash and attributed to a flyer or some thought like I must have pulled that one.

F Class is a game of such a high level of precision any more that you need to have absolutely everything dialed right in and when it is you have a chance to be on top...The hard part is that every shot you take wittles away at that perfection and you gradually slide in the rankings as your barrel wears or throat erodes or maybe your scope starts to float just a little.

Ignoring that it happens is fine if you are not such a shooter.... and that's a personal choice to play that way... but pounding on a 5 inch bull at 900 meters is a rush when you have it dialed in... or taking the long range agg in 25 to 40 MPH wind... its a satisfying feeling that few people ever experience... and more should.
 
The OP wants help as he is new to precision shooting (his words, first post), and now we are talking about the equipment needed to be at the very top of the F-class game?

#### me guys, why are we over complicating this for our new shooters? He wants to know what base he can use, not what small scope defects he can expect and how he won't be able to win the world's at F-class.

No one gives a #### about how good you guys are at F-class. Let's help our newer shooters out by giving them sound, simple advice.
 
Wow...

Anecdotal... irrelevant...

?????

Yourself and thousands of others have never had these issues.... hmmm... I suppose its the same thousands of others who buy gear but rarely shoot at long range.

I was at a match last September that had one stage that took out 4 such scopes out of only 15 shooters in one squad alone. That is not irrelevant.

IOR is not a premium brand??? at north of $3000 each what the heck is premium?

The World F Class Championship is a select group of the best shooters in the world who shoot thousands of rounds per year at long range and use the very premium scopes you have in mind as superior where several failed at this one match.

There are few better test bases anyone could dream up, yet you call it irrelevant...

Sure some scopes are better than others but you have yet to mention one specific model that is bullet proof reliable....

Lay it on us dude... enlighten us kthomas. What scope is so reliable that a warranty is simply not required?

4/15 scopes failing in one stage sounds like a freak occurrence to me... Im not saying scopes don't break or anything, but that seems like an extremely high number...
 
4/15 scopes failing in one stage sounds like a freak occurrence to me... Im not saying scopes don't break or anything, but that seems like an extremely high number...

No actually, not freak at all, because it happened to other squads also... it also happened this year at the World F Class championship...

When you take a bunch of good scopes... regardless of brand and leave them sit for a dozen years or more at a 100 yard zero and then one day crank the elevation for a 1400+ yard shot (I forget the exact distance now... might have been 1700 or so...)... guess what happens guys?

The spring just no longer has the life it once had and it moves under recoil. Its an old story for guys who've been around long range shooting for 30 years. Talk to the 1000 yard bench rest crowd... you'll hear the same thing.

All newly revealed truth passes through three stages…

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, ridicule escalates to open opposition.

Third, it is eventually accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer
 
Last edited:
The OP wants help as he is new to precision shooting (his words, first post), and now we are talking about the equipment needed to be at the very top of the F-class game?
#### me guys, why are we over complicating this for our new shooters? He wants to know what base he can use, not what small scope defects he can expect and how he won't be able to win the world's at F-class.
No one gives a #### about how good you guys are at F-class. Let's help our newer shooters out by giving them sound, simple advice.

I suppose some of us thought this was a Target and Precision Rifles thread.
 
No actually, not freak at all, because it happened to other squads also... it also happened this year at the World F Class championship...

When you take a bunch of good scopes... regardless of brand and leave them sit for a dozen years or more at a 100 yard zero and then one day crank the elevation for a 1400 yard shot... guess what happens guys?

The spring just no longer has the life it once had and it moves under recoil. Its an old story for guys who've been around long range shooting for 30 years. Talk to the 1000 yard bench rest crowd... you'll hear the same thing.

All newly revealed truth passes through three stages…

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, ridicule escalates to open opposition.

Third, it is eventually accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer

For those that have 10,000+ post count I guess I can see how that would happen, how would you have time to shoot if you are stuck behind a keyboard?

In all seriousness though, how does this help the OP? He's a new shooter, he doesn't need to worry about that. He's not shooting the F-class worlds.
 
No actually, not freak at all, because it happened to other squads also... it also happened this year at the World F Class championship...

When you take a bunch of good scopes... regardless of brand and leave them sit for a dozen years or more at a 100 yard zero and then one day crank the elevation for a 1400+ yard shot (I forget the exact distance now... might have been 1700 or so...)... guess what happens guys?

The spring just no longer has the life it once had and it moves under recoil. Its an old story for guys who've been around long range shooting for 30 years. Talk to the 1000 yard bench rest crowd... you'll hear the same thing.

All newly revealed truth passes through three stages…

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, ridicule escalates to open opposition.

Third, it is eventually accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Except, that would be assuming people who are in F-class worlds are using scopes that have been sitting at 100 yard zeros for years, No?? Seems like an unlikely scenario at best to me, wouldn't the scopes being used by F-class shooters be adjusted quite frequently?
 
Like what Leupold Mark 4, Schmitt Bender, March or Nightforce?

Check with any of the guys who were at the World F-class championship in Ottawa a couple weeks ago and you will learn that each of these premium scope brands failed during the match.

There are certain models that employ a coil spring instead of a leaf spring for the erector tube. That seems to be the key feature to address the point, but you need to watch for it when selecting a scope. IOR has it and I think US Optics and others like this premium Vortex, but it's no guarantee it cannot fail.

Spring life is a byproduct of the compression ratio and time. The less you hold a spring in a compressed state the longer it will last. Its also relative to what percentage of the spring free length it is being compressed to. Since the space between the erector tube and outer tube is finite, the brand has no influence over the reality of this space constraint.

A larger tube diameter (Like Burris XTR II 34 mm) and or coil spring are the logical solutions because it provides the spring with more space for compression and is therefore compressed a lower percentage of its free length and the spring lives longer. (Engineering 101 stuff.)

See the little bump at a 45 degree angle below the parallax turret... that's a coil spring tube but this is their top of the line scope and it is unaffordable for most.

vtx_rfl_rzr-amg_6-24x50_mrad_bl_1__1.jpg

Good to know only the "high end" Vortex scopes and "Simmons" have employed the coil spring erector design...lol.
858448.jpg
 
Good to know only the "high end" Vortex scopes and "Simmons" have employed the coil spring erector design...lol.
[/img]

No, its not only used on high end scopes. Its also used on Bushnell AR optics... and others.... and that makes for good value.

Its the spring compression ratios that define the survivability of the spring.

A spring that is compressed to half its free length will have a longer life expectancy than a spring that is compressed to 25 percent of its free length.

This is just common sense.

Old cars sag... the springs just get weaker over time.
 
Here's an example of what a precision target shooter will do to eliminate any chance of spring related accuracy issues.

https://gunsmagazine.com/point-of-impact-shift/

https://gunsmagazine.com/point-of-impact-shift/

Point-Of-Impact Shift

Benchrest competition offers some scope innovations other precision shooters may apply.

Do riflescopes shift point-of-impact and for what reasons? They are notorious for doing so, but how much matters? That depends on what you are trying to do with it, i.e. what level of accuracy and precision you require. If it is great enough, it can affect any shooting endeavor.

I have been competing in several shooting genres my entire adult life. None are so demanding of precision than 100-, 200- and 300-yard Benchrest. If, on a good day, you are not shooting 25-round aggregates in the teens, you are not competitive. If your scope shifts point-of-impact for any reason, you will end up in the bottom half or worse at the end of the match. The scopes used for many years were the 36X fixed-power variety made particularly for Benchrest. Shooters began to suspect that point-of-impact (POI) shift might be the reason they were not doing as well as they thought or hoped they should be.

In the mid-’90s, Cecil Tucker from Odessa, Texas, began working on the problem. He found the erector tube was supported against the elevation and windage turrets by weak leaf springs positioned opposite the turrets. They exerted about 7 pounds force on the erector tube but did not push the erector tube back to battery efficiently. He also found the method used to secure the erector tube axially was inefficient as well. Those scopes also used an adjustable objective to adjust parallax that sometimes did not move as intended.

He set about trying to correct these problems. He first removed the leaf springs. He then drilled a hole in the side of the scope body 120 degrees from the elevation and windage turrets. He placed a strong spring that exerted approximately 30 pounds of pressure against the erector tube to keep it in place. He also added a wave washer at the end of the erector tube to support it axially. The spring on the side of the scope was housed in a cylindrical tube, attached to the side of the scope. The strong spring supposedly ensured the erector tube was always held tightly against the turrets, hopefully preventing POI shift.

optics 1

The internals of this scope have been modified and hard supported inside, the internal adjustments have been removed, and the adjustments transferred to an external mount. The device is shown on the left side. The owner, Gene Bukys, wins most of the matches he attends. Is this the reason?

A few years later Burris incorporated that idea in their scopes, calling it the Posi Lok. Burris added another twist. You could leave the spring to act just as Cecil’s did, or the cylindrical piece on the outside of the scope could be screwed in until the erector tube could be held firmly in place. To change sight-in, you had to unscrew the cylindrical piece, make the adjustment, and then screw it in again, or just use the strong spring.

A few years after that, other ambitious and innovative shooters began taking scopes apart, understanding their mechanisms, and securing the internal parts to alleviate the problem. They were not satisfied with holding the erector tube in place with a strong spring alone. They also wanted to ensure the erector tube could not move in any direction and neither could the lenses. But this presented another problem: How were they going to change sight-in. The problem with the old mounts like those used on Unertl external adjustment scopes is the adjustments rode on the outside of the scope tube. These were not reliable either because the contact points wore uneven slots in the scope body.

Probably the premier innovator is Gene Bukys. Besides securing the internals, he designed a mount that will move the scope for sight-in without anything touching the scope body. Did he succeed? No way of telling, but his performance might suggest he did. He wins most of the matches he attends, to include the National and World Championships. Could he have done it otherwise? Who knows? But one thing is certain, it has not hurt him.

Another innovative top flight Benchrest shooter was fixing scopes at a slight cost by inserting a plastic cylinder in the side of the scope tube to hold the erector tube in place.

All this caused some scope manufactures to look closely at the problem and begin to eliminate the problem of POI shift. The March scope was one such endeavor. That scope will be the subject of another article.

I will admit Benchrest is a very esoteric endeavor, and few riflemen expect teen aggs from their rifles. But there are times when POI shift can ruin a hunt or some other competitive sport. On two occasions I have slipped on a mountain side and taken a very bad fall. In both cases, the scope ended up between me and a rock during the fall. In one case, the tube body was badly dented. In another, I could not see that the scope had been harmed. But in both cases I checked it anyway, and, in both cases, the sight-in was off both vertically and horizontally, significantly enough to have missed any animal I might have shot at. One of them ended up 16 inches high and 12 inches left at 100 yards.

optics 2

Bukys scope and mount shown from the right side. Note the turrets have been removed. The external adjustments do not ride on the scope body or transfer any stresses from the rings to the scope body like the old external adjusting posi mounts.

If you suspect unexplained, errant shots might be from a scope with POI shift, there are a couple of things you can do. Devise a method to hold the rifle down on bags so it does not move. Aim at a target and dial the turrets. If one or both do not respond or responds by jumping around, you probably have a bad or broken leaf spring or one that has moved out of position. I had it happen once. I sent the scope back. It was repaired with a note attached that said one of the leaf springs had not been heat-treated and had broken. Which brings up the second option. Just send the scope back to the manufacturer and tell them the scope will not hold point-of-impact. Many will replace the scope or the internals if that is the problem.

Some people, including some writers, like to box a scope. That is, shoot at a point, dial the turrets up some arbitrary amount, then right, then down, and then left back to the beginning point and see if that shot goes in or near the same hole. Really enthused boxers go around the box several times to see if the dials are repeatable. Others wonder if the dials really give them 1/4-inch moves per click, or even if some clicks do and some don’t. Of course that might be MOA, centimeters, MILS or whatever. The process of boxing with live ammo might tell you if the movement is reliable under recoil, but it can be done without shooting as well. Hold the rifle down, put the crosshair on an intersection on a grid, then move up, right, down, and then left. Determine if the crosshair moves as advertised and reliably. I did on a suspected scope and found out immediately that the windage turret was not moving the crosshair at all or in jumps.

A scope manufacturer at a writer’s conference once said the average, reliable life of a hunting scope was 3,000 rounds. After that you could expect POI shift and other problems. For the average hunter, that might mean a lifetime of shooting. For others, that would mean less than a year. Most benchrest shooters have found that premium match-grade barrels are good for about 2,000 rounds using 6mm PPC ammo. At some point, a shooter is going to be frustrated by either his scope or his barrel and wonder which is the primary culprit.

optics

A newer rendition of the old posi mounts. This arrangement is frequently used by very long-range varmint hunters, although the rear mount would be extremely high. Sight-in changes are made by turning the micrometer dials for both elevation and windage. However, extreme sight-in changes may put stress on the scope body through the ring. Also, where the micrometer touches the scope body, a wear point may begin to form.
By Jacob Gottfredson
 
Here's another article that discusses springs used in scopes.
https://gunsmagazine.com/scope-innards/

Scope Innards

How Today’s Riflescopes Work And Are Constructed.

To understand how scopes work, we need to understand a little about optics. Telescopes first appeared in the early 1600’s, more than 250 years after convex magnifying lenses were first used in eyeglasses to help older people read. The first telescopes only had two lenses, one at either end of a simple tube, an objective (front) and ocular (rear). Unfortunately, using two convex lenses resulted in an upside-down image. Substituting a concave lens for the ocular made the image appear right-side up, but reduced magnification. Eventually somebody placed a third convex lens between a convex objective and ocular, finding this not only resulted in an erect image but could produce even more magnification.

Other people thought of putting a telescope on a rifle but needed an aiming point and discovered a reticle could be placed in front or behind the middle “erector” lens. (Many of the first reticles were made of fine hair, the reason they’re still called crosshairs today, despite being made of metal or etched on glass.)

Originally all riflescopes were adjusted by moving their mounts, but eventually the mounts used screws to move the scope back and forth. Windage adjustments were made by turning the screws in and out, but the elevation adjustment often featured a spring on the bottom of the scope, to push it against a screw in the top of the ring.

Internal adjustments first appeared in the late 1800’s, but at first were usually used for elevation changes only, since it was cheaper and easier to put a pair of opposing screws in one mount for windage adjustments. The earliest internal adjustments pushed the reticle back and forth, the most practical method in the longer, thinner scopes then in use. (The length was due to relatively primitive optical glass, incapable of bending light sufficiently to place lenses closer together. Thin tubes were necessary to keep weight at a reasonable limit.)

As optics improved, scopes shrank in length and grew in diameter, making it possible to place another tube inside the main tube to hold the erector lens and reticle. The most common arrangement is to attach the ocular end of the erector tube to the outer tube with a gimbal, the same basic pivot system used to hold a globe of the earth. This allows the erector tube to be pushed by screws mounted in the scope’s main tube, just as the entire scope used to be pushed back and forth inside its mounts. The tops of the adjustment turrets are actually the tops of the screws pushing against the erector tube, while a spring (or springs) presses the erector tube against the screws. It’s that simple.

Even the largest riflescopes are relatively small telescopes. Put an erector tube inside the main tube and things get crowded. Consequently the springs pushing the erector tube against the adjustment screws (naturally called “erector springs”) are pretty small.

Most scopes use a single flat spring. Since the adjustment turrets sit on the top and right side of the scope, the spring is placed at the “7:30” position on the lower left side. In some scopes the spring’s held in place by a tiny angle at one end, fitting into a slot in the erector tube. In other scopes a screw holds the spring and some scopes use dual flat springs.

Unfortunately, flat springs can grow weaker with use and in some scopes the spring is not strong enough in the first place. This is why many shooters tap the top of the turrets to “settle” the adjustments. In reality, whacking the scope with the heel of a hand or bumping the recoil pad on the ground often works better, but tapping the turrets apparently seems more technical, even though it doesn’t always work. Another technique is to turn the turret a few clicks past the correct spot, then turn it back again, but with weak springs this still doesn’t work all the time.


When the dial’s turned to the right there shouldn’t be any reason to tap the turret, because the adjustment screw is directly pushing the erector tube. (Or at least it is in American-style scopes. The adjustments in some European scopes have left-hand threads.)

04-0814-3

The adjustment screws of this rusty old Weaver are the
same basic adjustment system used in scopes today.

04-0814-2

This century-old Lyman scope has adjustments in the mount. The spring
connected to the mount base pushes the scope against the elevation screw.

04-0814-7

This is the camming arrangement in an older Weaver 3-9X variable.
In many modern scopes the lens-cam slots are inside the main tube.



Coil Springs

In some Burris scopes the interior flat spring is replaced by a coil spring inside a small housing on the side of the main tube. A couple of other companies place erector springs at the eyepiece end of the erector tube. Swarovski’s version has four coil springs in a housing, while the Simmons TrueZero system uses a fitting that’s a spring in itself.

All three alternatives leave more room inside the main tube than the traditional flat spring. In some scopes both Burris and Swarovski have used the extra room for larger interior lenses, claiming more light transmission, but that’s not necessarily true, since the amount of light entering a scope is primarily controlled by the objective lens. (Extra light transmission was also claimed for 30mm-tubed European scopes when they first started showing up in America. At the time Euro scopes tended to have better optics anyway, so many people believed it, but the amount of light passing through 30mm scopes is also primarily controlled by the objective lens.)


The real advantage in extra room around the erector tube is greater adjustment range, helpful when clicking the elevation up on longer shots. Using larger interior lenses limits adjustment range, and doesn’t really make scopes brighter.

Variable scopes work by moving erector lenses back and forth inside the erector tube, with the distance between the lenses controlling magnification. Each lens fits inside a cylindrical housing, with a stud on the outside of the housing. The exterior tube has two angled slots, and the lens-housing studs fit inside these slots. When we twist the magnification ring we’re turning the exterior tube and the slots cam the erector lenses back and forth, changing magnification.

The exterior tube, however, usually takes up more room inside the scope, the reason variable scopes normally don’t have as much adjustment range as fixed scopes. The extra moving parts also make variables less reliable than fixed-power scopes, part of the reason today’s “tactical” variables are heavier than conventional hunting scopes: Their innards are beefed up to prevent break-downs.

Two other problems affect variable scopes, both involving reticle placement. Remember, the reticle can be either in front or behind the erector lenses. In either position the reticle must be where the light rays focus, or it looks blurry.

As light rays pass through a convex lens they form a cone. The point of the cone is where they focus, the reason a magnifying glass concentrates sunlight into a tiny point of light and heat. The cone also creates the “exit pupil” as light leaves a scope, and our eye needs to be at the cone’s focal point to see the entire field of view. (Luckily, we don’t normally aim a rifle at the sun, so our eye doesn’t fry.)

The same thing happens inside a riflescope. The objective lens’s cone of focus is about halfway to the erector lenses, and the focus of the erectors lenses about halfway to the objective. A reticle placed in the objective lens’s focus is called a “first focal-plane” reticle, and when placed in the erector’s focus is called a “second focal-plane” reticle. These terms are often contracted to FFP and SFP.

04-0814-4


Unscrewing the objective bell allows us to see the erector spring inside a
50-year-old 2-1/2X scope made by Light Optical in Japan (the same company th
at makes Nightforce scopes today). This particular scope has a first focal-plane
reticle, also visible in the photo.

04-0814-5

First focal-plane variables are often preferred in Europe, because
they grow along with the image when the magnification’s turned up.
This FFP reticle was photographed in the main Zeiss factory.

In internally-adjusted scopes, the reticle’s mounted at either end of the erector tube. In fixed magnification scopes the placement doesn’t matter, but with variable scopes it does.

A first-plane reticle doesn’t change position or size on a target when magnification changes, because the light moving through the scope has passed the reticle before entering the erector system. The advantage of zero reticle movement is obvious, but the reticle not changing size can be either an advantage or disadvantage.

Many European hunters like FFP reticles because they grow along with the image when the magnification is turned up. In many European countries it’s legal to hunt far beyond the usual twilight hours of North America, sometimes all night, but artificial light and illuminated reticle are usually illegal. Since cranking up a variable also makes animals more visible in dim light, FFP reticles are considered an advantage.

Many North Americans, however, consider FFP reticles too coarse at higher magnifications, since we crank up variables when shooting at longer ranges, not for shooting in moonlight. We prefer SFP reticles because they shrink, providing a more precise aiming point on long shots.

The primary trouble with SFP reticles is the slight mechanical error in the alignment of the erector lenses as they slide back and forth. Since light passes through the erector tube before reaching the reticle, the reticle can apparently shift position on the target. This shift can be demonstrated either by shooting or using a collimator (bore-sighter), and was such a problem in early variables almost all used FFP reticles for many years.

04-0814-6

The outsides of scopes are nice-looking, but what goes on inside is more
interesting (above). Erector lenses must be very precise, due to their
relatively small size (below). These are for Zeiss variables.

04-0814-9

As a result, some American scope companies came up with tapered reticles, with a fine center that still allowed reasonably precise aiming with the magnification cranked up. Weaver used a reticle with three closely spaced crosshairs, both vertically and horizontally. At low magnification you aimed with the “cluster” of crosshairs, at high magnification with the intersection of the center crosshairs.

As a result, variables didn’t really become popular in the USA until the 1960’s, when manufacturers figured out how to make erector assemblies precise enough to minimize point-of-impact shift with SFP reticles. They didn’t totally succeed, but came close enough for scopes to be sighted-in at maximum magnification, yet still shoot close to point of aim when turned to lower magnifications for close-range shooting.

Today, significant reticle shift is rare even in inexpensive variables, and so tiny in high-quality variables it basically doesn’t exist. However, some shooters are returning to FFP scopes because of “ballistic” reticles with multiple aiming points. In FFP scopes the spacing of the aiming points doesn’t change at different magnifications, and in SFP scopes it does.

All scopes feature some means of refining the focus, which also reduces parallax, the apparent reticle shift on the target when the shooter’s head moves back and forth. Parallax is caused by the reticle not being exactly in the focal plane. Unless we always place our eye behind the centerline of the scope (few shooters do) any scope shows some parallax at some ranges.

The reticles of all scopes are set at the factory to be free of parallax at a certain range. Scopes of 10X or less have so little parallax, focusing the eyepiece reduces or eliminates the problem. Scopes above 10X normally require an extra means of focusing.

For many years the solution was an adjustable objective bell, essentially the same arrangement as the eyepiece, with the bell mounted on threads so the objective lens could be turned in and out. This is mechanically simple and relatively inexpensive, but grasping the front end of a scope is clumsy, especially when looking through the scope to observe the results. Many scopes now feature a side-focus knob opposite the windage turret. These shift a lens inside the scope so are more expensive, and sometimes touchier to use, but more convenient.

04-0814-8

Adjustable mounts remained in use even after World War II. This Bausch & Lomb
mount (above) used opposing cones to make windage and elevations adjustments.
The scope is a Balfor 4X. This disassembled scope (below) is a basic fixed-power,
with objective and ocular lenses, and a single erector lens and erector spring.

04-0814-11



Up, Down, Left, Right

Windage and elevation adjustments have become much more reliable in recent years, thanks to the emphasis on long-range shooting, a trend beginning with affordable laser rangefinders. The earliest internally-adjustable scopes had simple marks on their adjustments, not the “clicks” we’re used to today, but clicks started becoming common after World War II.

Many early click turrets featured a spring-steel post pressing against the serrated edge of the dial. Most of today’s scopes use a similar system hidden inside the turret, or a tiny spring-loaded ball sliding into detents. It doesn’t really matter, as long as the system is precise and doesn’t wear easily.

Firmer clicks don’t necessarily mean more reliable adjustments—the erector spring also plays a key role—but mushy clicks sure don’t help. The first Japanese-made Bausch & Lombs had perhaps the finest optics of any “American” scopes offered at the time, but they also had weak erector springs and mushy clicks. Several people I know (including me) gave up on them until the problem was fixed a few years later.

Many people assume optical quality is the most important aspect of a riflescope, and any scope with good optics is also fine mechanically. Neither is true, and the finest glass in the world is worthless if we can’t adjust our scope to work correctly.

Back when scopes could be easily taken apart it was possible to actually see some of this stuff, but 50 or 60 years ago the innovation of inert-gas removal of humid air from the inside of scopes made it mandatory to prevent curious owners from dismantling their Weaver. Old scopes, however, can be purchased for a few bucks, especially if they’re not totally functional, and several of the photos were taken of old scope innards. If you’re really curious it’s an inexpensive way to further understand how scopes work.
By John Barsness
 
Here's a thead referencing the Tucker Coil Spring Conversion... Which I've seen on competitors rifle scopes used in F Class

http://benchrest.com/archive/index.php/t-51451.html

tiny68

04-18-2008, 08:50 AM

I have seen several used Leupold scopes with the "Tucker Conversion" for sale in various places. What exactly does that mean and is it desired for 100-200 BR?

thanks for your input, tiny

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBecigneul

04-18-2008, 10:01 AM

Vic Swindelhurst did the same thing, and although you will see "Tucker Conversion", some were done by Vic and were of equal or higher quality. The Tucker Conversion is a small cylinder attached to the scope exactly opposite to the center between the elevation and windage knobs on the scope. In that cylinder is a coil spring. It opposes the action of the knobs. It was done to eliminated the one or two leaf springs that Leupold had inside the scope to oppose the action of the knobs. The conversion was well thought out and does work very well. This conversion does not void your Leupold guarantee.
I sent you a picture. Check your e-mail and yes, it is desired for 100-200-300BR
 
It's not that it's being overcomplicated.
It's just more complicated than the average novice or head in the sand ignorant person might assume.

Here are some criteria that distinguish such “Unconscious Incompetence”:

• The person is not aware of the existence or relevance of the skill area.
• The person is not aware that they have a particular deficiency in the area concerned.
• The person might deny the relevance or usefulness of the new skill.
• No development or learning of the skill can occur because the person lacks awareness of their inability.

Next stage is where individuals move toward “Conscious Inccompetence” and admit to themselves there is more to learn and begin to see the value of said learning.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom