Any Steiner T5Xi scopes in canada yet?

kombayotch said:
Measure it on the scope? You don't need to measure it on the scope. The reticle is in mils. 1 mil is 10cm at 100 meters. 5 mils is 50cm and 10 mils is 100 cm. You put up a target at 100 meter, put a dot at the top as a zero, put the next one 50cm below it, and the next one 50cm below the second dot. This is very basic, there is nothing to confirm with Steiner.

The target is straight and has been confirmed straigh with a plumb bob.
Click to expand...

Your not getting what I'm saying but thats ok.

They likly screwed up the design if all 3 scopes are out an unknown amount.
 
The offset values are different in each of the 3 samples he was sent. It is likely a quality problem in manufacturing rather than a design problem. The components aren't consistent and their assembly methods are poor if the reticles are not aligned properly.

The problem is they are not admitting it and they are not fixing it.
 
Well if you don't even own one of their scopes then there is no problem right? No point getting all excited about it...

I'm sure the few people that have received the not centered reticle with be taken care of and I guess the rest will have to live with the 4% error. Seems like everyone thought their tracking was fine tell killswitch started to run some tests. It's a new scope line that is fairly inexpensive, there will be some growing pains.
 
mrblue357 said:
Well if you don't even own one of their scopes then there is no problem right? No point getting all excited about it...

I'm sure the few people that have received the not centered reticle with be taken care of and I guess the rest will have to live with the 4% error. Seems like everyone thought their tracking was fine tell killswitch started to run some tests. It's a new scope line that is fairly inexpensive, there will be some growing pains.
Click to expand...

$2650.00 to $2700.00 for a scope. Inexpensive? Which part? Inexpensive for the end user or the manufacturer?
 
Last edited:
kombayotch said:
The offset values are different in each of the 3 samples he was sent. It is likely a quality problem in manufacturing rather than a design problem. The components aren't consistent and their assembly methods are poor if the reticles are not aligned properly.

The problem is they are not admitting it and they are not fixing it.
Click to expand...

That's not good news.

Thankfully I didn't order one a few months back when I was looking into it.
 
sask378 said:
$2650.00 to $2700.00 for a scope. Inexpensive? Which part? Inexpensive for the end user or the manufacturer?
Click to expand...

That's cause we get bent over backwards up here in canada, look there is not even a $50 difference in price here and down there it's a $200 difference between the two models. Plus there is good sales always going on down there so yeah it's fairly inexpensive for the features you get.
 
K0na_stinky said:
Maybe they are sitting back and laughing at him because hes doing a piss poor test?

I set up my own test rig but I took the time to email the company's who's scope I was testing.

Different company's calibrate their scopes differently, there is no standard. Some measure to the objective and some to where the retical is in the scope. Maybe some are to the end of the barrel? Who knows? He didn't adjust the parallax between each adjustment. And the target board doesn't appear to be curved.

Hes out roughly 0.2 mil at 5mil in his one video. That's roughly a 4% error. Now would all his testing errors add up to make this worse or better? I don't know. But I would say 4% error is not to bad for a back yard test.
Click to expand...

According to the test, that particular scope is off 0.2 mil, that is 2% error. 2% error @1000y is 7.2 inches. Now I can't speak for all those exceptional marksman on this forum, but as for me, the target I use at 1000y is the size of a average human silhouette. So let assumed that I made all the correct calls, aiming at the center mass, I would still make contact. If the one I've bought has that margin of errors, I can live with that. If you are a consistent moa shooters and assuming you hit on every first shot at long distances, then this might not be right scope for you.
 
mightyhunter said:
According to the test, that particular scope is off 0.2 mil, that is 2% error. 2% error @1000y is 7.2 inches. Now I can't speak for all those exceptional marksman on this forum, but as for me, the target I use at 1000y is the size of a average human silhouette. So let assumed that I made all the correct calls, aiming at the center mass, I would still make contact. If the one I've bought has that margin of errors, I can live with that. If you are a consistent moa shooters and assuming you hit on every first shot at long distances, then this might not be right scope for you.
Click to expand...

If an error is repeatable and known you can compensate in your ballistic calc and your off to the races.
 
I would love to see anyone buying say a tape measure which is 2% off and "just remember to compensate for it". Calipers which are "well slightly off, but that's ok". GPS at 2% off is like 800km of error, just compensate that is all.

Maybe it is how many people see things, but if I buy a $2500 scope which only purpose is to precisely measure angles, I expect it to be better than that. I also expect a company which positions itself and the product at a premium level, to be able to correct a faulty product in one try. Not 3 in a row performing worse than $150 old Simmons.
 
That doesn't change the fact that some people got scope that didn't track or that some people got scopes with reticles that are offset like this one:

DSC_0480_zpsiogzkyyq.jpg


How does something like that even leave the factory? It speaks to the QC level.

These are issues you expect from products that are made in China, not form optics that cost thousands.
 
Everyone of the Bushnell Elites that he tested tracked perfectly. The DMR, ERS and XRS all tracked perfectly. All are under $2500. As did the first generation Razor, and Leupold. All under $2500.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom