NX8 or mark 5

[PredatorSlayer]

I can send you the PDF if you want.

Me too

 

[motofrog]

I can send you the PDF if you want.

I'd like the pdf too if you're sharing. It looks like a very good layout!

 

[Mach 1]

I'll start by saying I'm not a big Leupold fan. However, after the Mk5 came out and initial experiences suggested it was a solid scope, I decided to try one out. I bought mine in early summer and took it out beyond 1,000 yards a bunch of times. I only have about 200 - 300 rounds on a relatively light 7 rem mag, but it has worked great so far.

This afternoon I had a few minutes of free time so I ran a true tracking test. My particular scope tracked 100% to 55 MOA over and over. So it's obviously a small sample, but I'm not too concerned about the Mk5 tracking.
View attachment 166158
View attachment 166157

I don't see how this test helps much. With out having a scope that is froze and the leupold mounted together how do you know if there is any point of impact shifts?? My complaint with leupold isn't the tracking. It's that the things never seemed to hold. I have yet to have a leupold not shift under recoil. If you want a mechanically rock solid scope you need to buy a khales.

 

[Tangent]

I don't see how this test helps much. With out having a scope that is froze and the leupold mounted together how do you know if there is any point of impact shifts?? My complaint with leupold isn't the tracking. It's that the things never seemed to hold. I have yet to have a leupold not shift under recoil. If you want a mechanically rock solid scope you need to buy a khales.

Tall target testing is a standard way to test scope tracking and return to zero. Static tall target testing is superior to live fire testing for obvious reasons. Everyone that shoots long range should be periodically testing their scope to ensure it's tracking. If you have a better way to test mechanics, I'd love to hear it. But saying "buy Brand X" is a silly response, all manufactures put out a bad scopes - some more frequently than others.

Like I said, I only have 200 - 300 rounds on the scope (so not a lot). But they were from a relatively lightweight 7mag. So once more, it's a small sample size but tracking on my scope was 100%, not 98%, not 103%, but dead nuts 100% repeatedly to 55 MOA.

 

[Mach 1]

Tall target testing is a standard way to test scope tracking and return to zero. Static tall target testing is superior to live fire testing for obvious reasons. Everyone that shoots long range should be periodically testing their scope to ensure it's tracking. If you have a better way to test mechanics, I'd love to hear it. But saying "buy Brand X" is a silly response, all manufactures put out a bad scopes - some more frequently than others.

Like I said, I only have 200 - 300 rounds on the scope (so not a lot). But they were from a relatively lightweight 7mag. So once more, it's a small sample size but tracking on my scope was 100%, not 98%, not 103%, but dead nuts 100% repeatedly to 55 MOA.

I didn't say not to test that way. It just doesn't make any sense to me to test that way but not check poi shifts. Rifle scopes are not spotters. If the scope doesn't hold rock solid under recoil what good is it testing just the tracking. I guess I don't know how you really put a scope through it's paces without haveing a double scope checker and a frozen scope for comparison. You should go over to accurate shooter and read on their scope testing threads.

Also, khales is the gold standard in mechanical reliability. That's not even really debatable. I'm not saying they never put out a lemon but if you read a lot of scope checking and testing threads it's a common consensus that khales it the gold standard.

 

[sp6x6]

There is some place that was doing all kind of testing to scopes with equipment and shock,light gathering zoom,etc.Most scopes failed miserabley.All known,USO performed best of many.Dont recall on Khales but very intersting testing.On vidieo

 

[PredatorSlayer]

khales is the gold standard in mechanical reliability. That's not even really debatable.

It is debatable - I would say Tangent Theta is the gold standard in mechanical reliability. Khales isnt even in the same ballpark at TT.

 

[Mach 1]

It is debatable - I would say Tangent Theta is the gold standard in mechanical reliability. Khales isnt even in the same ballpark at TT.

you should do some reading if you think that. Again I will refer you to the threads on accurate shooter. Well know guys over there doing good work on scope checkers

 

[PredatorSlayer]

you should do some reading if you think that. Again I will refer you to the threads on accurate shooter. Well know guys over there doing good work on scope checkers

And they are saying TT's have tracking error?! You are nuts bro...

 

[Mach 1]

And they are saying TT's have tracking error?! You are nuts bro...

I never said anything like that.....bro

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I never said anything like that.....bro

Spend some time in google doing some research and then get back to me - Tangent Theta is the best mechanically. Its not even debatable.

 

[Tangent]

I didn't say not to test that way. It just doesn't make any sense to me to test that way but not check poi shifts. Rifle scopes are not spotters. If the scope doesn't hold rock solid under recoil what good is it testing just the tracking. I guess I don't know how you really put a scope through it's paces without haveing a double scope checker and a frozen scope for comparison. You should go over to accurate shooter and read on their scope testing threads.

Also, khales is the gold standard in mechanical reliability. That's not even really debatable. I'm not saying they never put out a lemon but if you read a lot of scope checking and testing threads it's a common consensus that khales it the gold standard.

I ran that scope down to 55 MOA 8 or 10 times stopping at 5 to 10 MOA intervals. So I guess there's a chance that I unknowingly & miraculously bumped the scope and the bump directly & exactly negated the scope's tracking error every time I touched the scope to falsely show that the scope tracked 100%, haha.

POI/POA was 'checked' over the 200 - 300 rounds that were dialed to distances exceeding 1,000 yards. It doesn't hurt my feelings if you don't want to believe me or don't want to buy a Mk5. Based on my to-date real world experience, I'm not worried about my Mk5.

 

[Mach 1]

I ran that scope down to 55 MOA 8 or 10 times stopping at 5 to 10 MOA intervals. So I guess there's a chance that I unknowingly & miraculously bumped the scope and the bump directly & exactly negated the scope's tracking error every time I touched the scope to falsely show that the scope tracked 100%, haha.

POI/POA was 'checked' over the 200 - 300 rounds that were dialed to distances exceeding 1,000 yards. It doesn't hurt my feelings if you don't want to believe me or don't want to buy a Mk5. Based on my to-date real world experience, I'm not worried about my Mk5.

Your test is fine for you I guess. Just inadequate for me. I haven't tested a mark 5. I hope they are
A vast improvement over what leupold used to put out.

 

[Mach 1]

Spend some time in google doing some research and then get back to me - Tangent Theta is the best mechanically. Its not even debatable.

Funny thing, in the 2019 ibs 600 and 1000 yard nationals not one of those scopes were used. Also I have not heard of anybody using them in prs or f class or any elr meet.

Good thing I suppose, more of them for you