you’ll know how much room you have between your eyebrow and the cutting edge of the eye bell. The tests were “blind” tests. The
There were lots of scopes — 10 in all!
ment and they tended to be more like “students” of the optics. None of my testers expressed any interest in some of the more sophisticated measurements of optical pieces. There were no concerns about chromatic aberrations, such as colored halos and borders, no reference to pincushion distortion (lines in the target bowing in), or barrel distortion (lines in the target bowing out). Based on these “requirements-
gathering” interviews, I prepared scor- ing sheets for the scopes that refl ected the shooters’ stated interests: No. 1, clarity of image; No. 2, clarity of image in low light conditions; No. 3, visibility of the reticle in low light conditions; and No. 4, ease of adjustment. I, personally, did random repeatability tests on all the scopes and found some variance among them, but nothing to be overly concerned about. (My test was, after a
“zero” group of three shots: 6 inches up, 6 right, 6 down, 6 left.) Rather than have each tester run through this process and incur the associated time and expense, I told them of my experience and offered them the opportunity to test any of the scopes for repeatability if they wanted personal proof. A couple of them took me up on the offer, but I think it was more to take advantage of the oppor- tunity to shoot the Kimber Model 84M in .22-250 and the Ruger No. 1 in .257 Roberts than to really test the mechan- ics! (Their results verifi ed my fi ndings, by the way.) I also put all the scopes in my
freezer for three hours and then took them outside, into 68 degree weather, to check for fogging. After they had warmed up to ambient temperature, I took them from the 68 degree weather back to the freezer for an hour for a re- check. They all performed beautifully. Each scope was submerged in a sink full of cool water for 15 minutes and then checked for any leakage. None was detected. Since most of the scopes were on loan to me, I could not bring myself to conduct drop tests on them. All scopes were at fi rst temporar-
This form was used by testers to evaluate each scope.
Page 66 July — September 2011
ily mounted in a jig that I made to hold them securely. The jig held two scopes at a time, and could be moved easily left to right, front to back, on the shooting table to give each tester a chance to arrange them for the most comfortable position and the optimum eye relief. I measured the eye relief once the tester declared he or she had the desired sight picture. All scopes offered a good 3 to 3 ¼-inch relief, so in case you’re tempted to mount one of these beauties on your .416 Rigby,
testers were not told what brand of scopes they were looking through, and they were not told the MSRP of the scopes. (The prices ranged from $230 to $1,300.) Each person was allowed to take as much time as he or she wished to create the “grade” for each scope. The grading sheet was fi lled out “real time” at the time of the observation with a particular scope, not after all 10 scopes had been used. Observations were taken in full daylight and then again around dusk. A total of 570 observations were made: 10 scopes, times 3 (day, dusk, and “readability”) times 19 testers, equals 570. Range to the targets was 100 yards, as verifi ed by a Bushnell Scout rangefinder. The targets used were Birchwood/Casey “Shoot•
N• See.” The
primary shooting platforms were a Kim- ber Model 84M Varmint in .22-250 and a Ruger No. 1 in .257 Roberts. During the tests, however, a total of fi ve different rifl es was used in an attempt to reduce the time spent mounting and sighting- in scopes. As noted earlier, all scopes were also “static” tested from a station- ary jig to allow maximum fl exibility in attaining a comfortable sight picture. I didn’t want the fi t of the fi rearm or the mounts and rings to infl uence the test of the optics. For this, the nonfi ring aspect of the test, a metal building, with lots of vertical and horizontal seams, was used as a “target.” I then did a clarity-of- image-in-low-light-condition test at twi- light with three identical “eye charts” at 50 yards. I positioned one of the eye charts so viewers looked toward the sun, one 90 degrees away, and the other 180 degrees away, and put all scopes at the same (6x) power. I asked the testers to look for sharp resolution and report to me at what angle this sharpness was lost. Differences began to emerge at the end of this series of tests. Some of the scopes’ coatings, grindings, and other light gathering capabilities showed up. HERE IS THE STABLE OF RIFLESCOPES INCLUDED IN THE TEST: Bushnell Elite 4200 6-24x40 Cabela’s Alaskan 6-20x40 Cabela’s Alaskan 4-12x40 Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20x40 Swarovski Z3 4-12x50
Simmons Whitetail Classic 6-18x42
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212