Guys and Gals,

 

As a service to the shooting fraternity, the following are my findings after extensive scope testing from several years ago.  As a disclaimer up front, I have no vested interest in any scope manufacturer nor any ax to grind.  Like Joe Friday of Dragnet fame used to state, “Just the facts Mam.”, I’m attempting to relate the facts as I found them after hundreds of hours of testing so you can make a better decision concerning the purchase of a quality (good glass and robust, repeatable tracking) scope for silhouette.

 

First the setup.  After a number of years of frustration with Leupold tracking problems (new style 24X and 36X BR’s), both catastrophic breakdown during matches and lack of consistent tracking, this shooter embarked on an extensive testing regime.

 

The test rifle for assessing a scope’s tracking ability was an Anschutz 2002 compressed air rifle.  This rifle will shoot 5-shot, round, one-hole groups all day at 60 feet indoors.  An indoor, 60-foot range was used as well as a sturdy benchrest setup.  RWS R10 Match pellets were used for all testing and the Anschutz barrel was regularly cleaned to assure that rifle accuracy was at top form during all testing.  All scopes were setup so that they were in the middle of elevation and windage for the first shot in the testing for tracking repeatability.  The scopes were also tested at extremes of windage and elevation and the tracking results recorded.

 

The results were very insightful.  At the extremes of elevation and windage, tracking for all but the Sightron scope deteriorated dramatically.  No scope should be used that is less than one complete revolution from the top of elevation for rams.  At that range, repeatable tacking is almost none existent in some scopes.  The same holds true for windage.  A scope MUST be setup so that the windage and elevation are centered somewhere between pigs and turkeys for all silhouette disciplines.

 

The test procedure was to shoot with the elevation and windage in the middle of travel for 5-shots to create a baseline.  Next, the elevation was adjusted up 2 MOA and another shot was fired.  This was repeated so that there was a total of 10 MOA of elevation added to the base line or 5 shots every 2 MOA of upward adjustment.  The scope was then adjusted for 2 MOA of right windage, a shot fired and then the elevation was decreased 2 MOA and a shot fired.  This was repeated for a total of 10 MOA downward or 5 shots.  This total process was repeated again and should have produced an up, then right, then down, then right, then up pattern that looks like what is called a “square” wave.  This procedure was repeated at the extremes of elevation and windage for all scopes tested.  Well over 5,000 rounds were fired during the several months of testing.

 

The following scopes were tested:

 

Leupold 24X BR new style – 3 scopes

Leupold 36X BR new style – 2 scopes

Leupold 24X D-series – 2 scopes

Leupold 6.5-20 – 2 scopes

Sightron – 24X – 1 scope

Weaver 10X original USA made MicroTrack – 1 scope

Weaver 36X new Japanese MicroTrack – 1 scope

BSA Chinese – don’t remember model - $100 scope – 1 scope

B&L 4200 – 6 x 24 – 2 scopes

 

The best tracking scope was the Sightron.  It produced a pattern that looked like it had by done on graph paper.  It was truly amazing.  I don’t know how long the Sightron will keep its tracking repeatability, but it blew away all of the other scopes’ in tracking ability.  The downside is that it has the poorest quality glass.

 

The poorest tracking scopes were the Leupold new style BR 24X and 36X, not the D-series.  The $100 Chinese BSA tracked better than these Leupolds.  After much research I found out that Leupold had been installing poor quality parts in their tracking systems for a few years and knew it was a problem but shipped them none the less.  The Leupold D-series tracked about the same as the original Weaver MicroTrack and B&L scopes, or in the second best tracking group.  The best glass was in the B&L 4200 scope.  Several of us looked through the scopes to assess glass quality so that call is not just my own.  The Leupolds were just behind the B & L scopes in glass quality.

 

Some of the Leupolds, 24X and 36X BR new style shot shotgun patters even though they had just been returned by Leupold for warranty work.  The new Weaver MicroTracks are MicroTracks in name only.  The Weaver tracking system is made in Japan by the same company that makes most of the scopes for the US market.  I talked to the gentleman that developed the original MicroTrack.  He verified that the new Weaver MicroTracks were a cheap knockoff that had nothing in common with his original design.  The original T10 MicroTrack tracked better than the new Weaver MicroTrack.  But, the old T10 has poor quality glass and is very heavy, not a good choice for silhouette given the other alternatives that did not exist when the original MicroTrack was first sold in this country.

 

There you have it, uncensored.  I’m sure a few manufacturers will be less than pleased, but nothing like the displeasure of some of their customers.  There is nothing worse than spending thousands of dollars doing to a big match like Canadian or US Nationals only to have your scope stop tracking.  If you can’t purchase or borrow a scope you might as well pack your bags and head home when that happens.  I have seen it happen on numerous occasions.

 

Post Mortem:

 

If I were to seriously look at purchasing a top quality scope for silhouette at this time, I’d look at the Zeiss Conquest series.  They have a reputed excellent tracking system (I have not tested it yet, but the mechanics look to be of an excellent design) and incredible glass (I have looked through several and compared them to Leupolds.)

 

All the best,

 

Dan Theodore