This is such a simple test to perform but it seems that so few do it. Not only can you figure out if your optic needs a correction in the form of a mathematical constant that is applied to elevation changes, but you'll know if the tracking is repeatable. I wonder if it's not a popular test because people don't want to know that their optic isn't "perfect".
So who here does "box" or "tall target" tests on their optics?
- Thread starter MCMXI
- Start date
- Status
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,963
Box, tall target, or at LEAST dialing down then holding up and dialing up and holding down to confirm proportionate tracking with the reticle.
I use my airgun to box test 1" scope, havent had a set of 30mm rings to do those till recently.
Those guys i have a mount for my vice and just run it thru the test to see if it returns to zero. I should set up a grid or something to check more accurately.
Those guys i have a mount for my vice and just run it thru the test to see if it returns to zero. I should set up a grid or something to check more accurately.
mcb
Member
I did it a month or two ago with the last scope I bought, a Athlon Talos BTR 4-14x44 for my 10/22
This was a 2.2 mil box at 50 yards. Impacts should have been at 3.96 inches up/down/left/right. The scope did it fairly well for the price.
This was a 2.2 mil box at 50 yards. Impacts should have been at 3.96 inches up/down/left/right. The scope did it fairly well for the price.
That’s what I did early on since I didn’t have the setup for a tall test. Then did a bunch of windage/elevation dialing, going back to zero and checking it since I didn’t have a suitable target for a box test.
Since then I have gotten the proper targets
lightman
Member
I do. I want to know if they track well or not and if not, what increments they do move in. Most of my scopes would go back to the maker if they don't track correctly.
ECVMatt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,870
I use a maximum point blank range for all of my hunting rifles so I don't see much value in this test for me. I like to zero my rifle using my MPBR calculations and then shoot it until I am comfortable that I am making hits within the MPBR. After that I am more concerned with durability and loss of zero. I know that others use their scopes differently.
I used to do it fairly regularly, changes in box/magnification test are a good way to predict when internals are loosening up and a scope is at the end of its life, ie. on its way out. Nowadays I only once in a few years or just before a particular rifle is going on a major hunting trip.
I designed an 8 milrad x 11 milrad 100 yard tall/box test target but need to find a place to print it out. It's on an E sheet that's 44" x 34". I can print it on my home printer but end up with 24 sheets of 8.5"x11" to cut and tape together which is no fun. Basically a target to replace this.
HAH, I used to print targets on our big(ish) drafting printer at work, that woulda been perfect for that.
illinoisburt
Member
I do not bother with box testing. Most all my rifle shooting, and definitely hunting, is under 400 yards. I want a solid scope that holds zero. Sighted in 2 inches high at 100 and that's it. After initial sighting in the caps are very likely not coming off again while on that rifle. I have scopes that have held perfectly zeroed for 30 years.
BigBL87
Member
This pretty much encapsulates my mindset as well. I haven't shot at distances yet where I really need to dial, so I generally just get the rifle zeroed and call it good.
illinoisburt said:
I have "set and forget" hunting scopes too and box tests don't make any sense for those. I have six Zeiss scopes with various RZ reticles that get zeroed at 200 yards and it's a simple case of running load data in the Zeiss app to figure out what magnification is required for the stadia to be accurate out to 600 yards for the RZ600 or 800 yards for the RZ800.
Exactly. That's what scopes should be all about, and some are. When there's little doubt about a scope holding zero and working as it should, box and other functionality testing is meaningless.
Last edited:
an example of my homemade target for box tests.
without getting into a discussion of various brands, this demonstrates that even the most expensive scopes can be off a couple percent. If you dial up 10.0 mils to get to 900 yards with your 308win and 168g smk, but your scope actually goes up 10.2 mils, that will put you off a 10" plate, assuming you've done everything else perfectly. one name brand above that gets a LOT of love from old people here and many here would just assume is perfect, out of 9 scopes tested had one that measured 93.5% and one that measured 90%!! that would put you almost 3 feet off that 10" plate.
and the sad thing is, the kind of people who buy that scope are the same ones who typically put their gear on a pedestal and blame themselves for crappy results.
maybe you're only talking about short range hunting scopes and if so, fine. but if you want to hit targets at distance, you should probably do a tall target test. here is last year's scope tracking tests: (you may need to log in so if you can't see the image, then follow this link https://www.snipershide.com/precision-rifle/scope-tracking-test-results-2020/)
without getting into a discussion of various brands, this demonstrates that even the most expensive scopes can be off a couple percent. If you dial up 10.0 mils to get to 900 yards with your 308win and 168g smk, but your scope actually goes up 10.2 mils, that will put you off a 10" plate, assuming you've done everything else perfectly. one name brand above that gets a LOT of love from old people here and many here would just assume is perfect, out of 9 scopes tested had one that measured 93.5% and one that measured 90%!! that would put you almost 3 feet off that 10" plate.
and the sad thing is, the kind of people who buy that scope are the same ones who typically put their gear on a pedestal and blame themselves for crappy results.
JFrank
Member
I always appreciate someone taking their time and resources to test then post results so my thanks to all.
One thing about these tests are the platform used may not be as accurate as the scope leaving a question to the validity.
One thing about these tests are the platform used may not be as accurate as the scope leaving a question to the validity.
that is true. i believe the test i referenced was done without a rifle and without shooting. just scopes in a fixture. however, since most people have no way to hold a scope still while dialing, shooting is an alternative, but you've got to have a fair amount of confidence in your ability and your rifle's accuracy, and also recognize the inherent error and lack of precision.
many ballistic calculators have a fudge factor for this. in shooter, it's "Elevation Correction Factor". If you measure your scope in a fixture and determine it's off 1%, since most manufacturers will just tell you you're full of it or that it's in spec and won't fix it, you can put .99 or 1.01 in as the correction factor, and it adjusts your dope for you. to your point, it would be extremely challenging to determine a scope was 99.4 by shooting. you pretty much need the fixture. and you also need to be exactly the right distance. if you're shooting at 100 yards but are actually 99.4 yards... well...
many ballistic calculators have a fudge factor for this. in shooter, it's "Elevation Correction Factor". If you measure your scope in a fixture and determine it's off 1%, since most manufacturers will just tell you you're full of it or that it's in spec and won't fix it, you can put .99 or 1.01 in as the correction factor, and it adjusts your dope for you. to your point, it would be extremely challenging to determine a scope was 99.4 by shooting. you pretty much need the fixture. and you also need to be exactly the right distance. if you're shooting at 100 yards but are actually 99.4 yards... well...
@taliv, I like your test target. I'm going to see if FedEx has a printer than can handle my target size. I plan on modifying it slightly but it's close to what I want.
@taliv, the problem with tests like these though are comments from users like this.
"Hat tip to Kahles...not the biggest sample, but the only one with significant representation to post straight 100s..."
Seriously? That was their take away from this test. Confirmation bias for $100 Alex!
An interesting addendum to this test would be to do an "end of life" follow up. I need to read through the test procedure, but how do scopes change as they get used a lot? I'd rather a scope that's 99.8% from the first click to the millionth click as opposed to one that starts out at 100% but ends up at 97% after a few thousand clicks.
@taliv, the problem with tests like these though are comments from users like this.
"Hat tip to Kahles...not the biggest sample, but the only one with significant representation to post straight 100s..."
Seriously? That was their take away from this test. Confirmation bias for $100 Alex!
An interesting addendum to this test would be to do an "end of life" follow up. I need to read through the test procedure, but how do scopes change as they get used a lot? I'd rather a scope that's 99.8% from the first click to the millionth click as opposed to one that starts out at 100% but ends up at 97% after a few thousand clicks.
Box and functionality testing, not necessarily tall target if you're shooting at extended distances and don't want to adjust the scope incrementally to stay on paper. Quality scopes are very solid as far as adjustment repeatability and accuracy are concerned, not to mention their ability to hold zero. My personal record was with a vintage M.S.W. (the guys next door from Zeiss in Wetzlar) that had been sitting on a Sako for four decades unshot, moved three times and banged around quite a bit, was within half an inch of X right off the bat when I took it to the range.
I do on all my scopes. I sent one in to Leupold for target turrets, and found out they messed up big time doing this test! It had 15 moa turrets, with a 12 moa erector system inside, or something like that. It took them awhile to find parts to get it right, but it was nice when I got it back the second time.
9x56MS
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2021
- Messages
- 887
My scope testing is as follows. Bored ight to get on paper box test at low power setting, box test at high power setting. Back to low power setting, set zero. Back to high power setting verify zero. Have found some issues with a very few scopes shifting zero from low to high power. Sent them back. I must be living right as I have never had a scope fail and since I am a 35 caliber loony I consider myself lucky. I have Leopold, Bushnell, Vortex, Cabelas and Taco scopes. All work fine for the rifles and shotguns I have them mounted on.
BCR#1
member
I don't see the need in doing that as I shoot a fixed distance with both of my CZ's, both .22's. To conduct the test correctly, don't you need the rifle to be mounted in a one pc rest where there is zero movement?
Bill
Bill
Zerodefect
member
Bingo. I just don't want to know
My own error involved in this test exceeds the scopes mechanical errors. And sadly, my scopes are all decent quality. So...
My own error involved in this test exceeds the scopes mechanical errors. And sadly, my scopes are all decent quality. So...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
