Benchrest Scopes

[John W...ski]

I would like some advice from anyone who actually shoots benchrest.

I have been participating in 200 and 300 yard benchrest type matches at local clubs. My two rifles are both heavy varmint rifles with T-36 scopes, one a 6 mm PPC the other a .20 Vartarg. I have been very happy with my choice of scope at 200 yards but find them lacking at 300 under certain conditions. I am thinking of upgrading to a March scope, my preference is the straight 50X scope but the 35-60X variable is not out of the question.

Anyone have one or have used one?

Any recommendations?

Thanks,

John

 

[JerrySharrett]

I would like some advice from anyone who actually shoots benchrest.

I have been participating in 200 and 300 yard benchrest type matches at local clubs. My two rifles are both heavy varmint rifles with T-36 scopes, one a 6 mm PPC the other a .20 Vartarg. I have been very happy with my choice of scope at 200 yards but find them lacking at 300 under certain conditions. I am thinking of upgrading to a March scope, my preference is the straight 50X scope but the 35-60X variable is not out of the question.

Anyone have one or have used one?

Any recommendations?

Thanks,

John

First off, ANY rifle scope that has internal adjustments CAN and might screw up as to not hold adjustment and possibly not repeat to a known setting. There have been modifications made by later parties that helped. There are now external modifications, by Gene Buckys and others, that do help immensely.

When the March came along it was the end all to stop this pesky problem. Now? The March scopes go back for fixes.

To help answer your original query, buy the scope best to meet your optical needs and your pocket book.

.

 

[Andy Cross]

As an optical engineer

First off, ANY rifle scope that has internal adjustments CAN and might screw up as to not hold adjustment and possibly not repeat to a known setting. There have been modifications made by later parties that helped. There are now external modifications, by Gene Buckys and others, that do help immensely.

When the March came along it was the end all to stop this pesky problem. Now? The March scopes go back for fixes.

To help answer your original query, buy the scope best to meet your optical needs and your pocket book.

.

As an optical engineer who frequently sees and speaks with Stuart Elliot from BRT who is the importer of march scopes in Oz I can safely say. The greater majority of March scopes sent back to Japan for fixes if in fact anything wrong was found was induced by the shooter swinging on mounts and rings with torque wrenches and allan keys. The same old story when I was in the optics lab. Take those tools out of the hands of the users and this calming raft would waft over the situation. We often performed the installation of many optical systems for free to alleviate the problem. Was worth it in the long run.
Andy.

 

[JerrySharrett]

As an optical engineer who frequently sees and speaks with Stuart Elliot from BRT who is the importer of march scopes in Oz I can safely say. The greater majority of March scopes sent back to Japan for fixes if in fact anything wrong was found was induced by the shooter swinging on mounts and rings with torque wrenches and allan keys. The same old story when I was in the optics lab. Take those tools out of the hands of the users and this calming raft would waft over the situation. We often performed the installation of many optical systems for free to alleviate the problem. Was worth it in the long run.
Andy.

Andy, the scope error problems isn't optical its mechanical, internal mechanisms that are designed and built as near perfection as can be but still imperfect non the less.

In reality much of the shooters perceived errors is just that, perceived. I've had Allen Tucker, when he was with Leupold, tell me many times that the great majority of scopes sent back for repair had nothing wrong with them. But the sighting mechanisms of our super accurate rifles DO sometimes have faults, in all brands!!


.

 

[Mike Bryant]

Andy, the scope error problems isn't optical its mechanical, internal mechanisms that are designed and built as near perfection as can be but still imperfect non the less.

In reality much of the shooters perceived errors is just that, perceived. I've had Allen Tucker, when he was with Leupold, tell me many times that the great majority of scopes sent back for repair had nothing wrong with them. But the sighting mechanisms of our super accurate rifles DO sometimes have faults, in all brands!!


.

A friend of mine with a shooting tunnel was telling me that he had a scope that was losing shots horizontally. He turned the scope 90 degrees and began losing shots vertically. Sent it back to the manufacturer. They found it did have a problem, fixed it and sent it back. Do you remember the old Premier conversion on the Leupold 36X scope that moved the parallax adjustment to a ring behind the objective bell? If you tightened the front ring down too tight, the scope wouldn't focus. Loosen the ring off a tad and it would work fine. All internal adjustment scopes are mechanical in their adjustments. Anything mechanical can wear and break down eventually no matter who makes the scope or how it's made. The most perplexing problem for benchrest shooters is when we've been using one of these scopes that does have mechanical problems. If you switch scopes and the problem goes away that pretty well indicates a scope problem. Lose a shot at a benchrest match more than likely it is a flag reading problem most of the time. Lots of times the scope gets the blame and it's off to the manufacturer.

 

[Chism G]

It has been my experience that many times, a scope problem can be indistinguishable from the many variables that cause errant shots on the target. I would not be hesitant to send a scope back to the manufacturer, if I suspect that it is the weak link.




Glenn

 

[Andy Cross]

That's what I meant

Andy, the scope error problems isn't optical its mechanical, internal mechanisms that are designed and built as near perfection as can be but still imperfect non the less.

In reality much of the shooters perceived errors is just that, perceived. I've had Allen Tucker, when he was with Leupold, tell me many times that the great majority of scopes sent back for repair had nothing wrong with them. But the sighting mechanisms of our super accurate rifles DO sometimes have faults, in all brands!!


.

That's what I meant. Torquing on the tube, rings etc induces a mechanical issue that looks like an optical one. It can disrupt the alignment of the optics and the internal mechanical adjustments. Take the scope out of the rings and send it back, often it will stress relieve and test within tolerance. Then there is the issue of the shooters visual acuity. That's another big issue. The later is one of the reasons you here people say this scope is much clearer than this one. When in fact they will both test with the same specs.

 

[jackie schmidt]

Most of the problems with a scope not holding absolute Point of Impact can be traced to one thing, the erector tube shifting ever so slightly inside the scope.

This can be traced to a loose gimble joint, a loose turret, or a loose lens inside the erector tube.

I have had a lot of scopes apart. Sooner or later, the ALL will suffer from erector tube problems.

A few years back, a very prominant shooter told me he put new scopes on his Benchrest Rifles at the start of every season.

That is probably good advice.

 

[Andy Cross]

When I've seen scopes

Most of the problems with a scope not holding absolute Point of Impact can be traced to one thing, the erector tube shifting ever so slightly inside the scope.

This can be traced to a loose gimble joint, a loose turret, or a loose lens inside the erector tube.

I have had a lot of scopes apart. Sooner or later, the ALL will suffer from erector tube problems.

A few years back, a very prominant shooter told me he put new scopes on his Benchrest Rifles at the start of every season.

That is probably good advice.

When I've seen scopes that were generating point of impact shifts the shooter was usually unaware it was. The scope came into the lab for something else like a clean or resurface a scratch on a lens. It was only because of the sensitive test equipment that it was detected. If we BR shooters were shooting in a vacuum then we might be able to detect small POI shifts reliably. In reality we would need to be able to shoot aggs into the very low 1's or high zeros before most of us could detect anything was wrong unless the scope had the real wobbles. But in spite of that the first thing a shooter blames is the scope. A new scope on a rifle for each
season ! The dealer must have been rubbing his hands together when ever he saw him coming.

 

[BlackwellADB]

First, to answer your original question, a 50X is fine but only has one power. There is no 35-60 but there is a 36-55 which has a movable eyepiece to change magnification without moving point of impact. Some shooters don't like this because it brings the eyepiece much closer to your face & some get hit with it. There is also a 10-60 which has a ring adjustment for distance and stays in it's original shape. I also find this one the brightest of the three. I have all 3 of these and would recommend you look at the 10-60 the hardest, I think it will do exactly what you need and give you no problems. As to the point of impact shift, shooters blame the scope when a shot goes out. If they would send their wind flags back for "point of impact testing" they would probably cure more of the problem than sending the scope back. I too have heard Allan Tucker & Jim Kelbly often say there is no problem with the scopes returned unless it was dropped or hit on something, which the shooter won't admit since he wants it fixed free. Additionally, I would never buy a used scope. You don't know if it's been dropped, taken apart or damaged another way. They sell used for 80% + of what they cost new so buy new. Hope this helped.

 

[Greyfox]

John,
I shoot UBR matches in the central south. I have had/have March 50X, 36x55 and 10x60. I also have 5 NF Competition 2013 Model. Of all the above, I prefer the NF Competition. That would be my recommendation if it will make weight. My 2nd choice would be the 10x60 March. I frequently shoot two classes at UBR matches and it gives me an opportunity to compare scopes in actual side by side situations in match competition. While I certainly have no problem with any of the March scopes, I will say that the NF has superior glass. I do differ with Al in that I have never bought a high end scope new. All of my glass was purchased used and I have never had a problem. I only buy scopes that have lifetime warranties. The only scope I have ever needed to return was a 6.5x20 Luepold that had been boosted by Premier Reticle years ago. Luepold did the necessary repairs. It is certainly fine to buy new, but I have saved more than 25% on all the scopes I have purchased over buying new. Once it is on your rifle you will only see the difference in your wallet.

Rick

 

[Andy Cross]

Glass ??

While I certainly have no problem with any of the March scopes, I will say that the NF has superior glass.

Rick

Have you tested the glass used in various scopes to find out the differences in the formula used ? Me neither but I can say with certainty there are only three MAIN suppliers of optical quality glass in the world. All high end scope manufacturers use ED or extra low dispersion glass in their optical systems. So any additional contrast, acutance or resolving power you might think you see isn't due to better, for want of a more suitable word, glass.

 

[Jerry Halcomb]

Why

Have you tested the glass used in various scopes to find out the differences in the formula used ? Me neither but I can say with certainty there are only three MAIN suppliers of optical quality glass in the world. All high end scope manufacturers use ED or extra low dispersion glass in their optical systems. So any additional contrast, acutance or resolving power you might think you see isn't due to better, for want of a more suitable word, glass.

Mr.Cross
I really would like to hear why one scope looks clearer to one person over another? Say a NF vs March.
I have heard this many times, I don't know if I can see any difference.
Thanks
Jerry Halcomb

 

[Greyfox]

Have you tested the glass used in various scopes to find out the differences in the formula used ? Me neither but I can say with certainty there are only three MAIN suppliers of optical quality glass in the world. All high end scope manufacturers use ED or extra low dispersion glass in their optical systems. So any additional contrast, acutance or resolving power you might think you see isn't due to better, for want of a more suitable word, glass.

I suppose I was generalizing. My bad. Point is, NF is clearer and more distinct at distance. I don't think I get your point.

Rick

 

[alinwa]

Have you tested the glass used in various scopes to find out the differences in the formula used ? Me neither but I can say with certainty there are only three MAIN suppliers of optical quality glass in the world. All high end scope manufacturers use ED or extra low dispersion glass in their optical systems. So any additional contrast, acutance or resolving power you might think you see isn't due to better, for want of a more suitable word, glass.

Andy, is this also true of Schmidt and Bender? I've compared their glass to all the others except Valdada and it sure looks "different" to me...

 

[Andy Cross]

3 in one

I'll try to cover alinwa, greyfox and jerry in one response. Most high index extra low dispersion glass used in binoculars rifle scopes and various types of camera lenses is xenon fluorite glass. The more of that compound you add the higher the index without creating dispersion or a prismatic effect of color. But as with everything there is a limit and a sweet spot. Looking at the glass under any sort of illumination to try and differentiate one index from another is impossible unless you use a refractometer. The real difference will be in the multicoating formula used. Which causes a different color blooming on the lens elements. S&B use quite different coatings and wavelength thicknesses than NF which are different to March etc. Each manufacturer claim that their anti reflective coating is better. As far as I can tell they are all similar in performance until you get into the nanocarbon coatings. No scope manufacturer would go there. No reason and too expensive.

The tests we conducted many years ago about why one optical system looks clearer than another came down to the person more than anything. Young people with 20/20 visual acuity or better often found no difference between any optical products we had them look through. The older people who claimed that brand X was sharper than brand Y would often say the opposite a couple of days later. Some would say they are both no good the next day and so it went on. But once they had it in their head that X was the problem it wouldn't matter if you put a brand X label on brand Y it was still no good. So I pay little attention to these comments unless the tests are carried out under controlled conditions. Then there is setting up the scope for the individual. Most spend too long staring into the optics to determine where it's the sharpest etc. These are just some of the issues that make brand X better than brand Y. If I teamed up with some of the ophthalmologist's I know I could probably write a book on how to fix optical systems that don't need fixing. Perhaps I should but I don't think it would sell too well.
Hope this throws a little light on a fairly complex issue.

 

[Greyfox]

I'll try to cover alinwa, greyfox and jerry in one response. Most high index extra low dispersion glass used in binoculars rifle scopes and various types of camera lenses is xenon fluorite glass. The more of that compound you add the higher the index without creating dispersion or a prismatic effect of color. But as with everything there is a limit and a sweet spot. Looking at the glass under any sort of illumination to try and differentiate one index from another is impossible unless you use a refractometer. The real difference will be in the multicoating formula used. Which causes a different color blooming on the lens elements. S&B use quite different coatings and wavelength thicknesses than NF which are different to March etc. Each manufacturer claim that their anti reflective coating is better. As far as I can tell they are all similar in performance until you get into the nanocarbon coatings. No scope manufacturer would go there. No reason and too expensive.

The tests we conducted many years ago about why one optical system looks clearer than another came down to the person more than anything. Young people with 20/20 visual acuity or better often found no difference between any optical products we had them look through. The older people who claimed that brand X was sharper than brand Y would often say the opposite a couple of days later. Some would say they are both no good the next day and so it went on. But once they had it in their head that X was the problem it wouldn't matter if you put a brand X label on brand Y it was still no good. So I pay little attention to these comments unless the tests are carried out under controlled conditions. Then there is setting up the scope for the individual. Most spend too long staring into the optics to determine where it's the sharpest etc. These are just some of the issues that make brand X better than brand Y. If I teamed up with some of the ophthalmologist's I know I could probably write a book on how to fix optical systems that don't need fixing. Perhaps I should but I don't think it would sell too well.
Hope this throws a little light on a fairly complex issue.

Andy,
Thanks much for the excellent explanation. Since I am nearing my 69th birthday and have worn corrective lenses since I was 12 years old, I can well understand the difference I may detect in one scope or another, that another individual might not detect. In most matches I shoot in two classes, meaning I shoot two different rifles and frequently have two different brands of scopes. So, I see the same images in virtually the same conditions during a match. My experience has been that at 200 & 300 yards comparing the NF Competition with a March 50x, 36x55 and 10x60, the images are always clearer and brighter with the NF. This is not to say that the March scopes are inferior in any way and using one alone and not comparing side by side, I don't know that most people could see any difference. But to my eyes the NF gives a better image.

YMMV,
Rick

 

[glp]

We can discuss sharpness, clearness or any other way of describing

what one describes as clarity, but remember, the one big thing with any scope used to shoot any benchers or long range discipline is...will it consistently and reliably track honestly and hold POI once set?

 

[R.G. Robinett]

what one describes as clarity, but remember, the one big thing with any scope used to shoot any benchers or long range discipline is...will it consistently and reliably track honestly and hold POI once set?

And testing this is easy - simply change scopes. More often than one may believe likely, following a swap [to a proven] scope, a "ho-hummer" rifle/barrel may become a hummer.

I have observed this on several occasions, where a new rifle/scope was looking like a dog . . . until a proven scope was added to the mix - the new scope, right out of the box, was, at best, "big two" tool, as proven by the group-size reduction following the switch.

I agree with all regarding lapping/bedding - no stress is a good option, which certainly cannot hurt. As Jackie pointed out - eventually, they (internally adjustable scopes) all "break".
RG

 

[Andy Cross]

A C note

And testing this is easy - simply change scopes. More often than one may believe likely, following a swap [to a proven] scope, a "ho-hummer" rifle/barrel may become a hummer.

I have observed this on several occasions, where a new rifle/scope was looking like a dog . . . until a proven scope was added to the mix - the new scope, right out of the box, was, at best, "big two" tool, as proven by the group-size reduction following the switch.

I agree with all regarding lapping/bedding - no stress is a good option, which certainly cannot hurt. As Jackie pointed out - eventually, they (internally adjustable scopes) all "break".
RG

You know I would almost be willing to bet a C note that if you sent most of those suspect scopes back to the manufacturer for POI testing they would come back with a clean bill of health. This is common. Why ? because the scope was removed from the rifle and taken out of those rings. No torque or twisting being applied to the carrier i.e. the tube. If the asymmetrical forces weren't excessive then the memory - for want of a better word - of the metal would return the internals back to their original positions. Then when tested it would return to the correct POI each time. Pity we can't send the rifle in as well because then the guys in the lab could tell you what has been done incorrectly. How much does it take to disrupt a scope this way. Not much when you are looking at the tolerances we need.