AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/21/2006 12:35:58 AM EDT
|
I know someone was asking about the knock-offs but I didn't tag the post. Anyway... pull this off of Jacky's site. Maybe it's a good replacement for those looking for a cheap scope for punching paper at the range. Wonder how it'll compare to a super sniper  ~nb ---------------------------------------- Leupold clone scope evaluation by Mr.Nestor Petriw 4/3/2006 Here are the results of my range test of the "Leupold replica" scopes available from jackyiscxd, a dealer on the Canadiangunnutz forum. Two scopes were tested: the Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm LR/T M1 Illuminated Reticle scope replica (IR) and the non-IR version (Non-IR). Two test rifles were used, both know to me to be accurate, a Tikka 595 Varmint, in .223 and a Tikka 659 in .338 Winchester Magnum. I completed a test on both scopes, using 60 rounds of .338 Win Mag ammo and 40 rounds of .223 on the non-IR scope and approximately 150 rounds of .223 with the illuminated one. I conducted the test over two days at the Spruce Grove Gun Club, west of Edmonton. Today''''s shooting was done at 100 yards, in a moderate gusting wind, yesterday the air was calm. All shooting was done from a sandbag rest. The .223 barrel was allowed to cool every 25-30 shots (more or less) and the .338 was allowed to cool every 8 to 12 shots (more or less). The rifles were cleaned before (but not during) the test. The scopes were mounted on these Tikkas:  The Tikka Tactical (on the left,) wears a fixed 10x Leupold with AO and was used just to test out the accuracy of the ammo (like a control). It really wasn''''''''''''''''t needed because the Tikka 595 shot every bit as well with the clone. Both scopes performed very well and really exceeded my expectations. In my limited experience, I would expect an inferior scope to fail when exposed to repeated hammering from a stoutly recoiling rifle like a .338 or a 45-70. With that in mind, I mounted one scope (the non-IR) on my .338 Win Mag and planned to put up to 50 rounds through it. As it turned out, I shot exactly 60 rounds through the rifle with that scope - consisting of 210 grain Nosler Partitions, 225 grain Hornady SP''''s, 250 grain Hornady RN''''''''''''''''s and 10 rounds of Winchester 230 grain Fail Safes (which, FWIW, was the least accurate). Here''''s the first 4-shot group, once the scope was zeroed (with the 225 grain Hornady''''s):  One thing I noticed was that the non-IR scope seemed to have a very slight shift (approximately 0.5 to .75MOA) to the right when elevating the POI. (when shooting the .338) and, on the "square" pattern I shot with the .223, I had a slight shift in its return-to-zero after completing the "square". This was apparent only with the non-IR scope (I mounted the non-IR scope on the .223 after it completed the 60 rounds of .338). However, because the degree of difference is about "one click", I''''m not sure if it''''s actually significant. It may well have simply been "operator error". Shortly into the shooting, I ended up not relying on feeling the actual "clicks" (it was a bit hard to feel each one distinctly) so, instead, I just used the numbers on the turrets to make elevation and windage adjustments. It''''''''''''''''s quite possible that I was out by one click on those ones. Here''''s the same type of pattern, shot with the same scope, mounted on the .223 (after 60 rounds of .338):  As you can see, the last group (marked "f" on centre) is about an inch below the initial group (marked ("i"). Notwithstanding this apparent shift, I simply re-zeroed the scope (which took one click )and left it on the .223 for this year''''s gopher shooting. Not a particularly big deal, IMO, as I''''''''''''''''ve seen similar things before. Here is a photo of the .338 groups, (shot yesterday) shooting the "square" pattern:  This pattern was shot as follows: centre=2 shots; Up 5MOA, 3shots; Right 5 MOA, 3 shots; Down 5 MOA, 3 shots; Left 5 MOA, 1 shot. Lastly, 3 shots at the bottom-left bullseye (to confirm the "zero"). And repeated today:  (2 shots at the left node; up 10MOA, 2 shots; right 5MOA, 2 shots; Down 10 MOA, one shot; Left 5 MOA, one shot (completing a good 3-shot group on the left node) Note that there is no shift right on elevating the POI 10MOA, however there appears to be an approximatey 1MOA increase in elevation when the POI is moved 5MOA to the right. The last shot, though, ends up where it all started, in a decent 3-shot group (at the left node). I was pretty happy with how this one shot good groups with the .338 and the thought crossed my mind that maybe I should leave it on my .338 I ended up putting back its Vari-X III, as the clone scope has another home. The IR scope performed what I thought was exceptionally well, in terms of "return-to-zero" when performing the "square" pattern. The first and last groups were in exactly the same position on the target. Here is the pattern shot with the IR scope (on the .223):  The first 3-shot group was fired at the center-left circle, then: Up 10 MOA, 3 shots; right 10 MOA, 3 shots; down 10 MOA, 3 shots and, lastly, left 10 MOA, with 3 more shots (fired at the same place as the first group). You can see that the last 3 shots make up a decent 6-shot aggregate group with the first three shots of that series. I hope that you all find these results interesting. As far as I''''m concerned, I think that these scopes are very good value for the money. I would not hesitate recommending them for anyone who would like a reliable, yet economical, scope for target use. I know I''''ll be ordering a couple more, just to have on hand. The scopes that I tested are a pleasant surprise as far as their quality is concerned. The non-IR version was subjected to some fairly serious recoil and came through unscathed. So, I''''d say it appears to be pretty tough and well-built. I''''d say that''''s pretty reasonable for anyone on a budget who''''d like a sturdy "tactical" type scope at a very affordable price. |
Of course, the hallmark of any decently put-together scope is the 'shift in POI'. 
|
|
I wonder if the tester knew to rotate the knob an extra click, then 1 click in reverse, to take up the lash. I've got to do that on my "real" leupold or it will drift a click. I also wonder if the clone is nitrogen filled to eliminate internal fogging, if it is water-tight, and if the optics are fully coated (i.e. all internal lens elements are coated on both sides, sometimes cheap "coated" scopes only have the objective and/or eyepiece lenses coated) The nitrogen thing is easy to check by putting the scope in a freezer and see what foggs up. If it is nitrogen filled, then it must surely be sealed well, otherwise the nitrogen would get contaminated from outside air and moisture (which would then condense on the internal lenses when the scope is chilled below the dew point) The only way to verify the lens coatings would be to cut one open. You could compare one side-to-side with a real leupold at night, but that's pretty subjective. Maybe something one could do a drop test to destruction first. I'll pay for the clone if another volunteer will pay for the Leupold to test  Finally, I've seen one of these scopes in person. Their styling is strikingly similar to the Leupold, but not exactly. There are no Leupold logos on the box or on the scope either. Externally the scope's finish is great, the knobs crisply and audibly click when turned. If this thing actually holds it's zero it will be a smokin' deal and I'll be ordering one too. |
|
I got to play a little bit with a hong-kong-opold today. This thing was $98 delivered with a sun shield, rings, and a bikini see-though scope cover. I think I've spent more on rings than this scope cost. Heck, the armalite 30mm one piece mount it's on is $85. First thing I noticed is that I shot the same size groups with irons vs. the scope. I actually haven't shot AR15s with a scope before, I expected the scope to give better groups. All the groups were about 4 MOA with Radway Green ammo. Then I started playing around with the elevation and windage knobs. Each click seems to be about 1/3 MOA. So at 25 yds, where 16 clicks is usually an inch, I was getting almost 1.5" of movement. This really freaked me out, until I noticed it was very consistent... 16 clicks, move 1.5"... 16 more clicks, move another 1.5"... 16 more clicks, about 1.5". 48clicks back, return to the starting point. I then zoomed from 10X out to 3.5X and fired a group, didn't notice any significant shift in the zero. Tonight I found a reference on another thread in Optics testing the cheap-o-polds: http://www.snipershide.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=004617;p=1 They noted the same 1/3 MOA or so per click. I fiddled around on my calculator until I figured out that a 1/3 MOA click will move your point of aim 0.97 cm at 100 meters. Looks like this scope is metric :) But the knobs are still marked every 4 clicks. The illumination light is pointed too low, it illuminates the lower range-finding recticle too much and the crosshairs not enough. Cosmetic really, but nothing a few slams on the counter wouldn't fix (ha ha). When it got dark the illuminated retical really started to shine . No really, compared to the Leuopold I could SEE the reticle. The Leuopold, I could make out the heavy outer bars, but the fine inner wires and dots were lost. OTOH, the 50mm Leupold sucks up light and detail like a vacuum cleaner. At night I could see more detail through the scope. The chi-com version I could see about the same details as the naked eye, only bigger (40mm objective, so it's not a fair comparison) My GOODNESS, I need a 50mm IR Leupold! In the daytime I noticed the reticle in the clone has only lines, not the usual oblong dots. The spacing of the lines seems the same as the spacing of the Leupold dots, center to center.At this point I'm fairly certain this scope is fun to play with, and probably the equal of any scope at Wal-Mart, certainly for the price. |
AR Sponsor