Guest Blog by Matt Coulter, a great review of a 3X32 Xbow scope

[HectorMedina]

In a life-like scenario for real airgunning. We have been working on this for about 8 months, so I hope you enjoy it!




https://www.ctcustomairguns.com/hectors-airgun-blog/how-can-less-be-more 







Keep well and shoot straight!













HM

[T-Higgs]

C.C.A. Blogs are always interesting, informative, and well written. Matt’s guest blog/review definitely holds to that standard. It was well written with excellent photographs, thorough testing and analysis.
  I’ve wondered about crossbow scopes but never to the point of purchasing one. This report has tipped the scales enough that I’ve already searched the sightmark crossbow scopes to get prices and availability. Not to put anyone on the spot but why sightmark? I’ve never owned any sightmark scopes so I know little about them. I know Hawke makes crossbow scopes but I know equally little of them. Can we assume that the crossbow scope is built for the double recoil of not only the crossbow but a spring rifle? The Sightmark clearly held up well to the 48 which packs a bit of a thump. Other than the illuminated reticle turning on, were there any other issues with the scope? And what ever happened to the illuminated reticle issue?

Thank you gentlemen,
T.H.

[mcoulter]

Hi T-Higgs,

Thanks for the kind words.  I don't have any experience with Hawke scopes but they certainly have a very good reputation. 

Great question....  Let me pop another battery in the sightmark and I'll report back with what I find.  Sorry for not looping back on that issue!

Matt

[Back_Roads]

 I have a brand x crossbow scope on my 1377 carbine, I also have a speed adjustable, instead of zoom power marks it is marked in fps from 300 - 600,in 25 fps intervals. That is on my x-bow, but I have wondered if it may work on my big bores even, due to more aim point adjust-ability. I may see if I can remember where I ordered from and test it more   

[HectorMedina]

C.C.A. Blogs are always interesting, informative, and well written. Matt’s guest blog/review definitely holds to that standard. It was well written with excellent photographs, thorough testing and analysis.
  I’ve wondered about crossbow scopes but never to the point of purchasing one. This report has tipped the scales enough that I’ve already searched the sightmark crossbow scopes to get prices and availability. Not to put anyone on the spot but why sightmark? I’ve never owned any sightmark scopes so I know little about them. I know Hawke makes crossbow scopes but I know equally little of them. Can we assume that the crossbow scope is built for the double recoil of not only the crossbow but a spring rifle? The Sightmark clearly held up well to the 48 which packs a bit of a thump. Other than the illuminated reticle turning on, were there any other issues with the scope? And what ever happened to the illuminated reticle issue?

Thank you gentlemen,
T.H.

Mr. Higgs;

CCA has a working relation with SIGHTMARK.
As we do also with SIGHTRON, Vortex Optics, Discovery Optics, Advanced Optical Design, and KAHLES. We have consulted and advised all of them in a number of issues, and so, even though we do not even REMOTELY reach a quota to be a distributor, we do have access to very preferential prices.

One of my friends and customers, who is as far away from FT as any airgunner can be (he is a subsistence hunter in the Pacific Northwest), asked me to make him a rifle that would be simple to use, relatively economical, and as accurate out to 50 yards as his vintage RF's.
He is around his mid 70's, so he could not cock a powerful springer, but he was used to an old (and I MEAN old) 3.5 X scope, so he wanted that magnification.
He had already bought a Walther LGV Ultra, based on the web's reports of excellent accuracy, but he could not make it shoot to his liking, so I tackled the project.

Sourced the scope, REALLY low mounts, installed a Titan XS spring, an ABP, custom shorty guide, trigger tune, and tunable air stripper.
So, after all was said and done, the gun went back to him with one of these scopes.
He ordered another one, as a spare.

That was about the time that Matt had problems with his 48 eating the scope for lunch and he was shooting Open Sights. So, Matt and I talked about it, he agreed to writeup the tests and I ordered another one.

If you look up in my posts about scopes, I have often recommended XBow scopes for airguns, and specifically this one.

I had researched, tested, and recommended, the scope not from the XBow perspective, but from the Fixed Parallax perspective.
IMHE a short range parallax allows much better shooting at long range than a long range parallax allows at short range.

In a way it is like cars: It is MUCH MORE FUN to drive fast a slow car (think MG-B), than to drive slow a fast car (think Audi A7).  ;-)

THIS scope in particular (and the SIGHTMARK XBow scopes in general) have a fixed Parallax at 30 yards.  So, in the real world, this is as good as it gets for an inexpensive scope to be mounted on a hunting airgun.
The fact that a XBow will output even more forward recoil and more vibrations than a well tuned springer, makes these scopes a natural application, if severely overlooked by the market.
Yes the reticles COULD be better designed for airguns, but the problem with airgunners is that, even if it is an "Urban myth", everyone has "drank the Kool-Aid" and is now using enormous scopes, even for hunting and plinking, when in reality they are not needed.
Leapers has SOME fixed, short range, parallax scopes, but they do not have the glass quality of the SIGHTMARK ones, and the old Vortex Optics XBow scope is long gone from the listings and also, a very expensive, almost collector's, item now.

I stopped using Hawke scopes some time ago for lack of warranty support on Hawke's side, but even if I wanted to support them, they use 50 yards as their parallax and, for small targets and really large exit pupils, that is a recipe for disaster.
If you are aiming at a deer's rib-cage, OK, but for head shooting a squirrel? Hmmmm . . . . Don't think so.
And if you think that is too much to ask, just compare the size of the Ram silhouette that Matt was shooting at with the squirrel's head in the picture. Not a lot of room for failure there.
Matt is a great shooter, and even he says he would restrict his HUNTING shots to about 35 yards. Matt is a wise and honourable man.

SIGHTMARK response to the on/off illumination problem was to suggest Matt give a little more "force" to the battery contacts (that are three little prongs arranged in a circle) and test.
It seems that not all batteries have exactly the same diameter, so a little more "contact force" should solve the problem.
If the problem persists, SIGHTMARK will change the scope.

Thanks for your kind words, they are greatly appreciated.

Keep well and shoot straight!






HM

[c_m_shooter]

This was interesting.  I was basically told I was crazy for suggesting a crossbow scope for someone with a .45 caliber big bore that they planned on hunting pigs and deer with.  they thought they needed a big 8-32x for a big bore.

[Mossonarock]

For long range shooting from a rest, I can understand having powerful magnification. However, for hunting small game around 50m, 3-12x is more than adequate IME.

I just got a compact Bug Buster for about $100 and its all I need for shooting under 75m. The adjustable objective is best for 5 to 50 yards. (its marked in yards but I measure my range in meters) You could use it for up to 100 yards but that's not what its made for. Also, it only weighs 14 oz. I'm really liking it.

My old eyes need help seeing small targets past 15m. So, I need some magnification to help. Otherwise, I'd be shooting open sights like I've done all my life. However, I don't need to be able to count the eyelashes on a squirrel. A 3-12x is plenty adequate for me.

This thread has been very timely for me. Its nice to see others figuring out the same thing I have.

[Rick67]

Been looking at the Nikon P3 x'bow scope myself which has a parallax setting of 20 yards minimum.

I like looking at small scopes too, and have had success getting nice groups with my low mag ones.

[mcoulter]

Been looking at the Nikon P3 x'bow scope myself which has a parallax setting of 20 yards minimum.

I like looking at small scopes too, and have had success getting nice groups with my low mag ones.

Yup, respectable groups are certainly more "doable" with a low-magnification that I originally expected.  Check this out.  Here are two 5-shot groups at 60-yards using JSB 15.9 pellets.  Also note the change in point-of-impact when moving the point-of-aim with this scope.

And for those who can't read my chicken-scratch writing on the target it says:

Bottom of the main crosshair post (for the top-group)
Center of main crosshair post (for the bottom-group)




And here is a super-cropped photo of the target and reticle at this distance. 



And a more normal view of the target through the scope:



My point here is that good groups are definitely possible and the fine-reticle definitely helps in this area, but really tiny and fine adjustments are what is needed at these longer distances (greater than 40-yards).   
 

[Rick67]

Mr. Matt, my lowest mag scope is a 4x, and I really thought that its reticle was quite too fine for me until I started targeting 5mm size dots from a distance of 25 yards--had doubts as it basically covered the target...well, almost.

Ironically, I did a ragged hole about 7mm in size with 5 shots thrown into the desired spot.

Oftentimes I have measured groups made from the same gun using a high magnification scope and a low one for comparison: variable 12x vs fixed 20x, both with a minimum parallax of 10 yards to infinity, at 50 yards. Surprisingly, my best groups were with the 12x.

Using a high mag one just makes me too overly percipient, thereby amplifying whatever mistake there is in my form and/or stillness.

[HectorMedina]

Been looking at the Nikon P3 x'bow scope myself which has a parallax setting of 20 yards minimum.

I like looking at small scopes too, and have had success getting nice groups with my low mag ones.

Rick;

Your findings are in absolute agreement with Matt's and mine. You can shoot "more relaxed" when using a low mag scope. And by shooting relaxed, you pay MORE attention to the BASICS.

EVERY TIME I sit down to take an FT shot I try to remind myself: "Back to basics, ALWAYS" and it works, when I do remind myself of that, LOL!

You can also be more aware of the environment, as you say. (BTW, I had not seen the word "percipient" in MANY years).  ;-)

Nikon has excellent products, but in this case, I would advise you to look deeper into the specs. Specially the reticle subtensions:



If what they publish is correct, the center of the first "hollow dot" (Subtension "h") is at 1.375 mrads DOWN from center (cms at 20 meters is just a fancy way of saying 1/2 mrads).

My 12 ft-lbs WFTF rifle shooting barely 800 fps with an 8.44 gr pellet has its FULL trajectory from 13 to 55 yards between the -1.375 mrad and the +0.125 mrads, so, unless you are shooting an HW30 it is MOST probable that you will need more aimpoints in between those two.

In THIS sense, having the small "Greek Crosses" reticle gives you much more "latitude" as to how to plan your trajectory fit to your reticle.

Price is also a difference, the 3X32 Core SX sells for $70, the NIKON for twice that.

For the same price of the NIKON, you can get the Core SX 1.5-4.5X32 AND still have change, Variable magnification will give you MUCH more flexibiity because the subtensions can be "adjusted" to what you need using the magnification ring.
And, as Matt demonstrated, illumination can be useful at times.

I hope you don't think that I am trying to change your mind, if optical glass quality is topmost in your priorities, then go for it, I just want to put forward some solid, factual, information.

Keep well and shoot straight!






HM

[mcoulter]

Mr. Matt, my lowest mag scope is a 4x, and I really thought that its reticle was quite too fine for me until I started targeting 5mm size dots from a distance of 25 yards--had doubts as it basically covered the target...well, almost.

Ironically, I did a ragged hole about 7mm in size with 5 shots thrown into the desired spot.

Oftentimes I have measured groups made from the same gun using a high magnification scope and a low one for comparison: variable 12x vs fixed 20x, both with a minimum parallax of 10 yards to infinity, at 50 yards. Surprisingly, my best groups were with the 12x.

Using a high mag one just makes me too overly percipient, thereby amplifying whatever mistake there is in my form and/or stillness.

Hi Rick,  yeah 5mm dots are teenie at 25 yards!  Aim small, miss small, right?  And yes, when you shoot low vs. high power scopes side-by-side you will totally feel the extra work that's necessary to acquire and then keep a specific point-of-aim.  This was amazingly apparent when shooting off a monopod. 

[Rick67]

Precisely, Mr. Matt.

I enjoy reading what you and Mr. Medina wrote!

It is a sterling account of what a simple optic can do---and with choice photos to boot  ..