New Scopes

[Not The Brightest Bulb]

I read that when purchasing a new scope before mounting windage should be run all the way to a stop, it should then be run the opposite way, lets say 400 clicks till it stops then back it up 200 clicks. This is done to both adjustments. Up and down and side to side.

Then you mount scope and start adjusting scope sights. Would not a new scope already have this adjustment done.

I just get a scope, mount it and adjust scope sights while I shoot. Hope I explained it properly

[cactusrat]

What you are doing is optically centering the scope. Counting the clicks will get you pretty close on a well made scope.

Using the mirror or cradle method  will do a better job. Do a search on optically centering a scope on You Tube or Google for more info.

Edit to add in;

A scope that is optically centered is more repeatable with adjusting and leaves the most room/clicks to work with.

[Not The Brightest Bulb]

Thank you CR,

I will do the google thing.

[limbshaker]

Supposedly, a scope performs best when its near optical center, which is what doing the procedure you described accomplishes. But optical center doesn't always even get you "on the paper". You are still gonna have to adjust the scope to get it zeroed. However, if you have to max out the scope in either direction to get it sighted in, then you have a mount or barrel droop problem that needs addressed. Usually barrel droop on break barrels will cause you to run out of upward adjustment.

Some guys go to great lengths with custom mounts, shims in the rings, etc to get their scope sighted in near optical center. That may be beneficial to some degree on a heavy recoiling powder burner shooting at a 1,000 yards, but I don't think it makes a lick of difference on an airgun. I just mount mine and sight it in, and if its near the end of its adjustment range, I'll try and see whats out of whack. But if it will sight in, and hold zero without shifting around, I don't worry about it. And counting clicks doesnt always get you in optical center anyways.  Heres a better way, and it's more fun than counting clicks  :


Now if you have a cheap scope and its clicked way out in either direction to get zeroed, and you are getting slight POI shifts with a springer, changing mounts and getting the scope more near optical center may fix it. But in my opinion, a scope that shifts isnt worth fooling with in the first place.

This is all just my two cents. But if you're bored, just try it as it is fun to tinker with! 

[Not The Brightest Bulb]

I will take help/knowledge anyway I can and your 2 cents is fine.

[limbshaker]

Just as a tidbit of completely unrelated interesting info, that US Optics scope in that video is probably a $3,000 scope    Hahaha I'm gettin one of those to put on my Daisy 880! 

Check out their website! http://www.usoptics.com/optics.html WOW!!

[nced]

LOL.....then there are those that use Draconian methods like me who first optically center the scope via the "mirror method"........then bend the barrel till the point of impact is within about 1/2" of the aim point at 30 yards, then I use the scope turrets to fine tune the zero. My barrel tweaking tools.........
A forked tree for adding "snoop" and "left right adjustment" to a break barrel gun.........


My "tweaking clamp" if I have to add "droop" to my break barrel gun...........


The only scopes I've owned that couldn't be optically centered via the "mirror method" and have the result close to the  "mechanical centering method" of counting clicks stop to stop and dividing by two were the two 4-12 Hawke Airmax scopes I had and the 4-12 Hawke Panorama. When I used the Hawke recommended "mechanical centering method" and checked the adjustment via the "mirror method" the view in the mirror showed the reticle WAAAAAY off center in the upper right corner of the view! I don't know what it was with the three Hawkes I owned but I tried centering the reticle via "mirror", "counting clicks stop to stop", and the tedious "spin the scope in vees" methods and NONE of those methods had agreement concerning the centering of the reticle!

LOL.....my Bushnell, weaver, Vortex ( and even the $70 4-16 Center Point scope) had a reasonable agreement between the optical and mechanical centering the reticle, but not the Hawkes!!!

[Bullit]

I think it may be a good idea to just "exercise" the turrets by rotating them in each direction by a turn and then returning them to home.  Just to move everything.  I'm one of the fans of using the "Plum Line" method to center the scope.  Also "tap on the turret" a few times, after adjusting, to make sure the springs and everything settles properly.

[Not The Brightest Bulb]

Truthfully so far I just use the pull it out of box and shoot at the target and sight it in. Been Lucky I Guess)

Ist 21 shots WITH HW50s and when done I had it hitting in general 1.5 to 2.0 inch, but then I noticed scope had slpped back a hair well maybe 3 to 5 hairs.

I stopped and loosened scope mount and went over everything, even some loctite liguid on dovetail rail.I then put loctite tape on the 3 mount screws and 8 ring screws. Then I put piece of scotch tape directly back of mount and each ring to make it easier for me to see if there was slippage on any component.

I waited 36 hours and I checked the scotch tape after every 5 shot grouping, NOTHING MOVED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. 

I had dime quarter groupings and I even killed an insect. This is only at 5 yards so it's nothing to write home about. I am also sitting and using a tripod. Other news is I'm learning how to cock it and close correctly at least better than first outing.

We are in a heat spell here so shooting for me is limited if I don't get out early I had other chores this morning.

The Rekford trigger is a big jump up from the other 2 stock rifles. Quest/Whisper.

[condor22]

Supposedly, a scope performs best when its near optical center, which is what doing the procedure you described accomplishes. But optical center doesn't always even get you "on the paper". You are still gonna have to adjust the scope to get it zeroed. However, if you have to max out the scope in either direction to get it sighted in, then you have a mount or barrel droop problem that needs addressed. Usually barrel droop on break barrels will cause you to run out of upward adjustment.

Some guys go to great lengths with custom mounts, shims in the rings, etc to get their scope sighted in near optical center. That may be beneficial to some degree on a heavy recoiling powder burner shooting at a 1,000 yards, but I don't think it makes a lick of difference on an airgun. I just mount mine and sight it in, and if its near the end of its adjustment range, I'll try and see whats out of whack. But if it will sight in, and hold zero without shifting around, I don't worry about it. And counting clicks doesnt always get you in optical center anyways.  Heres a better way, and it's more fun than counting clicks  :

Now if you have a cheap scope and its clicked way out in either direction to get zeroed, and you are getting slight POI shifts with a springer, changing mounts and getting the scope more near optical center may fix it. But in my opinion, a scope that shifts isnt worth fooling with in the first place.

This is all just my two cents. But if you're bored, just try it as it is fun to tinker with! 

+1 Very well said, I concur. Tapping on a scope is like knocking on wood, maybe it'll bring some 'Good Luck'?

[Bullit]

Tapping on the Turret, is old school.  It's to ensure that the springs inside get a chance to neutralize, in their newly compressed position.  It helps in their rotation, as they move.  It is very small and important as a detail.
If nothing else....   I'll keep "Tapping the Turret", even if it only gives me a "Luck" factor...  Heck Yeah.

[rsterne]

RE the "mirror method", a question and a few comments.... Doesn't it rely on the outside rim of the objective lense being perfectly square with the centerline of the scope?.... I've checked a few scopes to see how square the front is to the tube, and some are good, some are out by quite a bit.... I have one (a $200 scope) where if you put a Machinists square on the front of the Objective and then measure from the square to the tube just in front of the turrets, the difference is about 0.080" (2mm).... To me, that means that the reflection of the crosshairs would not align with the crosshairs by half that amount (eg. 0.040" or 1 mm) over a distance of 7 inches.... Over 100 yards (3600"), that would be 3600/7 = 514mm or about 20".... That would be about 80 clicks off center, by my calculations.... Not only that, but rotating the Objective may or may not cause the reflection to "walk around" in a circle, depending on if the lack of squareness is in the rotating part of the bell or in the threads that it rotates on....

It would seem to me, therefore, that using a mirror to center the crosshairs "optically" may not be the best method.... If the Objective is not square to the tube, I would think that the mirror, likewise, would not reflect the image of the crosshairs straight back down the center of the optical path.... Counting clicks relies on the manufacturer centering the parts in the tube properly, which may or may not be the case.... That leaves us with rotating the scope in vee-blocks bearing as far apart as possible on the tube as likely being the best method, IMO....

Bob

[nced]

RE the "mirror method", a question and a few comments.... Doesn't it rely on the outside rim of the objective lense being perfectly square with the centerline of the scope?.... I've checked a few scopes to see how square the front is to the tube, and some are good, some are out by quite a bit.... I have one (a $200 scope) where if you put a Machinists square on the front of the Objective and then measure from the square to the tube just in front of the turrets, the difference is about 0.080" (2mm).... To me, that means that the reflection of the crosshairs would not align with the crosshairs by half that amount (eg. 0.040" or 1 mm) over a distance of 7 inches.... Over 100 yards (3600"), that would be 3600/7 = 514mm or about 20".... That would be about 80 clicks off center, by my calculations.... Not only that, but rotating the Objective may or may not cause the reflection to "walk around" in a circle, depending on if the lack of squareness is in the rotating part of the bell or in the threads that it rotates on....

It would seem to me, therefore, that using a mirror to center the crosshairs "optically" may not be the best method.... If the Objective is not square to the tube, I would think that the mirror, likewise, would not reflect the image of the crosshairs straight back down the center of the optical path.... Counting clicks relies on the manufacturer centering the parts in the tube properly, which may or may not be the case.... That leaves us with rotating the scope in vee-blocks bearing as far apart as possible on the tube as likely being the best method, IMO....

Bob

Perhaps all you've said is true, however the result I get when centering via the "mirror method" and "counting clicks dividing by two" were close enough that I used the simple "mirror method" for all my scopes except the three Hawke scopes I owned. What I'm wondering about the 4-12 Hawke Airmax and Panorama is how I could get three DIFFERENT reticle centerings if I used the "count clicks divide by two", "rotate the scope in vees", or the "mirror method"! Seems that the reticule should have the same centering with the Hawke scopes if I "counted clicks/2" or the tedious centering method of "spinning it in vees".......but not so with the three scopes of that brand which I owned.

Actually, I'm not concerned with reticle centering to a tenth millimeter precision, just that the reticle is close to the optical center since I fine tune the point of impact with the turrets after bending my barrel till the poi is within about 1/2" or the aim point at 30 yards. 

[rsterne]

It's a simple matter to confirm that if the objective bell is not square to the centerline of the scope any attempt at centering by using a mirror against it is futile.... Tilt the mirror and watch the image move around relative to the crosshairs.... proof positive that to use the mirror method, the bell must be perfectly square to the centerline.... For a 50mm objective, every thou (0.001") it is out of square will create an error in optical centering of about 2 MOA using the mirror method....

Bob

[nced]

It's a simple matter to confirm that if the objective bell is not square to the centerline of the scope any attempt at centering by using a mirror against it is futile.... Tilt the mirror and watch the image move around relative to the crosshairs.... proof positive that to use the mirror method, the bell must be perfectly square to the centerline.... For a 50mm objective, every thou (0.001") it is out of square will create an error in optical centering of about 2 MOA using the mirror method....

Bob

Well......I ONLY have 40mm scope belles, however if the mirror method and the click/2 method gives similar results (it does with my Vortex Diamondback, Bushnell Elites, and even the cheap $70 WallyMart CP) I'm satisfied with the simple mirror method results I get.

I still don't understand why the Hawke scopes I owned would give different results using the click/2 ot spin in vee method unless the reticle isn't centered in the scope to begin with! Perhaps this has something to do with the reason BOTH 4-12 Hawke Airmax scopes I owned would laterally shift the poi simply by focusing from 18 yards to 10 yards.........
Here's a scan of the target shot with my first Hawke Airmax before even zeroing the brand new scope........


Here is a scan of the target shot by the second Hawke Airmax that was sent after the first was returned to Hawke.............


It's obvious to me that the precision of the two samples of this particular Hawke line isn't good enough to be concerned with the objective being "out of square" enough to create a 2 MOA deviation!

What I don't understand with the

[rsterne]

My brain would suggest that the reason your Hawke gave a different result using the mirror method than the vee blocks is that the end bell wasn't square to the tube.... I have a scope here that is out 20 MOA....

Bob

[robtmc]

It would seem to me, therefore, that using a mirror to center the crosshairs "optically" may not be the best method.... If the Objective is not square to the tube, I would think that the mirror, likewise, would not reflect the image of the crosshairs straight back down the center of the optical path.... Counting clicks relies on the manufacturer centering the parts in the tube properly, which may or may not be the case.... That leaves us with rotating the scope in vee-blocks bearing as far apart as possible on the tube as likely being the best method, IMO....

Concur, though no scope expert, this is exactly what I found recently.  The mirror and counting method require too many mechanical things to be correct to be reliable.

Had good luck with the mirror method on a Burris and a Hawke, it was a joke on a Center Point.  Same with the mechanical click counting, was way off on the scopes I tried, and a beast to do on itty-bitty adjustment nibs with big fingers.

I just made up another vee block and it works great.  The more I use that method, the faster I get at the centering.

What I need to remember is the tapping on the turrets after setting it at zero and rechecking to make sure it stays set.

[nced]

It's a simple matter to confirm that if the objective bell is not square to the centerline of the scope any attempt at centering by using a mirror against it is futile.... Tilt the mirror and watch the image move around relative to the crosshairs.... proof positive that to use the mirror method, the bell must be perfectly square to the centerline.... For a 50mm objective, every thou (0.001") it is out of square will create an error in optical centering of about 2 MOA using the mirror method....

Bob

Actually, the objective lens isn't the only one in the "stack" and the purpose of the "mirror test" is to determine that the reticle is in the center of the image AFTER the image gets twisted and contorted going through the objective, erector, ocular and other lenses in the "stack". It's hard for me to imagine that all lenses in the "stack" are in a precise position in the tube within a couple thousandths. Matter of fact, I even wonder if the AO threads may occasionally be crooked skewing the image a bit. I still don't know why the two 4-12 Hawke Airmax scopes I owned would laterally shift the point of impact simply by focusing from 18 yards to 10 yards but they did. The only other scope I've owned that did the same was a 4-12 Barska AO that I tried years ago!

Anywhoo........I think I'll go back and re-try the manufacturer recommended "clicks/2" method, adjust the barrel accordingly, and actually SEE if the new adjustment makes any difference at all as it pertains to the preciseness of a scope rangefind or the optical performance in general.

Perhaps I'm being a bit too concerned about "minutia" that has no bearing on scope performance between 10 yards and 55 yards.

[rsterne]

I'll try one more time to explain that it's not the LENS being crooked that is the problem, it is the front edge of the objective bell, which is the surface you place the mirror against....  If that surface isn't square to the centerline of the scope, then using a mirror is a waste of time, and in fact will give you the wrong results....

Bob

[nced]

I'll try one more time to explain that it's not the LENS being crooked that is the problem, it is the front edge of the objective bell, which is the surface you place the mirror against....  If that surface isn't square to the centerline of the scope, then using a mirror is a waste of time, and in fact will give you the wrong results....

Bob

This afternoon I verified that centering the reticle of my 4-12 Vortex Diamondback scope using the "clicks/2" gives ALMOST the same poi at 18 yards as using the "mirror method". I had about 1/4" poi difference at 18 yards but this deviation might even be attributed to the fact that I dismounted & remounted the scope during the testing.

I DO realize that an AO with a crooked front edge will affect the image in the mirror, however I never thought that the AOs of BOTH Hawke Airmax and the Panorama I owned would be so "crooked" while my Vortex, Bushnells and even the $70 Center Point didn't have this issue to the degree that I found an issue! Perhaps this is the reason I got focusing related horizontal point of impact shifts when focusing the Airmax, however the Panorama also had a considerable discrepancy between the "mirror centered" and "clicks/2" reticle centering methods.....yet no focus related poi shifting! 

Peace my friend, thanks for your feedback! The test did show to my satisfaction that my long held practice of "mirror method reticle centering" isn't really necessary with my Diamondback.........but perhaps all that's necessary is a  "mechanical reticle centering" via "clicks/2" that basically only puts the reticle carriage in the center of the tube so there is equal "spring pressure". Funny thing is that once the scope is zero'd on a particular gun (especially one with barrel droop or snoop) this "equal spring pressure" gets upset anyway which defeats the mechanical centering done in the first place. Enter the adjustable mount or perhaps barrel bending!

I shoot hunter class field target where I use scope rangefinding at 12x so I've been partial to optically centering the reticle (via mirror) rather than mechanically centering. I think that I'll do another test when the weather clears up to see if "clicks/2" makes any difference in the accuracy of 12x scope rangefinding from 10 yards to 50yards. LOL....at 12x max the deapth of field for the scope is so deep that it's difficult to scope rangefind with any accuracy past 30 yards!