One shot zero my arse!
- Thread starter Smellydog
- Start date
BenBhoy
Well-Known Member
It's precisely this putting me off & makes me lean more towards tube NV. You shouldn't need to tinker with something, or wedge in bits of pop cans to make it straight.Oh dear! So Arken spend a fortune building/buying an otherwise great bit of kit but it seems many purchasers have a problem mounting/zeroing it. Can someone please explain why this and indeed others such as Pards have this issue - why are they not just like mounting a telescopic sight? Why oh why does something costing north of £500 depend on a strip of coca cola tin?
I say this with some experience as a shimmed Pard 008P owner!
Overlay
Well-Known Member
SD
I feel for you mate, that would be going straight back if it was me, bloody frustrating to pay out your hard earned money for something you’ve got to bodge up, you pride yourself getting your rifle as accurate as possible and a expensive bag of shite turns up
These sellers take us for mugs sometimes for the sake of sales
If it weren’t for people like bruce, clive etc who tell the truth we would all be buying whatever crap they see fit to put on us
It makes you uncertain and it shouldn’t be like that, one thing that really boils my p#%s is “you can clearly ID a fox at 1500 mtrs” why would you want to ID a fox by way of waving rifle around looking at 1500 mtrs beggars belief - they should be putting all the energy in to a nv scope that will fit the rifle, be stable, well made and 100% clarity out to 300 and easy to use
I’ll stick with the pard 007 V and the T ceptor at least I can operate them and they all work perfectly
Good luck with that mate
If you get stuck send me a PM I’ve got a couple of spare pulsars here until you get sorted
Cheers
Phil
Have an AZ and found it a cracking piece of kit.
Sorry we don't hear from all those that fit and zero with no issue's, but the few that do, seem to sway so many.
I had numerous issues with a pard unit, which I would not buy again but mates use them and love them.
Out of thousands made, the odd one or two will have an issue, especially when the combination of guns mounted to are so varied.
I found it light, clear up to 20x mag and BC works well and once zeroed you will love it.
Sorry we don't hear from all those that fit and zero with no issue's, but the few that do, seem to sway so many.
I had numerous issues with a pard unit, which I would not buy again but mates use them and love them.
Out of thousands made, the odd one or two will have an issue, especially when the combination of guns mounted to are so varied.
I found it light, clear up to 20x mag and BC works well and once zeroed you will love it.
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
Interface problem. With one inch or 30mm tube the interface is quite easy, well a round tube of given diameter. Still many manufacturers end up with non-compatible products (putting stress on the scope tube etc)
With Picatinny, the spec is somewhat complicated. Chinese don't bother getting, interpreting and implementing the spec. Nor do many western manufacturers, including big names. Most known brand name products do work, but they don't work the way they're supposed to. If you have X pcs of rails from different manufacturers and Y pcs of (QD) mounts from different manufacturers, any and all combinations will work correctly if they're in spec. In reality you need to adjust the QD mounts going from one rail to another, and this plays havoc on your zero retention.
The reason this won't come up so often is that many mounts are not QD but use bolts, that obviously get tightened to some torque (measured or by feel). And people use to buy rails from same manufacture for different rifles (brand loyalty based on previous good experience).
And then there's the Weaver rail/mounts, that many call Picatinny also...
IMHO it's not a problem to bed the sight to mount. But your options in the mount to rail interface are quite limited if there's a problem.
I don’t see what all the fuss is about….
Zeroed my .22 to the extended 0 moa rail in 3 shots at 60yards yesterday having bore sighted it first and then put it on paper at 25. Zeroing the original 35MOA rail was just as simple. I use one of the rail to Picatinny adapters from Ant Supplies with the sprung gap on the right.
If the mount screws were flat bottomed as per the original Pard 008’s then the fit to the mount would/could be an issue… (which is why I converted it to countersunk screws). But the Zulus already uses countersinks to align the scope and mount.
I’ll try it on a pic railed rifle or two, or three later….these already have a single thermal scope zeroed to them and as you’d expect the windage is different between them all. So I won’t be wasting ammo seeing what happens.
Cheers,
Fizz
Zeroed my .22 to the extended 0 moa rail in 3 shots at 60yards yesterday having bore sighted it first and then put it on paper at 25. Zeroing the original 35MOA rail was just as simple. I use one of the rail to Picatinny adapters from Ant Supplies with the sprung gap on the right.
If the mount screws were flat bottomed as per the original Pard 008’s then the fit to the mount would/could be an issue… (which is why I converted it to countersunk screws). But the Zulus already uses countersinks to align the scope and mount.
I’ll try it on a pic railed rifle or two, or three later….these already have a single thermal scope zeroed to them and as you’d expect the windage is different between them all. So I won’t be wasting ammo seeing what happens.
Cheers,
Fizz
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Thank you - so am I right in thinking that these sights are all designed for AR platforms so the additional rail required for a bolt-action
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
Oh dear! So Arken spend a fortune building/buying an otherwise great bit of kit but it seems many purchasers have a problem mounting/zeroing it. Can someone please explain why this and indeed others such as Pards have this issue - why are they not just like mounting a telescopic sight?
Because they are fundamentally completely different.
A traditional glass scope has a fixed reticle and when you adjust windage and elevation the internals of the scope move the sight picture to the desired point of aim, therefore the ret is always centered. If you run out of windage or elevation you will need to shim or buy suitable off set mounts or rails, you dont hear many long range shooters moaning about this, its just an accepted fact.
With any digital scope its the sight picture that is fixed (effectively a camera strapped to your barrel) and when zeroing the reticle is moved towards your point of impact, any discrepancy between the line of the scope and bore results the cross hairs being off center, how much depends on the amount of discrepancy including mounts etc.
This isnt anything new, its the same for all digital scopes whether tubed or brick design, as mentioned we were using camera film/coke cans to centralize the reticle on the Photons years ago and even with todays lastest stuff its still the same principle and occurs with all of them, Pulsar, Hik, Sytong, Iray, Pard etc.
Some of them now have ret centering software that once you start to zoom the reticle shifts to the center automatically, the Alpex does it, so does the Arken, the Pard DS does it slightly differently to the same effect.
Shim seems to be a dirty word but its something thats been done for ages, before digital came along!
Last edited:
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Okay ta.
So in recognition of that why not provide an adjustable mounting system at time of purchase?
Or am I just really stupid?
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
Not at all, i would say like everything, boils down to cost.Okay ta.
So in recognition of that why not provide an adjustable mounting system at time of purchase?
Or am I just really stupid?
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
Yep, been there, got the tee shirt!Not a thought for any of us that had to undo the objective lens bolts on a Yukon Photon to point the crosshairs where you wanted them
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
I doubt Chinese design much of anything, since there's practically no firearms and thus no firearm related activity there. They just picked single interface (picatinny/weaver) as most of the sight manufacturers have done for a long time.
You don't go around moaning that the (traditional) scope you bought didn't come with rings to match whatever rail or attachment system you have on the rifle. You buy a set of suitable rings separately, and they match the interface on the sight (round tube). Sometimes you need to pay attention to the ring location on the tube, to get the eye relief right.
Digital sights that are not based on round tube, usually each have their own interface between sight and mount. So manufacturers offer a mount along with sight, and just do a poor job related to the interface between mount and rifle. You can buy quality aftermarket mounts like Innomount for most digital sights (including interfaces like Tikka rail, Blaser QD etc). But then you go on moaning that mount costs as much as the sight did...
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
And this is due to evolution and (perceived) customer demand.
First scopes didn't have any adjustments, the adjustment was between scope and mount.
Then they got elevation adjustment, and windage was adjusted usually between rings and rifle (sideways adjustable rings, or something like Sako rail).
Next step was that scopes had both elevation and windage adjustment, but usually the reticle was moving and "picture" stayed stationary (think of German scopes up to 80s or so).
Last step was moving the whole erector tube (not sure if this is correct term in English) inside the main tube, thus keeping the reticle stationary in relation to the picture.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
All corrected this morning. Remounted correctly this time. More secure via shims. Now solid and bore sighted. Ret in close proximity of image centre.
I've used Ret moving glass in the past and had to center rings etc etc...i should of known better.
Last night I drew a blank but I did enjoy the performance of the Zulus and it made me determined to align everything this morning instead of feeling disappointed.
I've used Ret moving glass in the past and had to center rings etc etc...i should of known better.
Last night I drew a blank but I did enjoy the performance of the Zulus and it made me determined to align everything this morning instead of feeling disappointed.
kenbro
Well-Known Member
Just because dirty "Shim" has been done for ages is no reason new products can't be issued properly engineered, is it?
Cheers, Ken.