Scope field evaluations on rokslide

[Rosebud]

I didn't always hunt out of ground blinds, and ladder stands. I've hunted on horseback several times, drove from Alabama to Wyoming, was kicked out on a 90,000 acre pasture and said to shoot a antelope when it gets light. Did just that, With a Rem700 .270 and a weaver scope. 1981. Then into the west elk wilderness for14 days on horseback same gun and scope. We checked zero day before the Elk hunt. No issues. After14 days in a saddle we then hunted Mule deer , killing two out of three never got on a good bull. Scope worked great, but now the two and three thousand dollar scopes fail because they ride in a truck seat for a week. Give me a break! How much $$$ is this guy making? I would love to see a real scientific test with double blind scopes used. Send three scopes of the same make and see if all of them fail. My understanding was he had to borrow some of the scopes, because he reported giving it back to the owner.

 

[Old Rooster]

I remember when Weaver was top notch Rosebud!
Sorry but I would not allow anyone to test my scopes like rockslide tests theirs.Since 1974 I have had 1 Leupold scope go bad and I fell off a cliff and rolled down the side of a mountain a heck of a long ways.The scope still lasted for a couple of years but Leupold sent me another with no questions asked even though I had a nice ding in the front bell.
Has scopes gotten worse at holding together than older ones?My brother dropped a Zeiss and bent the tube a little,still worked for many years but he sent it in as it looked bad and it cost him a pretty penny shipping bill.He had that scope until he died in 2019.Rockslide said They even had Nightforce failures!

 

[Small Lady]

Based on the hunt descriptions and photos on this site over the years I'd doubt most of our members have walked 6 miles in their life while hunting.

I typically go for a run 4 or 5 days per week, did again tonight after work, my normal route is 14.7 kms, or more than 9 miles.

 

[Small Lady]

Is this a double entendre? Are we supposed to think about scopes objectively or are we supposed to think about the scope objective, what size 42mm?

56mm.

 

[WiscGunner]

Four of us took Five different Atacrs and five different Mark 5s outside to the range at 1500 yards to compare glass. Three of the Atacrs were the same and unnoticeable. The others all had exhibited a visible difference between each example. One of the Leupolds was clearly behind the glass quality of the others.

On a range trip there were seven of us with everything from TT, ZCO, NF, Leupold, Athlon and Vortex. We got to compare all of them and we were surprised at what we saw which led to the comparison of the NF and Leupolds. One of the Mark 5s a 7-32 at the original range session stood out from all the others in broad day light. The ZCO was also noticeable brighter than the rest. When you have access to all of them and aren't looking at them in the store you can visibly see the difference buddy! (ie most assume the ZCO is brighter than the NF Atacr and it is till it begins to get really dark and then the contrast in the Atacr comes out and in my opinion makes up enough of the difference to deter me from buying the ZCO over the NF based on glass alone.

Again my point is not to argue one scope over another but simply to point out their are a lot of high quality scopes out there at varying price points. And while you may not be able to drive nails with them they will hold zero on most rifles and not fail you even if you drop it on a hunt. Not saying it doesn't happen but I think it happens a lot less than some of the manure that is being stepped in here.

I seem to sense a pattern for you. You clearly use glass quality to measure a "high quality scope" yet glass is only one aspect and these are not just observation devices but measuring instruments that must function.

While I do not necessary like Form's tone in many instances as it can appear arrogant and I do not always agree with him on every topic, these tests are not in any way meant to be an end all be all buyers guide. He has said repeatedly and I am sure will again soon that these are sample sizes of 1 and that your should test your own scope to be sure of gear despite any personal buyers bias. The idea is show that testing gear should be a normal thing and not to trust some guy on the internet, hence his anonymity. This new culture will and has put pressure on on manufactures to improve the performance of their products. Is that a bad thing? Is testing ones own gear a bad thing? Do anecdotes of someone's gear never failing have any value at all? NO. This is why there is a detail testing protocol for people to do at home. Nothing hidden behind the curtain so top secret a company can't share.

As for statical relevance of testing a sample of 1. Every scope SHOULD pass. Passing is worthless statistically and even a terrible scope company will have more good products than bad products. Finding the losers is really finding the gold nuggets. I would love to see them test a second or 3 sample of a loser to see if the win the lottery every time or if the fail was a fluke that got through QC. It is funny that inevitable everyone's favorite scopes that fail are that one that got though QC though. Statistically that is very hard to find.

 

[WiscGunner]

Recently had a new 22 creedmoor that was shifting zero. Scope was a swfa 3-9 that is supposed to be one of the reliable, passes drop tests kind of scope. I immediately blamed the scope. After re-torqueing the action, remounting rings, swapping scopes around…found out it was actually my barrel not torqued enough to the action (prefit barrel nut setup, didn't torque it on enough). Scope was/is fine. The gun system now stays zeroed on 12-18in drops. Personally 36" is more than I feel like risking a total breakage of something.

My biggest take away from following along with these drop tests (other than just start with a model that seems to pass) is how to trouble shoot and identify a zero shift.

All of my rifles now have a baseline 20 shot group and perfect zero. Periodically I will check a 100 yard zero and if the round falls outside my 20 shot expected group..I know there has been a shift somewhere.

I've since identified weak points in my bedding/torque, rings/mounts, and my buddies leupold scopes..so far none of my scopes have been the culprit since switching everything over to bushy LRHS and SWFAs. And now all my systems are rock solid as they can be.

Everything in a rifle system can fail, my goal is to know what that point of failure could be and correct it before it has a chance to ruin a hunt.

Good on you for getting the point of all of this testing! Test out own gear - check. Test the gear a system - check. Eliminate weak point with proper gear choices and assembly - check. Wish more people were like you and didn't take it so personally but used these test to reinforce their system too.

 

[WiscGunner]

I didn't always hunt out of ground blinds, and ladder stands. I've hunted on horseback several times, drove from Alabama to Wyoming, was kicked out on a 90,000 acre pasture and said to shoot a antelope when it gets light. Did just that, With a Rem700 .270 and a weaver scope. 1981. Then into the west elk wilderness for14 days on horseback same gun and scope. We checked zero day before the Elk hunt. No issues. After14 days in a saddle we then hunted Mule deer , killing two out of three never got on a good bull. Scope worked great, but now the two and three thousand dollar scopes fail because they ride in a truck seat for a week. Give me a break! How much $$$ is this guy making? I would love to see a real scientific test with double blind scopes used. Send three scopes of the same make and see if all of them fail. My understanding was he had to borrow some of the scopes, because he reported giving it back to the owner.

I think it is important to remember these scopes "failed" to hold zero not failed as in not longer usable. If you read the test parameters or and other actual test you will see a statistically significant group size is established with the rifle and ammo then the scope is test to maintain that group size. Most hunters would say their scope still work great if it old shifted a bit here or there and they wouldn't notice on paper and certainly not noticing on an animal when the cone of dispersion is covered up with "animal moved', wind or close enough to still kill.

 

[buzby]

I think it is important to remember these scopes "failed" to hold zero not failed as in not longer usable. If you read the test parameters or and other actual test you will see a statistically significant group size is established with the rifle and ammo then the scope is test to maintain that group size. Most hunters would say their scope still work great if it old shifted a bit here or there and they wouldn't notice on paper and certainly not noticing on an animal when the cone of dispersion is covered up with "animal moved', wind or close enough to still kill.

This, 100%. I'd bet a lot of these scopes that "haven't lost zero," have not been verified past a shot or two. Cone of dispersion is a new term to most, including myself. A 1/2" shift at 100 would often go unnoticed. Still hitting a 10" vital zone isn't going to tell you much either.

 

[Paladin300]

I seem to sense a pattern for you. You clearly use glass quality to measure a "high quality scope" yet glass is only one aspect and these are not just observation devices but measuring instruments that must function.

While I do not necessary like Form's tone in many instances as it can appear arrogant and I do not always agree with him on every topic, these tests are not in any way meant to be an end all be all buyers guide. He has said repeatedly and I am sure will again soon that these are sample sizes of 1 and that your should test your own scope to be sure of gear despite any personal buyers bias. The idea is show that testing gear should be a normal thing and not to trust some guy on the internet, hence his anonymity. This new culture will and has put pressure on on manufactures to improve the performance of their products. Is that a bad thing? Is testing ones own gear a bad thing? Do anecdotes of someone's gear never failing have any value at all? NO. This is why there is a detail testing protocol for people to do at home. Nothing hidden behind the curtain so top secret a company can't share.

As for statical relevance of testing a sample of 1. Every scope SHOULD pass. Passing is worthless statistically and even a terrible scope company will have more good products than bad products. Finding the losers is really finding the gold nuggets. I would love to see them test a second or 3 sample of a loser to see if the win the lottery every time or if the fail was a fluke that got through QC. It is funny that inevitable everyone's favorite scopes that fail are that one that got though QC though. Statistically that is very hard to find.

The above post was a response to another who questioned an earlier statement. I was only using the glass quality as an example of scope quality control between varying models. There was no intent to have a discussion or to infer any criteria for a scope having a particular glass quality. I was simply using it to illustrate a point, in the same way I used the car analogy. Point being you can get different results from scopes of the same model, therefore a sample of one is inadequate for a valid test. Secondly, different models from an individual scope manufacturer may display a different quality based on the components used. And finally you get what you pay for and you should expect that the more you pay the better the product, however if your goal is light weight scope the tube construction will be thinner and therefore less durable. There are trade off with every option you chose. Again, the glass was just an analogy that was missed by those that are emotionally invested in the test's apparent results.

 

[Munch]

Going back 22 years...

There was good reason why S&B and to a lesser extent, NF, were the predominate scope selections for SOCOM and USMC Force Recon units down range. I would not call it abuse, but these scopes/weapons systems were very reliable all-the-while subject to very, very hard use in very difficult environments and conditions.

Like most things that cross-over from military to hunting applications, various industries and companies have built great products based on feedback from service personnel during the WOT.

And as the age old adage goes (for the most part), you get what you pay for.

I tend to subscribe to "buy once, cry once".

I think the evaluations on Rokslide bear that out!

 

[pavementends]

The scope designer makes a series of choices. Glass quality, durability, repeatability, features, weight etc. all of which interact and in the end are also driven by price point and market demand. 50 years ago no one was "dialing" the only large objective lens scopes were the European models used for night hunting 8X56 being somewhat common. 3x zoom range the norm. 7/8" and 1" tube diameters. As our demands changed scope tubes got larger and scopes became more complex. Hopefully the larger tubes allow for more durable mechanicals. Add light rifles lots of powder and a market that chases fads like teenage girls and the next boy band and the designers have a difficult job. We are truly blessed with choices in features and price points.

 

[Pdvdh]

Point being you can get different results from scopes of the same model, therefore a sample of one is inadequate for a valid test.

I suggest testing one scope is more valid than testing none.

Point being, who in this world is gonna spend the time and money testing 12 different units of each brand/model scope in order to meet a statistically valid number of scopes tested?

Will you?

The scope manufacturers? Might as well appoint them as judge and jury presiding over their own trial.

 

[Munch]

Point bring, who in this world is gonna spend the time and money testing 12 different units of each brand/model scope in order to meet a statistically valid number of scopes tested.

DoD.

Even so....most companies do not submit their products to DoD.

DoD puts out contract notices and companies submit their products for testing and evaluation. Generally, it is always the same companies submitting products because most optic companies products cannot meet the rigorous criteria set-forth in the contract.

A good hunting buddy spent almost $1000 (his budget limit) on a highly recognized, name brand scope. This scope could not hold zero sitting in his truck's rifle rack while driving down gravel roads. He sent it back to the manufacturer several times. The response from the company each time was, "it meets our specifications". I'm not sure what "holding zero" means to the company, to me, it means POA = POI within 1 MOA/.3 MIL. But most optic companies do not guarantee such or even let you know what their spec's are for a "will not hold zero" warranty claim.

 

[DanMan]

I didn't see a tested Huskemaw in any of his post. I have always had confidence in mine but this now has me wondering