Scope field evaluations on rokslide

[buzby]

I loved the tt glass. The tt just didnt love the lapua. Under 100 rounds parallax broke. But so did zco and recently atacr. Atacr was on a 14lb 37xc though not a 12.5lb lapua. But tt did overnight scope to canada for me fixed it and overnight back, in hands 4 days later. Thats impressive customer service and zero excuses why it failed. Zco been same experience. Atacr took 3 weeks but still fixed

Sounds like you need a 6x SWFA
I'm kidding, but it would be interesting to see if one held up

 

[Barehandlineman11]

Seriously though im hard on things but big guns will test things. I got a bunch of atacrs with no issues atleast. See how the fixed one will do now that its back. I'll probably order another tt for 22 creed i just finished

 

[Barehandlineman11]

Nf said the parallax adjustment came loose. Tt and zco said they just broke

 

[WiscGunner]

I already performed the first part, mine kinda failed. Now it's your turn

Happy too.
Currently in the process of "upgrading" my scopes. I know my Razor Gen2 will fail. Happy to test it officially but it doesn't like tipping over on the bipod. Despite being heavy, she is delicate. Just got an Arken EP5 for my Rimx than has been great, happy to test that and see how it compares. Just picked up a Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44 nto check out in person. If I keep it I will certainly drop it.

Trying to decide on my replacement for my Razor Gen2. Looking at the Minox Zp5 5-25 MR4 or March FX 4.5-28. If Nightforce had a decent reticle (imho) I would already have an Atacr.

Happy to buy a TT if they are as durable as a Nightforce now that they have a decent reticle. Would like to see some other test or a money back guarantee before dropping that much money on an unknown.

 

[WiscGunner]

Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV F1 Drop Test/mini evaul

Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV F1 drop testing and mini evaluation. It was pointed out to me that I need to proof the rifle/mount/rings system. @HawkinsPrecision rings, Tikka T3 action with 22BR barrel from Preferred, in a Bell and Carlson stock. This scope is my own, one of two, and I have had it...

rokslide.com

Thank you for the link. Now I see why I didn't see it before. Yes it is another Nightforce tested but by some other individual. Glad to see other people taking up the torch of gear testing other than just Form.

 

[WiscGunner]

Called in this badger last night. Lip squeaked up to 30yds and shot him in his face. People here would have me believe I could have made that shot with anything other than a Tangent Theta. Clearly, they have no clue what they are talking about.

View attachment 518617

What you use, or whether it delivers the experience you want to have, so you can have fun fulfilling hunts filled with purity and enjoyment, is not important. The important thing is using products based on the recommendations of others that make you feel superior for owning those things, so that you can talk about it in public conversational spaces and con others into thinking you know what you're talking about because you own it. Don't worry about your lack of round count or time in the field, there's all kinds of rebuttals and insults that you can use to avoid anyone finding out that you live in a suburb and have to drive 1.5hrs to a square range to shoot 200yds... or that you've made more posts on the internet in one week than you've fired purposeful precision rifle rounds in a year.



This thread can hit 50 pages. I believe.


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

Like that paint job!

 

[Darryle]

Did you see the other video of the pronghorn at 1000? That was a very doable shot.

Some conditions make certain shots impossible, no matter the equipment.


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

I have that one queued up to watch, that preview image was nice, even my old blind *** could have made that shot.

I was actually using that video watching the mirage to figure out wind calls. I was listening to a podcast about making/training yourself on accurate wind calls when I remembered your video.

 

[sndmn11]

Thank you for the link. Now I see why I didn't see it before. Yes it is another Nightforce tested but by some other individual. Glad to see other people taking up the torch of gear testing other than just Form.

I can't remember why, it might have been right before the scope evaluation sub forum was created.

 

[nksmfamjp]

Leupold states their shock testing is done 5000 times at a shock level 3x the value of 308 Win recoil, during development of the scope, not in production random testing just to confirm its all still working. If that's their approach, I've had 5 of them go back for warranty and always returned with the explanation they have replaced the erector system.
A Zeiss V4 failed in the parallax adjustment.
A Burris, no comment was given as to what was fixed.
None of these were dropped.
My friends Vortex got out of production with rotated cross hair glass. Brand new.
I'm searching for something else too.
My problem with the engineering and manufacturing is, if the manufacturers are seeing these returns for the same thing, it's not getting fixed.
These didn't break by dropping them. They just failed for no other reason than recoil and dialing, well within Leupolds "torture test". They need more torture in testing and production to weed out bad designs, bad parts getting in production.
To purposely drop the rifle on the scope, I would expect damage to occur or a POI shift but it could come from bases, rings or the scope system. If it didn't shift POI, that's great. But I would have that shadow of doubt right in the middle of a hunt of a lifetime, or any hunt, that I might want to check this out for POI right as that monster elk is in my scope. Squeeze or no squeeze?

That sounds impressive until you compare 308 recoil to bigger guns….then you realize how minimal that is. 5000 cycles seems like a lot, but it is pretty low when you consider how many shooters will exceed that in 5 yrs.

 

[Mark37082]

QC or the lack of it is obviously is a major issue for companies producing large volumes of rifle scopes. Design is very important as well as not cutting costs on materials used in critical components. This adds significant costs to production of a scope. Warranty returns also add up to significant costs. Although I believe some companies bank on many customers not going through the hassle of returning a faulty scopes. Generally I believe the boutique higher end scope manufacturers separate themselves by focusing their efforts on QC and very high quality of materials. They can't afford reputation related hits when customers are paying high end $$$$. No one paying the big bucks is going to accept failures or problems.

 

[Darryle]

That sounds impressive until you compare 308 recoil to bigger guns….then you realize how minimal that is. 5000 cycles seems like a lot, but it is pretty low when you consider how many shooters will exceed that in 5 yrs.

We have a "shake" shack at work where a ton of R&D testing takes place. To see a full size production airframe covered in strain gages and having the ever loving snot shaken out of it 24/7 is an impressive sight the first few times you see it. Then you build a DT model that is cut away methodically, then attach oversized mounts, completely machine and UT the mounts to ensure integrity and then install it in a shake, twist and torque fixture, comparable scope testing is kinda meh. If the majority of scope manufacturers would spend the customer service/warranty budget on strict testing protocols, better more stringent/tougher testing methods, they would sell more optics and could spend the profits on designing in new features, better glass and that would drive even more sales.

The real take away from Form's testing for me, it's sad that we as consumers have to evaluate our optics in this manner to verify the claims of the manufacturer.

If the optics community were to implement something similar to Saami, there'd be a much smaller selection of brands and models.

I had 3 Leupold scope failures in a row, they promptly replaced them or I was able to return them to the retailer for a refund, left a bad taste in my mouth. The only 2 Leupold products I have are both well over 25yrs old and both have been "field" tested. The Vari-X 6.5 - 20 was thrown out of the cargo hatch of a airplane on to the tarmac, the drop busted the wheels off and cracked the SKB hard case the 300 Weatherby was in, got to the outfitter, rifle was still zero'd and still tracks today. The M1 4.5 - 14 x 50mm spent it's life on some type of nuisance animal control rig, originally a factory slow twist CRF varmint in 243, killed a lot of coyotes, banging around different farms and ranches, never had to worry about zero, still functions today. If I had my choice, I would chose a Leupold, but I am not playing the odds because the deck is stacked against me.

 

[nksmfamjp]

We have a "shake" shack at work where a ton of R&D testing takes place. To see a full size production airframe covered in strain gages and having the ever loving snot shaken out of it 24/7 is an impressive sight the first few times you see it. Then you build a DT model that is cut away methodically, then attach oversized mounts, completely machine and UT the mounts to ensure integrity and then install it in a shake, twist and torque fixture, comparable scope testing is kinda meh. If the majority of scope manufacturers would spend the customer service/warranty budget on strict testing protocols, better more stringent/tougher testing methods, they would sell more optics and could spend the profits on designing in new features, better glass and that would drive even more sales.

The real take away from Form's testing for me, it's sad that we as consumers have to evaluate our optics in this manner to verify the claims of the manufacturer.

If the optics community were to implement something similar to Saami, there'd be a much smaller selection of brands and models.

I had 3 Leupold scope failures in a row, they promptly replaced them or I was able to return them to the retailer for a refund, left a bad taste in my mouth. The only 2 Leupold products I have are both well over 25yrs old and both have been "field" tested. The Vari-X 6.5 - 20 was thrown out of the cargo hatch of a airplane on to the tarmac, the drop busted the wheels off and cracked the SKB hard case the 300 Weatherby was in, got to the outfitter, rifle was still zero'd and still tracks today. The M1 4.5 - 14 x 50mm spent it's life on some type of nuisance animal control rig, originally a factory slow twist CRF varmint in 243, killed a lot of coyotes, banging around different farms and ranches, never had to worry about zero, still functions today. If I had my choice, I would chose a Leupold, but I am not playing the odds because the deck is stacked against me.

Lot of good points here.

To me, Form's testing and similar is kind of a double edged sword. He is essentially testing outside all of the functional use cases for an optic, when he drops it. Kind of like why guns can be broke when you pistol whip someone. On the other hand, when you add in some use case for dropping an optic, it is a ground up redesign and cost increase.

If you blame your customers, but warranty their mistakes, most are satisfied. In the end you are in a better situation as you don't have to develop a solution or accept outside testing showing your products fail.

If more of us expose those failures and spend our money to avoid them, products will change.

 

[dogz]

Yeah there's a ton of legit info in there for sure. Basically nightforce, trijicon and SWFA have been the consistent ones to pass over several models. Most scopes are trash lol. Hell, most of them lose zero just riding in the backseat.

Boom this!

 

[Kiowa Cowboy]

Wow! I don't get why so many people get offended by free information. The whole idea of the evaluations is simply to provide us with more information. We are all free to take it or leave it...right? Many of us may not hunt in steep terrain where sometimes people fall and damage their scopes. But I really appreciate the information from those who have had that experience. I would not want them to be discouraged from continuing to share their experiences with those of us who like to have additional points of reference.

As many have said, thousands of deer have been killed with cheapo Tasco scopes. But, if I was climbing to 14,000 feet for a hunt of a lifetime, traveling around the world to hunt, or competing then the ability of scope to track properly and hold zero seems pretty important. JMO