Scope field evaluations on rokslide

[Phil Rizzo]

I like the one with the bullet hole in the tube that never stopped functioning.

 

[sp6x6]

Ive shot most of my game with a Leupold scope, mainly a black ring tact. 4-14 x50 on a 340wby.Last 13 years and with wolf haven't shot as much, partial with a mark 4, 4 years on 7 # 338 nm.GS said scope wouldn't make it, its on another rifle now.March been on since, rolled my jeep with it strapped to roll cage,didnt loose zero.Have a NF on a 6.5 PRC, I hike a lot of steep and snowy timber, watched my son go down multiple times last week.My rig rifle is a 338 NM,Ive hiked it too. 5-25X56 M5, really like ,super clear, size larger than I like.I regular shoot rocks across canyons, was .1m+ high at 800, then later .2m at 950.Dont usually have to touch, mounted in single spurh mnt.Now im wondering? Going to check all torques, but...Hope its not walking. Ive broke rifles in half horse hunting, but out of that now.If my mark 5 isn't holding my mark 4 will go back on,m5 will be sold

 

[Mike D Texas]

Hahaha I don't like the single tension point in the middle of the rings, or the fact that they require 55 in lbs of torque on the tube, or that they come loose if you torque much less than that, or that they single handedly blew the Parralax out on two of my scopes. I think that's it lol.

Simple is just better in my opinion. And they design is neither simple, or better lol.

But other than that, we can totally be friends haha

Interesting.

I'm shooting them on my 338 NMI with an NX8 and haven't had any issues. I don't torque them to 55 in lbs either.

It really makes scope mounting simple though. No turning of the tube and making the reticle un level like traditional cap rings.

 

[Huntnful]

Interesting.

I'm shooting them on my 338 NMI with an NX8 and haven't had any issues. I don't torque them to 55 in lbs either.

It really makes scope mounting simple though. No turning of the tube and making the reticle in level like traditional cap rings.

Yeah that is a pain. I do torque slowly and in a sequence to keep the scope level until it stays put. I just went back to seekins rings

 

[Mike D Texas]

Yeah that is a pain. I do torque slowly and in a sequence to keep the scope level until it stays put. I just went back to seekins rings

I do like the NF Ultralight 6 screw rings and I have a few sets of Seekins as well.

I also traded into a Spuhr Uni Mount that is built like a tank. I would use them more if they weren't so expensive and heavy.

 

[buzby]

Which torture test is more realistic? A scope that's been hunted hard for 3 years and never had an issue, or a scope that was dropped a couple of times and failed.

I tend to believe the test with multiple documented data points, over the one that is a guy saying he hasn't had any issues.

Form's tests are a bit more involved than dropping a a scope a couple times. There's also more than one sample for several of the scopes. Not to mention his own experiences, and experiences with many other hunters and their scopes.

 

[Quicksilver338]

I just completed year 3 with my LHT. Well I have a couple more hunts this year, but my rough math says that it's killed 16 animals in 3 years, from 17 yards to 834 yards. I haven't had a POI impact in 3 years. Not saying it's a NF but it's funny how fast everyone on RS wrote off the LHT after one test. I've dropped mine multiple times, it's ridden thousands of Miles in a truck, 100s of miles on a rzr, been packed on foot 100s of miles and it's never given me one issue.

I think one of the issues with the test is that there is ONE test scope. It might be the one scope that performs great, or the scope that performs terribly. It's not feasible to test 10 scopes, but it's something to think about that you're getting a sample size of ONE.

Which torture test is more realistic? A scope that's been hunted hard for 3 years and never had an issue, or a scope that was dropped a couple of times and failed.

You got a unicorn, don't sell it!

Buddy has the same scope, it's been fine on his .308. My brother tested it out to buy on his 300wm tikka and it was shotgun pattern groups and odd tracking/response. Buddy put the lht back on his .308 and is fine again. Scope never left the rings between rifles.

Scope before this on my brother's rifle was a 3x-vl leupold and grouped pretty consistently 3/4moa for years. Tested lht shotgun pattern groups. Now has a trijicon credo and back to solid 3/4moa groups.

One is very heavy recoil and one is not…reminded me a lot of form's drop tests for that scope.

 

[comfisherman]

Maybe. I dunno. I've one of the failure scopes and rolled down a hill with it so hard it broke a cell phone in my chest pocket, snapped a trekking pole and hairlined the stock. But the drop test failure kept zero, like it has since it was put on in thousands of atv and snowmobile miles, in and out of skiff and even strapped to a plane wing.

But the internet convinced me to buy a vortex, swfa, and Mueller. The swfa reminded me of a scope I made as a kid from a toilet paper roll and dental floss.... it was given to a friend who eventually sent it to the landfill. Never owned a vortex below a viper, but still got to use that world class warranty... a lot. Mueller was packed with tannerite and shot... same internet tells me all the leupolds I see above the treeline on beat up worn out kimber montanas and winchester featherweights are garbage fit only for fools. Keep trying to tell these old boys they need chassis, aics mags and that their old leupolds suck.... Sadly they suffer ignorantly. Not sure why, but only bum steers I've ever got from forums are from the optics category. Wish it werent so, as there is more improvement to be had in that part of the hunting system than endless re design of a brass wrapper around a powder columns


Only thing I doubt more than internet optics threads are campaign promises of fiscal responsibility from octogenarian politicians....

 

[Pdvdh]

I tend to believe the test with multiple documented data points, over the one that is a guy saying he hasn't had any issues.

Form's tests are a bit more involved than dropping a scope a couple times. There's also more than one sample for several of the scopes. Not to mention his own experiences, and experiences with many other hunters and their scopes.

Agreed. Some folk clearly got feelings hurt. Their brand of scopes didn't pass. Doubt, dismiss, pout, and counterattack...

I suspect a minority of scope owners wouldn't recognize their scope failing to hold zero. Especially those never shooting game or targets past 200yds. The majority of hunters.

Even if Form only tested a single scope of a given Brand/Model, and it fails, why fight those odds and buy one of those scopes? Like begging for disappointment.

I find his test methods robust/rigorous. I have no interest in spending that kinda time testing numerous scopes. I also found his test results to be reasonably consistent with the experiences of many serious long range shooters / hunters. One quick example; Barbour Creek uses a number of Trijicon Tenmile scopes on their shooting school rifles, and give them the thumbs up for tracking and reliability. Form tested a Trijicon Tenmile and it passes. Holy Moly... what a coincidence... who'd a thunk?

 

[Culpeper]

Those are just torture tests based on the false assumption that your scope should hold its zero . Your favorite hunting knife is going to fail a torture test. The guy has found a click niche. A gullible click niche. Look at all the long range kills on this forum and ask if they were prudent enough to check their zero or not. Even trained professional snipers know to check their zero. Mount your scope, check your zero, and know your true click value. If you drop your rifle don't be stupid enough to think you can just go ahead and take the shot. If this guy was legit he would go the extra step and explain exactly what is mechanically failing so the ignorant engineers can make a better scope, lol.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Those are just torture tests based on the false assumption that your scope should hold its zero

Sooooo, a scope shouldn't hold zero?

 

[Culpeper]

Sooooo, a scope shouldn't hold zero?

Don't "assume" it will hold its zero. Next to load development, optics are the dumbest topics on the Internet.

 

[Phil Rizzo]

His tests give me more info than I'll ever get any other way, on my own.
And lessen the potential pain of lost opportunity when it appears.

 

[Culpeper]

His tests give me more info than I'll ever get any other way, on my own.
And lessen the potential pain of lost opportunity when it appears.

I have a scope that has a zero gauge. Like a gas gauge, you know