6.5 PRC glass

[huntnful]

I use a similar 6.5 PRC with a Mark 5HD 3.6-18 x 44. I think it would serve you well for what you describe. Good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have the same exact setup as well. I like it a lot.

 

[SDHNTR]

Consensus is basically why would anyone purposely drop a glass anything?

Conceptually, I totally agree. Why would someone drop their hard earned money on the ground! It doesn’t make much sense. At least not until you realize that the only reason why this is now becoming relevant and people are doing it, is because the scope manufacturers aren’t doing this for us as part of their testing, as they should. Hopefully the various manufacturers making such comments will eventually come to this conclusion. Consumer market is demanding it. And soon enough, those manufacturers not including this in their testing, or worse yet, being dismissive, will be losing market share.

 

[ofl0926]

The point of the testing is not to predict performance after a booboo, it is to predict long term performance and ability to hold zero through the long haul of regular use.

I feel they go hand in hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SDHNTR]

The obvious corollary question to ask in response would also be “why would someone crash their car on purpose?”
Obvious answer being… We don’t, but we also expect some standard of manufacturer testing to be done so that incidental minor accidents which will inevitably happen don’t cause undue harm. The same level of expectation with regard to testing previous to purchase is finally gathering traction in the optics marketplace.

No shade intended to you Doug! You’ve been a fantastic supporter of this and many other sites for years, which we appreciate! But we also do hope you could serve as an advocate to spread the message. Until then, I guess I’m going to keep having to buy Nightforces from you!

 

[SDHNTR]

Consensus is basically why would anyone purposely drop a glass anything?

Well there’s this too. Small numbers as this just started yesterday, but I think the percentage difference is telling.

 

[BBob]

The obvious corollary question to ask in response would also be “why would someone crash their car on purpose?”
Obvious answer being… We don’t, but we also expect some standard of testing to be done so that incidental minor accidents which will inevitably happen don’t cause undue harm.

Exactly!!! I like this. Cars get crash tested so they work better for us. I'm glad scopes are getting crash tested but wish the manufacturers would do it instead and honestly. Prices would likely go up but in the end it'd probably be worth it.

 

[BBob]

The obvious corollary question to ask in response would also be “why would someone crash their car on purpose?”
Obvious answer being… We don’t, but we also expect some standard of manufacturer testing to be done so that incidental minor accidents which will inevitably happen don’t cause undue harm. The same level of expectation with regard to testing previous to purchase is finally gathering traction in the optics marketplace.

Exactly!!! I like this. Cars get crash tested so they work better for us. I'm glad scopes are getting crash tested but wish the manufacturers would do it instead and honestly. Prices would likely go up but in the end it'd probably be worth it.

 

[sndmn11]

I feel they go hand in hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are connected in the sense that the drops testing is an expedited means of predicting long term zero retention. However, that message is getting lost by focusing on the drops. Just like the response @gr8fuldoug shared above, folks seem to scoff at the idea. If he went back to those same people and asked them about zero retention testing, there would/should be a different answer. They would all talk about how their scopes are great at that. The question should be how will your scope retain zero through non-destructive testing? That should bring the focus around to the idea of zero retention, rather than the audacity of dropping glass stuff.

Right now the message is a long the lines of, "these jackwagons think throwing rifles happens on every hunt", when they should be saying, "these people can repeatedly lose zero with our scope, and when we inspect the scope everything is intact. WTF is happening".

 

[Clark33]

The point of the testing is not to predict performance after a booboo, it is to predict long term performance and ability to hold zero through the long haul of regular use.

How does dropping a scope on its head under a 12lb rifle predict long term normal use?

 

[sndmn11]

How does dropping a scope on its head under a 12lb rifle predict long term normal use?

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

www.rokslide.com

The whole purpose of why @Formidilosus has developed the testing, if you buy into his experiences and thought process, was to predict long term viability in an efficient manner.

 

[Clark33]

Crashing testing a car doesn’t determine the cars long term normal performance

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

OK, those who know me know I love sending these on to my reps and getting some input, so here's what I heard back so far:
Before we get there, I'm sure you're aware we are running the Made in the USA Burris XTR III's starting at only $999.99

OK, here's what i heard back:

Burris:
"That 30oz target is a tough one to get while checking all the other boxes. The shooters of NRL Hunter – Open Light division are limited to 12lb for the Rifle, Scope, muzzle device(s), Bipod, and Sling, so they’re the ones to follow for lightening the shooting system as much as reasonably possible. Currently the Leupold Mk5 HD has been winning the lightest optic category, but very few reticles are available with illumination, it’s a 35mm tube making ring choice limited, and it’s priced near his limit.

The XTR3 3.3-18x50mm is the best contender, and of course is available for much less ( without illumination on the deal you have now, and soon with illumination). The optical performance is similar, and the scope alone comes in just under 30oz. All other specs are comparable, as it is a compact scope with intermediate magnification range, and functional mil-based reticle in the FFP.

While other scopes out there exist, and may tick the boxes he’s currently looking for with a cheaper to build SFP reticle, it’s my personal recommendation that he stick with what he knows. If he’s confident and capable with his current setup, there’s no reason to change back to a SFP reticle that will occlude most of his target at low magnification. Within the Burris line, the Veracity is another consideration, and is far lighter at 22.7-28.2oz (depending on which magnification range he’d like), but doesn’t have an option for illuminated reticles, which tend to be quite nice to have as a hunter."

Sig Sauer:
"Our scopes are on the heavier end, but the Sierra6 BDX would likely satisfy most of his needs. Also then has the option for the BDX hunting system."

Sightron:
"If FFP is not needed, I recommend the SIII Long Range
Upside is having covered turrets, so less risk of bumping windage or elevation adjustments when hiking etc. and it's a great scope at a much lower price"

Zeiss:
"Conquest V4 4-16x50 - ZBi Illuminated #522945-9968-080 or Conquest V4 6-24x50 - ZBi - Illum. Reticle (#68) - Ext. Elev. - Ballistic Stop - .25 MOA #522955-9968-090.
I would think the 4-16x50 is going to do most of what he wants. The illuminated dot would be for his 200 yard Zero for his deer shots but he can push out to 600 easily with the holdover aspect of the reticle.
BUT, both are really backordered right now. But given his requirements, these are the ones I would recommend."

Steiner:
"I would recommend either of these as a SFP option, and lets him save some $$ for ammo. Note these are MOA, not MIL, which is standard for US hunting scopes.
Predator 4 4-16x50 - E3 #8772
Predator 4 6-24x50 - E3 #8773
or
T5Xi Tactical 5-25x56"

GPO:
SPECTRA 4x 2.5-10x44 - G4 Weight = 21.9 oz. 2FP Non illuminated
SPECTRA 6x 2-12x44i - BRWi Weight 20.3 oz 2FP BRWi reticle

Leica:
Amplus 6 3-18x44i - L-Ballistic BDC MOA would be great for this and probably is the only viable option from us. If FFP becomes necessary, NF NX8 2.5-20 or Leupold Mk5HD 3.5-18 would be fitting choices.

I hope this helps

Doug, where are the XTR 3s and the GPO Spectras made?

 

[Formidilosus]

Crashing testing a car doesn’t determine the cars long term normal performance

No, but it does give in indication whether the vehicle will fail in likely accidents. The car version is great bodily harm or death, the scope version is missing animals. The manufactures, also- well at least the good ones- track longevity of the care. That is does it start and run without major issues for the expected life of the vehicle. There is nothing like that for scopes, well apparently Trijicon has started path and NF has been on it. I guarantee these companies can not state through testing how many rounds their scope hold absolute zero for. Nor what height fall or drop will cause their scopes to lose zero.

Vehicles and scopes are not the same thing, but do have corollaries. Dropping and shooting does a few things-

1). Does the scope hold zero from drops?

2). Is there a correlation between a scopes performance while zeroing, RTZ, “tracking, and staying zeroed through drops, and to staying zeroed in field use?

3). Does the scope work and stay zeroed in long term use- this requires shooting 1,000, 2,000, 10,000 or whatever rounds.



These are the points that lead down this path to begin with- I got tired of using scopes that randomly lost zero. It is silly to have to go through 6 months or a year of use and 2,000 rounds only to find out that the scope is unreliable. The Evals as it is laid out shows in less than an hour which scopes have no chance of being reliable and durable, and which ones may last. It allows the effort to be put in the scopes likely to function correctly.

 

[Clark33]

Dropping a rifle from 3 feet repeatedly could also tell you maybe you’re rifle system needs refining: base, rings, bedding etc. (not saying yours). I just don’t want people to take their gun out there, drop it, notice a shift in poi and sell a perfectly good scope lol. These drops are entertaining though lol. Carry on fellas

 

[Formidilosus]

Dropping a rifle from 3 feet repeatedly could also tell you maybe you’re rifle system needs refining: base, rings, bedding etc. (not saying yours).

Correct- I have stated this repeatedly.

 

[sndmn11]

Dropping a rifle from 3 feet repeatedly could also tell you maybe you’re rifle system needs refining: base, rings, bedding etc. (not saying yours). I just don’t want people to take their gun out there, drop it, notice a shift in poi and sell a perfectly good scope lol. These drops are entertaining though lol. Carry on fellas

These are not destructive to the scope. I think absolute evidence of that is the worst performing scope so far was sent back for repair and the brand deemed it to be flawless.

A fair analogy would be one of those EKG heart stress tests. It is simply a non-destructive method of identifying an issue now rather than later. Doctors learned exercise increases heart rate which leads to expediant identification of heart problems. The goal isn't to destroy the heart and cause arrest, it is just to challenge it.

I believe everyone is in agreement that a failed test, back to rifles, could mean a few things. I would bet a while lot of money that if more people did these tests, there would be low single digit percentage instances where the scope was good and any of the other things you rattled off were not.

For anyone in Colorado, I would be happy happy to meet up and throw my tested NF on your rifle, run through the test to proof your rifle, and then throw your scope back on to learn the result. Conversely, I'd be similarly happy happy to meet up with someone and test their scope on my proofed rifle.

 

[elkguide]

I have never dropped a rifle on purpose but there has been more than one hunting experience when I was in a place that an intelligent human being would have never gone. On more than one of those adventures whether it was on that shale covered hillside or on that steep snow-covered slope or even on that way after sunset hike back to camp and my foot not seeing that root, me and my rifle ended up on the ground and more than once I cringed as I heard my scope hit something very hard.
I find Form's testing informative and very interesting.

 

[Longleaf]

Consensus is basically why would anyone purposely drop a glass anything?

Exactly! Why would you crash test a perfectly good car?!

 

[RussDXT]

Exactly! Why would you crash test a perfectly good car?!

If you hunt in the backcountry you would get it.

Again, thanks to form for doing awesome work here.

I have had two scopes loose zero after impacts. Nightforce and Swfa seem to be the best.

Op Spartan precision is the best price I have seen in Nightforce.

 

[Formidilosus]

Exactly! Why would you crash test a perfectly good car?!

Yeah! The Ford Pinto scopes are awesome.