We will agree to disagree about the SWFA/Tract drop tests then, fine by me.
I’m not arguing or disagreeing, I’m actually asking which scope? I dont
know which you are referencing and if I have made a mistake I want to correct it.
I'm not necessarily talking to you when referencing buying decisions made by drop tests. Many here argue that point, and IME it's ridiculous criteria, that's all.
I would hope the drop portion in the eval is just one factor of a decision with an understanding that it isn’t specifically or only about a scope working when dropped- it’s also an indication of long term functionality.
There are very, very few people on the planet that shoot as much as you and your guys do. I think you would even admit that. What applies to you and your guys may have little to nothing to do with the average hunter/shooter.
That’s true. However, I try to tailor what I write to the use case of “serious backpack hunters” or whatever the tagline is. If I only went by my actual use and needs outside of hunting- yeah there’s like two scopes I would use. I hunted with 14 different people this year with between 4 and 10 days per person. Nothing crazy just normal backpack deer and elk hunts, and there was only scope that lost zero: the Leupold Mark 5. That rifle was being carried by someone and if they would have taken a shot over 200 yards, it would have caused a miss, under 200 a wound.
We check zero before the hunts, in the middle if a chance comes up, and after to see what happened. Just normal backpack hunting- and yet accounting for proper mounting, etc; it’s about a 50% chance that the zero has shifted a bit- sometimes a lot. The only scopes this doesn’t happen with are NF, SWFA, some S&B’s, some Bushnell Elite tacticals, and so far the couple of Trijicons.
I can not come up with an objective justification for choosing a less reliable scope; or better stated a scope with a relatively high failure or problem rate, over a scope that doesn’t have that problem rate. It would be different if there weren’t any scopes that truly worked, but there are, so I can’t justify using one that doesn’t.
Although I do not see the allure of the Arken as a hunting scope- it’s not especially light, the reticle isn’t great for low power visibility in broken terrain and low light, the “glass” is usable but not great, it’s kind bulky, etc; and for me- it’s made in china. Some people mind, some people don’t- I am one who does care when it comes to things that steer bullets, however that is for my own personal issue.
I do hope it does well, and it does show that the excuse of so many people and manufactures about durability with scopes and dropping for instance- is mostly BS. $300 scopes should in no way be doing massively better than $3-5K scopes.
My prediction with the Arkens based on a small sample size and the limited use so far; is that their QC will end up being spotty- that is, some scopes will work out of the box, others will have problems in QC out of the box- which is already being relayed by people. However, if you get one that generally doesn’t have a major flaw, it will probably work for most people in how they hunt and shoot. Not ultra durable, but not ridiculously fragile either. Which is probably a decent place to be market wise.