Forrest.billy
FNG
More of a blog format with a running spread sheet at the top with a small synopsis of every scope dropped searchable by brand with tags
Did this document ever get created and kept up to date that can be referenced?
Thanks!
More of a blog format with a running spread sheet at the top with a small synopsis of every scope dropped searchable by brand with tags
This is not correct in at least one case--you have the trij credo 2.5-15 failing, when in fact it passed--I just went and re-checked this to verify. The initial shift was determined to be scope shifting in rings, and the second scope passed the full drop eval and 3000round drive around. The last target pictured says it's 3moa ammo on what appears to be a 1.5" or 2" dot.Pass:
Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 ffp
Leupold Ultra M3A 10x (1980's)
Minox ZP5 5-25 THLR
SWFA SS 6x
Nightforce NX8 4-32
Schmidt & Bender Klassik 8x56mm
Nightforce ATACR 4-16
Fail:
Athlon Helos BTR 2-12
Tract Toric Ultra HD 3-15
Leupold Mark 5
SWFA SS UL 2.5-10
Riton 3-18
Zeiss LRP S5 3-18
Vortex Razor HD LHT 4.5-22
Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15
Maven RS.5 4-24
Source: I scrolled to the bottom of each test thread
It was last year that I wrote this down and copy-pasted it, so there might be new threads since them
The scope held zero through the entire drop portion without a hiccup....(at end of test) Not many updates as there has really been nothing to report- scope has worked fine. It is over 3,000 rounds. If my count is correct it is at 3,577 rounds- with a few odds and ends thrown in that weren’t counted.
Agreed.Only providing one "pass" or "fail" also groups scopes together that literally broke into multiple pieces and failed at even the most basic parts of tracking before any drops, with scopes that passed all but the 3x36" drops--that's not the same thing. I think any synopsis has to include at least minimal detailed info such as "basic zero/track/RTZ: pass, 18" drops: pass, 1x36" drops: pass, 3x36" drops: pass, 3000rounds/3000miles: pass".
Thank you for the clear list!This is what I was describing. If there is any interest in it then I can send it to whomever wants to post it and manage it.
It’s not perfect. Some of the reviews were one and done while others described issues in subsequent use. “Partial pass” or “partial fail” is a fail on this sheet. Tried to pull out the key failure point but translating pages of narrative to a spreadsheet isn’t always the easiest thing to do. My thought was that it would serve as a quick reference that was updated as more scopes are evaluated.
That answer will depend on the manufacturer in question, so cannot be applied as a blanket statement. If it’s Maven, No. Form will have to confirm on this one, but my feeling is that with the Tenmile lineup you’d be good.I know this is a tough question to answer without specific testing, but how safe do you guys think it is to apply a successful test on manufacturer and model to a different magnification? For example, Form had a passed test on the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44 and I am looking at the 4.5-30x56. This question applies to other passed scopes as well.