Meopta Optika6 3-18x50mm FFP Field Evaluation

[nobody]

Not yet. Haven’t gotten it in hand until recently, and it needs to go back in the test rifle to ensure it is the scope.

Sounds good, it’ll be interesting to see how things go. I’m looking pretty seriously at this one now that Maven’s RS.3 flopped your test so bad last week

 

[Formidilosus]

Scope was remounted on the test rifle. It zeroed and grouped fine.




18” drops caused no shIft. I adjusted left .4, and it should have been .3.




36” drops however shifted noticeably. Remember no shift was noted when first tested.






Rezeroed-



Dropped again from 36”-

 

[Totoro]

So what's gonna happen to it now Form? Gonna send it back again?

 

[Kyle Wheeler]

Following

 

[Dobermann]

Following

Hi Kyle,

There's a green 'Watch' button at the top right-hand corner of the thread - means we all don't need to clutter threads with 'Following'.

 

[Kyle Wheeler]

Hi Kyle,

There's a green 'Watch' button at the top right-hand corner of the thread - means we all don't need to clutter threads with 'Following'.

Thank you thank you! Can’t believe I didn’t realize this

 

[Wiscgunner]

Scope was remounted on the test rifle. It zeroed and grouped fine.

View attachment 376426


18” drops caused no shIft. I adjusted left .4, and it should have been .3.

View attachment 376429


36” drops however shifted noticeably. Remember no shift was noted when first tested.

View attachment 376432




Rezeroed-View attachment 376421



Dropped again from 36”-
View attachment 376434

So, does this mean the Opika6 passed the Eval?

 

[Formidilosus]

So, does this mean the Opika6 passed the Eval?

It passed the initial eval, and the stated 3,500 rounds; however it started developing problems at just over 3,500 rounds.

 

[Retumbo]

After reading this review and being on SWFA backorder list forever, I decided to move forward with a 3-18x50 Optika6 with the thought process that I am much kinder to my scopes than Form and it was $800 compared to the $1300 NF SHV 4-14X50 F1 (which I own and like).

The two major issues I can see with the Meopta are the lack of turn counters on the reticles (which I knew going in), and the real killer (that I didn't realize) was that in the ZPlus reticle, the hashes are TWO MOA and don't have any sort of numerical indicator. This to me is a dealbreaker as I have a lot of rifles and there's absolutely no way I will remember the hashes are TWO MOA compared to ONE MOA like every other scope I own. I know most of you use MIL/MIL instead of MOA/MOA so this likely will not apply to you, however something to keep in mind if you're trying to find an available alternative to a SWFA SS 3-9.

After sending this back I will likely try out a SWFA SS 6x fixed as I should have from the beginning.

 

[Desert Hntr]

The part that the vast majority want to talk about.... glass. I almost don’t even want to write it, as “glass” past good enough to see the target is an overblown, nearly useless thing for aiming devices. Somewhere around Leupold VX2 level glass is better than is required to positively identify and shoot big game in the US during legal hours. I, and friends have hunted from Alabama and Florida swamps, to Tennessee and Virginia thickets, to western dark timber, and 13,000ft alpine. Never, have I not been able to kill an animal I wanted because of “glass” once scopes reached good enough. People talk glass, because they care more about showing their buddies thier scope, than killing with it.
If scopes actually worked like people believe they do, I would probably care more about clarity, brightness, color rendidtion, and resolution in scopes.



I’ve gotten so many questions on “what’s the glass like” even after the second paragraph in my first post, that I’m going to explain why “glass” is such a ridiculous thing to care about for scopes. There’s going to be some history, reality, and hopefully a start down the path of changing some people’s beliefs and thinking.


To begin what is a scope? This seems like such an easy question. I ask this all the time to groups of supposedly very experienced people, and almost universally they say- “an aiming device” or the equivalent. To which I reply- “so it's not an observation device like a bino or spotting scope?” They say of course not. “Then why is the first thing everyone of you did when I set that prototype scope on the table, is pick it up and ask about glass?” “Not one of you asked about ANYTHING that has to do with hitting a target”. “No questions in zero retention, tracking, RTZ... NOTHING”. They’ll be silence for a moment while everyone thinks.

There is a massive cognitive dissonance in the hunting/shooting world. All BS aside, in the first post I could have said “failed horribly, couldn’t even zero out of the box” and someone- most likely multiple people, would have still asked “yeah, so what’s the glass comparable to?”
Think about what you do when you pick up a scope at the gun counter or range. For most it’s “look at the glass”. I was shown a prototype scope by a major scope manufacturer a few years ago. The scope was going to change my life, and they wanted me to “test it”. No, what they wanted was a shill, and they thought I’d be so excited to get a free scope to “test”, that I’d look through it, shoot a hundred rounds, hit some targets and exclaim “it’s great!” like every other “tester” that manufacturers send product to.

I asked is it the final version?

The rep said yep, almost ready to hit the market. He tries to hand it to me, and is talking abut the glass clarity.

I didn’t take it. I ask- “ok, what is the zero retention like?” “how many rounds do you have through them, have they held zero, how do they adjust, any failures?”

He says something to the effect of “nah man it’s good, lots of testing”. “Look at the clarity, it’s awesome, best in the class”. “Also, we did a great job on the BDC”.

Me- “Zero interest in a BDC” “how many rounds do you have on a single sample, how has it held zero from impacts, specifically being dropped?”

Him looking confused- “uhhh, mmm I’ll have to ask”. “It’s super reliable though”. “Man, you really need to look through it, this thing has an awesome view, and is light!”

Me- not really interested, sir.

Him- “what!, you haven’t even looked through it?”

At some point in this he put the scope on the shelf, and my partners had found seats to sipp their coffee and watch the exchange.

Me- “dude, this scope has not been tested for anything that matters by what you are telling me.” I don’t care about glass, I don’t care about weight, I care “does it work?” That’s it. I can tell you that scope is almost guaranteed to fail even basic testing, because you guys didn’t do it” “not trying to be a dick, but it’d be a waste of both of our times”.

Him- uhh, I’ve never been asked this before. I really don’t know how to respond, you haven’t even looked at it.

Me- “Ok”. I picked it, took the turret caps off, spun the turrets, turned the power ring, then looked through and started laughing.

Him- What?

Me- look through it.

Him- uggh....

Me- “this is why we’re not interested”. (The freaking reticle was rotated 45 degrees, and one of the lenses was about to fall out).

Him- “uhhh, mmmm, it was fine earlier” he calls over another rep, that rep looks through and says “damn. Someone dropped it earlier”, and takes it to a back room”.



Stupid long story, but it is absolutely illustrative of the reality of the scope world. That was a major, well thought of company, marketing a scope aimed at the military. The worst part about it is, it actually got traction with segments. Couple years later now, that scope is on the market, people buy them, exclaim how great they are, but they are exactly the same. I’ve seen a bunch, and if they get bumped at all- they lose zero.

People care about “glass” I think, because they don’t know anything else. No one actually shoots. Think about it, there is no reason that a rifle hunter, most especially one that will shoot past 100-200 yards, should not be practicing like a serious bow hunter. Serious archers shoot hundreds of arrows a week, they practice in all positions- not just standing, they practice in the most realistic way possible- 3D Targets, varied terrain, wearing their pack/bino pouch/hunting clothes. They get their heart rate up, practice in the wind; if they are really dedicated, in bad weather.
Yet a “serious” rifle hunter might shoot 100 to 200 rounds a year, almost all from a bench, and any that’s not from a bench will be from prone. How does this hold up? Anyone that has done both seriously and for an extended period will see that archery and rifles aren’t really different- it’s just the range. If someone buys a bow, they can be relatively successful out to 20-30 yards with only a few hours of practice. If someone buys a rifle, they can be relatively successful out to 200 or so yards with only a few hours of practice. But the moment an archer wants to be truly competent at 40+ yards, he has to PRACTICE. And, his equipment needs to be tuned, and reliable. The same for a rifleman. If a rifle hunter wants to be truly competent past 200-300 yards, it requires PRACTICE- just like an archer, and he better start paying attention to what matters with his equipment.

But.... almost no one does this. Every forum, gun shop, and range is full of people buying or having bought a “insert whatever rifle” generally chambered in a big cartridge, with some “insert supposedly good scope”, saying he’s plans on hunting elk “to 600 for now, but would like to be able to go to 800, in the future”. This same person that is “600 yard capable” now, has to ask about BC, ballistic programs, if his BDC will be correct in the mountains, ft-lbs energy, ad nauseam. He can talk about how clear his scope is, but he can’t tell you if it’ll still be zeroed after the drive to Colorado.....


Here’s the dirty little secret- scopes fail. A lot. If you use a rifle like it was a bow, there are laughably few scopes that will last a week without a failure. What hasn’t I haven’t revealed was in the time that I’ve been evaluating this Meopta- I’ve had two other scopes from “great” brands. Both have utterly failed. One caused a complete rodeo on an animal when it did. Both of these scopes have gotten great reviews from others. However the way they failed, is not a QC problem, it’s a design problem. One of these is already on the market, one was about to be. If they bring this scope to production.... I hope you don’t slip while hunting because the scope won’t be zeroed afterwards.

I say what I do about equipment (especially scopes), not because I am “loyal” to a brand, or even because I care what someone uses. I do it, because some people want real information that comes from real use- not “shot a box of shells through it, it’s great”.

Scope failures are real even with just hunting and a bit of shooting use. 4 of the last 5 years the group of 6-8 people I hunt with have had scope failures. All of them knew better, but they couldn’t shake the “its really awesome glass and features”. “it’s just hunting, it’ll be fine”. Quite a few tags went unfilled after a LOT of effort, and two complete rodeos on wounded animals.





TBC....

Man, this statement right here is why I frequent this forum. A very genuine statement that has thought out the use of equipment and the necessary functions. When I’m jumping my ass up a skre field and fall 10 times I shouldn’t have to worry about my rifle losing zero. Best advice I have read in a long time.

 

[Balderdash]

@Formidilosus

Was reading through a different optics testing thread of yours wherein you wrote something to the effect that it's very rare for a scope that passes initial eval to have problems later on. As such, I am curious about your final thoughts on the the Optika 6 in reference. Do you have experience with more Optika 6's than the tested example? Have you tested other scopes that passed your initial evals only to give up the ghost much later on?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus
. As such, I am curious about your final thoughts on the the Optika 6 in reference.

It failed at 3,500’ish rounds. Still “works” but loses zero from side impacts.

Do you have experience with more Optika 6's than the tested example?

I do not. A couple of others have had issues with them that I know of.

Have you tested other scopes that passed your initial evals only to give up the ghost much later on?

Thanks for your time.

I have not.

 

[Balderdash]

It failed at 3,500’ish rounds. Still “works” but loses zero from side impacts.





I do not. A couple of others have had issues with them that I know of.





I have not.

Thanks for the response.

 

[SDHNTR]

Just curious, did this scope ever go back and was there any follow up from the manufacturer?

 

[Formidilosus]

It hasn’t yet. A buddy wanted to shoot it in a play gun, and as long as it doesn’t take heavy drops or impacts it works fine. When he’s done it will get sent back in.

 

[SDHNTR]

It hasn’t yet. A buddy wanted to shoot it in a play gun, and as long as it doesn’t take heavy drops or impacts it works fine. When he’s done it will get sent back in.

Weird. Theoretically, what mechanics could let go in a scope that makes it withstand drops at first and then fail later, after some use? I don’t envision a scope full of parts that wear out.

 

[Formidilosus]

Weird. Theoretically, what mechanics could let go in a scope that makes it withstand drops at first and then fail later, after some use? I don’t envision a scope full of parts that wear out.

No idea. I haven’t really cared to get it fixed as a couple others I am familiar with have had problems as well, though not the 3-18x FFP model. My guess is that mine was a fluke as far as reliability/durability.

 

[SDHNTR]

No idea. I haven’t really cared to get it fixed as a couple others I am familiar with have had problems as well, though not the 3-18x FFP model. My guess is that mine was a fluke as far as reliability/durability.

Interesting. There’s a lot to like in that scope at that price point. In fact, I would be totally fine for that money if it “only” had a 3500 shot lifespan. The Meopta Artemis was one of my faves.

 

[Formidilosus]

In fact, I would be totally fine for that money if it “only” had a 3500 shot lifespan.

Unfortunately that isn’t how scopes work.

I do think if it were reliable the whole package was pretty good.

 

[SDHNTR]

Unfortunately that isn’t how scopes work.

I do think if it were reliable the whole package was pretty good.

Oh, I know. Scopes generally aren’t wear items. They either work or they don’t. That’s actually why I found the particular circumstances here interesting. I already pretty much knew the answer, I was just wondering if there was something unique to this scope.