Missing Rifle Scope Features?

[Fartrell Cluggins]

We shouldn’t have to do our own testing when spending our own money! The company should have already tested their products!

I buy cars that have been crash tested prior to purchase. Scopes should be no different.

Can you point me to the camera, binoculars, rangefinder and spotting scope drop tests? Those are important outdoors items that are not intended to be dropped but may be during the course of a hunt or hike?

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I’m not sure I get the “anti drop test” angle here? How are any of those results a bad thing?

Binos don’t aim projectiles. Neither do spotters. I believe the backpack cliff test would qualify. Scopes can and do take impacts, I’ve seen so many people literally fall on their rifles. It sure wouldn’t help observation optics, but again, those aren’t on a gun. Different purpose. And why would leupold and most manufacturers, ziess etc advertise how rugged their stuff was if it didn’t matter? I sure think it does.

If you want to rip on the “non-controlled” experimental process, why don’t you provide suggestions (on the thread for it), do a better test, or carry on. Campaigning against it I just don’t follow, but I’m listening. If you’ve already done so and I missed it, disregard.

Tract - I don’t think it’s out of line to comment on what your durability testing entails, and if you design for zero retention. I wouldn’t buy one of your optics unless you did or could answer that question.

 

[sndmn11]

If you haven't seen the Fartrell Cluggins skit, you have to watch it.

"Or, if generally, such an accidental drop should occur, can we expect to the scope to retain zero and have no mechanical failures?"

This is the comment that I was critical of. There are too many variables for Tract or any other manufacturer to be able to answer that question.

If someone wanted to conduct a CONTROLLED test with real value, then a device that would impart controlled measurable impacts to the turrets (or other parts of the scope) would have to be made.

I may be wrong on this but it appears to me that when Tract and other manufacturers test scopes, they test it with a machine that replicates recoil forces. Those are the forces that scopes are designed to withstand.

The point is zero retention over long term use, I hope you are able to see that. The reasons a scope loses zero through REGULAR use can be efficiently replicated in a controlled setting within 7 shots and a handful of minutes rather than over X shot and X years at a random time and place.

The fact that scopes can be UNDAMAGED and lose zero provides credibility to this testing. The fact that multiple scopes have been proven to retain zero through the testing by Form and replicated by myself, provides further credibility.

You are hung up on the dropping part, focus on the zero retention part.

 

[BjornF16]

If someone wanted to conduct a CONTROLLED test with real value, then a device that would impart controlled measurable impacts to the turrets (or other parts of the scope) would have to be made.

The problem I see with this approach is that there is no momentum of the rifle system. It is static. Then you impart a "controlled" impact to the scope.

That isn't how things really occur while hunting. (Unless a mad squirrel starts chucking acorns at you for disturbing the peace). Best to have the scope in motion and arrested by the ground.

Form has removed the majority of variables with his rifle system (bonded action to stock, same rings, etc). The only remaining variable is the ground (or snow). From a "test engineer's" perspective, you could construct a container with a media (dirt, sand) in a lab environment and control the humidity, etc such that the impact zone remains essentially constant. The reality is that this is impractical for our "laymen" evals. BUT, this is what the scope "manufacturers" should be doing.

So we are left with a somewhat variable impact zone. Not perfect, but it does reveal scope issues. Is it ISO 9100? No...but as Form has stated, draw your own conclusions.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I’m not sure I get the “anti drop test” angle here? How are any of those results a bad thing?



If you want to rip on the “non-controlled” experimental process, why don’t you provide suggestions (on the thread for it), do a better test, or carry on. Campaigning against it I just don’t follow, but I’m listening. If you’ve already done so and I missed it, disregard.

I posted this earlier, so I am not sure why you would ask the question about his tests being a bad thing or see my comments as a rip on the tests.

"I am not saying that his test has no value. My point is that the value that is being placed on them has reached a point of absurdity."

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I posted this earlier, so I am not sure why you would ask the question about his tests being a bad thing or see my comments as a rip on the tests.

"I am not saying that his test has no value. My point is that the value that is being placed on them has reached a point of absurdity."

Yep totally missed that, my bad - and I’d agree with you there, although I think the results have enough merit to at least consider.

 

[Formidilosus]

5-8 Feet? On rocks?

Yes. It’s been done on asphalt. Again, and not trying to be rude or anything- why do people who have never done something, and have never seen something believe that they know the results of that thing?

Once “firm” has been reached, the hardness of the ground does not have as much impact in varying outcomes as most people think. What rocks do for scopes is dent and physically break them. The reason the drop eval can be repeated on both semi packed snow and normal dirt/grass is because what is causing zero shifts isn’t the differences in rebound or density, etc.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Yes. It’s been done on asphalt. Again, and not trying to be rude or anything- why do people who have never done something, and have never seen something believe that they know the results of that thing?

Once “firm” has been reached, the hardness of the ground does not have as much impact in varying outcomes as most people think. What rocks do for scopes is dent and physically break them. The reason the drop eval can be repeated on both semi packed snow and normal dirt/grass is because what is causing zero shifts isn’t the differences in rebound or density, etc.

I don't see you as rude at all. You are a straightforward no BS guy, and I like that. I read with interest pretty much everything you write. I have somehow missed your asphalt drops.

If you have tested a number of different scopes in the asphalt test, let's just say a 5 foot drop onto the elevation turret, are most of those scope showing signs of physical deformation? I am assuming NF is not showing physical deformation. Is metallurgy or weight (amount) of material what makes NF different? It would stand to reason that a 15 ounce Leupold would be more subject to deformation than a 30 ounce NF. Are you seeing some 25 ounce scopes from different manufacturers more subject to deformation than another manufacturers 25 ounce scope?

You have done this enough to have a good idea of exactly what fails when these scopes fail. What shifts inside when a scope shifts? What breaks on the inside when a scope breaks?

 

[Formidilosus]

"Or, if generally, such an accidental drop should occur, can we expect to the scope to retain zero and have no mechanical failures?"
This is the comment that I was critical of. There are too many variables for Tract or any other manufacturer to be able to answer that question.

There’s not though. Multiple manufactures have been asked that very question, and at least three knew the answer. The reason Tract doesn’t know is because like the vast majority of companies- they don’t test it. Trijicon literally has in their website what their scopes are designed and tested to withstand.



That’s unambiguous. And it’s very different than the normal “we shake it for 1,500g’s” trope.

If someone wanted to conduct a CONTROLLED test with real value, then a device that would impart controlled measurable impacts to the turrets (or other parts of the scope) would have to be made.

Yes that would be controlled, and yet not replicate at all what happens to scopes. Unless, as Bjorn wrote you have squirrels throwing acorns at the scope. But that’s not what happens when a scope is mounted in rings and is dropped (not that the drop is solely, or even specifically about dropping).

I may be wrong on this but it appears to me that when Tract and other manufacturers test scopes, they test it with a machine that replicates recoil forces. Those are the forces that scopes are designed to withstand.

Some scopes are designed to withstand a lot more than than recoil. A scope that is designed to be awesome in recoil and “tracking”, can be very fragile designs in the field and lose zero from relatively light field use- Historically some Sightrons and Weaver Micro Tracs did this.

Can you point me to the camera, binoculars, rangefinder and spotting scope drop tests? Those are important outdoors items that are not intended to be dropped but may be during the course of a hunt or hike?

One item requires the alimnent of a reference mark that is static to a set target, the others do not.

However Zeiss specifically has a whole video of “abusing” their Conquest binos. Matter of fact is kind of resembles Nightforce’s videos of throwing, shooting, and trashing scopes. Marketing for sure, however it can and is done. The difference is that when you drop a Zeiss V4 or V6 scope- the view is unchanged, yet it has a very high likelihood of not being zeroed anymore. Binos, spotters, and rangefinders are different than scopes.

 

[Formidilosus]

I don't see you as rude at all. You are a straightforward no BS guy, and I like that. I read with interest pretty much everything you write. I have somehow missed your asphalt drops.

Ok good. Because I never intend to come across as anything but providing info where I can. I haven’t wrote anything about dropping other than the eval because it crosses into things that are not really western hunting related to most.

If you have tested a number of different scopes in the asphalt test, let's just say a 5 foot drop onto the elevation turret, are most of those scope showing signs of physical deformation?

For most scopes it’ll bend or tear turrets off, heavily dent objective bells, break the lenses, and break eyepieces off. Maybe not all of those things, but the vast majority of scopes will not survive hitting a rock/asphalt/concrete.

I am assuming NF is not showing physical deformation. Is metallurgy or weight (amount) of material what makes NF different?

The only scopes that can be dropped on rocks/asphalt/concrete that I have seen that have not broken or lost zero from 7ft drops are NF, a couple Trijicons, and one model of a scope that is not commercially available. But really I would put money as NF being the winner of any test conducted like that.

I do not know specifics of what makes any scope better or worse.

It would stand to reason that a 15 ounce Leupold would be more subject to deformation than a 30 ounce NF. Are you seeing some 25 ounce scopes from different manufacturers more subject to deformation than another manufacturers 25 ounce scope?

Any of the standard hunting scopes…. expect Complete failure on drops on concrete/rocks/etc above a couple feet. While the list of scopes that will take some use/abuse and generally retain zero and function from the Drop Eval and extended use in the field is pretty small; the amount of scopes that can handle being drops on a rock and do the same is really limited to one manufacturer. And, I’m not saying that you can do it ten thousand times with no failures- I’m saying that if I am using a rifle setup as I do with a NF, and during a stalk on a sheep it falls off a chest height boulder onto rocks, I would expect it to hit that sheep’s chest to at least 600 yards.

You have done this enough to have a good idea of exactly what fails when these scopes fail. What shifts inside when a scope shifts? What breaks on the inside when a scope breaks?

I do not know actually. It’s seems to be these things at least-

1). Erector springs/erector system gets moved or jarred out of place.

2). The scope tube itself gets bent from the drops.

3). The thin walls of the scope tube collapse/bend.

4). Turrets/turret stems get bent.

5). Eyepieces fail or become loose.

6). Lenses shift inside the erector.


Interestingly, if you watch/read what Nightforce talks about with their scopes, the address each of those items specifically. I’ve said it multiple times- I’m not a NF “fan”. I am annoyed greatly with their reticle options for general hunting at a minimum. However, the data (as much as it is data) shows them to be the most reliable, least effected by outside influences scopes in the market, and it is way more than the scopes shown in the eval threads.

 

[prm]

Trijicon states they test to MIL-STD-810G specifications. Exactly which tests within 810G (there are many) and exactly how they vary for something like a rifle scope I do not know. It would be mildly interesting to know what is involved.

 

[Formidilosus]

Here’s what can happen to even good scopes when they are dropped on rock/concrete/asphalt-


SWFA 6x MQ 4-5 feet into concrete- shifted .3 mils (1moa)-




Zero. Notice wear, but no dents in the scope-



After a multiple times of being thrown as far as possible on a gravel and asphalt roads-

 

[Formidilosus]

Trijicon states they test to MIL-STD-810G specifications. Exactly which tests within 810G (there are many) and exactly how they vary for something like a rifle scope I do not know. It would be mildly interesting to know what is involved.

810G does not mean what people think it does- or doesn’t have as much applicability as some people assume. Yes, Trijicon tests to 810G on some (maybe all, but I doubt it) scopes, but they are also now testing things that actually matter on at least some of their scopes.

 

[Formidilosus]

You are hung up on the dropping part, focus on the zero retention part.

Apologies for rapid posting, however this needs to be highlighted.

 

[sndmn11]

Apologies for rapid posting, however this needs to be highlighted.

and underlined

 

[nobody]

I agree with @Formidilosus recipe, with one caveat: Also make it in an MOA/MOA FFP variant for us mouth breathers that run MOA instead of MRAD. I've got a 6.5 PRC on the way and it's gonna need a scope, currently the Nightforce NX8 is in the lead, but the weight...

Let's see if something can unseat it while I'm waiting 9 months for the gun to come!

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Ok good. Because I never intend to come across as anything but providing info where I can. I haven’t wrote anything about dropping other than the eval because it crosses into things that are not really western hunting related to most.




For most scopes it’ll bend or tear turrets off, heavily dent objective bells, break the lenses, and break eyepieces off. Maybe not all of those things, but the vast majority of scopes will not survive hitting a rock/asphalt/concrete.




The only scopes that can be dropped on rocks/asphalt/concrete that I have seen that have not broken or lost zero from 7ft drops are NF, a couple Trijicons, and one model of a scope that is not commercially available. But really I would put money as NF being the winner of any test conducted like that.

I do not know specifics of what makes any scope better or worse.




Any of the standard hunting scopes…. expect Complete failure on drops on concrete/rocks/etc above a couple feet. While the list of scopes that will take some use/abuse and generally retain zero and function from the Drop Eval and extended use in the field is pretty small; the amount of scopes that can handle being drops on a rock and do the same is really limited to one manufacturer. And, I’m not saying that you can do it ten thousand times with no failures- I’m saying that if I am using a rifle setup as I do with a NF, and during a stalk on a sheep it falls off a chest height boulder onto rocks, I would expect it to hit that sheep’s chest to at least 600 yards.






I do not know actually. It’s seems to be these things at least-

1). Erector springs/erector system gets moved or jarred out of place.

2). The scope tube itself gets bent from the drops.

3). The thin walls of the scope tube collapse/bend.

4). Turrets/turret stems get bent.

5). Eyepieces fail or become loose.

6). Lenses shift inside the erector.


Interestingly, if you watch/read what Nightforce talks about with their scopes, the address each of those items specifically. I’ve said it multiple times- I’m not a NF “fan”. I am annoyed greatly with their reticle options for general hunting at a minimum. However, the data (as much as it is data) shows them to be the most reliable, least effected by outside influences scopes in the market, and it is way more than the scopes shown in the eval threads.

Thanks for the considered response that I have come to expect from you!

When you apply my response "It is possible, if not probable, that you will experience a zero shift if you drop your rifle and a turret impacts a hard surface, no matter what scope you use" to the above, are we not in agreement?

As of right now, I am standing by my assertion that my comments to this question were on the money. "Or, if generally, such an accidental drop should occur, can we expect to the scope to retain zero and have no mechanical failures?"

"It's going to depend upon too many factors for him to be able to answer that question." It sounds like you agree with this comment as well. NF has given up the ghost during SOME drops onto asphalt no?

 

[SDHNTR]

There’s not though. Multiple manufactures have been asked that very question, and at least three knew the answer. The reason Tract doesn’t know is because like the vast majority of companies- they don’t test it. Trijicon literally has in their website what their scopes are designed and tested to withstand.

View attachment 384004

That’s unambiguous. And it’s very different than the normal “we shake it for 1,500g’s” trope.





Yes that would be controlled, and yet not replicate at all what happens to scopes. Unless, as Bjorn wrote you have squirrels throwing acorns at the scope. But that’s not what happens when a scope is mounted in rings and is dropped (not that the drop is solely, or even specifically about dropping).






Some scopes are designed to withstand a lot more than than recoil. A scope that is designed to be awesome in recoil and “tracking”, can be very fragile designs in the field and lose zero from relatively light field use- Historically some Sightrons and Weaver Micro Tracs did this.




One item requires the alimnent of a reference mark that is static to a set target, the others do not.

However Zeiss specifically has a whole video of “abusing” their Conquest binos. Matter of fact is kind of resembles Nightforce’s videos of throwing, shooting, and trashing scopes. Marketing for sure, however it can and is done. The difference is that when you drop a Zeiss V4 or V6 scope- the view is unchanged, yet it has a very high likelihood of not being zeroed anymore. Binos, spotters, and rangefinders are different than scopes.

Form, on the basis of physics, help me understand why when a manufacturer says they are "shock tested to 1000 or 1500g forces" that doesn't seem to translate to being able to withstand any sort of drop impact. Surely a simple 3 foot drop on a padded mat doesn't cause 1500 g forces, yet the scopes fail predictably fail a drop test. If we remove the marketing of the G forces claims, what the hell do they even mean?

 

[Formidilosus]

When you apply my response "It is possible, if not probable, that you will experience a zero shift if you drop your rifle and a turret impacts a hard surface, no matter what scope you use" to the above, are we not in agreement? As of right now, I am standing by my assertion that my comments to this question were on the money. "Or, if generally, such an accidental drop should occur, can we expect to the scope to retain zero and have no mechanical failures?"
"It's going to depend upon too many factors for him to be able to answer that question." It sounds like you agree with this comment as well. NF has given up the ghost during SOME drops onto asphalt no?

Kind of but not really, as I have not seen a NF mechanical failure or loss in zero when mounted properly. I won’t say they don’t ever fail- everything made has a failure rate. But I only state why I have seen, and that is that they take abuse is that silly in the extreme. That means- in dozens and dozens of NF’s I have used personally to very high round counts and savage abuse, I have never had one lose zero. This includes a 60 foot drop off a cliff into broken rocks and scree with a 2.5-10x32mm NXS that was used to kill an elk at 732y the next day, 15+ foot drops onto gravel and concrete with multiple NXS, etc. The 4-16x ATACR I wrote an eval on was dropped onto gravel from above 15 feet attached to a rifle. The glass is cracked, but it still functions perfectly. I was sliding down a very, very steep slope while trying to sit so I took the rifle with a NF on it and used it wedged in rocks to put my feet on to stop sliding. I was half standing on the scope and an hour or so later killed a buck at 382y IIRC. There are a lot more scenarios like these.

Now these are just anecdotes, which is why I don’t generally mention them. As well there’s a lot that isn’t anecdotal, but I really wouldn’t say that it’s applicable to most hunters.


So I guess to specifically answer this-

"It is possible, if not probable, that you will experience a zero shift if you drop your rifle and a turret impacts a hard surface, no matter what scope you use" to the above, are we not in agreement?

No. If a NF is on one of my rifles, drops do not effect me or cause me any concern. I will pick them up, look through them ensuring that the glass is good, make sure the turrets still spin and work, and go back to hunting. If I can I will check zero- because why not, but if I can not, it does not bother me.

 

[sndmn11]

Form, on the basis of physics, help me understand why when a manufacturer says they are "shock tested to 1000 or 1500g forces" that doesn't seem to translate to being able to withstand any sort of drop impact. Surely a simple 3 foot drop on a padded mat doesn't cause 1500 g forces, yet the scopes fail predictably fail a drop test. If we remove the marketing of the G forces claims, what the hell do they even mean?

They mean nothing broke.

They do not mean they looked to see if the crosshairs moved.