Formidilosus
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2014
- Messages
- 8,017
Link- SWFA SS 6x MQ Field Eval
No surprises here. My only question on that scope is why do they make those turrets so damn big?
Not sure if I'm reading it correctly. Was this tested directly on the packed dirt with no padding?
What SWFA scopes are built the same?
Thanks Form, seems like most scope designs have gone backwards since early 1990s when benchmarked against swfa
Formidilosus:
I greatly appreciate your efforts in testing scopes.
That being said, the 6x's have been hard enough to come by for some time now, and this thread isn't likely to make that situation better.
As to the turrets being tall - I'm not saying that I think they add anything aesthetically to a hunting rig or that I wouldn't like to see a low profile turret similar to the LRHS/LRTS on them, but they really don't get in the way on a rig that gets carried a lot as much as one might think. The rigs I put a dialing scope on are rather soul-less, SS/synthetic and, as such, aren't really aesthetically pleasing to my sensibilities, anyhoo. I'd rather they had some kind of lock on them, but ghost turning hasn't been an issue for me. I do shim the elevation for zero stop, and I usually cap the windage with a tight fitting chair foot cover or pipe cap.
What’s the thought process of starting at 18 in lbs and then moving to 25, “as per usual”?
Why not start at the higher in lbs point if the low torque setting is typically not sufficient?
I can imagine there might be one or two people that would be interested in discrediting your work.Because every single company who makes a junk optic blames the rings being too tight for the reason the scopes fails. Vortex wants 14 to 15 in-lbs, you could nearly push the scope in the rings with your hands at that torque.
18in-lbs is a general upper end spec for most of these companies, even though lots of scopes slip in the rings at 18in-lbs. So that gets fine first to head off the inevitable excuses.
That's the reason why everyone has to hit the range to "check zero" before a hunt. Almost no one questions why the zero changed just sitting in the safe/gun cabinet.I would say that in general very few scopes were ever made to be durable. Not many people have demanded their optics stay zeroed- it was like everyone expected that of course a scope would stay zeroed, even to all evidence that they don’t. No one would accept a toaster that is as unreliable as scopes.
Back when these things were new, they basically only competed against the Leupold Mark 4 fixed powers, the B&L 10x tactical (which looks nearly identical), and the fixed power S&B’s.
Yes, but the type of ring and screw size and quantity matter too. A certain poundage isn’t standardized across different rings. Perhaps you should state which rings you are using? Or maybe you have and I missed it.Because every single company who makes a junk optic blames the rings being too tight for the reason the scopes fails. Vortex wants 14 to 15 in-lbs, you could nearly push the scope in the rings with your hands at that torque.
18in-lbs is a general upper end spec for most of these companies, even though lots of scopes slip in the rings at 18in-lbs. So that gets fine first to head off the inevitable excuses.