Q&A for SWFA SS 6x MQ Field Eval

[Formidilosus]

My sense is that it is much more related to customer demand. I think we can agree the vast majority of consumers do not prioritize the same features in a scope you do, and hence do not demand them from the companies they buy from. To look at it from a different perspective, if you were running a scope manufacturer and were beholden to investor return expectations, how could you justify spending the money to re-engineer your product line to provide features your client base isn't broadly demanding?

That would be a good assumption, however I and several other people have been dealing with this for over a decade. The people I know that have talked to to and with a lot of these companies all have the same conclusion- most have no idea how fragile their product is. There are a couple companies that do, and consequently generally make durable scopes. One that is getting more attention recently for making scopes that generally work, did find out that their scopes have some issues with impacts. They tested it themselves, saw that it was real and addressed it. Now their advertising reflects that.

For the most part these companies aren’t sitting at a board meeting saying “yeah they fail, but no one notices, so it’s ok”. Some certainly are, most just don’t have a clue. Then when told, they don’t want to check it themselves to see, because like most hunters they don’t really want I know the truth.

So it may be that it’s not financially the best choice to change everything in some part, but mostly it’s: they don’t know or they don’t think a scope should stay zeroed; or if they do know, they don’t want to introduce a new scope and advertise that it actually is durable and reliable, because that would be admitting their other ones aren’t (one company did, and renamed basically every scope they make due to changes).


Regardless of why, it won’t change until hunters and shooters start actually using the items and stop making excuses for crap products. When people freak out over a scratch, how will they ever know if their equipment works? Hunters are literally rally car drivers that are terrified of getting a smudge on their car.

The fact that the top scopes from three companies, two of which are supposed to be “alpha” scopes, failed horrifically and consistently, and they did substantially worse than multiple $200-$300 scopes, is ridiculous.

 

[BBob]

I can’t wait to see a Tract tested!

????

Tract TORIC UHD Hunting Scope Review

Several months ago, Jon Allen, Co-Founder of Tract Optics, graciously agreed to provide me with one of their Toric UHD Hunting Rifle Scopes. When discussing the review, I explained I would be checking tracking, zero retention, and return to zero. Checking those items would include drop t...

www.24hourcampfire.com

 

[SDHNTR]

????

Tract TORIC UHD Hunting Scope Review

Several months ago, Jon Allen, Co-Founder of Tract Optics, graciously agreed to provide me with one of their Toric UHD Hunting Rifle Scopes. When discussing the review, I explained I would be checking tracking, zero retention, and return to zero. Checking those items would include drop t...

www.24hourcampfire.com

That should say…. I can’t wait to see a Tract tested using the Formidilosus method.

 

[sndmn11]

????

https://www .24hourcampfire.com/ubb...opics/17363385/all/tract-toric-uhd-hunting-sc

I earlier mentioned this without naming it.

For instance, there is a pseudo review on here of a scope from one of the brands in the post I have quoted above. The person doing the review mentions that he has observed a zero shift, there are bullet holes on his target that show clear zero shift that are unrelated to his comment of zero shift, yet his conclusion is that the scope passed to his eyes.

 

[BBob]

That should say…. I can’t wait to see a Tract tested using the Formidilosus method.

Further in on pg 5 he does do the 18" and 36" drops. I'll admit I didn't watch or read closely, just skimmed.

 

[260madman]

Further in on pg 5 he does do the 18" and 36" drops. I'll admit I didn't watch or read closely, just skimmed.

I wouldn’t call it a 100% completed test because of the question of did he zero or did the scope lose zero or whatever the question was, I can’t remember and not going back to read it again. There was a question that in real life would need answered before proceeding so the test would be done again from start to finish. If you’re getting paid to run tests on equipment in any industry and the results were good but someone couldn’t remember if they did a part of the process you’d be starting over.

I hope it does pass. More options are always good.

 

[MattB]

That would be a good assumption, however I and several other people have been dealing with this for over a decade. The people I know that have talked to to and with a lot of these companies all have the same conclusion- most have no idea how fragile their product is. There are a couple companies that do, and consequently generally make durable scopes. One that is getting more attention recently for making scopes that generally work, did find out that their scopes have some issues with impacts. They tested it themselves, saw that it was real and addressed it. Now their advertising reflects that.

For the most part these companies aren’t sitting at a board meeting saying “yeah they fail, but no one notices, so it’s ok”. Some certainly are, most just don’t have a clue. Then when told, they don’t want to check it themselves to see, because like most hunters they don’t really want I know the truth.

So it may be that it’s not financially the best choice to change everything in some part, but mostly it’s: they don’t know or they don’t think a scope should stay zeroed; or if they do know, they don’t want to introduce a new scope and advertise that it actually is durable and reliable, because that would be admitting their other ones aren’t (one company did, and renamed basically every scope they make due to changes).


Regardless of why, it won’t change until hunters and shooters start actually using the items and stop making excuses for crap products. When people freak out over a scratch, how will they ever know if their equipment works? Hunters are literally rally car drivers that are terrified of getting a smudge on their car.

The fact that the top scopes from three companies, two of which are supposed to be “alpha” scopes, failed horrifically and consistently, and they did substantially worse than multiple $200-$300 scopes, is ridiculous.

Yes, until hunters starting focusing on the things many current scopes do poorly at (e.g. holding zero, tracking), I don't see a lot of motivation for scope manufacturers to up their game. Knowing is half the battle, but as you've experienced even if they do know, they aren't generally motivated to do anything about it.

The problem is as with many things in life, scope manufacturer advertising suggests to the consumer what features they should be focused on (e.g. glass quality, zoom range, weight), and that doesn't align very well with what they should be demanding to ensure proper product performance.

 

[Castle Rock]

There is a scope available that satisfies the wants expressed here but no one on this site seems interested

 

[ResearchinStuff]

I cannot tell what scope you pictured, but I'm curious to know what it is

 

[Castle Rock]

2-12 Athlon Helos

 

[amassi]

I cannot tell what scope you pictured, but I'm curious to know what it is

Looks like an Athlon

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

2-12 Athlon Helos

I'll buy one and test it if you'll buy it from me in the event of failure.

They were a company that told me it was abuse.

 

[Balderdash]

It has been my experience that it's not too difficult to get the majority of commonly used hunting scopes to go wonky. A few hundred shots on a LW 300 win or 338 will usually do it. Add a bunch of miles over rough back country roads on public land and a few drops from hiking through and over blow downs, swamps, rock outcroppings, deep snow, ice, etc, and you'll have a good idea of if the scope is worth owning or not.

Of course, I enjoy reading about and am thankful for these drop tests; it's more data points on what's reliable and what's not.

 

[Balderdash]

I'll buy one and test it if you'll buy it from me in the event of failure.

They were a company that told me it was abuse.

I wouldn't say no to a 2-12x42 HD SWFA that's very similar to their 1-6. For me they could even keep the same "circle of death" reticle that can be zoomed away to reveal a bare MQ.

I know that's what the Athlon pretty well is, but I'd prefer it LOW built. Not saying the Athlon can't hang in any way because I don't have any experience with them. Those that use them seem to like them.

 

[Castle Rock]

I'll buy one and test it if you'll buy it from me in the event of failure.

They were a company that told me it was abuse.

No need for that, I’m happy with it, it has held zero with a lot of bouncing around on crappy roads and tracks

 

[sndmn11]

I wouldn't say no to a 2-12x42 HD SWFA that's very similar to their 1-6. For me they could even keep the same "circle of death" reticle that can be zoomed away to reveal a bare MQ.

I know that's what the Athlon pretty well is, but I'd prefer it LOW built. Not saying the Athlon can't hang in any way because I don't have any experience with them. Those that use them seem to like them.

That Athlon is 25oz, so the only thing it is potentially winning at is cost.

 

[sndmn11]

No need for that, I’m happy with it, it has held zero with a lot of bouncing around on crappy roads and tracks

You could end up with two if you take me up on my offer. Twice the happy for twice the price.

 

[Castle Rock]

I already have two, Hint

 

[Lawnboi]

I won’t waste my money on another athlon after my experience with a Midas tac.

 

[dsotm]

I think to the vast majority of hunters even a $300 6x SWFA is expensive.