Ranking the "others" for Dialing

[BuckSnort]

Man some of you boys need a break from the internet... Take a break, go visit friends and family.. Merry Christmas!

 

[Str8shooter]

I lament the almost complete lack of rigorous testing of scopes. Rarely does one see any reviews that arent mostly entirely anecdotal "took scope x on x hunt, did great" or "had scope y fail after x shots". Or they are legit tests (Retain/return to zero in cold/hot/wet/ conditions, drop tested, etc) but with an N=1...Neither of these provide us as consumers with a real sense of a manufacturers quality control or the expected performance/life of a scope. The much more rigorous testing Formidulosus has claimed he performs is about the best Ive seen (high shot counts/tracking accuracy/rtz/drop testing etc) and all with sample sizes greater than one and for multiple scopes... However, from what ive seen, what he has summarized in this forum and others is still without a formal description of testing methods or with tabular data provided in a way that one would expect for such rigorous testing. Form man if you're reading this we need a little more! We would love to see some of these data! Can you give us any more information on the engineering underlying these statistical claims? We are all swimming in an ocean of anecdotes and paidforadvert reviews...Drop a link to an excel or google spreadsheet!

 

[cooperjd]

soooo.... will a swaro z3 survive a side impact and retain zero?

 

[Vandy321]

...Could there be a super wealthy guy who spends his fortune on weapons, ammo and training? Absolutely.

It all makes perfect sense now...Formidulosus is actually Dan Bilzerian.

I like the guy, he offers opinions, and good on him for doing so. But 100% agree, take it with a grain of salt..and if you are spending thousands of dollars on optics based on one mans opinions, trust but verify for sure....or keep the receipt.

 

[Dobermann]

soooo.... will a swaro z3 survive a side impact and retain zero?

Well ... here's a starting point!

Search results for query: Z3

www.rokslide.com

 

[ETtikka]

Just finished reading this thread and I also have read over controlled testing results from various sources but the sample size of one versus real world experience with a much larger sample size is a big factor for me.

Seems like Zeiss V4 getting some positive reviews on here lately for the sub1000$ range, am I misinterpreting?

 

[Dobermann]

Just finished reading this thread and I also have read over controlled testing results from various sources but the sample size of one versus real world experience with a much larger sample size is a big factor for me.

Seems like Zeiss z4 getting some positive reviews on here lately for the sub1000$ range, am I misinterpreting?

Are you meaning V4?

[Edited to add: I'm assuming you are, so here's a similar starting point: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/search/1453453/?q=V4&c[users]=Formidilosus&o=relevance ]

 

[Southern Lights]

How good the glass is on a scope is probably about #4 on a list of what you need in a hunting scope. By my estimate the list is close to the following:

1) Reliably holds zero even after impacts and bad weather exposure.
2) Reliably dials and returns to zero if you dial.
3) Is quick to get behind and get onto target even in odd field positions.
4) Glass clarity.

I've never missed a shot due to less than perfect glass clarity. It is not a top concern. But I've had scopes that had bad critical eye relief and were hard to use in the field. I've also seen scopes lose zero, dials pop off and fail, etc.

So when I read a review and they just drone on about chromatic aberration, color rendition and ultimate resolution it just doesn't mean much. Tell me how the thing tracks and beat it up and see if it holds zero.

For reliability it is easy to find out which scopes are most reliable without doing elaborate tests or relying on anyone's reputation:

Call up some scope vendors and ask them which manufacturer has the lowest RMA figures for them.

I actually did this because, like many people, I got tired of reading various reviews and opinions and wanted to hear from the guys that make a living needing to deal with selling and warranty hassles.

Last I checked around I found that NightForce had a RMA figure that was less than half other brands. This doesn't mean NF is infallible, but does mean they have a much lower failure rate than other brands according to the people that actually sell them and aren't paid to say nice things about them.

The worst was Vortex. And I say this because I know distributors that dropped the brand after massive amounts of failures that was hurting their reputation and they just got tired of dealing with it all.

So according to vendors that are selling the things and need to eat by doing so, they get fewer returns for RMA for Nightforce than other scope brands they carried.

No this isn't scientific, but it would be a significant sample size if taken in aggregate. Take it as you will.

 

[ETtikka]

Yes, thanks

Are you meaning V4?

[Edited to add: I'm assuming you are, so here's a similar starting point: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/search/1453453/?q=V4&c[users]=Formidilosus&o=relevance ]

 

[BCsteve]

How good the glass is on a scope is probably about #4 on a list of what you need in a hunting scope. By my estimate the list is close to the following:

1) Reliably holds zero even after impacts and bad weather exposure.
2) Reliably dials and returns to zero if you dial.
3) Is quick to get behind and get onto target even in odd field positions.
4) Glass clarity.

I've never missed a shot due to less than perfect glass clarity. It is not a top concern. But I've had scopes that had bad critical eye relief and were hard to use in the field. I've also seen scopes lose zero, dials pop off and fail, etc.

So when I read a review and they just drone on about chromatic aberration, color rendition and ultimate resolution it just doesn't mean much. Tell me how the thing tracks and beat it up and see if it holds zero.

For reliability it is easy to find out which scopes are most reliable without doing elaborate tests or relying on anyone's reputation:

Call up some scope vendors and ask them which manufacturer has the lowest RMA figures for them.

I actually did this because, like many people, I got tired of reading various reviews and opinions and wanted to hear from the guys that make a living needing to deal with selling and warranty hassles.

Last I checked around I found that NightForce had a RMA figure that was less than half other brands. This doesn't mean NF is infallible, but does mean they have a much lower failure rate than other brands according to the people that actually sell them and aren't paid to say nice things about them.

The worst was Vortex. And I say this because I know distributors that dropped the brand after massive amounts of failures that was hurting their reputation and they just got tired of dealing with it all.

So according to vendors that are selling the things and need to eat by doing so, they get fewer returns for RMA for Nightforce than other scope brands they carried.

No this isn't scientific, but it would be a significant sample size if taken in aggregate. Take it as you will.

Is that a percentage or total amount? They probably sell a lot more Vortex than Nightforce.

 

[Southern Lights]

Is that a percentage or total amount? They probably sell a lot more Vortex than Nightforce.

We were talking in percentages and again it wasn't scientific. I spoke to a few vendors and just asked them what they saw in terms of customer returns for defects amongst their brands and which had the most and which the fewest.

The Vortex one was more interesting and I can't get into all the details except that they saw piles of returns on Vortex vs. other brands and just got sick of dealing with it. Now that's for the cheaper line of Vortex scopes and I don't know how it relates to the higher end products. But the lower end stuff had extremely high RMA. Their great warranty means nothing if it ruins an expensive and time consuming hunt.

The takeaway for me really is it basically is in line with Form's observations in the field. That is NF gave the vendors very little grief.

For my hunting rifles I've moved largely to NF (SHV). I just feel better knowing when bouncing around in a truck/quad or the rifle tips over or is banged I don't have to worry about it.

 

[Southern Lights]

To be honest I wouldn't trust their higher end stuff either based on how badly their low end stuff showed in RMA. The brand damages itself by having too much junk at the lower end. You could never be sure the same philosophy of cutting corners wasn't creeping into their expensive line at any moment and invisibly to you.

Other brands have done the same thing. Bushnell LRHS is supposed to be a good scope, but I never could get over the bad stuff they made and wouldn't buy one.

With NF I feel they built their brand around the tough and reliable market position. So even the SHV line is going to maintain that reputation otherwise it again damages the brand.

 

[Southern Lights]

Thinking that the performance of a $100 Chinese made Crossfire has any bearing on the $2,000 American made AMG or the $1,600 Japanese made Gen 2 Razor is laughable. Similarly, thinking that the performance from the $2,000 ATACR translates to the budget $700 SHV is just as silly.

You like what you like, but your comparing apples to chainsaws. Each model stands on its own merit based on the design and manufacturing specifications. The logo that is written on the side only really applies to things like customer service.

I am aware of the differences. My point simply is you have a vendor that cross pollinates really bad scopes with some that may be OK (Vortex) with another that doesn't really have a bad scope in terms of reliability (NightForce) but reduces features to meet a lower price. The burden of proof for reliability is much higher for Vortex because of this.

Ford had the same issues in the past. They had some real junk cars and some good ones. But the reputation was smeared as a result so consumers had no idea which was which. Toyota never had this problem. They had cheap Toyotas and expensive ones. But they were all reliable so if you just bought a Toyota you knew you'd be OK because the brand protected itself. Vortex is Ford. NightForce is Toyota.

I compare the SHV because the ATACR is a much heavier scope and I won't use them on hunting rifles. Even the NX8 I won't use due to weight (plus I dislike big mag ranges). My personal limit for a hunting rifle scope is about 20ozs. so that leaves the NXS and the SHV. I have run both and they are both good reliable optics.

Would I run a Vortex? I have used a Razor HD 1-6 in the past and it was OK but very heavy. Otherwise, no I wouldn't. Not because they don't make some good scopes, but I just don't trust them enough to know which would be good or not. Or whether some new management comes in and decides to squeeze out another 5% margin and quietly changes things to make a good scope a bad one. I just don't trust them.

But that was their business model and it works for them and they make a lot of money selling a bunch of junk scopes. It's not my fault that people notice the problems and get confused when they basically say: "Well yeah those other scopes are our Chinese junk, but look at this scope from an unknown manufacturer with parts you can't see, this one is really good!"

No thanks.

 

[Afhunter1]

How good the glass is on a scope is probably about #4 on a list of what you need in a hunting scope. By my estimate the list is close to the following:

1) Reliably holds zero even after impacts and bad weather exposure.
2) Reliably dials and returns to zero if you dial.
3) Is quick to get behind and get onto target even in odd field positions.
4) Glass clarity.

I've never missed a shot due to less than perfect glass clarity. It is not a top concern. But I've had scopes that had bad critical eye relief and were hard to use in the field. I've also seen scopes lose zero, dials pop off and fail, etc.

So when I read a review and they just drone on about chromatic aberration, color rendition and ultimate resolution it just doesn't mean much. Tell me how the thing tracks and beat it up and see if it holds zero.

For reliability it is easy to find out which scopes are most reliable without doing elaborate tests or relying on anyone's reputation:

Call up some scope vendors and ask them which manufacturer has the lowest RMA figures for them.

I actually did this because, like many people, I got tired of reading various reviews and opinions and wanted to hear from the guys that make a living needing to deal with selling and warranty hassles.

Last I checked around I found that NightForce had a RMA figure that was less than half other brands. This doesn't mean NF is infallible, but does mean they have a much lower failure rate than other brands according to the people that actually sell them and aren't paid to say nice things about them.

The worst was Vortex. And I say this because I know distributors that dropped the brand after massive amounts of failures that was hurting their reputation and they just got tired of dealing with it all.

So according to vendors that are selling the things and need to eat by doing so, they get fewer returns for RMA for Nightforce than other scope brands they carried.

No this isn't scientific, but it would be a significant sample size if taken in aggregate. Take it as you will.

That’s weird, most places I’ve ever delt with don’t honor factory warrenties. The consumer usually deals with the manufacturer direct. If I walked into my local gun shop with a bad vortex scope in my hand he’s gonna give me their number and send me on my way.

 

[Southern Lights]

That’s weird, most places I’ve ever delt with don’t honor factory warrenties. The consumer usually deals with the manufacturer direct. If I walked into my local gun shop with a bad vortex scope in my hand he’s gonna give me their number and send me on my way.

I live outside the U.S. and due to import/export laws across borders with firearms parts often the vendor will handle warranty claims. Or, at least assist in getting them handled if the distributor has a repair center in-country to handle it.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Thinking that the performance of a $100 Chinese made Crossfire has any bearing on the $2,000 American made AMG or the $1,600 Japanese made Gen 2 Razor is laughable. Similarly, thinking that the performance from the $2,000 ATACR translates to the budget $700 SHV is just as silly.

You like what you like, but your comparing apples to chainsaws. Each model stands on its own merit based on the design and manufacturing specifications. The logo that is written on the side only really applies to things like customer service.

Given a choice between a manufacturer that makes nothing but top quality scopes and one that makes some good stuff and junk that regularly fails, why would I choose the manufacturer who makes crap? How would I know at which level the poor build quality is manufactured out?

 

[Afhunter1]

I live outside the U.S. and due to import/export laws across borders with firearms parts often the vendor will handle warranty claims. Or, at least assist in getting them handled if the distributor has a repair center in-country to handle it.

I see. That makes sense then.

 

[Bubblehide]

I am going to second what Southern Lights stated. I have called vendors, even some that are sponsors here. Of those that would openly talk, the consensus was to stay away from Vortex if you want an optic that won't/should not fail; i.e., a dialing optic that will outlive the purchaser. All highly recommended Nightforce as their number one recommendation. Granted I can think of 1 or 2 very high end manufactures that they don't carry. Decades ago, I had a new state record Blacktail in my crosshairs. Unfortunately, I had been hunting for several days, rainy days. The spring responsible for releasing the firing pin INSIDE my bolt rusted and broke, rendering my rifle useless. I swore off steel at that point and purchased a stainless hunting rifle. After that experience, there is no way I want to chance a scope failure while hunting. So I want durability, something that can take impacts as I have dropped my rifles several times, taken tumbles with them... Bottom line is that I want an optic that just plain work despite the conditions and abuse it endures. I try to take care of my equipment, but those that have hunted with me know that my gear gets used, used to the point of abuse perhaps. In short, I am going to discover any weakness my gear has, and I don't want stuff that is going to fail short of a disaster.