Ranking the "others" for Dialing

coues32 said:
If you don't mind sharing the scopes that failed?
I have Luke's old short barreled 358 on my montana, have a older bushnell elite 1.5x4.5x32 but haven't shot it alot. I don't want to have a issue with a scope...
Click to expand...
VX-2 3-9 (in fairness this one lasted ~1000rds)
Meopta 6x (x2) (~10 rounds, ~15 rounds)
Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 (don’t recall rounds count. 100?)

Each was in lapped rings and properly torqued. When using those lightweight scopes the rifle only weighs 6lbs. It can be pretty snappy on recoil. Not a big push, but very quick.
 
prm said:
VX-2 3-9 (in fairness this one lasted ~1000rds)
Meopta 6x (x2) (~10 rounds, ~15 rounds)
Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8x32 (don’t recall rounds count. 100?)

Each was in lapped rings and properly torqued. When using those lightweight scopes the rifle only weighs 6lbs. It can be pretty snappy on recoil. Not a big push, but very quick.
Click to expand...
Thanks man
 
This isn't a direct reply to 406, as I've got no interest in getting into a debate with him. I'm also not defending Form, as he's capable of that himself.

However, there's so much asshattery and misinformation strewn through this thread that I just want to clarify some things for others, especially newbies, who might come across this thread.

I'm not going to address all the issues here, but just a few salient points:

1. Frank and Marc's list is just a record of the scopes they've seen recently. Frank himself offered a few caveats on his podcast, namely that it's not a large sample size, the testing was limited (a tracking test and surviving a class - not drop testing, sustained round counts, and so on). He was also clear that people shouldn't read too much into it. Sure, there are some telling failures, such as the Leupies, but there's also some sample size issues, such as the market reach of, say, Vortex.

2. It's also telling that when Frank talks most about the scopes he uses and recommends, they tend to be Nightforce, ZCO, and - surprise! - SWFA. He's certainly used others, and comments when other brands seem to fare okay in his classes, but these are the three that receive the highest, longest, and most consistent praise (at least, from what I've heard, which is only a few dozen hours, out of hundreds, of his podcast).

3. The two scopes that I've heard Frank talk about using as backups at his classes for when scopes go down are an SWFA 5-20 and an older model Nightforce NXS. (His exact quote on the SWFA was "The SWFA line is really nice, especially the 5-20x, it punches well above its weight class … I continue to use my SWFA 5-20x, in fact, we use them as back up scopes for our classes as an optic will always go down and I find the SWFA to be super reliable.”)

4. Ilya's testing - at least weighted by how much he tends to discuss the issues - focusses on glass, reticle, and tracking. He usually doesn't give much detail about the latter, having only mentioned tracking tests a few times on his recent lengthy videos. He rarely mentions round counts, and when he does, they tend to be fairly low. I'm not sure I've yet seen him do evaluation of a scope where it is subjected to impacts. Conversely, many of his reviews show scopes mounted on a board, inside, looking at neighbors' houses. I say all this not to critique him in any way - he works in the industry, and knows a lot - but the reference points he has, and what he tends to focus on - are vastly different from what Form presents to us.

4a. One small thing to note about the scopes that Ilya does discuss is that he has mentioned numerous times that he 'likes' or 'is friends with' the people at Vortex, and that the people at Nightforce 'don't like' him. I'm not claiming a simple correlation here between his stated support for Vortex scopes, and his rare mentioning of Nightforce - indeed, on the few times he has discussed Nightforce reliability, he has spoken highly of them - but just noting that he himself has referenced multiple times the differences in his personal relationships with people who work in these companies.

5. On the tired claim about Form being 'faceless', four things: a) Ilya recently commented that Form had given him a call - Ilya knows who he is, and what he does; b) to the person who said that Ryan could at least come out and vouch for Form - I'm pretty sure that if you look hard enough on the Slide, you'll see that he did; c) some forum members who've been skeptical of a few things have met up with Form and gone away with a different understanding; and d) while I don't personally know Form, I suspect I've met people who work in similar contexts. None of them use their real identiies online, most don't even have social media accounts, and most of them wouldn't bother posting to public forums - in part, for the good chance that people wouldn't believe who they are, what they do, and what they have seen.

6. The main things that cause scopes to fail (short of failure to track, or other issues, right out of the box) are recoil, impacts, and extremes of temperature. In this context, as has now thankfully been corrected, round counts do matter.

7. Impacts can simply be observed during hard use. We have many accounts on the Slide of scopes taking tumbles down mountains, and riding exposed in the back of trucks - and which survived, and which did not. However, short of taking a gamble on impacts occurring in the field, with disastrous results - and this often being with a small sample size - we can replicate hard use with various tests to 'accelerate' the effects of field use, such as drop tests, hard object impact tests, and so on. This is not 'monkeying'; this is approximating as closely as possible the kind of issues scopes may experience in the field, but in test environments. While some of the internet video examples of this might show irrelevant examples, or possibly border on the ridiculous, the kinds of tests Form refers to *are* done in military contexts - and for good reason.

8. As for tests of extreme temperature, there are enough images of Form's rifles covered in (not just lying on) snow here to show this is a part of his field testing. Putting optics and electronic gear in the freezer is also a part of a long tradition here on the Slide; Aron has posted about this for years. Again, this is not 'monkeying' but useful testing and data gathering. Many items have failed, and publishing the findings has saved many of us thousands of dollars - probably tens if not hundreds of thousands - across Slide members over the years.

9. The main point that Form has raised here over the year is not so much about which scopes work, and which don't, but about the importance of sample size in determining this. And the times when those of us who use SWFA or Nightforce chip in, however well-intentioned, about our good experience with our own samples of one or two, are at risk of missing this bigger point. However, if you do want to use lots of individuals' experiences, spending some hours reading about scopes on the Hide is instructive - while there are certainly a lot of people who like their Vortexes and their Leupolds, there are a lot of people who have posted about issues they have had with them, and how they will never touch them again. Conversely, there are very few posts about people having issues with Nightforce or SWFA (with the possible exception of people finding the recent 8x ratio of the new NXS line to be unforgiving/have limitations, which makes sense).

10. Finally, to the point about what 'pros' in PRS/NRL use, three things are key: first, their scopes are not necessarily subject to the same impacts and field abuse that long-distance backcountry hunting or military scopes are. Second, as Ryan has boldly pointed out in a similar thread, some of the best-known 'pros' (who he knows personally) do not use the scopes they use because they're 'the best', but because they're sponsored to. Third, even people who compete in PRS have taken to calling it a 'game'. Scope companies have therefore started to market to competitors (and would-be/wanna-be competitors) with features that suit the 'gaming'. Some of these have crossover with backcountry hunting and military applications, and some clearly do not. Their popularity in PRS, NRL, or other competitive contexts, does not necessarily tell us anything about their reliability.

Phew! I'm guessing most of the above was not news to most of you who have been around a while ... but I hope it helps newcomers somewhat in separating the gold that Form often offers us here, from some of the rubbish that is routinely peddled.
 
Doberman, I'm not going to quote your post,, but that was outstanding, and easy to read and understand. Tracking tests without the effects of recoil are useless and a waste of time IMO. Nice work!
 
This is the most complete and honest post I’ve seen in a while. Thanks for putting it out there in one concise thought.

I will say the one big thing that Form has done for me was to open my eyes to think critically about a product and leave your feelings out of it. I absolutely love everything about the leupold line but without reliability I have to shelve my feelings and use my head to find what will work for me and that’s not leupold. This thinking isn’t just about scopes. I take this attitude to all of my gear purchases now.
 
Last edited:
Ilya is a wealth of knowledge on optics. On shooting in the field....not so much, on hunting applications about zero. His tests are on the bench only (no slam intended). The "faceless" poster sees more rounds fired in a month than 99% of the people here do in a lifetime. That's worth something to me.
 
406 maybe you haven't dropped your rifle onto concrete in the field, but a lot us hunt in rocky terrain where a fall is inevitable. I would say dropping your rifle in different orientations at home would be the best way a guy could try to eliminate that failure point. Lab tests are great but they didn't test the optic you purchased. Without that sort of "monkeying" we are just hoping our equipment doesn't fail when it inevitably gets bumped during a hunt.
 
406Smith said:
Yep, I've said it multiple times, Joe Schmoe's checking their own equipment within the context of how they expect their equipment to be used is a good thing.
Click to expand...

And taking someone's advice who has exponentially more experience than they do is even better.
 
Yeah, @406Smith we get it. You don't like the fact that many of us see @Formidilosus as an expert. You continue to play the angle that since his identity and credentials are somewhat unverified, that we shouldn't take his word as face value.

I think every damn person understand what you're saying, whether we agree or not.

We've read the same song and dance, over and over and over...

Ok?

We get it.

Now, can you, @406Smith cease with the thinly veiled and highly repetitive ad hominem attempts on every damn thread?

It's fricking annoying to see the same crap on every thread where @Formidilosus makes a comment.

Feel free to post your opinions based on your considerable expertise. Even when they don't agree with "his".
 
I’ve found a lot of useful information from many unknown and anonymous sources on various forums over the years. It’s amazing what you can learn from someone willing to share their experience and wisdom as it’s often hard earned. I’m grateful for those that take the time to share, especially when they’re doing it for no other reason than to help a complete stranger who’s willing to listen and learn.
 
I'll add while this thread has provided unlimited entertainment value while the 223 thread went quiet ..
.
I feel like some members need to utilize the block/ignore feature. Really cleans up the threads when you dont have to get triggered so much and ride your white horse out to defend the innocent

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Well, I have to agree with 406Smith a bit here. Formidilosus may not be wrong with most of his information. However, a clouded veil of secrecy is always highly suspect. Form suffers from his own biases just like everyone else - whether he knows it, likes it, or not.

I can say having been in the military and working for a local government - what he says he does on an annual basis is highly suspect. There is no gov't agency with the funding to provide 300K rounds of various centerfire rifle ammunition to an R&D section. Especially one that apparently uses just any old rifle and scope combo the "operators" want to bring out to "test". Then with a high failure rate of sooo many scopes, they do it again the next year? With the same brands of optics? Then having your weapons testers test clothing and backpacks and such too....wow, must be hurting for "experts" or even "qualified" people to test stuff!

The only "possible" theory would be a civilian shooting "school". Then there would be all kinds of guys, brining all kinds of crap, on their own dimes. Even then to get through 300K rounds means the "school" would be booked pretty much non stop.

Anyone who has run a shooting program knows every class has a "curve" Some guys really don't need to be there, and some guys really, really do. Add in changing and repairing targets, instruction, breaks, fixing and diagnosing problems in scopes, replacing them, zeroing them, getting them back on the line, etc, etc...all takes away from round count.

As for PRS shooters only using X brand of scope because they are "sponsored" is BS. You are telling me that a person who has spent thousands or tens of thousands on getting his equipment together, ammunition right, practice, building his own barricades etc, will use a scope he KNOWS will fail at some point and cost him more sponsors and prize tables? When for say a $3000 one time cost he would NEVER have to worry about it again? Especially if they have to buy a scope anyway to have a rifle for PRS?

PRS guns get smacked around more than most hunting guns too. They don't just gingerly move from spot to spot or position to position. Plus practice, plus being shot from their side, plus they fall over, plus......give me a break.

The whole thing is everyone makes products that fail. Failure rates are higher with some than others sure. No matter what though the manufacturing processes involved are going to create failures. There are just too many variables at play.

I take all the info I can get, but I know I have to filter anything I get from any source but my own testing.

I hate Leupold. Every one I have had went back for service - except one. Talking 20 ish scopes - yes I'm slow on the uptake! I have 3 remaining - 2 have to go in so I can sell them after. When the last one dies I'll hammer it to the wall.

I have 5 SWFA classics now. Honestly I kinda hate them. Fish eye optics, turrets so big you have to make concessions in how you mount them or accept occasional malfunctions from your rifle. So far they hold zero at least. They are mounted on Tikka's too....no they are not the easy button they are portrayed to be either.....

Formidilosus has good info, but it is always best to trust but verify....even if it gets expensive...
 
Last edited:
I have no dog in this fight. My ONLY reason for even commenting in this thread has been to give a friendly heads up to other members, some of which I know who are good dudes that enjoy hunting and are recreational shooters, and haven’t had the opportunity to put a lot of rounds down range on varied weapons and equipment. I know-believe it or not, not everyone was a Seal…..:ROFLMAO: you guys are just like my friends, brothers, uncles, and hunting buddies I’ve made over the years. So I tread lightly here and just volunteer some caution and common sense.

However-

Nothing pisses me off more than phony individuals. Braggarts I ignore, embellishers get a free pass, but a straight up phony gets me going.

Let me preface my thoughts with this: THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. I have NEVER and will never come on here, or anywhere for that matter and talk shop as it relates to subject matter information on tactics, equipment, ballistic data that is not my own as a civilian hunter. You won’t find a single post or inference to it by me. The reason for this is it is highly frowned upon and in some cases against the law to share such information. Is everything classified? Hell no. Most would be surprised what isn’t classified. But whether someone is active military, federal contractor to the military/law enforcement, or even on the civilian side (think optics manufacturer/firearms manufacturer/bullet manufacturer) there are absolute protections in place. I am not on the civilian side, but have former colleagues that now are. They are required to sign very lengthy NDA’s and would not only lose their employment, but would be sued for monetary damages.

What I am familiar with is, there is quite a bit you can’t share. Whether it is SSI, which is technically not under a regular classification, but below it, you still can’t share it. Then there is FOUO and LES. Most civilians only are aware of Secret, Top Secret etc. I will tie this in to a claim I have read on here that would either violate any and all of the above “do not share” classifications, or obliterate a DNA on the civilian side.

For example-the claim of thousands, tens of thousands and yes, even hundreds of thousands of round being expended by, and or witnessed by a member, in a very short time frame. Is this possible? Absolutely. Is there a very, very small pool of venues that do this? Yes. (think Tier 1 units/a few 3 letter agencies/and some LE units)

I can tell you first hand, ANYONE involved with these above type of training venues would be bound by numerous “do not share” situations. Round counts-check. Unit/Agency participating-check. Tactics utilized-check. Location of venue-check. Equipment used-check. It goes on and on.

Back to the civilian side. The cost of this type of training and round expenditures is colossal. No business entity is going to make the investment into this type of “testing” (as I’ve read it referred to many times) and then allow those involved to jump on the internet and blab about it so they can be a duty expert, or for whatever other reasons some get a kick out of being a wifi warrior.

Why do I care enough to take the time to type all this out? Because over the course of my career, I have seen so many phony dudes-at the bar, at the range, now on youtube just spewing crap that goes from wannabe, to full on stolen valor.
Everybody’s an expert….until there not. FOIA has taken down some notorious ones!

And, I enjoy this forum and most of its members. I’ve learned so much about backcountry hunting and try and share what I can in return.

Am I claiming to be an expert-on here-nope. I will not ever be the braggart or know it all. I will never have social media or a youtube channel. I have ZERO desire to have a fan following that will jump to my defense, even tho they have never met me, or even more importantly VETTED me. Its cute, and laughable tho. ;)

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

So fellas-your opinion counts, just as much as the next guy. But please stop running to the defense of another man on the internet-its unbecoming.
 
Well that should shed some reality on the subject, and from a common sense approach it makes perfect sense with regards to NDA's, etc.

Check this out.......I was up in the TX Panhandle deer hunting a few weeks ago. The most renowned sniper trainer/instructor in the world lives up there and constantly trains these squads from the world over. I've got to witness a couple of handfulls of them personally, just as a bystander hoping to soak up some knowledge. He had a scope on hand that day in which there are only 3 of in the world....an obvious prototype sent to him for testing. He wouldn't elaborate on it much, and I wasn't surprised. FYI the squad he was training that particular day was FBI Search and Rescue snipers.
 
Perhaps my post was misconstrued.

Beleive Form, or don't. Believe 406 or Team, or don't, I sincerely don't care. Almost all of us here are unknown and unverified. It's the internet.

What I do care about is the incessant whining that clogs up threads and turns finding information on a helpful forum into a repetitive pissing match.
 
Dobermann said:
For context ... in the Leupy VX5-HD thread, Ryan said:
Click to expand...

Jon is a good friend of mine. But he also gets paid well to shoot a Lupy. Let’s not forget that. If he didn’t he would not have a Lupy on his comp or hunting rifle...


Okay, you are right, I am wrong.

It should be pointed out though, that an "employee" creates a mutually binding contract with the "employer" unless you void the employment.

Of course, unfortunately, everyone has their price. Lobbyists and politicians prove that every day.

'Merica !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xFREDx
Steiner Predator 4 2.5-10x42mm review
Replies
0
Views
201
xFREDx
xFREDx
06 SB
Recommend a scope
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
FLS
F
S
Who actually makes what? In scopes?
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
SomeJackassOnAForum
SomeJackassOnAForum
Pistolpete28
1x riflescope
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Pistolpete28
Pistolpete28
ihatetaxes
Scope Recommendation - 400 yards
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
7K
OXN939
OXN939

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top