Revic Acura RS25i Riflescope Review

[Flyjunky]

How is the eye box?

 

[SNelson]

How is the eye box?

It’s good enough that I never think about it. Very easy to stay in it regardless of power or position.

 

[Flyjunky]

It’s good enough that I never think about it. Very easy to stay in it regardless of power or position.

I'm really hoping this is a durable scope because it would be high on my list for my next rifle.

 

[Reburn]

how many rounds were put on this scope testing it?

 

[SNelson]

how many rounds were put on this scope testing it?

Probably around 300 so far.

 

[CCooper]

I'm really hoping this is a durable scope because it would be high on my list for my next rifle.

I’m hoping to see one in the drop tests soon. It definitely is a contender for the next scope at this point for me.

 

[DannyBement]

Stand by for my review of the new Revic Acura riflescope.
It’s a hunting scope designed by hunters that has a lot going for it. It’s stout. It has big knobs. The numbers are big enough. The clicks are very tactile.
Check back in a few days for the whole story (according to me). If you have any questions in the mean time, post them here or DM me.
S Nelson
View attachment 598142View attachment 598147View attachment 598149

Any updates?

 

[SNelson]

Any updates?

I did something wrong when I sent the photos. Working with my technical advisor to rectify. Sorry for the delay!!

 

[Justin Crossley]

I did something wrong when I sent the photos. Working with my technical advisor to rectify. Sorry for the delay!!

By something wrong, I think Shane means he sent them to @Ryan Avery.......and anyone who knows Ryan knows his email inbox is a giant black hole. We still love him, though!

Without further ado, Shane's review is live!

Revic Acura RS25i Riflescope Review

 

[GoatPackr]

All these pics and not one of the reticle?
Sounds very interesting.
Would like to see it go through a little more durability test. 2k is a lot for a scope if it fails that easily

Kris

 

[NSI]

It is absolutely confounding to me that there is an established drop test standard in this community that is hidden in a sub-sub-forum. And then there is a large collection of highly visible front page reviews that don’t begin to approach that standard.

Are we a community that believes shootability and zero retention are the primary responsibilities of an aiming device? Or are we doing magazine-style feature reviews here? I appreciate the tall target test, but with no indication of whether the optic will survive a forest road in the truck - respectfully, the review is worth exactly what I payed for it. A Leupold would come out of that review looking the same, and that is objectively a problem.

-J

 

[SNelson]

 

[SNelson]

View attachment 646729

That is at 25X

 

[SNelson]

That is at 5X

 

[SNelson]

This is at 5X

 

[Justin Crossley]

It is absolutely confounding to me that there is an established drop test standard in this community that is hidden in a sub-sub-forum. And then there is a large collection of highly visible front page reviews that don’t begin to approach that standard.

Are we a community that believes shootability and zero retention are the primary responsibilities of an aiming device? Or are we doing magazine-style feature reviews here? I appreciate the tall target test, but with no indication of whether the optic will survive a forest road in the truck - respectfully, the review is worth exactly what I payed for it. A Leupold would come out of that review looking the same, and that is objectively a problem.

-J

Each writer can say whatever they want about a product as long as it's truthful and their experience.

Most our scope reviews on the homepage were completed prior to Form joining the team. I know I reviewed multiple scopes before learning about his evaluation methods and would do them totally different if I did them again.

In this review Shane did drop the scope and posted results showing that something moved. It showed the scope likely moved but results are unclear since other factors could contribute.

Form is able to eliminate the other possibilities because he has a rifle that is permanently bonded together. The vast majority of shooters do not have that.

No matter what we put in a review, it won't please everyone. Overall I think Shane did a good job on his first review

 

[Ryan Avery]

It is absolutely confounding to me that there is an established drop test standard in this community that is hidden in a sub-sub-forum. And then there is a large collection of highly visible front page reviews that don’t begin to approach that standard.

Are we a community that believes shootability and zero retention are the primary responsibilities of an aiming device? Or are we doing magazine-style feature reviews here? I appreciate the tall target test, but with no indication of whether the optic will survive a forest road in the truck - respectfully, the review is worth exactly what I payed for it. A Leupold would come out of that review looking the same, and that is objectively a problem.

-J

I agree with Justin, Shane did far more testing than any magazine scope test that I have read in awhile.


Drop tests are expensive so until this “community” steps up the drop test will continue to be in the same place and pace. Form and I have both spent tens of thousands of dollars and a handful of other have helped with donations or supplying a scope(Thank you). But with 28 scopes tested we have received $1800 is donations. That’s only covers the ammo for 1.5 complete scope tests. There are other factors at play too. It’s much easier for form to update the testing in the forum than on the front end. There is a grassroots education factor as well that’s better suited for a forum format where questions can be asked and answered easily.

 

[fwafwow]

I agree with Justin, Shane did far more testing than any magazine scope test that I have read in awhile.


Drop tests are expensive so until this “community” steps up the drop test will continue to be in the same place and pace. Form and I have both spent tens of thousands of dollars and a handful of other have helped with donations or supplying a scope(Thank you). But with 28 scopes tested we have received $1800 is donations. That’s only covers the ammo for 1.5 complete scope tests. There are other factors at play too. It’s much easier for form to update the testing in the forum than on the front end. There is a grassroots education factor as well that’s better suited for a forum format where questions can be asked and answered easily.

Thank you for all you all are doing. I spend an inordinate amount of time on this site. Wouldn’t have it any other way.

 

[NSI]

I agree with Justin, Shane did far more testing than any magazine scope test that I have read in awhile.


Drop tests are expensive so until this “community” steps up the drop test will continue to be in the same place and pace. Form and I have both spent tens of thousands of dollars and a handful of other have helped with donations or supplying a scope(Thank you). But with 28 scopes tested we have received $1800 is donations. That’s only covers the ammo for 1.5 complete scope tests. There are other factors at play too. It’s much easier for form to update the testing in the forum than on the front end. There is a grassroots education factor as well that’s better suited for a forum format where questions can be asked and answered easily.

With respect, there’s a false duality between 2 rounds and 3,000 rounds here. It’s well established that the current protocol (which costs about 2 boxes including system zero proof) is highly predictive of long term performance. A bonded rifle is unnecessary. Education has to start somewhere. We needn’t chuck out the 80% we can do because the 20% we can’t is too expensive/time consuming.

Let’s leave aside for a moment that the primary differentiator in this scope is the hunting-optimized FFP reticle that received zero airtime in the review (except for a gripe about wind icons). I’m simply advocating for some consistency and a reasonable standard for our public facing content.

-J

 

[85zero17]