Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[BjornF16]

How about the March 1.5-15x42?

Don’t have one.

Send one in Rodney

 

[dirtytough]

I’m curious about March also. If I get a rifle/system proofed I’ll test my March.

 

[madcalfe]

should add a kahles k318i in there!

 

[Formidilosus]

should add a kahles k318i in there!

It will be.

 

[rodneyonasis]

Send one in Rodney

Haha. I wish I could. Seems like a great do-all candidate on paper, but very little real info out there. Never seen one in the wild.

 

[madcalfe]

It will be.

ive already sent one back. rifle was leaning in the corner of the wall tent and it slid and hit the ground and the internals ****** up literally couldn’t zoom passed 6x without it going blurry and the mag ring feel like it had sand in it. They told me they’ve never seen one do that and replaced it for a new one. So hoping that was a 1 off thing.

 

[Formidilosus]

ive already sent one back. rifle was leaning in the corner of the wall tent and it slid and hit the ground and the internals ****** up literally couldn’t zoom passed 6x without it going blurry and the mag ring feel like it had sand in it. They told me they’ve never seen one do that and replaced it for a new one. So hoping that was a 1 off thing.

Well….

 

[Dobermann]

ive already sent one back. rifle was leaning in the corner of the wall tent and it slid and hit the ground and the internals ****** up literally couldn’t zoom passed 6x without it going blurry and the mag ring feel like it had sand in it. They told me they’ve never seen one do that and replaced it for a new one. So hoping that was a 1 off thing.

I must admit I'm confused about all these scope companies having scopes get sent back due to failure, only to say that they'd "never seen one do that" ...

 

[madcalfe]

lol needles to say i don't particularly have confidence in it after a tumble. but who know maybe it was a lemon! hoping you get difference results if you get one to test!

 

[nyrifleman1]

Tag

 

[chutinlead]

Have the Element scopes been mentioned in this thread yet? The Nexus was on the short list for me till the Vortex LHT FFP came along.

 

[Dobermann]

Have the Element scopes been mentioned in this thread yet? The Nexus was on the short list for me till the Vortex LHT FFP came along.

This, I think, is where it starts getting tricky ... there are so many new brands who've come along after the general 'recipes' have been made at the various OEMs, and then set up shop recently - Element, Arken, Athlon, Riton, Brownells, Delta, Swamp Fox, Sig, ... the list goes on.

Not saying that they shouldn't have a chance to succeed; not saying that only the existing scope companies should be able to use those OEMs (although sometimes it looks like there might be some stepping on IP toes going on).

But it does make it hard to know where to start in working out what in the new offerings would even be worth testing.

 

[Formidilosus]

But it does make it hard to know where to start in working out what in the new offerings would even be worth testing.

But it’s not really though. If people would stop trying to be cute with gear and believing that a scope choice is some trait of personally, and instead just look at them for what they are- a thing to hold crosshairs, we would be a lot better off. The 5-20x Element Nexus is a $1,500 28oz scope. What is it doing for hunting, functionally, that a SWFA SS 5-20x, NF SHV F1 4-14x, NF NX8, I’ll even go to the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x, Bushnell LRHS/LRTS, etc. isn’t doing?

This isn’t me saying that a functionally better product shouldn’t come out or that there isn’t room to improve, but that isn’t what these companies are doing. Athlon, Riton, Element, etc, etc. are just getting the same basic scope design, generally not doing a single thing other than having the OEM slap their name on the box, and then extolling to consumers how awesome the features and warranty is.

 

[Dobermann]

But it’s not really though. If people would stop trying to be cute with gear and believing that a scope choice is some trait of personally, and instead just look at them for what they are- a thing to hold crosshairs, we would be a lot better off. The 5-20x Element Nexus is a $1,500 28oz scope. What is it doing for hunting, functionally, that a SWFA SS 5-20x, NF SHV F1 4-14x, NF NX8, I’ll even go to the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x, Bushnell LRHS/LRTS, etc. isn’t doing?

This isn’t me saying that a functionally better product shouldn’t come out or that there isn’t room to improve, but that isn’t what these companies are doing. Athlon, Riton, Element, etc, etc. are just getting the same basic scope design, generally not doing a single thing other than having the OEM slap their name on the box, and then extolling to consumers how awesome the features and warranty is.

Yes, it's as if they're not only copying scope designs, but also business and marketing models - namely that of Vortex.

I completely agree with what you've said - which is why I haven't gone near any of them.

I guess in terms of reliability, though, we don't know if any of them have - whether by accident or design - included elements of the design build specs from NF, Bushnell ET, SWFA, Trij that would make them work.

My guess is it's unlikely to have happened by design. But what if one of them said "spec me something that's similar to the XRS" - which we have seen - and that then happened to include what made the XRS work.

Or how the Delta Stryker is apparently almost the same scope as one of the Trijicons.

If there are any "accidental winners" in this new deluge, I'm sure we'd all want to know ... but we're not going to test them all.

So it seems like something of a no-win situation for the scope makers, or the users.

(Except for those makers that send them to YouTube influencers with a massive audience, which then generates enough sales to have made it worthwhile, or to some people who've made names for themselves as optics reviewers, who look through it, don't drop test it, and say "I like the people at the company, and I like this scope very much".)

 

[sndmn11]

I think the goals for what to test should be to identify any ONE of the following that passes as these would be the only significant changes from SHV/SWFA/Trijicon10/LRTS. In order of what I think would et my attention the most.
1) $200-500 variable
2) 15-20oz variable

When someone requests X scope, that costs the same as the above, weighs the same as the above, I wonder what they think will be gained.

 

[Dos XX]

The few scope companies that make the reliable scopes didn't do it by accident. They know how scopes work and what it takes to make a reliable scope and how they should be tested. They are in the business of making scopes. Some, or even a lot, of the other companies are in the business of making a product. The product just happens to be a scope. In reality, they don't know shit about scopes and how they do or should work. It is just a sku to push. It could just as easily be a weedeater.

That said, I do think there are some companies making unreliable scopes that do know how scopes should work. They just don't care. Some of these might even be big players in the market. The number of customers that will never realize these frailties far exceeds the number who will.

 

[prm]

I’ve always been bothered by scope retailers that don’t seem to have any in-house R&D or T&E. How does this even work? Are these retailers being provided a menu by an actual scope builder and then the retailer chooses from the menu and adds some unique visual elements? Or, are they doing actual engineering work and providing a manufacturer a design to then build?

 

[Dobermann]

The few scope companies that make the reliable scopes didn't do it by accident. They know how scopes work and what it takes to make a reliable scope and how they should be tested. They are in the business of making scopes. Some, or even a lot, of the other companies are in the business of making a product. The product just happens to be a scope. In reality, they don't know shit about scopes and how they do or should work. It is just a sku to push. It could just as easily be a weedeater.

That said, I do think there are some companies making unreliable scopes that do know how scopes should work. They just don't care. Some of these might even be big players in the market. The number of customers that will never realize these frailties far exceeds the number who will.

I think in general that's right ...

But we have seen some companies come along that are veteran-owned (for example), and state that they're wanting to make a difference. In some cases, they seem to be open to feedback. Are they legit? Or is this more marketing and self-promotion in the age of social media pseudo-reality? Who knows, but I guess I'm wondering how we can even ascertain who is serious about this, and then how we can work with them.

And yes, they might just be after something to do for a business, and yes, they could have chosen something else. But even if just one of them was available to the idea that reliability should be paramount, we could get some good outcomes.

As Form said above,

What is it doing for hunting, functionally, that a SWFA SS 5-20x, NF SHV F1 4-14x, NF NX8, I’ll even go to the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x, Bushnell LRHS/LRTS, etc. isn’t doing?

This isn’t me saying that a functionally better product shouldn’t come out or that there isn’t room to improve, but that isn’t what these companies are doing.

We could all come up with improvements to the above examples (SWFA - better glass; NF SHV - better hunting reticle; NX8 - smaller erector ratio; Tenmile - better hunting reticle, and only illuminate the centre dot; LRHS/LRTS - bring them back in production!).

My question is, if that's not what companies are doing, how do we get (at least one of) them to do it?

 

[Dos XX]

I think in general that's right ...

But we have seen some companies come along that are veteran-owned (for example), and state that they're wanting to make a difference. In some cases, they seem to be open to feedback. Are they legit? Or is this more marketing and self-promotion in the age of social media pseudo-reality? Who knows, but I guess I'm wondering how we can even ascertain who is serious about this, and then how we can work with them.

And yes, they might just be after something to do for a business, and yes, they could have chosen something else. But even if just one of them was available to the idea that reliability should be paramount, we could get some good outcomes.

As Form said above,


We could all come up with improvements to the above examples (SWFA - better glass; NF SHV - better hunting reticle; NX8 - smaller erector ratio; Tenmile - better hunting reticle, and only illuminate the centre dot; LRHS/LRTS - bring them back in production!).

My question is, if that's not what companies are doing, how do we get (at least one of) them to do it?

Convince them that it would sell more units than the one they are already making and be more profitable doing it. If they are just a marketing company, this involves more than selling a different scope. It involves having people in your company that know something about the subject. So, instead of selling boxes with scopes in them, you now have to sell scopes, and you have to have in house expertise and engineering, maybe even some manufacturing or assembly.

Remember that NF builds scopes for the military. Some of their technology and knowledge may have been earned the hard way, by figuring out what it took to get a military contract. The scopes they sell at a retail level may not be the same scope, but it likely contains some of the same technology.

Isn't the SWFA 3-9 a scope that they bought from another company, and didn't that other company design or have it designed to try to win a military contract?

 

[Dobermann]

Convince them that it would sell more units than the one they are already making and be more profitable doing it. If they are just a marketing company, this involves more than selling a different scope. It involves having people in your company that know something about the subject. So, instead of selling boxes with scopes in them, you now have to sell scopes, and you have to have in house expertise and engineering, maybe even some manufacturing or assembly.

Remember that NF builds scopes for the military. Some of their technology and knowledge may have been earned the hard way, by figuring out what it took to get a military contract. The scopes they sell at a retail level may not be the same scope, but it likely contains some of the same technology.

Isn't the SWFA 3-9 a scope that they bought from another company, and didn't that other company design or have it designed to try to win a military contract?

Agreed all round.

And those of us who've had good experience with NF and SWFA will sometimes bring that up ...

Flipside is that there are some scopes that have won military contracts (Vortex, Sig) that have had issues. And we all know that some things are adopted in military context for all the wrong reasons (Horus reticles).

I know Form knows a bit about this, but doesn't always comment about it in this context/forum.