Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[WeiserBucks]

I've got a ZCO 420 that I'd love to put to the test, but I'm not shipping it off to anyone. No disrespect to Form, but if my scope takes a dump it'll be me at the wheel when it does!

 

[prm]

Not publicly. The only real response is generally to ignore, or if they do address it, passive aggressive attempts to make it personal. I have no desire to get into a back and forth with any company. The results are what they are good or bad. I am just the shooter.

There are a couple of companies that take info seriously, want details or to see it, and then correct the product. Unsurprisingly those tend to work.

Companies know their product. You’re not telling them anything they don’t know. What they say in marketing is another story…

Rarely (I can‘t think of ever, but I’ll give some benefit if doubt) have scope companies had them really put through the paces in public evaluations. Most “tests” are nothing but a glorified rewording of marketing materials provided to the “tester”. Then they never say anything bad for fear of not receiving products to test in the future. Doing this sort of evaluation and reporting on a public forum will ruffle some feathers. But it just might make some companies who take pride in their products take on the challenge of building a more robust scope.

 

[prm]

That’s one of the most fragile scopes there is. A lot of them come fubar right out of the box. I have seen this firsthand, and it seems the newer the scope, the quicker it wil fail.

Anecdotally I’ve heard a number of folks who have had good long term success with these, as well as the old FX II 6x. But I’ve also heard bad things about a number of Leupolds, and as you stated, the more recent seems to be worse. Is that because people are paying more attention, have higher expectations, or there are a higher percentage of failures? I don’t know.

 

[PanhandlePilgrim]

Plus one more for the Burris XTR 3 or Pro, as well as the new Bushnell DMR.

 

[CApighunter]

Anecdotally I’ve heard a number of folks who have had good long term success with these, as well as the old FX II 6x. But I’ve also heard bad things about a number of Leupolds, and as you stated, the more recent seems to be worse. Is that because people are paying more attention, have higher expectations, or there are a higher percentage of failures? I don’t know.

My 2.5-8 has been solid on hard kicking rifles but I’m also not putting it through forms drop tests. It’s been banged around plenty on the pack though.

 

[HaydenLane]

LRHS2 - I have one and like almost everything about it. Curious to see if it would live up to the reputation

EOTECH Vudu 5-25x50 - looks like a very nice option for a dedicated long range scope, with a tolerable weight and reticle (md3) for occasional field use

 

[Dobermann]

I've had one of these and multiple LRTS/lrhs scopes. It's completely identical with the exception of upgraded glass and very slightly different donut on the reticle. Otherwise they weigh the exact same and are 100% the same

Are you sure that's right?

Here's a quick comparison courtesy of Bill (Glassaholic) at the Hide, based on published specs:

I think someone else on the Hide also weighed theirs and it was 28 oz, so would be interesting to see what others' are ...

 

[Dioni A]

Are you sure that's right?

Here's a quick comparison courtesy of Bill (Glassaholic) at the Hide, based on published specs:

I think someone else on the Hide also weighed theirs and it was 28 oz, so would be interesting to see what others' are ...

Yeah I'm pretty sure. That listed base weight for the original one is wrong also. Miy lrts came out to 27.3 Oz I just weighed it. I've sold the lrhs2 so I can't compare it at this point but I remember checking the length because I saw this chart before I bought it and they were the same length too.

 

[OdinIII]

Sadly, one thing I’ve found to be true across many industries is that the “specs” are based on something but obviously not the finished product. I can only assume they write the specs during the design process and these change slightly after negotiations with the manufacturer.

 

[Carl Ross]

Companies know their product. You’re not telling them anything they don’t know. What they say in marketing is another story…

I truly don't believe that most scope companies do this type of testing. Some, sure...but definitely not most. Scopes are generally sold on glass and features, with the assumption that they function correctly.

One of the benefits of shining a spotlight on different areas of mechanical function of scopes; the more folks that are looking at how a scope behaves in THIS way, the more incentive there is for companies to design and test scopes for correct function.

This happened with tracking. All the attention from long range shooters, long range hunters, and competition guys over the last two decades has made scopes that DON'T adjust correctly the outliers, instead of the ones that do...

 

[SDHNTR]

I've seen manufacturers advertise that their scopes hold up to a certain amount of G Force. Tract says 1000G's, Zeiss says 1500G's, for example. I'd like to know exactly what that means in terms of real world field use. Does it mean the scope won't fall apart? Or turrets stop working? Does it mean the glass wont break? Does it mean the zero won't shift? I'd love to see more transparency when manufacturers make these claims, otherwise it's nothing more than marketing hype.

 

[OXN939]

Zeiss V4 but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t like the results.

What makes you say this? Legitimately interested if you have found an issue with them. I have a 4-16x44 that has ridden several rifles for hundreds of rounds and been spot on

 

[SDHNTR]

What makes you say this? Legitimately interested if you have found an issue with them. I have a 4-16x44 that has ridden several rifles for hundreds of rounds and been spot on

Form already tested one IIRC, or has at least commented on them, and it failed miserably.

 

[kickemall]

I've seen manufacturers advertise that their scopes hold up to a certain amount of G Force. Tract says 1000G's, Zeiss says 1500G's, for example. I'd like to know exactly what that means in terms of real world field use. Does it mean the scope won't fall apart? Or turrets stop working? Does it mean the glass wont break? Does it mean the zero won't shift? I'd love to see more transparency when manufacturers make these claims, otherwise it's nothing more than marketing hype.

Same as what was said by sdhnter. I also have one and it has worked well so far but hasn't been dropped, carried in a scabbard on a horse or bounced around loose in the cab of a truck - yet. I do have a friend who has had to re-zero his for no apparent reason so I have concerns.

 

[wind gypsy]

Yeah I'm pretty sure. That listed base weight for the original one is wrong also. Miy lrts came out to 27.3 Oz I just weighed it. I've sold the lrhs2 so I can't compare it at this point but I remember checking the length because I saw this chart before I bought it and they were the same length too.


View attachment 373914

My experience aligns with Dioni's. Of the various LRHS/LRTS scopes i've had, none of the 18x models I weighed were under 27 ounces.

 

[coues32]

Here is lrhs2, Dioni s old one
1lb 11.5 oz

 

[alaska_bou]

I would like to see the Zeiss V4/V6 tested. Not only because of the popularity and positive feedback from those who shoot these models but to also substantiate the product testing Zeiss claims from product development.

 

[ID_Matt]

Another vote for the LRHS2... just got some initial rounds through mine and really like everything about it - turrets, clear glass, very defined and usable reticle.

Zeiss V4 - mine have done OK so far but want to hear a good evaluation and they are extremely popular

Mark 5 - see if leupold got one right

 

[Lonewolf72]

Something lighter like the Trijicon Ascent 3-12x40.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

Yep. At their lower weight, I’d expect them to do poor, but they really don’t have much bad feedback.

I'm very interested in the March D24V42FIML with the FML reticle. I would like to see the test results on it as well as feedback on the reticle in use.

D24V42FIML (MIL, Tactical, Illumi) | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation

MARCH Scopes Official Site

marchscopes.com