Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[Reburn]

The problem is not that company execs are incompetent. The problem is that shooting and hunting consumers are incompetent. Its not up to the exec, its up to US to demand it enough that they can no longer realistically sell products that dont meet this requirement. Companies only answer to their customers, and 99% of their customers are not asking for this. Continuing to blame “incompetent company execs” for this is not addressing the only way this will change.

This is why this scope test forum exists. To try and explain to the users that the scope and gun dosent work like they think it works. It doesn't shoot to a point it shoots in a cone and the scope doesnt hold zero makes the cone bigger. Most guys dont understand that their scope doesnt work right. And then when you tell them its insulting to them as the weapon is an extension of their manly hood.

If the consumers start asking for a product that works then the companies will no longer be able to sell junk that doesnt work.

And this is compounded by the fact that most "manly men" Think they are the best at shooting, driving and love making while realistically they arent even good at one of the 3.

 

[Macintosh]

…And this is compounded by the fact that most "manly men" Think they are the best at shooting, driving and love making while realistically they arent even good at one of the 3.

Hey! I resemble that!!

 

[freddyG]

Once a business goes past the point of being a passion-project, it’s just a business. With a bottom line and likely shareholders or investors to answer to, and less cynically employees to keep employed. The CEO’s and execs job is NOT to make a better product, its to increase revenue and profit. I think people are misunderstanding a companies goal.

To directly answer the questions, leupold almost 100% views the criteria for what their product is supposed to do differently. Of the xx number of leupold customers who keep them employed, very few of them are unhappy with the product. You all know this—despite all the hand wringing on this site it is a constant procession of “which scope, the vx5 or the…”, and “I’ve been using leupold scopes for 30 years and never had a problem, look at all my dead critters”—because its a tiny fraction of a minority of users that have had problems significant enough to call it quits. They not only havent had a problem, they have brand loyalty! Id say that incompetent company exec is doing something right, even if their definition of a “good product” is different than mine.

The problem is not that company execs are incompetent. The problem is that shooting and hunting consumers are incompetent. Its not up to the exec, its up to US to demand it enough that they can no longer realistically sell products that dont meet this requirement. Companies only answer to their customers, and 99% of their customers are not asking for this. Continuing to blame “incompetent company execs” for this is not addressing the only way this will change.

I get what you are saying, completely. But what if Leupold’s sales would go up a significant percentage if they made scopes that worked? Is the current management competent? I’m self employed, and can tell you that it’s one of those “you don’t know what you don’t know” scenarios.

Cutting corners always bites one in the ass. It may not be right away, but eventually it will.

 

[freddyG]

This is why this scope test forum exists. To try and explain to the users that the scope and gun dosent work like they think it works. It doesn't shoot to a point it shoots in a cone and the scope doesnt hold zero makes the cone bigger. Most guys dont understand that their scope doesnt work right. And then when you tell them its insulting to them as the weapon is an extension of their manly hood.

If the consumers start asking for a product that works then the companies will no longer be able to sell junk that doesnt work.

And this is compounded by the fact that most "manly men" Think they are the best at shooting, driving and love making while realistically they arent even good at one of the 3.

Trust me, quite a few people know their scope loses zero. That’s why it’s commonplace to sight in every year before a hunt.

What they might not know is that reliable scopes that require no periodic adjustments exist. This forum is helping with that, although very slowly.

 

[Macintosh]

@freddyG I dont know. What I do know is that my impression is that their scopes meet or exceed most of leupolds customer’s expectation. So I think the first question is aligning on a definition of success and what cutting corners would actually look like from the persoective of their mainstream customers—because ultimately its an issue of what it takes to meet customer expectations. That is the root of the issue, and until we’re on the same page on this its not a really productive conversation. It does no good to offer oranges if most of your customers are buying apples and not asking where the oranges are. At the moment I think there is a very strong argument to be made that leupold is meeting most of their customers expectations. If most customers are happy, is it actually cutting corners if a company builds off that spec? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Mike Islander]

I get what you are saying, completely. But what if Leupold’s sales would go up a significant percentage if they made scopes that worked? Is the current management competent? I’m self employed, and can tell you that it’s one of those “you don’t know what you don’t know” scenarios.

Cutting corners always bites one in the ass. It may not be right away, but eventually it will.

Yep. Since I started to learn about zero shift and RTZ shift, I haven't even considered buying another Leupold (which I was really proud to own at one time). I need a scope that works as a pointing device above all other criteria. As long as the glass is "good enough', RTZ and holding zero are deal breakers if not included in the package.

 

[Castle Rock]

The best thing Bushnell could do is to make a solid reticle in the 3-12x, and something like a 3-18x or 4-16x with smaller objective, then bring back the Bausch and Lomb name and brand it under that as a high end hunting scope.

I really like the 4-18 but it is ridiculously long

 

[caberslash]

I really like the 4-18 but it is ridiculously longView attachment 630500View attachment 630503

The S&B 4-16 Klassik/Precision Hunter is even longer, well over 1 ft with a sunshade on!

I keep mine as it's a proven and reliable scope, and the P3 FFP ret along with side focus and capped windage is nice, but it tunnels badly from 4-6x and the single turn turret is lacking.

Have a 4.5-18x LRHS on my Sendero but that has not had the same amount of time in the sun.

Anyone got a stupid amount of money burning a hole in their pocket?

A TT3-15X50 LRH would be an interesting test... thoughts @Formidilosus ?

 

[caberslash]

They aren’t stupid, just incompetent. Form nailed it. How can a group of people who don’t shoot, build a scope for those that do? Makes no sense. It’s easy for companies to dismiss it and make excuses, but that’s the whole issue.

I run into this quite often. Enthusiasts often know more about a product/company than longtime employees. That’s why there are so many substandard products out there.

Original design spec of the Bushnell LRHS 3-12 was hashed out by George Gardener and Pat Sinclair, there is still a thread with Pat showing off a prototype on 24hr Campfire. Both of them were happy with what made it to market at the time. A few on Snipershide had a bitch because the scopes were originally advertised as having a 10 yard minimum parallax but it turned out to be 50 yards.

Agree with some aspects of the reticle not being ideal, but beggars can't be choosers.

I have a Leupold Mk4 3.5-10x40 M3 LRT that I quite like, would prefer the turrets to not be MOA per click with a Mil-Dot ret, would prefer that it was FFP instead of SFP, would prefer the windage to be capped and would really like the glass to be somewhat more useable in poor lighting conditions (it really isn't good) but for what I paid, and the light weight, it'll do!

 

[Formidilosus]

A TT3-15X50 LRH would be an interesting test... thoughts @Formidilosus ?

The one TT that was evaled did very poorly. Having said that, it is a sample of one.

 

[ElPollo]

@Ryan Avery, Rokslide needs t-shirts and stickers with Form’s test gun that say “Drop that shit” or “Drop it like it’s hot”. I’d buy that.

 

[amassi]

@Ryan Avery, Rokslide needs t-shirts and stickers with Form’s test gun that say “Drop that shit” or “Drop it like it’s hot”. I’d buy that.

With a beaver chewing the stock out of a block of lumber


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hibernation]

Trust me, quite a few people know their scope loses zero. That’s why it’s commonplace to sight in every year before a hunt.

What they might not know is that reliable scopes that require no periodic adjustments exist. This forum is helping with that, although very slowly.

100% describes me right there. I just assumed that random zero shifts were either my fault or just a thing that happened to everyone, so every year you have to burn some ammo chasing groups around. I figured the reason some scopes cost 5x my basic 3-9x40 was dialing turrets, more features and better glass, not that there would be a difference in just holding zero consistently.

Reading the tests has been eye-opening.

 

[kc0yef]

I picked up a Bushnell FFP Match Pro at the Bushnell Factory outlet a DEMO model MSRP $600 outlet price $300.
Bushnell-Match-Pro-6-24x50mm-Black-Riflescope-MP6245BF2.

15 rounds through it the first day, also breaking in the barrel. it has a little chromatic aberration at full power and the blue is not focusing perfectly in the optical train a lil off on the same plane as the other colors. I put on my amber sunglasses and the blue shift was gone good enough for this test. Low light test is next

Remington Clone Action, integrated rail and Warne rings savage small shank, KRG Bravo Stock.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

The one TT that was evaled did very poorly. Having said that, it is a sample of one.

Still, that one did poorly.

I've been using one of the LRH's for a couple of years now. It's been repeatable and reliable but it's also been babied compared to most of the rifles I hunt with. I generally hunt with light rifles and it's on a heavier, sporter rifle that I just don't use much. When I do use it, it's just carried to an ag field vs a long ATV ride then long hike up the mountain...there's a big difference in those two usages.

 

[WeiserBucks]

@Formidilosus you ever put a US Optics scope through the paces?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus you ever put a US Optics scope through the paces?

Not any of their current models.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Not any of their current models.

I've got a line on an old LR17, I had an ER25 a decade ago and never had any issues with it but it never saw any rough use either.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've got a line on an old LR17, I had an ER25 a decade ago and never had any issues with it but it never saw any rough use either.

Haven’t done the drop eval with those. Historically the USO’s were variable in QC. If you got a good one, they worked well. If not, they had issues of course.

 

[NSI]

Last USO I used had turrets whose tracking which would be best described as "directionally correct." I'd avoid.

-J