Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[HighUintas]

We need some abuse testing on lightweight scopes. I think a good number of people wonder about the swfa ultralight and maven rs.2. I've got both, but my shooting is likely too poor to be a reliable indicator

 

[SDHNTR]

Form said the V4s weren’t up to snuff.

I found that interesting given that scope is made by LOW, as are several others that form raves about. Not to the same specifications obviously.

I’ve also not seen a test on the V-6 line, which is entirely different and made in Germany. Anecdotally myself and a few other friends have had very good luck with the V6. We have had solid tracking and zero retention. One friend even at his scope tumble off of a small 10 or 15 foot cliff on a goat hunt and zero was unchanged. Too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions, and none have been formally tested, we’ve just been satisfied with regular field use.

 

[sndmn11]

We need some abuse testing on lightweight scopes. I think a good number of people wonder about the swfa ultralight and maven rs.2. I've got both, but my shooting is likely too poor to be a reliable indicator

Mail them over, I will test.

I really like the Meopta Optica6 but tips the scale at 30 oz so back to the defeating the purpose trying to keep as light as possible.

I think that highlights the purpose. Get a light rifle so that you can have a reliable scope and still have a rifle/scope combo that is manageable for recoil and carrying.

 

[Dobermann]

I just started going through "the scopes we would like to see Form test" and maybe this was asked an answered but this is at the top of my list for an upcoming elk hunt. I can't find much from anyone about RTZ or losing zero during any durability testing. I tend to baby my equipment but drops do happen, horse brushing against a tree when gun is in the scabbard etc. SHV 4x14 is in the mix too but its on a light rifle that I bought to keep light. Adding a 30 oz scope kind of defeats that purpose. Eyebox is more forgiving on the V4 as well. @Formidilosus any feedback on the Zeiss conquests v4 or v6? you've been super quiet on this manufacturer which usually says volumes. As I type this I'm thinking we all know the answer to the question but figured I'd ask and "no comment" comment would confirm the cease and desist order in place

Don't forget you can use the Search function, and enter a username.

So, for posts including 'V4' by Form, you get these results: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/search/3747850/?q=V4&c[users]=Formidilosus&o=relevance

You're welcome.

 

[Castle Rock]

A a scope that may meet your needs is the 3 to 12 Athlon
I have been using one fairly hard and so far it’s rock solid

 

[jstraus34]

Don't forget you can use the Search function, and enter a username.

So, for posts including 'V4' by Form, you get these results: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/search/3747850/?q=V4&c[users]=Formidilosus&o=relevance

You're welcome.

Thanks Dobermann! Guess I'll be carrying a little extra weight or get a lighter scope without a zero stop. Always tradeoffs, no free lunch...

 

[jstraus34]

A a scope that may meet your needs is the 3 to 12 Athlon
I have been using one fairly hard and so far it’s rock solid

Thanks, I'll take a look. I seem to remember seeing a thread about Athlon, let me see if I can find it

 

[sndmn11]

Thanks Dobermann! Guess I'll be carrying a little extra weight or get a lighter scope without a zero stop. Always tradeoffs, no free lunch...

There are 24oz scopes that are easily obtainable used in the 3-12 LRTS/LRHS for under $1k, 27oz gets you new LRHS2. If you can find SWFA 3-9 or 3-15 those also fall in the low to mid 20oz. If you get a over $1k you are into the Trijicon tenmile series and some of the Nightforce models.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

has anybody actually tested a LRHS2 yet? If so I must have missed the results

 

[Balderdash]

I found that interesting given that scope is made by LOW, as are several others that form raves about. Not to the same specifications obviously.

I’ve also not seen a test on the V-6 line, which is entirely different and made in Germany. Anecdotally myself and a few other friends have had very good luck with the V6. We have had solid tracking and zero retention. One friend even at his scope tumble off of a small 10 or 15 foot cliff on a goat hunt and zero was unchanged. Too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions, and none have been formally tested, we’ve just been satisfied with regular field use.

SD:

FWIW, the Vortex LH and LHT scopes were/are also made by LOW, and they didn't always do so well on drop tests, either. Likewise, there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence of some hiccups with these models during less rigorous general use. So while LOW obviously knows how to build a durable scope, seems they'll also build whatever is specified.

Seems that the extra couple ounces the scopes in reference through the recent posts shave off are very integral in terms of reliability and impact resistance.

IME, I've come to the conclusion that 20 ounce is about minimum for a reliable dialing scope - SWFA 6x and 3-9HD. If you want to add more X, PA, illumination, bigger objective, etc, you'll be lucky to stay under 25 ounces - 30 ounces.

A 20 ounce 3-9 SWFA will do anything I need to get done as far as shots on big game. I like the LRHS reticle a little better for some things, so I don't mind the extra couple ounce penalty they come with.

Overall, I'm slightly perplexed at the arbitrary nature many assign to scope weight. Such as nothing over 15, or 20, or 25, etc, etc. To a certain extent, what's the functional difference in say 2-3 more or less ounces? It's not a deciding factor in much as far as actual use, so why the strong opinions and declarations that weight over a certain point can't be tolerated? I look for the features I need, such as reliability first, reticle second, and the weight will be whatever it is. Most reliable scopes are close enough in weight that it's really not worth factoring it in, anyway. Best way to shave weight you don't need is to stay with a straight X and or low X and low feature scope.

 

[jstraus34]

There are 24oz scopes that are easily obtainable used in the 3-12 LRTS/LRHS for under $1k, 27oz gets you new LRHS2. If you can find SWFA 3-9 or 3-15 those also fall in the low to mid 20oz. If you get a over $1k you are into the Trijicon tenmile series and some of the Nightforce models.

Thanks for the recommendations. After reading as much as I could find, I think Trijicon could be an option but thinking my best bet might be Nightforce NXS 2.5- 10x42. Not the magnfication I was hoping for but probably more than good for most hunting situations and end up with a solid, light 19 oz scope that will maintain point of aim. Its a bit like marriage, always a compromise

 

[OdinIII]

Thanks for the recommendations. After reading as much as I could find, I think Trijicon could be an option but thinking my best bet might be Nightforce NXS 2.5- 10x42.

That is the direction I went. 10x is enough for any hunting that I’d do and I’d be at 10 power anyway if I need to use holdovers or windage.

 

[jstraus34]

SD:

FWIW, the Vortex LH and LHT scopes were/are also made by LOW, and they didn't always do so well on drop tests, either. Likewise, there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence of some hiccups with these models during less rigorous general use. So while LOW obviously knows how to build a durable scope, seems they'll also build whatever is specified.

Seems that the extra couple ounces the scopes in reference through the recent posts shave off are very integral in terms of reliability and impact resistance.

IME, I've come to the conclusion that 20 ounce is about minimum for a reliable dialing scope - SWFA 6x and 3-9HD. If you want to add more X, PA, illumination, bigger objective, etc, you'll be lucky to stay under 25 ounces - 30 ounces.

A 20 ounce 3-9 SWFA will do anything I need to get done as far as shots on big game. I like the LRHS reticle a little better for some things, so I don't mind the extra couple ounce penalty they come with.

Overall, I'm slightly perplexed at the arbitrary nature many assign to scope weight. Such as nothing over 15, or 20, or 25, etc, etc. To a certain extent, what's the functional difference in say 2-3 more or less ounces? It's not a deciding factor in much as far as actual use, so why the strong opinions and declarations that weight over a certain point can't be tolerated? I look for the features I need, such as reliability first, reticle second, and the weight will be whatever it is. Most reliable scopes are close enough in weight that it's really not worth factoring it in, anyway. Best way to shave weight you don't need is to stay with a straight X and or low X and low feature scope.

That is the direction I went. 10x is enough for any hunting that I’d do and I’d be at 10 power anyway if I need to use holdovers or windage.

Kind of what I'm thinking too. Most places I just checked are out of stock but don't need it just yet. Thanks

 

[sndmn11]

Thanks for the recommendations. After reading as much as I could find, I think Trijicon could be an option but thinking my best bet might be Nightforce NXS 2.5- 10x42. Not the magnfication I was hoping for but probably more than good for most hunting situations and end up with a solid, light 19 oz scope that will maintain point of aim. Its a bit like marriage, always a compromise

It is second focal plane, if that matters to you, I know that is a deal breaker for a lot of people.

 

[BjornF16]

It is second focal plane, if that matters to you, I know that is a deal breaker for a lot of people.

This is my issue...I want to use the windage marks without having to be at 10x.

So if one were to set the magnification at 6x, would that double the mil/moa marks? Would this then be usable?

 

[jstraus34]

It is second focal plane, if that matters to you, I know that is a deal breaker for a lot of people.

Ugh, didn't see that. SHV 4-14x is starting to look better and I'll just have to accept its going to weigh more than I wanted.

 

[sndmn11]

This is my issue...I want to use the windage marks without having to be at 10x.

So if one were to set the magnification at 6x, would that double the mil/moa marks? Would this then be usable?

They would be incremental; on a 10x second focal value of *, then at 5x the value would be 2* at 2.5x the value would be 4*.

Ugh, didn't see that. SHV 4-14x is starting to look better and I'll just have to accept its going to weigh more than I wanted.

Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV F1 Drop Test/mini evaul

Nightforce 4-14x50 SHV F1 drop testing and mini evaluation. It was pointed out to me that I need to proof the rifle/mount/rings system. @HawkinsPrecision rings, Tikka T3 action with 22BR barrel from Preferred, in a Bell and Carlson stock. This scope is my own, one of two, and I have had it...

www.rokslide.com

 

[Lawnboi]

This is my issue...I want to use the windage marks without having to be at 10x.

So if one were to set the magnification at 6x, would that double the mil/moa marks? Would this then be usable?

I think I could get away with the nxs 10x in a sfp scope. Do you really see yourself holding wind at under 10x? Now I’ll never get another higher mag sfp scope again, but the small nxs is on my list of scopes I think I’d be happy with.

 

[BjornF16]

I think I could get away with the nxs 10x in a sfp scope. Do you really see yourself holding wind at under 10x? Now I’ll never get another higher mag sfp scope again, but the small nxs is on my list of scopes I think I’d be happy with.

I've been running the SWFA 6x on my Tikka .223...and holding wind...so yes, I don't see why you wouldn't hold wind.

I've also been holding wind with the Trijicon Credo 2-10x36 while dialed at 6x-8x...but that is FFP scope. I just wish it were 3-12x and 42/44 objective

edit: I've got the NF 2.5-10 on order through NF military discount program...approx 10 month wait. Should have the SHV 4-16 and NX8 4-32 in hand next month

 

[OdinIII]

So if one were to set the magnification at 6x, would that double the mil/moa marks? Would this then be usable?

Would you ever do that?

Any shot over point and shoot would be done at 10 power for me.

Everyone’s eyes are different but some ffp scopes are barely usable at 6 power if you require easy visibility of the hash marks to say it’s usable.