Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[madcalfe]

I’m often one to pile on - usually just as good-natured ribbing, especially when someone memes.

I'm trying, however, to be open minded. I would love to find out if any of the claims made on the site can be confirmed. Sure, he's apparently not an engineer and he's got some interesting bio selections included. But I don't like to buy into the normal "only experts" can research, determine objective information, or create/design improvements. Maybe he had an idea that has a basis in medicine or physiology and paid a bunch of very capable people to execute. Maybe the canting technology provides some benefit. Maybe both of those are true but the scope isn't durable. Who knows? Lots before of made heretical claims and some have been proven correct.

Seriously - if anyone knows him, see if he would loan a scope to be tested.

lol the "canting technology" is probably like the Leupold VX6HD where the reticle blinks until your within a certain degree but his is just a green light....

 

[fwafwow]

I’m often one to pile on - usually just as good-natured ribbing, especially when someone memes.

I'm trying, however, to be open minded. I would love to find out if any of the claims made on the site can be confirmed. Sure, he's apparently not an engineer and he's got some interesting bio selections included. But I don't like to buy into the normal "only experts" can research, determine objective information, or create/design improvements. Maybe he had an idea that has a basis in medicine or physiology and paid a bunch of very capable people to execute. Maybe the canting technology provides some benefit. Maybe both of those are true but the scope isn't durable. Who knows? Lots before of made heretical claims and some have been proven correct.

Seriously - if anyone knows him, see if he would loan a scope to be tested.

All of that said - I'm having a hard time seeing what the expensive scope would do that this (https://www.unknownmunitions.com/product/um-tikka-level/) wouldn't. Maybe it's the $750 for mounting by an expert.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m often one to pile on - usually just as good-natured ribbing, especially when someone memes.

I'm trying, however, to be open minded. I would love to find out if any of the claims made on the site can be confirmed. Sure, he's apparently not an engineer and he's got some interesting bio selections included. But I don't like to buy into the normal "only experts" can research, determine objective information, or create/design improvements. Maybe he had an idea that has a basis in medicine or physiology and paid a bunch of very capable people to execute. Maybe the canting technology provides some benefit. Maybe both of those are true but the scope isn't durable. Who knows? Lots before of made heretical claims and some have been proven correct.

Seriously - if anyone knows him, see if he would loan a scope to be tested.

As far as I am concerned it isn’t a dogpile and I have nothing against what you wrote. However, my response was in the fact that it is yet another scope that looks like an Athlon, etc. (not that it is necessarily bad) that is selling a feature- internal can’t indicator, and not actual performance. The “background” that is used to explain the credibility of owner/inventor of why this scope is good is that he is an optometrist and has went on 100 domestic hunts.

How and what is stated generally is a clear indication of what to expect. Not always, but mostly.

 

[fwafwow]

As far as I am concerned it isn’t a dogpile and I have nothing against what you wrote. However, my response was in the fact that it is yet another scope that looks like an Athlon, etc. (not that it is necessarily bad) that is selling a feature- internal can’t indicator, and not actual performance. The “background” that is used to explain the credibility of owner/inventor of why this scope is good is that he is an optometrist and has went on 100 domestic hunts.

How and what is stated generally is a clear indication of what to expect. Not always, but mostly.

All good. I wasn’t directing my reply to anyone in particular. I’m open minded but extremely skeptical. The background is at best puffery but would have been better left out - if there is any legitimacy.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

What are you referencing with regards to background, failure and asshats?

@Formidilosus, I'll give you credit for actually showing the idiocy of many scope manufacturers that make it a design requirement that their packaging can survive a drop but have no comparable design requirement for their scopes. I am a fan of the drop test process and am down to one scope that is slated for replacement.

Folks trash a scope because the founder is an optometrist who also enjoys hunting. Yet how many of these The View co-hosts actually have designed and a proven reliable scope?

Let a product succeed or fail based upon its own merits or shortcomings. It is not fair to trash a product based upon an antiquated belief system where a person’s background, professional and/or hobbyist, dictates success or failure.

Using folks’ collective comments as a belief system, all of the products made by the small sample of hunting-related companies below should be abject failures due to the (co-) founders professional and/or hobbyist backgrounds.

Nightforce, Trijicon, Hornady, Nosler, Colt, Kuiu

It is incredible that a dentist founded Nightforce. It is remarkable that an aerospace engineer’s side hustle led to Trijicon. Despite their alleged lack of applicable expertise, these two individuals gave us two exceptional companies whose products regularly get praise heaped upon them by forum members and also whose products have passed the formidable drop test. If the insights posited by the forum members were correct, then this should have been an impossibility.

 

[Scottyboy]

@Formidilosus, I'll give you credit for actually showing the idiocy of many scope manufacturers that make it a design requirement that their packaging can survive a drop but have no comparable design requirement for their scopes. I am a fan of the drop test process and am down to one scope that is slated for replacement.

Folks trash a scope because the founder is an optometrist who also enjoys hunting. Yet how many of these The View co-hosts actually have designed and a proven reliable scope?

Let a product succeed or fail based upon its own merits or shortcomings. It is not fair to trash a product based upon an antiquated belief system where a person’s background, professional and/or hobbyist, dictates success or failure.

Using folks’ collective comments as a belief system, all of the products made by the small sample of hunting-related companies below should be abject failures due to the (co-) founders professional and/or hobbyist backgrounds.

Nightforce, Trijicon, Hornady, Nosler, Colt, Kuiu

It is incredible that a dentist founded Nightforce. It is remarkable that an aerospace engineer’s side hustle led to Trijicon. Despite their alleged lack of applicable expertise, these two individuals gave us two exceptional companies whose products regularly get praise heaped upon them by forum members and also whose products have passed the formidable drop test. If the insights posited by the forum members were correct, then this should have been an impossibility.

I don’t think anyone is trashing him or the scope. I was genuinely curious when it popped up in my ads and clicked the link (win for them and google, I guess). Then I saw the price point and bio and shook my head. Spend $4k for what seems to be a complete unknown in our world or go buy 2 NXS. Sure, I’d love to see how it performs in the drop test or forms feelings in general like he does with everything, but I doubt we will see it for this scope. And I did reach out to see if they are willing to demo. Finally, would I ever spend $4k for a scope, nope…so regardless of any potential results I’m out. Have a good evening sir

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus, I'll give you credit for actually showing the idiocy of many scope manufacturers that make it a design requirement that their packaging can survive a drop but have no comparable design requirement for their scopes. I am a fan of the drop test process and am down to one scope that is slated for replacement.

Folks trash a scope because the founder is an optometrist who also enjoys hunting. Yet how many of these The View co-hosts actually have designed and a proven reliable scope?

Let a product succeed or fail based upon its own merits or shortcomings. It is not fair to trash a product based upon an antiquated belief system where a person’s background, professional and/or hobbyist, dictates success or failure.

Using folks’ collective comments as a belief system, all of the products made by the small sample of hunting-related companies below should be abject failures due to the (co-) founders professional and/or hobbyist backgrounds.

Nightforce, Trijicon, Hornady, Nosler, Colt, Kuiu

It is incredible that a dentist founded Nightforce. It is remarkable that an aerospace engineer’s side hustle led to Trijicon. Despite their alleged lack of applicable expertise, these two individuals gave us two exceptional companies whose products regularly get praise heaped upon them by forum members and also whose products have passed the formidable drop test. If the insights posited by the forum members were correct, then this should have been an impossibility.

Who is trashing the scope because the founder is an optometrist? No one has done that, as I can tell. I pointed out the issue with basing one’s credibility on having 100 domestic hunts- and being optometrist. Being an optometrist has zero to do with marketing or designing a scope whether it works or not, so why use that as part of your justification for credibility? Also, 100 domestic hunts as a show of credibility is quite frankly a joke.

My response was to the question of “why should I buy this scope?” And the answer according to their website is because of an anti-can’t level, the designer being an optometrist, and 100 domestic hunts. I vary rarely care anything at all about someone’s background, cause very rarely does it mean anything- it’s an appeal to authority fallacy. However, if you are going to use the founders background as a source of credibility, the experience of 100 domestic hunts isn’t it.

 

[Scottyboy]

Who is trashing the scope because the founder is an optometrist? No one has done that, as I can tell. I pointed out the issue with basing one’s credibility on having 100 domestic hunts- and being optometrist. Being an optometrist has zero to do with marketing or designing a scope whether it works or not, so why use that as part of your justification for credibility? Also, 100 domestic hunts as a show of credibility is quite frankly a joke.

My response was to the question of “why should I buy this scope?” And the answer according to their website is because of an anti-can’t level, the designer being an optometrist, and 100 domestic hunts. I vary rarely care anything at all about someone’s background, cause very rarely does it mean anything- it’s an appeal to authority fallacy. However, if you are going to use the founders background as a source of credibility, the experience of 100 domestic hunts isn’t it.

And not meaning to add fuel to the fire but you did say you want to test as many scopes as possible, which is the only reason I included the link. Hopefully he responds to my email!

 

[Beetroot]

Oh boy, unless the optometrist has another engineering degree I’d wager not well
Looks a lot like a rebadged vortex razor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't think it's a LOW design, probably JOL as they have a US team based in Texas.

 

[northernlandgar]

I'd be interested in seeing some Swarovski scopes tested, like a Z3 or Z5. Especially the Z3, since it's so light.

Also wondering what, mechanically speaking, makes a scope hold zero? What wizardry is happening inside the turrets and erectors of scopes that hold up well?

 

[amassi]

I'd be interested in seeing some Swarovski scopes tested, like a Z3 or Z5. Especially the Z3, since it's so light.

Also wondering what, mechanically speaking, makes a scope hold zero? What wizardry is happening inside the turrets and erectors of scopes that hold up well?

They all fail spectacularly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[100percent]

They all fail spectacularly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven’t made it through these 39 pages yet, have they been tested here?

 

[DJL2]

I'd be interested in seeing some Swarovski scopes tested, like a Z3 or Z5. Especially the Z3, since it's so light.

Also wondering what, mechanically speaking, makes a scope hold zero? What wizardry is happening inside the turrets and erectors of scopes that hold up well?

Many (most?) scopes out there use a relatively simply arrangement to hold their erector/lens system in place: a machine screw (moved by the turrets) on one side with a little leaf spring on the other side. The leaf spring has a little dimple, the scope body a little nipple. If that spring loses compression (under recoil or impact), the scope's internals can move resulting in a loss of zero.

Design, assembly, and even internal parts quality can all play a role in keeping the scope's internals under compression and in full contact with their adjustment mechanism.

 

[amassi]

I haven’t made it through these 39 pages yet, have they been tested here?

Not officially
It would be a waste of ammo
They might be the most fragile scopes made


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[huntnful]

I'd love to see a March F 3-24X52 tested. One of the better FFP Mil reticles for hunting throughout all power ranges, but also general range shooting. Excellent optics and functions, and comes in at only 24oz I believe. I had one and wasn't the least bit disappointed with it. But never drop tested it.

 

[DRUSS]

Has the Zeiss v4 or v6 series been dropped?

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Not officially
It would be a waste of ammo
They might be the most fragile scopes made


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Going to preface this by saying scopes should be more reliable than the boxes they come in...

Crazy that some hunters use POS Swarovski scopes for dangerous game. If these scopes were as bad as you portray them to be, there'd be a huge pile of dead or maimed hunters in Africa alone. Throw in all the other POS unreliable scopes used over the decades there and that pile would be taller than Kilimanjaro.

Somehow hunters are finding a way to successfully recover the millions of animals they kill every single year using unreliable scopes. Until you can successfully explain that, you are unlikely to get more converts. This holds true for folks on this site as there is still a near constant stream of scope recommendations that are not SWFA, Nightforce, and Trijicon.

 

[amassi]

Going to preface this by saying scopes should be more reliable than the boxes they come in...

Crazy that some hunters use POS Swarovski scopes for dangerous game. If these scopes were as bad as you portray them to be, there'd be a huge pile of dead or maimed hunters in Africa alone. Throw in all the other POS unreliable scopes used over the decades there and that pile would be taller than Kilimanjaro.

Somehow hunters are finding a way to successfully recover the millions of animals they kill every single year using unreliable scopes. Until you can successfully explain that, you are unlikely to get more converts. This holds true for folks on this site as there is still a near constant stream of scope recommendations that are not SWFA, Nightforce, and Trijicon.

Despite all those fallacies Swarovski still doesn’t make a reliable scope. “Dangerous game” hunting is probably the least strenuous hunt on earth. Also NONE of the professional hunters seem to have Swarovski scopes on their double rifles, or any scope at all.

So you have an easy hunt
With back up rifles
In the hands of professionals
Without optics
Huge targets at close range
Targets and ranges so close you wouldn’t be able to see an 8” shift when the scope failed
Shooting scenarios that if 3 rounds landed 36” apart it would be explained away as stress induced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fwafwow]

Going to preface this by saying scopes should be more reliable than the boxes they come in...

Crazy that some hunters use POS Swarovski scopes for dangerous game. If these scopes were as bad as you portray them to be, there'd be a huge pile of dead or maimed hunters in Africa alone. Throw in all the other POS unreliable scopes used over the decades there and that pile would be taller than Kilimanjaro.

Somehow hunters are finding a way to successfully recover the millions of animals they kill every single year using unreliable scopes. Until you can successfully explain that, you are unlikely to get more converts. This holds true for folks on this site as there is still a near constant stream of scope recommendations that are not SWFA, Nightforce, and Trijicon.

Do you own a Swaro? Serious question. I’ve got their binos, and used to own a Z5.

 

[WRO]

Do you own a Swaro? Serious question. I’ve got their binos, and used to own a Z5.

I’m guessing not, we’ve been killing shit for decades without to the toughest scope known to man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk