Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[Aviator]

I suspect the answer to a wandering zero will be...anything but the scope.

Rings, fasteners, action bedding, barrel deflection from the fall...anything but the scope.

NF doesn’t seem to have a problem with this.

 

[eric1115]

I suspect the answer to a wandering zero will be...anything but the scope.

Rings, fasteners, action bedding, barrel deflection from the fall...anything but the scope.

Just once, I want to hear their (not just them but Aaron Davidson on Cliff Gray's podcast or Ilya or any of the nay-sayer "experts") answer to why it's possible to set up a rifle with good connections and a good scope and have it pass, then mount the scope in question and have it fail, then put the good one back on and pass again.

 

[JGRaider]

Just once, I want to hear their (not just them but Aaron Davidson on Cliff Gray's podcast or Ilya or any of the nay-sayer "experts") answer to why it's possible to set up a rifle with good connections and a good scope and have it pass, then mount the scope in question and have it fail, then put the good one back on and pass again.

Go to Koshkin's website and ask him if you really want to know. I'm sure he has his reasons for making light of the RS drop tests.

 

[mj23polaris]

Not sure where else to post this, but looks like the Hornady podcast is trying to tell us something.

View attachment 934503

Have not listened to it yet. I bet it’s full of you need to shoot a 30 shot group etc etc. As someone who went through troubleshooting a shifting zero over the summer I’ll only use NF rings, NF scopes, Zeiss s3’s and trijicons.

Did sxs test with a nx8 in nf rings on one rifle and a zeiss s3 in warne mtn techs on another rifle. Shot 10rd groups each rifle. Left paper up put rifles on floor of truck drove 8 miles home put them back inside, handled like rifles not glass. Did the same test next morning on same paper same aiming point. Nx8 rifle shot the same as day before bullets went in the same group. Zeiss, .3 low and .2 left.

Sent scope to zeiss it passed inspection, put it in NF 3 screw rings. Got a good zero put the gun in a soft case in the bed of a truck drove from northern wy to NRL grand slam in AZ and zero was perfect right where it was when I left. Never had an issue all weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RockAndSage]

Just once, I want to hear their (not just them but Aaron Davidson on Cliff Gray's podcast or Ilya or any of the nay-sayer "experts") answer to why it's possible to set up a rifle with good connections and a good scope and have it pass, then mount the scope in question and have it fail, then put the good one back on and pass again.

I would too. In general I don't like to cast shade on people trying to put out good info, but for different reasons both are really failing their communities. Both should be at the top of the mountain shouting about how important drop tests are - and each's excuse-ridden protests and deflections are just pathetic.

Ilya seems way more focused on his optics geekery - which has its place. But he shouldn't be recommending "hunting scopes" if he hasn't tested them with something as simple as the protocols being done here. The "Dark Lord of Optics" seems to be afraid of uncovering these repeated problems others have repeatedly and consistently experienced here.

And Aaron Davidson would be drop-testing the hell out of his optics and shouting it to the world about how rugged they are...if he'd had them built to handle that kind of force. He's avoiding that. And it says volumes. He's such an exceptionally good marketer and promotor of his brand, there's no way he'd sleep on that. He'd be telling everyone how rugged Revic scopes were, and doing demos, if they actually held up.

So, the excuses are lame.

 

[JGRaider]

Maybe Koshkin tests his hunting and shooting scopes with his own protocol? Not sure but it's possible. I wouldn't trust AD from Gunwerks with anything coming out of his mouth.

Sorry to say, but practically nobody thinks these RS drop tests are the "protocal of scope testing" except lots of people here.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I would too. In general I don't like to cast shade on people trying to put out good info, but for different reasons both are really failing their communities. Both should be at the top of the mountain shouting about how important drop tests are - and each's excuse-ridden protests and deflections are just pathetic.

Ilya seems way more focused on his optics geekery - which has its place. But he shouldn't be recommending "hunting scopes" if he hasn't tested them with something as simple as the protocols being done here. The "Dark Lord of Optics" seems to be afraid of uncovering these repeated problems others have repeatedly and consistently experienced here.

And Aaron Davidson would be drop-testing the hell out of his optics and shouting it to the world about how rugged they are...if he'd had them built to handle that kind of force. He's avoiding that. And it says volumes. He's such an exceptionally good marketer and promotor of his brand, there's no way he'd sleep on that. He'd be telling everyone how rugged Revic scopes were, and doing demos, if they actually held up.

So, the excuses are lame.

Revic Acura 5-25x50mm Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of the Revic 5-25x50mm scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The scope: 35.1oz Turrets: .25 MOA per click, 25 MOA per revolution, revolution indicated, with a zero stop. Windage is capped, and revolution indicated. Elevation turret...

rokslide.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[eric1115]

Maybe Koshkin tests his hunting and shooting scopes with his own protocol? Not sure but it's possible. I wouldn't trust AD from Gunwerks with anything coming out of his mouth.

Sorry to say, but practically nobody thinks these RS drop tests are the "protocal of scope testing" except lots of people here.

I hear you, and if no scopes passed the eval as it is configured I would put more value on their dismissive attitude. But there are scopes that consistently pass, and since switching to them (and good mounting) I adjust zero when using different bullets, powders, etc and that is it. No more little tweaks now and then, no more odd flyer first rounds, no more "beginning of season" zero adjustments that used to be the norm for me with Leupold, Vortex, Athlon, etc.

Maybe it's my biases, but it seems to me that the evals do exactly what they're purported to do. Accelerate the "failure in regular field use" timeline and expose the scopes that will at some point exhibit loss of zero from normal riding in a truck or on a backpack or getting shit a lot and I have yet to hear a good argument about why they are not valuable/valid. Just poorly informed and/or bad faith arguments for the most part, seemingly motivated by brand loyalty or dislike of Form personally.

 

[Dobermann]

Go to Koshkin's website and ask him if you really want to know. I'm sure he has his reasons for making light of the RS drop tests.

He has spoken about this on a couple of videos - have you watched/listened to them?

 

[Castle Rock]

He has spoken about this on a couple of videos - have you watched/listened to them?

No, can you elaborate?

 

[Castle Rock]

Revic Acura 5-25x50mm Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of the Revic 5-25x50mm scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The scope: 35.1oz Turrets: .25 MOA per click, 25 MOA per revolution, revolution indicated, with a zero stop. Windage is capped, and revolution indicated. Elevation turret...

rokslide.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That was pretty solid, any updates?

 

[JGRaider]

He has spoken about this on a couple of videos - have you watched/listened to them?

I wasn't the one asking questions, I was answering one. Evidently that went right over your head again.

 

[JGRaider]

I hear you, and if no scopes passed the eval as it is configured I would put more value on their dismissive attitude. But there are scopes that consistently pass, and since switching to them (and good mounting) I adjust zero when using different bullets, powders, etc and that is it. No more little tweaks now and then, no more odd flyer first rounds, no more "beginning of season" zero adjustments that used to be the norm for me with Leupold, Vortex, Athlon, etc.

Maybe it's my biases, but it seems to me that the evals do exactly what they're purported to do. Accelerate the "failure in regular field use" timeline and expose the scopes that will at some point exhibit loss of zero from normal riding in a truck or on a backpack or getting shit a lot and I have yet to hear a good argument about why they are not valuable/valid. Just poorly informed and/or bad faith arguments for the most part, seemingly motivated by brand loyalty or dislike of Form personally.

Nothing personal, but RS biases......big time. Some have been around long enough, own and use enough equipment to know what works, and kill enough game, regardless of what some internet test/biases exist.

 

[eric1115]

Nothing personal, but RS biases......big time. Some have been around long enough, own and use enough equipment to know what works, and kill enough game, regardless of what some internet test/biases exist.

I don't mean RS biases, I mean my biases from my personal experience. It's very much anecdotal since I've not had enough samples of any one scope to call it "data" but when I was a Leupold, Vortex, Athlon guy I thought it was normal to adjust zero a couple times throughout the year and if I was Right On in the spring when I started shooting after winter it was a pleasant surprise.

Now after migrating to Form Approved™ (tongue in cheek here) scopes, that is ALL in the past. It's coincided with a move from Bergara, Ruger American, Savage, etc to Tikkas and one Howa, quitting cleaning, suppressing everything, and my shooting life is so much better and less frustrating since I started giving his advice serious consideration. It's not biases based on reading about it, but rather biases based on small sample size changes working Every Single Time but not having enough examples to call it data. If I had 25 Bergaras that all ran like crap and 25 Tikkas that all worked great, I'd be in a zone where I think I could call it data. But swapping a few OK to poor rifles (and a good one or two) for others that work better isn't something I can call data. I might have gotten poor samples of Leupold, Vortex, Ruger, and Savage products over the years, and lucked into some really good Tikkas and SWFA and LRHS scopes, but since it's all small samples there's no way for me to personally confirm how common the failure/success rates are.

Lots of guys develop biases based on small sample sizes (especially if those small sample size results can be framed in a way that confirms existing notions and/or mainstream lines of thought. Not many of us are in a position to own and/or shoot enough things to call it data.

 

[RockAndSage]

Revic Acura 5-25x50mm Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of the Revic 5-25x50mm scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The scope: 35.1oz Turrets: .25 MOA per click, 25 MOA per revolution, revolution indicated, with a zero stop. Windage is capped, and revolution indicated. Elevation turret...

rokslide.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Bad ass. Thanks for sharing that. Davidson needs to be shouting it from the rooftops now.

 

[SDHNTR]

He has spoken about this on a couple of videos - have you watched/listened to them?

I’m curious. Got a link?