Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[RockAndSage]

He's trolling you.

I actually don't think he is - more often than not, he seems to be absolutely convinced that what "works" for him is universally applicable God's truth, beyond which everybody can just be dismissed and ignored. It's like arguing with my ex-wife, or a Russian diplomat, or a demonic cat lady - just an endless word-salad of toxic argument techniques right out of the Cluster B Handbook.

 

[JGRaider]

I actually don't think he is - more often than not, he seems to be absolutely convinced that what "works" for him is universally applicable God's truth, beyond which everybody can just be dismissed and ignored. It's like arguing with my ex-wife, or a Russian diplomat, or a demonic cat lady - just an endless word-salad of toxic argument techniques right out of the Cluster B Handbook.

No, the obvious conclusion is I don't give a ratsasss what anyone uses, and don't give a ratsasss what these drop test conclusions are. What works for me, works for me. Nothing more needs to be added to what I said by me, you, or anyone else.

 

[JGRaider]

I actually don't think he is - more often than not, he seems to be absolutely convinced that what "works" for him is universally applicable God's truth, beyond which everybody can just be dismissed and ignored.

This is exactly the position RS takes with regards to drop tests, bullet performance, hunting rifles, etc, etc, etc.

 

[RockAndSage]

No, the obvious conclusion is I don't give a ratsasss what anyone uses, and don't give a ratsasss what these drop test conclusions are. What works for me, works for me. Nothing more needs to be added to what I said by me, you, or anyone else.

Not sure if witnessing more Russian diplomat, or demonic cat lady...

 

[406Backwoods]

No, the obvious conclusion is I don't give a ratsasss what anyone uses, and don't give a ratsasss what these drop test conclusions are. What works for me, works for me. Nothing more needs to be added to what I said by me, you, or anyone else.

“I don’t care what your conclusions are. But let me tell you about how they are wrong.” Seems legit

 

[fwafwow]

I don’t care. I really really don’t. I don’t care so much that I’m going to tell you lots of times. See? I’m really not even following this thread.

 

[benconfused]

Has anyone taken a Tangent Theta scope through the drop test yet?

 

[Clark33]

Not sure if witnessing more Russian diplomat, or demonic cat lady...

In mother Russia you do not drop the scope, the scope drops you comrade

 

[Dobermann]

Okay you lovable bozos ... can we stick to the thread topic please? I created this darn thing and there's lots of other places you can take your name-calling.

 

[Undrgrndprdcts]

Has anyone mentioned the Primary Arms GLX line? In the medium power ranges.

 

[dreamingWest]

Swarovski DS.
I just played around with an outfitter's Sako S20 with Swarovski DS on a hunt in Greenland. It was super cool.

@Ryan Avery
@Formidilosus

I'm afraid this post got lost in the noise.
Anyone have hard use experience with the Swaro DS? It was pretty darn cool playing with it in Greenland.

 

[RWT]

Has anyone mentioned the Primary Arms GLX line? In the medium power ranges.

Not that I am aware of. I sent a PA SLX 1-6 LPVO that @Formidilosus tested. I don’t know if he published the results. Based on the one pic it seemed to do decent until the 9x36” drops. The SLX is their lowest end and a second FP model. Stats are leaning towards it is easier to manufacture a 2nd FP scope that holds “decent” than a FFP model. This may explain why we don’t see more failures when you consider 80%+ of the scopes that are out there are 2nd FP and only used for 100 rounds or less a year. The scopes just don’t get enough time in use to demonstrate a larger failure rate. Once they are tested and pushed towards their EOL they show more failures. I would like to see if a PA PLX FFP model would pass. First I would like to know the manufacturer before spending the $

 

[Undrgrndprdcts]

Not that I am aware of. I sent a PA SLX 1-6 LPVO that @Formidilosus tested. I don’t know if he published the results. Based on the one pic it seemed to do decent until the 9x36” drops. The SLX is their lowest end and a second FP model. Stats are leaning towards it is easier to manufacture a 2nd FP scope that holds “decent” than a FFP model. This may explain why we don’t see more failures when you consider 80%+ of the scopes that are out there are 2nd FP and only used for 100 rounds or less a year. The scopes just don’t get enough time in use to demonstrate a larger failure rate. Once they are tested and pushed towards their EOL they show more failures. I would like to see if a PA PLX FFP model would pass. First I would like to know the manufacturer before spending the $

The PLX and GLX are their first and second tier, respectively. I'd like to see the tests on both FFP in the middle power ranges. I have a GLX 4-16 that was discontinued for a different magnification range. It has been rock solid so far, but I admittedly haven't dropped it from 3 feet on purpose.