Riflescope debate

[ResearchinStuff]

any swfa or the shv f1 milr will do a great job for you.

here's a thought exercise: Which weighs less, a reliable 30 oz scope, or hauling around 2 rifles? Having the backup rifle in the truck does almost no good where and how I hunt, since shot opportunities are time limited, so unless it's within arms reach it won't contribute to the likelihood of filling a tag

 

[thinhorn_AK]

At 31.39 oz's ? Wow that seems heavy for a hunting rifle . In fact , all those on the OP's list are heavy .

I didn’t see the weight. That is heavy however if I was looking for a scope like that it probably wouldn’t be going on a lightweight rifle.

 

[CRJR45]

any swfa or the shv f1 milr will do a great job for you.

here's a thought exercise: Which weighs less, a reliable 30 oz scope, or hauling around 2 rifles? Having the backup rifle in the truck does almost no good where and how I hunt, since shot opportunities are time limited, so unless it's within arms reach it won't contribute to the likelihood of filling a tag

All well and good , you do you . I probably hunt in a less fall prone manner or environment , and what works for you wouldn't really apply to me . The odds that I would experience a fall bad enough to affect my scope seem small to me , as opposed to the known fact that carrying around a heavy ass scope all day just in case I fall .

 

[Precisionbear300prc]

Yeah , I get that , but I don't plan on falling . I think thats a little backwards thinking , buying a scope that performs well in a fall test as opposed to buying a scope that performs well in an actual hunting application . I take two rifles anyway .

Well noone plans to fall but it happens when you least expect it and i would so rather be prepared equipment wise for it than not. Thats just my opinion.

 

[Marbles]

Soft scopes for soft lands. I fall multiple times on most hunts, and it would take a day or two to get to the truck/boat for a spare rifle.

A friend missed a deer on the last day of hunting in an area that was a lot of work to get into because his Vortex lost zero. I left markes in the finish of the NF I was using at the time and after he pointed me to the herd I killed two. He is hands down the better hunter and shooter.

 

[Samson7x]

Yeah , I don't know about Trijicon scopes . I bought a new Credo HX , from Eurooptics , it was defective , I sent it back to the factory , they replaced it with a Accupoint , and it was defective also , had to send it back . Three months now and I'm still waiting for my replacement scope .

In what way were they both defective? In general, they seem to be thought highly of. Do you intend on selling the replacement or giving them another chance?

Yeah , I get that , but I don't plan on falling . I think thats a little backwards thinking , buying a scope that performs well in a fall test as opposed to buying a scope that performs well in an actual hunting application . I take two rifles anyway .

Nobody plans on falling but I’ve seen it happen and it’s happened to me. Rifle tumbled a bit down the mountain too. Luckily I was using quality gear and was able to take a bull despite it. Durability and “performs well in an actual hunting application” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive anyway. You can have both.

 

[Macintosh]

If anyone has read the explanation of those drop tests, he’s explicitly stated numerous times that he’s not testing just to simulate one hard fall, he is testing to simulate the multitude of smaller bumps, tweaks, vibrations, tipping over, etc (including maybe a fall or two) that comes with general heavier-duty use over a longer period of time, during a short test. Most testing is like this, the test itself is usually not designed to re-create one specific catastrophic failure event, it is a harsh test that is designed to compress, just for example, two years of use into an hour. It’s “what can I do in a short period of time that will predict a more-likely failure during general use at some unknown point in the future, or allow me to quickly differentiate between varying levels of long-term reliability”. A hard fall is not the problem. It may not be super convenient, but it’s easy to simply verify zero after a hard fall, because you can easily identify that a potentially damaging event happened. The problem is when things shift and there isn’t any one thing you can point to that caused it—you have nothing to tell you that there might be something wrong until after the fact, and you maybe just lost that opportunity. Murphy’s Law states that whatever can go wrong, will—the corollary to that is that when it does go wrong, it will happen at the most inopportune time. If you buy points for six years (or more) and plan a hunt during that time, do you really want to worry about your scope holding zero or returning to zero when you’re on a 1-week trip, four or 5 miles into the back country and you have a fleeting opportunity? Or are you going to quickly reach for your spare rifle in that situation?
If you have something you’ve used for a long time and you’ve basically proven it’s durability to yourself, great. But if buying something untested and you have the opportunity to get a product that is documented more durable, and that’s an important trait to you, why would you ignore it even if the test used may not represent the perfect picture of reality?

 

[35WhelenAI]

Yeah , I get that , but I don't plan on falling . I think thats a little backwards thinking , buying a scope that performs well in a fall test as opposed to buying a scope that performs well in an actual hunting application . I take two rifles anyway .

I agree here. 30 years hunting Colorado and done aggressive terrain and dark timber hunting in that stretch. I've taken a spill and the rifle has as well. It doesn't matter which scopes I use, if I take a fall, I find a place and take a shot to verify the scope is allowing the rifle to hit where it should. To me, that's the best solution. Worried about spooking game? Part of the deal. I wouldn't rely on a mounted scope to allow the rifle to be hitting where it should. Regardless of how well it survives a drop test off of a rifle.

 

[Precisionbear300prc]

If anyone has read the explanation of those drop tests, he’s explicitly stated numerous times that he’s not testing just to simulate one hard fall, he is testing to simulate the multitude of smaller bumps, tweaks, vibrations, tipping over, etc (including maybe a fall or two) that comes with general heavier-duty use over a longer period of time, during a short test. Most testing is like this, the test itself is usually not designed to re-create one specific catastrophic failure event, it is a harsh test that is designed to compress, just for example, two years of use into an hour. It’s “what can I do in a short period of time that will predict a more-likely failure during general use at some unknown point in the future, or allow me to quickly differentiate between varying levels of long-term reliability”. A hard fall is not the problem. It may not be super convenient, but it’s easy to simply verify zero after a hard fall, because you can easily identify that a potentially damaging event happened. The problem is when things shift and there isn’t any one thing you can point to that caused it—you have nothing to tell you that there might be something wrong until after the fact, and you maybe just lost that opportunity. Murphy’s Law states that whatever can go wrong, will—the corollary to that is that when it does go wrong, it will happen at the most inopportune time. If you buy points for six years (or more) and plan a hunt during that time, do you really want to worry about your scope holding zero or returning to zero when you’re on a 1-week trip, four or 5 miles into the back country and you have a fleeting opportunity? Or are you going to quickly reach for your spare rifle in that situation?
If you have something you’ve used for a long time and you’ve basically proven it’s durability to yourself, great. But if buying something untested and you have the opportunity to get a product that is documented more durable, and that’s an important trait to you, why would you ignore it even if the test used may not represent the perfect picture of reality?

So with that being said what are you pointing too.? Throwing some money at a nightforce that gets extensively tested or some other brand then?

 

[Formidilosus]

I agree here. 30 years hunting Colorado and done aggressive terrain and dark timber hunting in that stretch. I've taken a spill and the rifle has as well. It doesn't matter which scopes I use, if I take a fall, I find a place and take a shot to verify the scope is allowing the rifle to hit where it should. To me, that's the best solution. Worried about spooking game? Part of the deal. I wouldn't rely on a mounted scope to allow the rifle to be hitting where it should. Regardless of how well it survives a drop test off of a rifle.

So I understand- you use scopes that are unreliable- it’s easily proven that they are unreliable, then because you use certain scopes, you need to check zero if you take a spill. You don’t see a connection here?


Ok- what “skill” would you deem prudent to check zero? If it tips over on a bipod? What if it’s leaned against a tree and slides off? A small fall with light impact of the rifle? Exactly what level of “accident” will make you say- “nope, gotta go shoot it”?

 

[Precisionbear300prc]

So I understand- you use scopes that are unreliable- it’s easily proven that they are unreliable, then because you use certain scopes, you need to check zero if you take a spill. You don’t see a connection here?

I think a good question is which scopes are reliable in each others eyes?? Some say nightforce, some say vortex, some say leupold… what is the gold standard for the rifle fell 10ft i dont have to shoot it to confirm zero before i take a game animal!?

 

[CRJR45]

In what way were they both defective? In general, they seem to be thought highly of. Do you intend on selling the replacement or giving them another chance?



Nobody plans on falling but I’ve seen it happen and it’s happened to me. Rifle tumbled a bit down the mountain too. Luckily I was using quality gear and was able to take a bull despite it. Durability and “performs well in an actual hunting application” aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive anyway. You can have both.

The Credo HX had a problem with the illumination , you couldn't see it when you were aligned to shoot , you could see it off to the side .
The Accupoint had a defective parallax , when shooting 200 yards you had to have the parallax at 60 yards , and it varied .
I'm not happy with Trijicon over the way they handled the whole thing , no follow up calls , they would tell me I'll call you when we get it in , or when it's on the tech's bench or when it passes inspection , I'll make sure it goes out as soon as it passes inspection , none of that happened .
And then when I talked to the head of repairs , he said well usually we are are 5 -6 weeks out on repairs so you're lucky we got to it this fast .
I will probably sell it . I bought it for the Kimber .280 , and now I just bought a Savage 28 Nosler and need another scope .
I'll probably buy two Leopold's like I posted above .

 

[cmahoney]

This ongoing debate is crazy. Would you guys buy a brand new truck that has a reputation for being a mechanical POS because it has an awesome sound system? The same scopes that don’t hold up during the drop tests are the same ones that take a couple of rounds to settle in after you dial up, like the brand new Vortex I had a few years ago. I know, it came with a bad ass sticker and warranty though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CRJR45]

So I understand- you use scopes that are unreliable- it’s easily proven that they are unreliable, then because you use certain scopes, you need to check zero if you take a spill. You don’t see a connection here?


Ok- what “skill” would you deem prudent to check zero? If it tips over on a bipod? What if it’s leaned against a tree and slides off? A small fall with light impact of the rifle? Exactly what level of “accident” will make you say- “nope, gotta go shoot it”?

Form , I know you're invested in this question , but you know what scope will have the best reaction to an accident ?
The scope thats not in an accident .
I mean we could all go back to iron sights , lot's of animals have been killed without scopes . Lets not over analyze it .
My first Elk I shot at 300 yards with a plastic Simmons scope , thats all I had , but the Elk still died . Hit it all 3 shots .

 

[cmahoney]

Hey Guys, I have been doing some research and would like some input from everyone… Im trying to figure out which riflescope out of this list will do the job for me.. Im planning on doing an out west hunt and i’m looking for a riflescope that will suit my needs in tracking reliability, ruggedness, and glass clarity.. My budget isn't large because of a lot of life changing events lately but this is where i’m at. I know not everyone will agree with this list but if you do have experience with these riflescopes let me know what you like and dislike about them. And if there is another riflescope in almost the same category please feel free to throw it in there..My budget is around 1,200$ and under.

1: Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 FFP Mrad 1 RD

2: Tract Torric 4-20x50 FFP

3: Athlon Ares ETR 4.5x27x56

4: SWFA SS HD 5-20x50

5: Athlon Midas Tac 5-25x56

Nothing wrong with an NXS 10 power. How far do you shoot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[svivian]

I love rifle scope threads… they all end the same anymore lol

 

[cmahoney]

Form , I know you're invested in this question , but you know what scope will have the best reaction to an accident ?
The scope thats not in an accident .
I mean we could all go back to iron sights , lot's of animals have been killed without scopes . Lets not over analyze it .
My first Elk I shot at 300 yards with a plastic Simmons scope , thats all I had , but the Elk still died . Hit it all 3 shots .

That’s the answer, don’t get in an accident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Helislacker]

Form , I know you're invested in this question , but you know what scope will have the best reaction to an accident ?
The scope thats not in an accident .
I mean we could all go back to iron sights , lot's of animals have been killed without scopes . Lets not over analyze it .
My first Elk I shot at 300 yards with a plastic Simmons scope , thats all I had , but the Elk still died . Hit it all 3 shots .

This is probably the worst counter point I’ve ever heard on here, and the bar is pretty high to be honest.

Things happen and rifles get dropped. Particularly if you’re exhausted and moving in tough country. Why people accept scopes that can’t handle even minor abuse is mind boggling to me. Would you buy a truck if the suspension couldn’t handle even minor potholes? Buy a backpack that ripped as easily as a garbage bag? Of course not, but yet scopes get a pass. Even worse, guys get emotionally attached to their optic choices.

And never confuse being capable of doing something with optimal for doing something. That elk deserved more respect than the plastic tubed Simmons could offer.

 

[CRJR45]

That’s the answer, don’t get in an accident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know this is sarcasm , and I get it , but if I drop my gun , I'm off to the truck for my back up .

 

[cmahoney]

I know this is sarcasm , and I get it , but if I drop my gun , I'm off to the truck for my back up .

I have the same philosophy with seatbelts and aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk