Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

[BjornF16]

Good video…if you’re impatient, go to 3:00 mark

 

[Deywalker]

Comp M5 or M5b for a rifle.

As for red dot versus LPVO- that’s all on use.

Primary use case would be a HD rifle that I'd like to train with to become a more proficient shooter, secondary use case would be a gun I bring camping and maybe hunt coyotes with.

 

[260madman]

I have seen more fun ways, like when Frank was tossing rifles off walls and blowing them up with Tannerite in the good old days on the Hide...

There’s some panties in a bunch over there pertaining to these tests. It seems they forgot how Frank would flog on scopes. I remember the good ol’ days.

 

[F0steology]

I understand having to pay the bills, but honestly feel that allowing companies to sponsor the boards is a disservice. If they feel their product is getting thrashed or any type of negativity they demand Board/Forum owners to step-in and squash it or remove the thread/posts.

These boards should be an open source to discuss, research, and provide hands on evaluation of products so others can be better informed and decide where and what to spend their hard earned dollars. Unfortunately that hasn't been allowed to occur on many Forums as the Sponsors have been dictating what content is allowed, as otherwise they pull their funding/advertising dollars.

 

[Lawnboi]

I understand having to pay the bills, but honestly feel that allowing companies to sponsor the boards is a disservice. If they feel their product is getting thrashed or any type of negativity they demand Board/Forum owners to step-in and squash it or remove the thread/posts.

These boards should be an open source to discuss, research, and provide hands on evaluation of products so others can be better informed and decide where and what to spend their hard earned dollars. Unfortunately that hasn't been allowed to occur on many Forums as the Sponsors have been dictating what content is allowed, as otherwise they pull their funding/advertising dollars.

Iv spoken poorly on a number of sponsors products on here and have never been checked, or deleted.

 

[Shraggs]

Got off the phone with Trijicon as i had a few questions.

Form, maybe your aware of this - according to them they do abuse type tests. Of course this is true for acogs etc, but asked about the sport and hunting rifle scopes simulating real world typical drops. the young man said yes but has not been supplied any of the procedures, methods or specific results. I did ask if he would ask on my behalf if such data exists, at least any results for drop tests with regarding to maintaining zero and tracking for dialing results. be interesting if i get a call back!

 

[Woodrow F Call]

I understand having to pay the bills, but honestly feel that allowing companies to sponsor the boards is a disservice. If they feel their product is getting thrashed or any type of negativity they demand Board/Forum owners to step-in and squash it or remove the thread/posts.

These boards should be an open source to discuss, research, and provide hands on evaluation of products so others can be better informed and decide where and what to spend their hard earned dollars. Unfortunately that hasn't been allowed to occur on many Forums as the Sponsors have been dictating what content is allowed, as otherwise they pull their funding/advertising dollars.

What is your solution?

 

[BjornF16]

Let them sponsor and let them see the "testing" and results...maybe it will provide impetus for change....

I mean if Vortex and others are having scopes made at LOW in Japan (who obviously know how to make scopes), then maybe they need to learn how to write appropriate SPECS for durability and reliability.

 

[Knoxp]

I believe a written procedure and standardized process is key to defending the results. The latest call out of scope slip in the S&B Klassic shows the need have a single pinned post that shows process. The key here is to make this as defensible as possible, because everyone and there brother (specifically the manufactures) are going to start calling into question the process that derived the results.

I will say it seems the reviews are getting more streamlined with this approach. Let's make it 100% bullet proof as possible.

 

[Blackdog317]

Got off the phone with Trijicon as i had a few questions.

Form, maybe your aware of this - according to them they do abuse type tests. Of course this is true for acogs etc, but asked about the sport and hunting rifle scopes simulating real world typical drops. the young man said yes but has not been supplied any of the procedures, methods or specific results. I did ask if he would ask on my behalf if such data exists, at least any results for drop tests with regarding to maintaining zero and tracking for dialing results. be interesting if i get a call back!

I sent an email to Trijicon asking for more detailed info on their durability testing. The response was pretty vague and claimed their testing protocol was "proprietary". The info on the website is not very specific and is more focused on marketing than specific details, IMO. I get the impression that they test each series of scope they offer, then build to that spec. It does not sound like they test each scope before it leaves the factory.

I'm trying to decide between the NF NXS 2.5-10x42 and the Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15x42 for Elk to 600 yds and targets a little further (I prefer SFP and MOA). The extra magnification and capped windage on the Credo HX would be great (if the durability is good).

@Formidilosus - Thanks for all the info you provide. Would love to see the Credo HX 2.5-15x42 go through your eval.

 

[Sako300]

I’ll donate my heavy duty Neopreme scope coat I use on all my longrange hunting scopes and rifles! It covers the entire body of my various longrange setups. Easy to pull off when a shot is needed! And gives me protection from rain, dust, falls, etccc.
I think it weighs 1.5-2 ozs??? I know my rifles have taken several spills over the years with this coat on and never had an issue with 20-24oz scopes returning to zero or tracking! I think it cost me $10.

 

[Dioni A]

@Dsolsman read this one too

 

[Dsolsman]

Will do!

 

[Bubblehide]

... I know my rifles have taken several spills over the years with this coat on and never had an issue with 20-24oz scopes returning to zero ... I think it cost me $10.

You may want to use 2 or more at the same time. I mean, you just said your scopes have lost zero. Based on that, it is only a matter of time before total failure.

 

[Zappaman]

A lot of physics being discussed- most I understand to some degree. I read the original post to basically say "you can test for years, but you'll still find a FEW "high confidence" scenarios (due often to external factors" like dropping the gun) that still MIGHT leave you screwed... no matter what (unless you spend a lifetime testing it... which no one does).

If I had a $10,000 scope on a $10,000 rifle and dropped it hard on a hunt... I'd STILL feel in my gut that it's going to be off-- ever IF it's a SUPER low probability-- I'd still question the gun (just as the OP does in GREAT detail in his extended example).

I had a scope just go "bad" on an elk hunt once... settled down to an easy 150 yd. head shot. Pulled the trigger and bullet hit about a foot to the left??? Pissed off, I headed back (4 miles on foot) to camp to get my back-up rifle and on the way back I caught a cow (at about 375 yards) along the way. I chewed on it for about 10 seconds then thought... I'll aim 3 ft to the RIGHT and go for the high, front shoulder shot. I was off by 6 inches where it hit her in the boiler right behind the shoulder.

Should I have taken that shot? Probably not, but I did and it was a "guess" that the scope would fail at the same spot it did on the missed head shot an hour before. When I got home and pulled that scope, I just tossed it into the trash can. That scope didn't get hit, was transported in a hard case, and so I knew it was a mistake from when I bought it. It was a 5 yr old Nikon Buckmaster with little time on it and it failed at the worst possible time.

So... what to do? Go buy a S&Bender OR go to the forums and read up a while. I chose the forum route, found a LOT of posts on scopes that sounded solid and replaced the scope before the next year. I spent more, but not a LOT more. I won't endorse my choice of scope on that rifle, but I'll say it's been a great scope for about 12 years now. BUT, I will always TRY to not bang it in the field and I WILL always shoot it to test zero, then IN the hard case it goes until I open it on the hunt.

If I "bump" the scope on a hunt (and I have), I'll finish the day with it and probably still try a shot if one comes up. It did once, and the scope held on a shot later in the day thankfully. But that IS hunting and I WILL put that gun up after THAT day's hunt and pull out the back-up rifle (and try not to bump it!).

I've killed over 100 deer and elk and had less than five with a gut shot (always while running). I lost two I can remember (where I know I made a hit), and I've missed some too (usually leading the run too much- on purpose as I can't stand the thought of gut shooting a running deer/elk). But I'm out to hunt and sometimes you have to work with what you have. Yes, I could quit hunting and if I SLAMMED a rifle good-- I WOULD quit for the day. But a bump is a "maybe" I'm not willing to accept as "fail" while I will chose to finish the day and hope the scope is still on. Tomorrow forward... I use the back-up rifle (and again... hope for the best).

 

[JakeSCH]

@Formidilosus are you using a resolution chart when giving resolution "grades"?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus are you using a resolution chart when giving resolution "grades"?

Not for this. The “glass” comments from me are subjective, and quite frankly other than the far ends of the spectrum aren’t very useful. People see what they want to see with glass. Take the reticle out and cover the scopes up and there is wide variance in what people see from the same scope versus what they will “see” when they know what the scopes are.

 

[JakeSCH]

Not for this. The “glass” comments from me are subjective, and quite frankly other than the far ends of the spectrum aren’t very useful. People see what they want to see with glass. Take the reticle out and cover the scopes up and there is wide variance in what people see from the same scope versus what they will “see” when they know what the scopes are.

Completely understand what you are saying. I heard a quote once, that "a person sees with their mind...not their eyes". Truly understanding that was game changing for me when spotting game with binos.

 

[Formidilosus]

After speaking with Ryan, the drop eval will move to immediately after zeroing the scope. It’s the thing that matters most, and if a scope fails that, the rest doesn’t really matter anyways. This will save significant time and ammunition for the scopes that do not work.
As well, if the scope is an unknown one as far as longevity goes, then the plan is to eval it for 3,000 rounds for correct function. The initial field eval is not the only thing that matters, and “long” term use, longevity and continuing to function correctly is very important to see.

 

[BjornF16]

After speaking with Ryan, the drop eval will move to immediately after zeroing the scope. It’s the thing that matters most, and if a scope fails that, the rest doesn’t really matter anyways. This will save significant time and ammunition for the scopes that do not work.
As well, if the scope is an unknown one as far as longevity goes, then the plan is to eval it for 3,000 rounds for correct function. The initial field eval is not the only thing that matters, and “long” term use, longevity and continuing to function correctly is very important to see.

Form,

Will you do an longevity testing on scopes that fail the drop tests or RTZ?