Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

[Bluumoon]

Any recommendations for mounting a SWFA on a long action Model 70? Searched the forum and didn’t find it specifically addressed.

 

[Formidilosus]

Any recommendations for mounting a SWFA on a long action Model 70? Searched the forum and didn’t find it specifically addressed.

Burris XTR two piece pic bases. Degreased, loctited and torqued heavy.

 

[abbrown]

Burris XTR two piece pic bases. Degreased, loctited and torqued heavy.

Thanks for that. Do you have suggestions for rings to go along with the M70, those bases and my new swfa scope?

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks for that. Do you have suggestions for rings to go along with the M70, those bases and my new swfa scope?

Nightforce UL 30mm Lows, or Warne Mountaintech 30mm Lows.

 

[nephewjephew]

Nightforce UL 30mm Lows, or Warne Mountaintech 30mm Lows.

Are the SWFA rings (the ones that come with the scopes) in the same league as these?

 

[Formidilosus]

Are the SWFA rings (the ones that come with the scopes) in the same league as these?

I can’t say whether they are or not. The SWFA rings have been functional from what I’ve seen.

 

[aftriathlete]

Wasn't aware of a better thread to post this, so i'll just share that three weeks ago hunting the mountains here with my SWFA 3-9 in Sportmatch rings mounted the way this forum recommends atop my Tikka T3X took a HARD hit to the eyepiece of the scope as we were descending on loose scree and my feet went out from under me. Rifle mounted to my pack with the scope facing rearwards, and a large rock in the trail hit the eyepiece of the SWFA hard enough that it put a hole through both the neoprene Scope Slicker and the rubber eyepiece ring I had on there (can't remember the name of that product.)

Checked zero this weekend, and true to Form (see what I did there?) the SWFA was still on zero. Then I dialed out to 730 yards to take 3 shots at an 18" rock I like to shoot, and the 5.4 mils I dialed was spot on.

 

[Formidilosus]

Wasn't aware of a better thread to post this, so i'll just share that three weeks ago hunting the mountains here with my SWFA 3-9 in Sportmatch rings mounted the way this forum recommends atop my Tikka T3X took a HARD hit to the eyepiece of the scope as we were descending on loose scree and my feet went out from under me. Rifle mounted to my pack with the scope facing rearwards, and a large rock in the trail hit the eyepiece of the SWFA hard enough that it put a hole through both the neoprene Scope Slicker and the rubber eyepiece ring I had on there (can't remember the name of that product.)

Checked zero this weekend, and true to Form (see what I did there?) the SWFA was still on zero. Then I dialed out to 730 yards to take 3 shots at an 18" rock I like to shoot, and the 5.4 mils I dialed was spot on.

Good to hear.

 

[np307]

I dont think there has been, but has there been any testing of SWFA's AR scope? (1-4x24) I'm looking to put one on my 16" AR. I'm loving my 3-9 on my bolt gun.

 

[Formidilosus]

I dont think there has been, but has there been any testing of SWFA's AR scope? (1-4x24) I'm looking to put one on my 16" AR. I'm loving my 3-9 on my bolt gun.

They are generally ok for normal use. Have seen a bunch on AR’s without issue, however they do not stand up to recoil on things like 375 H&H’s, etc.

 

[np307]

They are generally ok for normal use. Have seen a bunch on AR’s without issue, however they do not stand up to recoil on things like 375 H&H’s, etc.

Good to know. An AR is a secondary hunting rifle for me anyway so I can live with that.

 

[kkp005]

@Formidilosus
Have anytime in the field with the Leica Amplus ? Would like to know how they handle drops and vehicle rides

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus
Have anytime in the field with the Leica Amplus ? Would like to know how they handle drops and vehicle rides

No, unfortunately.

 

[Ice-kub]

Are any of these scopes sent back to the manufacturer for warranty and then test the replacements? If possible of course?

 

[fwafwow]

Are any of these scopes sent back to the manufacturer for warranty and then test the replacements? If possible of course?

I asked Tract and they declined

 

[Formidilosus]

Are any of these scopes sent back to the manufacturer for warranty and then test the replacements? If possible of course?

Yes. Sometimes. Nothing has changed with any so far.

 

[grappling_hook]

Are any of these scopes sent back to the manufacturer for warranty and then test the replacements? If possible of course?

That does bring up an interesting question/point:

Are scopes failing tests because they aren't durable enough to withstand testing and are being damaged in the process, or are they failing while remaining intact and continuing to function like new after failing?

I suspect it's mostly the latter. I regularly read stories of people sending scopes back for evaluation or warranty after a "failure" to either track or hold zero (as opposed to reticles canting, broken turrets, etc), with the response being something like "we tested it and it is functioning normally. We cleaned it for you, though." It's just that "normal" doesn't include the function of reliably tracking and/or holding zero.

It says to me that, in all likelihood, the scopes are not breaking or being damaged or having worn internals during these kinds of tests (maybe an occasional nudge/movement of an erector cell/tube that doesn't constitute "damage," just internal movement).

 

[ResearchinStuff]

in other words, are they breaking, or is the design flawed? in a lot of cases, seems like it's a design problem.

 

[Formidilosus]

That does bring up an interesting question/point:

Are scopes failing tests because they aren't durable enough to withstand testing and are being damaged in the process, or are they failing while remaining intact and continuing to function like new after failing?

I suspect it's mostly the latter. I regularly read stories of people sending scopes back for evaluation or warranty after a "failure" to either track or hold zero (as opposed to reticles canting, broken turrets, etc), with the response being something like "we tested it and it is functioning normally. We cleaned it for you, though." It's just that "normal" doesn't include the function of reliably tracking and/or holding zero.

It says to me that, in all likelihood, the scopes are not breaking or being damaged or having worn internals during these kinds of tests (maybe an occasional nudge/movement of an erector cell/tube that doesn't constitute "damage," just internal movement).

Only one scope has broken and needed repair- the Zeiss LRP S5. The rest “function within spec”.

 

[The Guide]

I feel like scope manufacturers feel like if a scope can be zeroed and if it comes out of zero and can be rezeroed, that is a 100% functional scope within the design parameters. Manufacturers aren't worried about making a product that functions like we think they should because of price point sales. The majority of the public buy at a price point and not at a quality point. If making the product at a higher quality level puts the product at a higher price point, then it will cost them volumes of sales that may not be recouped by the price of the sales. Unfortunately this business strategy (seen in all facets of life) leaves us with very small choices in products that work like we think they should.

Jay