Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

[Ripnbst]

Are the results of this test posted anywhere yet? I jumped around and scanned all 12 pages of this thread trying to find them but they've eluded me which is shocking considering how extensive I was expecting the results post to be.

 

[mi650]

Are the results of this test posted anywhere yet? I jumped around and scanned all 12 pages of this thread trying to find them but they've eluded me which is shocking considering how extensive I was expecting the results post to be.

There's no list that I know of. Each scope tested has its own thread.

 

[Ripnbst]

There's no list that I know of. Each scope tested has its own thread.

I just figured that out. Please forgive the length of my bus.

 

[Fowl Play]

There's no list that I know of. Each scope tested has its own thread.

Although… a running summary list would be great. Passed and failed scopes all tabulated in one sticky post.

 

[Mike Islander]

First off thank you to those of you who are spending your time and resources doing these tests.

Are there other good and reliable sources of information available on scopes and actual functional tests besides the tests and reviews conducted for this forum? Marketing sales pitches, many gun writer reviews, and salesmen at the scope counter seem to be questionable sources. For example the dude at the Eurooptic counter wanted to sell me a vortex based on the glass quality and the quantity that they sell. “We sell a lot of these, the glass is awesome and people like them”. No thank you.

There is a tremendous glut of information available. How does the average hunter/shooter separate the BS from good solid information? Any pointers on where we can look?

Look no further than here?

 

[Wiscgunner]

Fair point, I’m sold, but convincing my father that his Leupold does not function as he thinks is a tall task and requires many sources of information .

Test his scope directly

 

[QuickTrigger7]

Looking for advice

Just purchased a 7prc horizon.

Will be a hunting rifle. I do tend to beat the hell out of my rifles trekking through the mountains. Im looking at getting a new scope i plan on shooting out to 1200 yards. Previously had a mark 5 7x35 on a 28 nosler for my moutain gun. But after do extensive research and from my own experiences i wanna move away from leupold because of there durablity issues. I dont shoot enough to use fancy reticles, i like it plain and simple I always dial my long range shots.

What would be the best long range hunting scope really leaning towards night force nx8 atac but also interested in trijicon ten mile, swfa.

Any advice is appreciated

 

[h2so4]

Form posted his preferred scope for a variety of ranges. That would probably
Be a good starting point if your open and looking for direction.

 

[mikerotchburns619]

Form posted his preferred scope for a variety of ranges. That would probably
Be a good starting point if your open and looking for direction.

Which one(s) did he mention? I could not find it.

 

[h2so4]

Both. While the probability is relatively high that the RS1.2 will rove reliable long term, it can’t not be stated definitively right now. Also, if size, weight, or cost are major concerns, than the others might make sense.

Right now where it stands for me:

0-600’ish yards (sometimes farther) it’s a SWFA 6x MQ.

0-700 or 800’ish it’s a SWFA 3-9x if weight matters, or a Maven RS1.2 now.


For hunting use where above 10x is required, the Maven RS1.2.

For use where glass and low light capability, along with LR performance is required, Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm THLR.

Which one(s) did he mention? I could not find it.

 

[Alpha Echo]

@Formidilosus would you place the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 anywhere on the go to list?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus would you place the Trijicon Tenmile 3-18 anywhere on the go to list?

It’s a good scope. If someone wanted a 3-18x’ish scope with a tree reticle that’s the one I would pick in general.

For hunting, it doesn’t do anything that, so far, the Maven RS1.2 doesn’t do better.

 

[Alpha Echo]

It’s a good scope. If someone wanted a 3-18x’ish scope with a tree reticle that’s the one I would pick in general.

The tree reticle is the one thing I definitely see as a downside to it vs the maven reticle.

 

[Formidilosus]

The tree reticle is the one thing I definitely see as a downside to it vs the maven reticle.

The Tenmile is longer, significantly less total elevation travel available, 8 mil turrets versus 10, and the reticle isn’t nearly as usable for all around hunting.
I’m not sure where the Trijicon is better at anything, other than Trijicon is making it publicly clear that they are specifically designing and testing their scopes to hold zero through use- this a big deal and does give more confidence that they will continue to do so.

 

[Alpha Echo]

The Tenmile is longer, significantly less total elevation travel available, 8 mil turrets versus 10, and the reticle isn’t nearly as usable for all around hunting.
I’m not sure where the Trijicon is better at anything, other than Trijicon is making it publicly clear that they are specifically designing and testing their scopes to hold zero through use- this a big deal and does give more confidence that they will continue to do so.

Where do the two stand eyebox wise? Maven the winner there too?

 

[Formidilosus]

Where do the two stand eyebox wise? Maven the winner there too?

I’ll have to put them side by side, but in use there hasn’t been a difference that I noticed.

 

[TX_Diver]

@Formidilosus why the 6x MQ over the 3-9 for 0-600?

I have and really like both (only one more non SWFA scope to replace now) but it seems like the 3-9 would be slightly more versatile? They are roughly the same weight if I remember right and while the 3-9 is more expensive than the 6x it's not an extremely expensive scope compared to some of the others out there.

So far most of my shooting is sub 400 as it's 389 to my target from the best shooting spot here. I haven't had any trouble with the 6x at that range but my knee jerk reaction would have been that the 3-9 would be able to do everything the 6x could do equally well but also do a bit more?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus why the 6x MQ over the 3-9 for 0-600?

I have and really like both (only one more non SWFA scope to replace now) but it seems like the 3-9 would be slightly more versatile? They are roughly the same weight if I remember right and while the 3-9 is more expensive than the 6x it's not an extremely expensive scope compared to some of the others out there.

So far most of my shooting is sub 400 as it's 389 to my target from the best shooting spot here. I haven't had any trouble with the 6x at that range but my knee jerk reaction would have been that the 3-9 would be able to do everything the 6x could do equally well but also do a bit more?

Simplicity. People should by equipment for what they actually do, not what they “may” do. Out to 600y’ish I, and very few of those I am around are over 6-7x. Since it isn’t required to have more than 6x; simpler is better. No futzing, no screwing with the magnification, not forgetting to turn it down, etc.- dial and shoot.

 

[TX_Diver]

Simplicity. People should by equipment for what they actually do, not what they “may” do. Out to 600y’ish I, and very few of those I am around are over 6-7x. Since it isn’t required to have more than 6x; simpler is better. No futzing, no screwing with the magnification, not forgetting to turn it down, etc.- dial and shoot.

Makes sense. Thanks!

 

[Wiscgunner]

I wonder the way micrometers work (scope turrets) if the road test would get more passes if done before the drop test. I understand if scopes pass the drop test they will almost always pass the road test. This makes me think since these are spring loaded micrometers, that it is possible there may be "damage" to the spring system during the drops that otherwise would have let them pass the road test. This doesn't mean the scope is necessarily desired, just not as bad as it might appear.

Spring loaded micrometers are very susceptible to excess pressure and are usually not made of thin aluminum. It is possible the springs used in some scopes could get over compressed or when fully compressed the seating of the spring compressed the aluminum seating like a set screw does when tightening a turret cap. I know some scopes use flat leaf type springs, some use a single springs to oppose the 2 different micrometer heads (turret) that are 90* from each other while others use separate springs for each micrometer heads. There have been some cross section images of scope internals but I suspect this is the ultimate culprit area in losing zero outside of bending a turret thus changing the length of the micrometer.

I also suspect outside of damage or over extension in the spring area, lubrication of the spring to barrel contact point is VERY likely a contributing factor. The lubrication should be applied not just at the point of contact but to the fell length of travel to include the over extension to avoid "sticking" and needing a whack on the other side or a bunch of turret spinning to reseat the spring. In a perfect world I would love to take apart my scopes to check the quality of these areas from the factory. In my experience, service departments do not always follow or understand the functional design of mechanisms like this which is typically a result of poor training.