SWFA Alternative

No there not. They are just made to a standard. The Trijicons that I’ve seen have been decent, not bombproof but decent, yet of the dozen or so V4’s I’ve seen and used every one of them lost zero consistently from side impacts.
Zeiss is actually one of the few scope manufacturers that really tests products for compliance before shipping. Vibration and water ingress tests are the most invasive of any brand I’ve seen personally. These are the actual two leading causes for loss of zero and scope failure. “Drop” tests are honestly silly to use as metric. No drop test is repeatable and you’ll have a hard time finding any scope manufacturers building an aiming device with a “drop” spec built into it. Vibration frequency and hertz and IP rating are testable and repeatable every time.

Shit happens in the field and minor impacts shouldn’t lose zero (see Leupold and Vortex)

Meopta who makes the conquest line for Zeiss is held to the same ISO compliance as Zeiss. Myself, my friend, and my father in law have owned close to 15 or so MeoPros and Zeiss Conquests since they’ve been released. 10’s of thousands of rounds and no mechanical failures yet. Also verified tracking tests have shown very precise turret mechanisms. More accurate than nightforce who everyone claims are the kings of “accurate dialing”.

In your drop tests I’m curious, as I’ve dinged and dropped a couple of mine in the field… Does the “zero loss” happen to come from landing on the windage turret side? Is it “way off” or are minor adjustments needed after? What is the drop distance and onto what surface?

We used to offer a “2 meter pole drop” spec on a 5 year warranty of one of our GNSS receivers about 10 years ago. We built the thing like a brick and it could take a beating but we found the field to be much “harsher” on the units, especially right around the 4.5 year mark magically. What I’m saying is, guys are really good and making things fail in the field when they want them to fail. Impact and drop testing is completely unpredictable.
 
Zeiss is actually one of the few scope manufacturers that really tests products for compliance before shipping. Vibration and water ingress tests are the most invasive of any brand I’ve seen personally. These are the actual two leading causes for loss of zero and scope failure.

Do you understand that shaking/vibrating a scope the way the Zeiss, Leupold, etc do does absolutely nothing to tell you about erector stability? It only says that a lens didn’t fall out; it does not tell you if the scope maintained zero through the vibration.



“Drop” tests are honestly silly to use as metric. No drop test is repeatable

Incorrect. It can be very repeatable. Why don’t you try it?


and you’ll have a hard time finding any scope manufacturers building an aiming device with a “drop” spec built into it.

You have a hard time because people don’t think it matters- just like your doing. However, there are multiple scopes by at least two brands, and there have been multiple military trails that tested and required zero retention with drops. Ironically only two scopes have passed those trails and been adopted. One is not available to the public at, the others only available in limited numbers- yet a close to identical commercial version is available.




Vibration frequency and hertz and IP rating are testable and repeatable every time.

And tell you absolutely nothing about whether that scope held zero through it.


Shit happens in the field and minor impacts shouldn’t lose zero (see Leupold and Vortex)

Correct, and yet it can be shown over and over and over with those two scopes above (line agnostic) that they shift, on the exact same rifles, with the exact same rings that do not shift with others.



Meopta who makes the conquest line for Zeiss is held to the same ISO compliance as Zeiss. Myself, my friend, and my father in law have owned close to 15 or so MeoPros and Zeiss Conquests since they’ve been released. 10’s of thousands of rounds and no mechanical failures yet. Also verified tracking tests have shown very precise turret mechanisms.

And yet they shift with side impacts as well. Try it.



More accurate than nightforce who everyone claims are the kings of “accurate dialing”.

Who claims that? Certainly not me. NF NXS/ATACR/BEAST absolutely do have less failures when seen in large numbers when used heavily than any other major scopes made. The NX8’s are more issue prone (though almost never with zero retention) than any of the other above NF’s and yet have fewer issues than the Zeiss V4 orders of magnitude.



In your drop tests I’m curious, as I’ve dinged and dropped a couple of mine in the field… Does the “zero loss” happen to come from landing on the windage turret side? Is it “way off” or are minor adjustments needed after? What is the drop distance and onto what surface?

The base eval is outlined in the Tanget Theta thread I did. Zero shifts happen most often with most scopes from parallax side, and top impacts. How much zero shift is dependent on particular scopes. The Zeiss V4’s I mentioned above were variable in amount- most experienced a shift of .5 moa to 2 moa from side impacts from 18”. Not one would hold zero through the multiple 18” drops- not to say that there isn’t a V4 that would hold zero.




We used to offer a “2 meter pole drop” spec on a 5 year warranty of one of our GNSS receivers about 10 years ago. We built the thing like a brick and it could take a beating but we found the field to be much “harsher” on the units, especially right around the 4.5 year mark magically. What I’m saying is, guys are really good and making things fail in the field when they want them to fail. Impact and drop testing is completely unpredictable.

That is correct. Which is why I and some others started dropping optics and seeing what happened- we were tired of failures in use. That eventually turned into a process that is very repeatable. Scopes that hold zero from what I outlined in the TT thread don’t fail- well, except for the lone Meopta Optika 6. That’s hundreds of scopes with heinous use, with round counts that people do not believe are possible.
 
Do you understand that shaking/vibrating a scope the way the Zeiss, Leupold, etc do does absolutely nothing to tell you about erector stability? It only says that a lens didn’t fall out; it does not tell you if the scope maintained zero through the vibration.





Incorrect. It can be very repeatable. Why don’t you try it?




You have a hard time because people don’t think it matters- just like your doing. However, there are multiple scopes by at least two brands, and there have been multiple military trails that tested and required zero retention with drops. Ironically only two scopes have passed those trails and been adopted. One is not available to the public at, the others only available in limited numbers- yet a close to identical commercial version is available.






And tell you absolutely nothing about whether that scope held zero through it.




Correct, and yet it can be shown over and over and over with those two scopes above (line agnostic) that they shift, on the exact same rifles, with the exact same rings that do not shift with others.





And yet they shift with side impacts as well. Try it.





Who claims that? Certainly not me. NF NXS/ATACR/BEAST absolutely do have less failures when seen in large numbers when used heavily than any other major scopes made. The NX8’s are more issue prone (though almost never with zero retention) than any of the other above NF’s and yet have fewer issues than the Zeiss V4 orders of magnitude.





The base eval is outlined in the Tanget Theta thread I did. Zero shifts happen most often with most scopes from parallax side, and top impacts. How much zero shift is dependent on particular scopes. The Zeiss V4’s I mentioned above were variable in amount- most experienced a shift of .5 moa to 2 moa from side impacts from 18”. Not one would hold zero through the multiple 18” drops- not to say that there isn’t a V4 that would hold zero.






That is correct. Which is why I and some others started dropping optics and seeing what happened- we were tired of failures in use. That eventually turned into a process that is very repeatable. Scopes that hold zero from what I outlined in the TT thread don’t fail- well, except for the lone Meopta Optika 6. That’s hundreds of scopes with heinous use, with round counts that people do not believe are possible.
The required ISO snd IP specs for vibration and water ingress are used for absolutely more than than an “optic lense” falling out. You clearly aren’t familiar with these requirements as they have everything to do with rate of failure including internals of said scopes.

Please link your thread you mentioned I’d love to give it a read later tonight.

I’m totally understand a stricter drop requirement for military applications. But you mentioned you were “tired of failures in use”. If you’re dropping rifles enough to be “tired of failures” it’s the user here 100%. Comparing military drop requirements to hunting applications, again, in my opinion is just silly.
 
I’m totally understand a stricter drop requirement for military applications. But you mentioned you were “tired of failures in use”. If you’re dropping rifles enough to be “tired of failures” it’s the user here 100%. Comparing military drop requirements to hunting applications, again, in my opinion is just silly.
Having hunted in the mountains in NM, CO, and MT during inclement conditions, I don’t think it is silly at all...but then, maybe I’m just a klutz 🙃
 
I’m totally understand a stricter drop requirement for military applications. But you mentioned you were “tired of failures in use”. If you’re dropping rifles enough to be “tired of failures” it’s the user here 100%. Comparing military drop requirements to hunting applications, again, in my opinion is just silly.

How do you figure that? I spend thousands of dollars and close to a year of my life preparing for certain hunts. Asking a potentially multi thousand dollar aiming device to not lose zero if it gets dropped seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk
 
How do you figure that? I spend thousands of dollars and close to a year of my life preparing for certain hunts. Asking a potentially multi thousand dollar aiming device to not lose zero if it gets dropped seems like a pretty reasonable expectation to me.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk
Answer honestly. How many times have you “dropped” your scope?

I’ve hunted and backpacked for over 30 years now and there’s been maybe 3 or 4 times I’ve been worried after a rifle drop.
 
Having hunted in the mountains in NM, CO, and MT during inclement conditions, I don’t think it is silly at all...but then, maybe I’m just a klutz 🙃
You’re really dropping your only way of killing the animal enough times for it to be a concern? Honestly?
 
Answer honestly. How many times have you “dropped” your scope?

I’ve hunted and backpacked for over 30 years now and there’s been maybe 3 or 4 times I’ve been worried after a rifle drop.
I don't crash my truck very often either, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't factor crash test data into my buying decision.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk
 
The required ISO snd IP specs for vibration and water ingress are used for absolutely more than than an “optic lense” falling out. You clearly aren’t familiar with these requirements as they have everything to do with rate of failure including internals of said scopes.

Yeah, I guess I have never heard of them. Can you please point out which section deals with zero retention from impacts? Or zero retention at all?




I’m totally understand a stricter drop requirement for military applications. But you mentioned you were “tired of failures in use”. If you’re dropping rifles enough to be “tired of failures” it’s the user here 100%. Comparing military drop requirements to hunting applications, again, in my opinion is just silly.

Neat.
 
You’re really dropping your only way of killing the animal enough times for it to be a concern? Honestly?
Hostile renamage...we’ll just call you “sure foot”...

I don’t intend to fall/trip/slide in the snow/ice/freezing rain, but sometimes it happens...like 2-3 times this past trip in MT backcountry where I had only my one rifle. Any failure there and I’m done for the rest of the trip. Why wouldn’t I want a rugged scope?
 
Hostile renamage...we’ll just call you “sure foot”...

I don’t intend to fall/trip/slide in the snow/ice/freezing rain, but sometimes it happens...like 2-3 times this past trip in MT backcountry where I had only my one rifle. Any failure there and I’m done for the rest of the trip. Why wouldn’t I want a rugged scope?
Who’s being hostile? I’ll take that nickname, I’ll request a change in username for that too. Love it!

So you really think if you take that significant of a spill, that because you have a certain scope that some stranger on the internet says “holds zero” after a certain distance of “drop” you’re gonna just trust it? Go shoot at an animal with it?

What I’m saying is, a rifle drop or scope bang that’s hard enough to be of concern, you’re going to check zero anyway. Any reasonable hunter would. This whole it survives an 18” drop onto blah blah is such nonsense to me. I’ve done my own testing and found which scopes maintain zero in field failure situations that actually happen often. Vibration and water ingress. Potentially catastrophic drops should always be rechecked. Military doesn’t have that option so makes sense for that application.
 
I don't crash my truck very often either, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't factor crash test data into my buying decision.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk
As a sidenote of this important conversation on zero retention--

I'll go ahead and call bullshit that the crash data factored into your truck buying decision.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
 
As a sidenote of this important conversation on zero retention--

I'll go ahead and call bullshit that the crash data factored into your truck buying decision.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
That's because you didn't have Mr. Green for drivers Ed with his nonstop slide show of death.

I have no brand allegiance. I drink both Coke and Pepsi. I'm a true monster.


I also purchased the V6 model because I got better gas mileage :)
 
Last edited:
Who’s being hostile? I’ll take that nickname, I’ll request a change in username for that too. Love it!

So you really think if you take that significant of a spill, that because you have a certain scope that some stranger on the internet says “holds zero” after a certain distance of “drop” you’re gonna just trust it? Go shoot at an animal with it?

What I’m saying is, a rifle drop or scope bang that’s hard enough to be of concern, you’re going to check zero anyway. Any reasonable hunter would. This whole it survives an 18” drop onto blah blah is such nonsense to me. I’ve done my own testing and found which scopes maintain zero in field failure situations that actually happen often. Vibration and water ingress. Potentially catastrophic drops should always be rechecked. Military doesn’t have that option so makes sense for that application.
Sure, Foot

I absolutely believe that some scopes will be more prone than others. Honestly, I find it hard to fathom anyone would believe otherwise.

I mean, why bother testing at all then? With your skills, are you merely using a $69 scope?

I did check zero after my falls...it was a really bad day...but not until the next day at camp. I hunted the rest of the afternoon after the falls. Fortunately we were in timber and any shots would have been close.
 
Sure, Foot

I absolutely believe that some scopes will be more prone than others. Honestly, I find it hard to fathom anyone would believe otherwise.

I mean, why bother testing at all then? With your skills, are you merely using a $69 scope?

I did check zero after my falls...it was a really bad day...but not until the next day at camp. I hunted the rest of the afternoon after the falls. Fortunately we were in timber and any shots would have been close.

Completely agree that some scopes are more prone than others.

I test for my own use cases and make decisions on my findings.

Like I said shit happens and it was a bad enough spill that you did the right thing and checked zero. Perfect!
 
Zeiss is actually one of the few scope manufacturers that really tests products for compliance before shipping. Vibration and water ingress tests are the most invasive of any brand I’ve seen personally. These are the actual two leading causes for loss of zero and scope failure. “Drop” tests are honestly silly to use as metric. No drop test is repeatable and you’ll have a hard time finding any scope manufacturers building an aiming device with a “drop” spec built into it. Vibration frequency and hertz and IP rating are testable and repeatable every time.

Shit happens in the field and minor impacts shouldn’t lose zero (see Leupold and Vortex)

Meopta who makes the conquest line for Zeiss is held to the same ISO compliance as Zeiss. Myself, my friend, and my father in law have owned close to 15 or so MeoPros and Zeiss Conquests since they’ve been released. 10’s of thousands of rounds and no mechanical failures yet. Also verified tracking tests have shown very precise turret mechanisms. More accurate than nightforce who everyone claims are the kings of “accurate dialing”.

In your drop tests I’m curious, as I’ve dinged and dropped a couple of mine in the field… Does the “zero loss” happen to come from landing on the windage turret side? Is it “way off” or are minor adjustments needed after? What is the drop distance and onto what surface?

We used to offer a “2 meter pole drop” spec on a 5 year warranty of one of our GNSS receivers about 10 years ago. We built the thing like a brick and it could take a beating but we found the field to be much “harsher” on the units, especially right around the 4.5 year mark magically. What I’m saying is, guys are really good and making things fail in the field when they want them to fail. Impact and drop testing is completely unpredictable.

2 conquests I owned failed, without heavy use or side impacts, brand new. During range sighting after mounting. Complete erector failures. After painful discussions with their customer service, they were replaced with new current models which I promptly sold.

Other scopes I have owned failed to, to hold zero that is. If I put away a gun and retrieve it sometime later and shoot zero and it’s off, that is a failure. I dont feel my gun cabinet is the culprit… , but possibly road bumps driving home even in my padded case. Honestly don’t know, don’t care, if a scope loses zero it’s gone and I apply that std to the entire brand until I see test data. I do think side impacts riding in a vehicle, as minor as they are - is a factor to many main stream scopes loss of zero.
 
2 conquests I owned failed, without heavy use or side impacts, brand new. During range sighting after mounting. Complete erector failures. After painful discussions with their customer service, they were replaced with new current models which I promptly sold.

Other scopes I have owned failed to, to hold zero that is. If I put away a gun and retrieve it sometime later and shoot zero and it’s off, that is a failure. I dont feel my gun cabinet is the culprit… , but possibly road bumps driving home even in my padded case. Honestly don’t know, don’t care, if a scope loses zero it’s gone and I apply that std to the entire brand until I see test data. I do think side impacts riding in a vehicle, as minor as they are - is a factor to many main stream scopes loss of zero.

That sounds like an awful experience with your conquests. I’d probably look elsewhere as well if that was my personal history with them.

Erector failures can definitely happen. But it sounds like you have way more issues if your scopes keep “losing zero” in your mentioned applications. I couldn’t even count how many hours and days my rifles have spent in the back seat of vehicles and bouncing around on ATVs. Ive daily carried and daily shot my rifles for the last 10 years, loss of zero from day to day week to week month to month etc just doesn’t happen. Anyone who says it does is clearly dropping rifles from ridiculous heights that you’re going to check zero on anyway.

I’ve had two Leupolds and one Vortex lose zero from seemingly minor scope bumps. I also had one Leupold erector failure. I moved away from them same as you did Zeiss. That’s all we can do. Learn from what we’ve experienced ourselves and make decisions. Good on you.
 
Back
Top