Trijicon 2.5-15x42mm Credo HX SFP Field Evaluation Q&A

[Formidilosus]

Hmm....so the Trijicon Credo didn't fair as well as I'd hoped it sounds like with some POI shifts on drops. Maybe I can wait for the Nightforce NXS to come back in stock.

It has POI shifts, but the groups center remained the same. It certianly isn’t a NF. To be fair, when it comes to zero retention NF is all by themselves from what I’ve seen.

 

[Bbell12]

Hmm....so the Trijicon Credo didn't fair as well as I'd hoped it sounds like with some POI shifts on drops. Maybe I can wait for the Nightforce NXS to come back in stock.

For what it is (a cheap, SFP, point-and-shoot type scope) I thought it did pretty well. I think you’d be hard pressed to find another scope in the same cost category, outside of SWFA, that would do better.

 

[BRTreedogs]

View attachment 382146








18-20 in-lbs with loctite holds scopes well with most pic rings. On personal scopes I use 22-25 in-lbs.

I've never seen a ring manufacturer suggest less then 18 though.

I've seen head stud manufacturers claim torque values are un reliable when torqued with lube.

But loc tite.
Come on.

 

[freddyG]

My theory is that if I cause damage to a scope by torquing above 16 into the 18-20 range, I've chosen the wrong scope. I don't want something that fragile...

I’ve never had a scope slip using 20. 15-16 you are asking for slip.

The only way I see a manufacturer recommendation that low, is because their tube is super thin. No other reason for it.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've never seen a ring manufacturer suggest less then 18 though.

I've seen head stud manufacturers claim torque values are un reliable when torqued with lube.

But loc tite.
Come on.

Exactly. Scope manufacturers say stupid light torque because they get failed scopes back and instead of looking at a design that fails because of a couple inch pounds, they blame torque. And I’m not just talking Vortex, most scope companies do that. Lots of ring companies also state light torque because they don’t want to hear complaints of their rings marring scope tubes. A scope should not be so fragile that a torque setting that will reliably and consistently hold the tube, even through rough use, causes a failure. Scopes will move at 16 in-lbs. Lots will move at 18. Of the handful of scopes that have had an eval done here, 3 have moved in the rings at below 18 in-lbs dry. One moved at 18 in-lbs wet. All stopped moving at 20-22in-lbs with thread locker. Even had an NX8 with @slowelk that while held zero for the eval at 18 in-lbs-




It shifted .2’ish mils from multiple 5-8 foot drops.



Remounting, loctiting, and torquing to 22 in-lbs fixed that. After remounting it so, it was dropped over 30 times from 4-6 feet with no shift whatsoever.

The reality is that like sheep, most scopes are just looking for a reason to die.

 

[Formidilosus]

For what it is (a cheap, SFP, point-and-shoot type scope) I thought it did pretty well. I think you’d be hard pressed to find another scope in the same cost category, outside of SWFA, that would do better.

While you may be correct in that, “better” shouldn’t be the metric. Scopes should all hold zero with any realistic use, with the differentiating aspects being features, glass, weight, size, etc. Steering bullets shouldn’t be the compromise.

Also, the eval isn’t completed on it. I think there is a pretty good chance that mounted the way I normally do will have better results. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[dirtytough]

ARC M10's are specified for 55in #'s. I'm not sure how screw total vs torque makes a difference but it obviously does.

Do any scope manufacture's actually specify torque values with a specific set of rings, a value to screws per ring, or is it just a broad brush 15-18in #'s no matter the rings being used? Seems like the actual ring would make a difference on what they should be torqued to.

A 6 screw ring has more surface area contacting the scope than say a 4 screw ring. (at least from the samples I personally have) That extra surface area should help scope slippage with more friction. Maybe scope companies need to have a torque value for the type of ring being used.

 

[BRTreedogs]

ARC M10's are specified for 55in #'s. I'm not sure how screw total vs torque makes a difference but it obviously does.

Do any scope manufacture's actually specify torque values with a specific set of rings, a value to screws per ring, or is it just a broad brush 15-18in #'s no matter the rings being used? Seems like the actual ring would make a difference on what they should be torqued to.

A 6 screw ring has more surface area contacting the scope than say a 4 screw ring. (at least from the samples I personally have) That extra surface area should help scope slippage with more friction. Maybe scope companies need to have a torque value for the type of ring being used.

Probably for whatever rings they produce

 

[Formidilosus]

ARC M10's are specified for 55in #'s. I'm not sure how screw total vs torque makes a difference but it obviously does.

Yep, with very good engineering behind those values… and yet there are multiple scope companies that state to not use 55 in-lbs…

Do any scope manufacture's actually specify torque values with a specific set of rings,

Yes. Nightforce. Vortex states it, however it varies by ring and doesn’t match what the manufacturer who is actually making the rings state for torque values.

a value to screws per ring, or is it just a broad brush 15-18in #'s no matter the rings being used? Seems like the actual ring would make a difference on what they should be torqued to.

You’d have to ask them. And did testing by actually shooting and tracking zero retention show the torque value that they are suggesting to hold zero the best? Or is it a number that doesn’t cause their tubes to get squished or marred? Is it based on data or made up?

A 6 screw ring has more surface area contacting the scope than say a 4 screw ring. (at least from the samples I personally have) That extra surface area should help scope slippage with more friction. Maybe scope companies need to have a torque value for the type of ring being used.

To do that, they’d actually have to test scopes and rings by shooting. I haven’t seen those pallets of ammo at these companies for testing….

 

[dirtytough]

Here's what I found in the Trijicon Credo PDF. That is the only thing I could find. Seems like the smart way to do it instead of having a blanket torque policy.

CAUTION
When mounting this Trijicon® product onto the rail of a firearm, do not tighten the mount screws beyond the recommended torque setting provided by the mount manufacturer. Damage may occur to the optic and/or zero retention may be negatively affected.

 

[Formidilosus]

Here's what I found in the Trijicon Credo PDF. That is the only thing I could find. Seems like the smart way to do it instead of having a blanket torque policy.

CAUTION
When mounting this Trijicon® product onto the rail of a firearm, do not tighten the mount screws beyond the recommended torque setting provided by the mount manufacturer. Damage may occur to the optic and/or zero retention may be negatively affected.

That is the way to do it. To do that though, your scopes can not be fragile. The newer Leupold manuals I have seen have stated similar, and realistic ring torque hasn’t been much of an issue with those.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Leupold rings actually come with lock tight installed.

 

[BjornF16]

Leupold rings actually come with lock tight installed.

Oh, the horror !


Edit: IIRC, all my LaRue ring screws came with a dab of blue lubricant on them as well

 

[huntnful]

Coulda swore I watched a manufacture video on the Mark 5 that stated the tube is meant for 25in lbs of torque. I torque them to 25 in lbs with locktite in a set of Seekins/Vortex Precision rings. Which are pretty wide compared to a lot of rings. Lots of surface area and high torque for reassurance . But it looks like it failed

 

[Wrench]

Torque is directly related to thread pitch/diameter. Adding a lubricant (locktite) increases the clamping force compared to dry Torque.

There's about 27 pages of reference in Machinery handbook.

Point being, torque and clamping force are related, but not always linearly.

 

[Kyle Wheeler]

Following

 

[Kbhillhunter]

Any feedback on the reticle? Some people have commented on it being too faint against vegetation / low light back drops.

 

[Formidilosus]

Any feedback on the reticle? Some people have commented on it being too faint against vegetation / low light back drops.

It’s thin, but being SFP is visible on low power.

 

[BRTreedogs]

What id the final outcome on the Credo?
Does ok?
They can keep it?

 

[ccampff]

Also interested in the final verdict