snarkscarbine
FNG
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2021
- Messages
- 82
OkIf I was vortex I would blame loctite
OkIf I was vortex I would blame loctite
I’m not an engineer and I don’t actually know what I’m talking about, but I’ve seen evidence than excessive clamping force on a scope can make it do weird things. 16in-lbs dry to 25in-lbs wet (at a pretty conservative 20% torque reduction) is a 95% increase in clamping force. I don’t know if that would cause the issue you saw or not, but it’s not insignificant given the fact that incorrect clamping force can affect function. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Just trying to offer possible explanations.
That’s fine if you feel that way. I wasn’t there.I’ll make it easy for you- excessive torque was not the problem.
If you can give me a valid reason.@Ryan Avery , any chance you’d send the scope to @sndmn11 and have him test it?
Sure…form said it was a piece of crap and vortex said they tested it and there were no issues and the way it was mounted caused the issues. They tested it, for what that’s worth, and it passed. So it’s 1 to 1 right now. We need a tiebreaker!If you can give me a valid reason.
How many scopes have you sent back? I have sent back scope to lots of companies including NF for tracking/turret issues. They all told me nothing was wrong and sent them back except Leupold who told me they fixed the issue.Sure…form said it was a piece of crap and vortex said they tested it and there were no issues and the way it was mounted caused the issues. They tested it, for what that’s worth, and it passed. So it’s 1 to 1 right now. We need a tiebreaker!
I thought the original update said they were going to retest it? I’d be amazed if the results were different, but it’d be cool to just skip to the drop test if nothing else.Sure…form said it was a piece of crap and vortex said they tested it and there were no issues and the way it was mounted caused the issues. They tested it, for what that’s worth, and it passed. So it’s 1 to 1 right now. We need a tiebreaker!
I mount to 25inlb in @HawkinsPrecision , so I might be too rough from the get-go.Sure…form said it was a piece of crap and vortex said they tested it and there were no issues and the way it was mounted caused the issues. They tested it, for what that’s worth, and it passed. So it’s 1 to 1 right now. We need a tiebreaker!
I do have a couple. They’ve survived impacts of 12” and more, ridden around in the back seat of my truck, carried on multiple back country hunts and never had issues.How many scopes have you sent back? I have sent back scope to lots of companies including NF for tracking/turret issues. They all told me nothing was wrong and sent them back except Leupold who told me they fixed the issue.
Do you have an LHT?
Seems form has a specific mounting process and most scopes fail his test. Company says they think mounting was the issue. Seems reasonable if there is another testing venue to seek clarity.How many scopes have you sent back? I have sent back scope to lots of companies including NF for tracking/turret issues. They all told me nothing was wrong and sent them back except Leupold who told me they fixed the issue.
Do you have an LHT?
Pony up and send one to sndmn11I do have a couple. They’ve survived impacts of 12” and more, ridden around in the back seat of my truck, carried on multiple back country hunts and never had issues.
Of course nobody can dismiss Forms test, and it gives me some uneasiness with my scopes, especially because I’m usually a long way from the truck for multiples days. I think the LHT scopes have a failure point, but I haven’t seen it yet in my own real life testing. So of course for selfish reasons I’d like to see an additional test done to see if it mirrored my testing or Form’s testing.
Or we just video Form mounting the scope to their specs and let him do the SAME test Instead of adding another variable with Kyle.Seems form has a specific mounting process and most scopes fail his test. Company says they think mounting was the issue. Seems reasonable if there is another testing venue to seek clarity.
I don’t. You are right plenty of variables already involved.Or we just video form mounting the scope to their specs and let him do the SAME test Instead of adding another variable with Kyle.
Do you have an LHT? If so send it to Kyle or better yet drop it yourself
Of course they can (and will)…I can see it now: “Torque wrench not calibrated; over-torqued”Yes, this is an easy fix. Mount it the way they said to and try again. Then they can’t make that claim anymore.
If you have a better way, I'm all ears.I don’t. You are right plenty of variables already involved.
Yes, NF has an awesome torture test video. It’s admittedly ridiculous, but also entertaining, and ultimately does instill confidence.Vortex obviously is aware of Form’s drop evaluations.
Perhaps they should step up and perform their own drop eval ala Form style with their scope installed to their specifications. Proverbial put your money where your mouth is…
As an owner of 3 Gen 1 PST’s, I’d like to know.
Wasn’t it NF that torture tested one of their scopes and posted the video (commercial)?