Why cant people accept the fact that some people dont need a drop tested scope?

[JGRaider]

All at distances where a .5 MOA shift wouldn't have been an issue.

Under 300 yards, where 95%+ of all game animals are taken actually.

 

[BjornF16]

Under 300 yards, where 95%+ of all game animals are taken actually.

This is part of what I said in Post #16...and others have tried to make.

For the majority of hunters, who harvest game under 300 yards, a zero shift may not even be noticed.

When you step it out, as I did, one might begin to notice.

This would explain a lot of "my scope is rock solid". But that also why some might question a scope being "rock solid".

ymmv

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Under 300 yards, where 95%+ of all game animals are taken actually.

This makes it sound like you're saying zero shift is acceptable.

 

[JGRaider]

It's meant to say that people fret and worry about stuff that never happens or doesn't matter. I call it "paying interest on a debt that's not due".

 

[BjornF16]

It's meant to say that people fret and worry about stuff that never happens or doesn't matter. I call it "paying interest on a debt that's not due".

I hate paying interest...and taxes too!

Maybe I've missed it in some of your (and others posts)...but the nuance of what you are saying is that for the majority of hunters, some zero shift is acceptable (which is a bit different from "my scope is rock solid").

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

This makes it sound like you're saying zero shift is acceptable.

Not everyone in the entire hunting universe has the same standards of excellence and skill level that you and some others on this site have. I am happy to see Maven revisiting their lineup and do hope that other manufacturers follow suite.

However, regular folks still find a way to kill game on a regular basis using basic gear and POS scopes. With the constant beating of the "doom and gloom" drum, ordinary hunters could get the impression that they would not be able to hit the broadside of a mountain since these scopes supposedly fail so catastrophically with the gentlest of caresses or even just looking at them wrong.

Outside the realm of RS, when these POS scopes fail they likely fail within a margin that is still indiscernible to the bulk of hunters under traditional hunting distances yet will accurate enough to kill game. Otherwise folks would not be killing game left and right with them.

But do be careful what you ask for. If all scopes were reliable, then even more game would be killed. This would then lead to less tags being available which means less hunting opportunities. Then that leads to a bunch of forum members complaining about lack of hunting opportunities.

 

[BjornF16]

But do be careful what you ask for. If all scopes were reliable, then even more game would be killed. This would then lead to less tags being available which means less hunting opportunities. Then that leads to a bunch of forum members complaining about lack of hunting opportunities.

Vortex…best scopes evah!

 

[2531usmc]

I take the drop tests into consideration, its good data/info to help me make a decision. But I also take other stuff into account. This is from 2022, "What the pros use". Before all the "they baby their equipment" comes into play, I look at this for 2 things. Tracking: PRS shooters dial A LOT... all the time. If the top shooters scopes didn't track they wouldn't be winning/placing consistently. Round Count: These scopes have seen a lot of rounds fired. The avg PRS match is 200-250 per weekend. Add in all the practice range time and multiple weekends a season, the round count gets high quick. If the scopes required constant rezeroing I doubt they would be popular with all the other options available.

Also, if you watch or compete in a PRS comp the rifles aren't all that babied, they're getting banged around on obstacles and barricades all the time while changing positions etc. The top two scopes used in 2022 both failed the drop test. View attachment 660531

This is the most informative post in the entire 15 pages of postings

 

[50bowhunter]

How did anyone ever kill deer before we had $2k scopes that had to be build like an armored tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Not everyone in the entire hunting universe has the same standards of excellence and skill level that you and some others on this site have. I am happy to see Maven revisiting their lineup and do hope that other manufacturers follow suite.

However, regular folks still find a way to kill game on a regular basis using basic gear and POS scopes. With the constant beating of the "doom and gloom" drum, ordinary hunters could get the impression that they would not be able to hit the broadside of a mountain since these scopes supposedly fail so catastrophically with the gentlest of caresses or even just looking at them wrong.

I just don't understand why anyone would agree that a scope/brand has zero retention issues and still advocate for them. Which is seems like some people are. I guess "close enough" is acceptable to more people than I expected.

 

[Bearwhisky]

How did anyone ever kill deer before we had $2k scopes that had to be build like an armored tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With todays options, I see no reason to buy a scope that isn’t durable. Regardless of price range. Theres $500 scopes that could pass these drop tests with ease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JGRaider]

I just don't understand why anyone would agree that a scope/brand has zero retention issues and still advocate for them. Which is seems like some people are. I guess "close enough" is acceptable to more people than I expected.

I don't agree with that premise, or advocate for it at all. It may do you some good to quit assuming things.

 

[35WhelenAI]

All at distances where a .5 MOA shift wouldn't have been an issue.

Form quote: "Once you get into statistical relevant shot groups sizes (95% probability), very few hunting rifles are under 2 MOA".

Many here are panty-wadding about .5 MOA scope shift and their gun won't do 2.0 MOA at the bench. Factor in shooter error when the time comes to squeeze the trigger, and no wonder poster child scopes with .5 MOA shift kill a shit load of game in the field.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

I just don't understand why anyone would agree that a scope/brand has zero retention issues and still advocate for them. Which is seems like some people are. I guess "close enough" is acceptable to more people than I expected.

It wasn’t that long ago and pie plate accuracy was acceptable.

 

[ndlawrence]

I had blister back scopes on my guns for about15 years. All I had money for and didn’t know any better. Killed a lot of game also. One of the things that form mentioned on the S2H podcast, that I realized I’ve been doing my whole life:

• Before season -> zero/check zero
• Fall or drop gun -> check zero
• Miss an animal -> check zero
• Arrive to camp after a long drive or flight -> check zero

I never thought anything of this pattern. That’s what my Dad did, my brothers did, and I did. I quickly learned the reason why as well. I recently asked a number of guys that I know about the above scenarios, if they needed to check zero, they answer was always yes. When I asked why, it boils down to they, just like I used to, need to frequently rezero stuff.

What I didn't know was that this was avoidable. My setup now is rock solid and I don’t have to think about the above. Obviously, if someone’s setup works for them, more power to you.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I don't agree with that premise, or advocate for it at all. It may do you some good to quit assuming things.

So it's not acceptable to shoot with a scope model that has known issues with zero retention?

 

[JGRaider]

So it's not acceptable to shoot with a scope model that has known issues with zero retention?

I couldn't possibly care less what scope you or anyone else uses, or why you use it.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Some folks forget that trolling is for catching fish, not so much for garnering respect in a conversation.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I couldn't possibly care less what scope you or anyone else uses, or why you use it.

Lol okay, deflecting as usual instead of answering a simple question. Funny how I didn't mention you in post #290 but you assumed it was directed at you.

 

[Flyjunky]

Form quote: "Once you get into statistical relevant shot groups sizes (95% probability), very few hunting rifles are under 2 MOA".

Many here are panty-wadding about .5 MOA scope shift and their gun won't do 2.0 MOA at the bench. Factor in shooter error when the time comes to squeeze the trigger, and no wonder poster child scopes with .5 MOA shift kill a shit load of game in the field.

Give this man the gold star comment! I was just getting ready to post this exact thing.