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

[freddyG]

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.

Reminds me of “It depends on what the definition of is is” lol

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

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.

Still don't understand why you'd accept stacking tolerance on top of that. If you can control that variable, why wouldn't you?

 

[JF_Idaho]

Still don't understand why you'd accept stacking tolerance on top of that. If you can control that variable, why wouldn't you?

I would just go for a .5" bigger deer

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

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 is easy.

Outside of the Rokslide realm, folks tend to hunt the same animals in the same location every single year. Their needs and requirements may not necessarily align with some others especial those on this site. I understand that but it seems many on this site do not.

If something works "good enough" for most people under their normal hunting conditions it would be foolish for them to piss away money on something that will have minimal impact on their overall hunting success rate.

Take an individual that regularly kills his elk and deer every year while using a POS scope. First, you lost the entire "failed scope" argument as the results speak for themselves. Dead is dead and if the bullet misses the desired mark by 2", it usually does not matter. Second, it is significantly cheaper to drop $10-20 per year verifying zero or even re-zeroing than to take a loss on a POS scope and replace it with a proven scope (excluding SWFA if patient enough to get one). So any argument about them saving money in the long run is also lost (folks don't want to hear about a 20+ year ROI).

It would be better to explain to them the benefits reliability and provide actual examples (ex: go with Credo HX rather than Razor LHT) in comparable price points for NET NEW purchases. Convert them that way. The reliable scope crew should learn to be pleasant rather than go full scorched earth and label someone a heretic the moment someone asks a question, provides a different view point, etc. Hard to get converts when you burn them at the stake.

 

[Archer86]

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.

No drop test will ever eliminate the need for me to re check my zero if my equipment takes a hard hit. It takes 10 min or less to set up and take a couple shots to confirm zero.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Some things don't get any easier to state in a kind manner for folks to understand. Missing the forest for the trees.

No drop test will ever eliminate the need for me to re check my zero if my equipment takes a hard hit. It takes 10 min or less to set up and take a couple shots to confirm zero.

Give this man a gold star as well. This is common sense. If any one of us is so beholden to a drop test that after a drop/hit in the field, we wouldn't owe it to the game we are hunting to verify zero, there's a problem.

I'm getting the sense that's what people are taking these drop tests to mean, that there's some type of security and infallibility that goes along with it. I would say in fairness the folks doing the drop tests do not want anyone to take this in that manner. But folks sure argue it like that's how they're looking at it.

I don't give a crap how much the hunt cost or how little time some one has, or heaven forbid they may scare game with a verifying shot. But heck, the game they might scare may be what they would've ended up wounding with a misplaced shot because something was knocked out of alignment. Probably all for the better with respect to the game.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

It is easy.

Outside of the Rokslide realm, folks tend to hunt the same animals in the same location every single year. Their needs and requirements may not necessarily align with some others especial those on this site. I understand that but it seems many on this site do not.

If something works "good enough" for most people under their normal hunting conditions it would be foolish for them to piss away money on something that will have minimal impact on their overall hunting success rate.

Take an individual that regularly kills his elk and deer every year while using a POS scope. First, you lost the entire "failed scope" argument as the results speak for themselves. Dead is dead and if the bullet misses the desired mark by 2", it usually does not matter. Second, it is significantly cheaper to drop $10-20 per year verifying zero or even re-zeroing than to take a loss on a POS scope and replace it with a proven scope (excluding SWFA if patient enough to get one). So any argument about them saving money in the long run is also lost (folks don't want to hear about a 20+ year ROI).

It would be better to explain to them the benefits reliability and provide actual examples (ex: go with Credo HX rather than Razor LHT) in comparable price points for NET NEW purchases. Convert them that way. The reliable scope crew should learn to be pleasant rather than go full scorched earth and label someone a heretic the moment someone asks a question, provides a different view point, etc. Hard to get converts when you burn them at the stake.

I understand how the ignorant could think their scope shifting zero easily is okay. That's just how rifle scopes are, right?

I can understand why people disagree that their scope model/brand doesn't reliably hold zero. They disagree with the testing and anecdotal evidence here and elsewhere.

I can understand why someone would stick with a scope knowing that it is unlikely to reliably hold zero through mild to moderate abuse. The risk is known and can be managed.

I can't understand why someone would acknowledge that a scope model/brand is unlikely to reliably hold zero and purchase/recommend it over others of similar cost with better potential for reliable zero retention.

 

[wyosam]

It is easy.

Outside of the Rokslide realm, folks tend to hunt the same animals in the same location every single year. Their needs and requirements may not necessarily align with some others especial those on this site. I understand that but it seems many on this site do not.

If something works "good enough" for most people under their normal hunting conditions it would be foolish for them to piss away money on something that will have minimal impact on their overall hunting success rate.

Take an individual that regularly kills his elk and deer every year while using a POS scope. First, you lost the entire "failed scope" argument as the results speak for themselves. Dead is dead and if the bullet misses the desired mark by 2", it usually does not matter. Second, it is significantly cheaper to drop $10-20 per year verifying zero or even re-zeroing than to take a loss on a POS scope and replace it with a proven scope (excluding SWFA if patient enough to get one). So any argument about them saving money in the long run is also lost (folks don't want to hear about a 20+ year ROI).

It would be better to explain to them the benefits reliability and provide actual examples (ex: go with Credo HX rather than Razor LHT) in comparable price points for NET NEW purchases. Convert them that way. The reliable scope crew should learn to be pleasant rather than go full scorched earth and label someone a heretic the moment someone asks a question, provides a different view point, etc. Hard to get converts when you burn them at the stake.

This. There are a lot of hunters out there, that are very successful, that fall into the “check zero before hunt, kill something, a box of bullets lasts 3 years” camp. Those folks would never notice a .5 moa (or 2 moa for that matter) shift, because neither their shooting nor their zero is that precise anyway. Half the time the scope error falls in their favor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[westsloper]

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

$2k? I bought an SWFA 10x used recently for just over $200.

 

[5811]

You can tell people Macdonald's nuggets are mostly sawdust and beaks. You can even show people videos of how they are made.

People still love eating them. Their feelings for nuggets were developed before they knew about pink slime.

At some point you gotta just say, to each their own. Lots of people like nuggets and suffer no ill effects.

But it would be cool if they were real chicken, so maybe it's worth mentioning.

 

[MuleyFever]

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.

In another thread, maybe the load development one, trying to tweek loads for small groups was brought up. I think he said something along the lines of you wont miss because your group is just a little bigger, you will miss due to missed wind call or other conditions. Same idea. I get the reliability factor, but most people just dont need to worry about it and zeroing before season is all they need. It works for them.

 

[Archer86]

I understand how the ignorant could think their scope shifting zero easily is okay. That's just how rifle scopes are, right?

I can understand why people disagree that their scope model/brand doesn't reliably hold zero. They disagree with the testing and anecdotal evidence here and elsewhere.

I can understand why someone would stick with a scope knowing that it is unlikely to reliably hold zero through mild to moderate abuse. The risk is known and can be managed.

I can't understand why someone would acknowledge that a scope model/brand is unlikely to reliably hold zero and purchase/recommend it over others of similar cost with better potential for reliable zero retention.

Scopes shifted easily they drop them from upto 3ft up to 4 times before even starting to test them how hunters use them.

The test would be more beneficial set up as Actual hunting situation first ie driving around with it the back of a truck carry on a back pack shooting a few thousand rounds the. Then start the drop test to show a worst case situation

 

[iamthenick]

How far is a drop test? I drop my gun all the time, usually lean it on a tree and it falls.

 

[zrodwyo]

I think I've read most posts on this forum related to scope failures and have yet to read anything on exactly why scopes fail to hold zero. It seems like the discussion of scope failures would be much more productive if we could discuss specific parts or processes that are failing.

It seems that all scopes more or less function in the same way and they aren't all that complicated. So what does a Nightforce, SWFA SS, Trijicon have or do that a Leopold doesn't?

I was given a mark 5 and I've been keeping track of zero over the past 18 months on the same target. The rifle lays on the floor board on my bucket of bolts 2001 Tacoma as I drive up and down 20 miles of wash board Wyoming roads daily.I shoot a 5 round group every other week or so and it has never lost zero. So what is special about this one?

 

[5811]

In another thread, maybe the load development one, trying to tweek loads for small groups was brought up. I think he said something along the lines of you wont miss because your group is just a little bigger, you will miss due to missed wind call or other conditions. Same idea. I get the reliability factor, but most people just dont need to worry about it and zeroing before season is all they need. It works for them.

Just for the sake of consistency, a zero shift is more like a missed wind call or inaccurate range than a larger group size around the correct poa. A zero shift means you are aiming in the wrong spot, plus the group size.

So the argument that a zero shift is small enough to get washed away by other factors isn't true. Its added to them.

If you want to say it's not enough to matter for most people at ranges most frequently hunted, I agree. I also agree that if people are checking zero frequently with different ammo or just before use, thats usually effective, too. Decades of successful hunts prove that.

But man, it's a cool feeling to beat up a rifle, check zero, and be dead on. No adjustments. Time after time.

 

[Macintosh]

Nothing is special about a scope that holds zero. Even a leupold. Thats the minimum requirement to be considered a quality scope. The point is that for a decent number of people, some brands and models are more prone to losing zero for no apparent reason. Some people seem to have lightning strike 2, 3, 4 times in a row with leupold, vortex and some others, while they dont have problems as commonly with NF, trij, s&b, swfa and a few others, and where I have firsthand knowledge the eval results align closely with my experience on that. You buy any scope, you take your chances, this is simply a relatively objective way to stack the odds in your favor should you ever need or want a more reliable optic. It does not mean every leupold is junk, nor does it mean every nightforce is perfect. Why is this so hard?

 

[Marbles]

I think I've read most posts on this forum related to scope failures and have yet to read anything on exactly why scopes fail to hold zero. It seems like the discussion of scope failures would be much more productive if we could discuss specific parts or processes that are failing.

It seems that all scopes more or less function in the same way and they aren't all that complicated. So what does a Nightforce, SWFA SS, Trijicon have or do that a Leopold doesn't?

I was given a mark 5 and I've been keeping track of zero over the past 18 months on the same target. The rifle lays on the floor board on my bucket of bolts 2001 Tacoma as I drive up and down 20 miles of wash board Wyoming roads daily.I shoot a 5 round group every other week or so and it has never lost zero. So what is special about this one?

Not many people take a scope apart, you can test a scope and know if it passes, and warranty then sell new scope if it does not. Take the scope apart and you cannot reuse it, nor can you warranty it.

The real point should be that people test their own gear. You can have a solid scope, but if the mount moves, or the action shifts, you have the same problem. People who blindly mount a scope, argue for checking zero after any "drop," but don't check zero after every car ride (or have not done what you have, so they know it holds zero in that situation) are applying a double standard to fit their preconceived notions.

People who think buying X brand alleviates the need to test each assembled rifle are delusional. The point of buying a scope that passes the drop tests is it increases the odds of getting one that works, but one can still be unlucky and get one that does not. Likewise, one can get a scope that normally fails, and get lucky and have a solid optic.

For example, if on average I will have to own 10 SWFA scopes to find one that does not work, but I will have to go through 4 Vortex scopes to find one that does work, I would rather buy the SWFA, the other features are not worth the trouble of 3 warranty returns to get for me.

Nothing is special about a scope that holds zero. Even a leupold. Thats the minimum requirement to be considered a quality scope. The point is that for a decent number of people, some brands and models are more prone to losing zero for no apparent reason. Some people seem to have lightning strike 2, 3, 4 times in a row with leupold, vortex and some others, while they dont have problems as commonly with NF, trij, s&b, swfa and a few others, and where I have firsthand knowledge the eval results align closely with my experience on that. You buy any scope, you take your chances, this is simply a relatively objective way to stack the odds in your favor should you ever need or want a more reliable optic. It does not mean every leupold is junk, nor does it mean every nightforce is perfect. Why is this so hard?

You beat me to it, and said it with fewer words.

 

[Macintosh]

You…said it with fewer words.

Noteworthy for me!

 

[JGRaider]

Solid gold.........

35WhelenAI said:
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.


Most people aren't good enough shots to know if a .5MOA shift is shooter error, scope mounts, screws, bedding shift, ammo variability, wind, or whatever else. It's easy to blame the scope.

 

[KHNC]

I think I've read most posts on this forum related to scope failures and have yet to read anything on exactly why scopes fail to hold zero. It seems like the discussion of scope failures would be much more productive if we could discuss specific parts or processes that are failing.

It seems that all scopes more or less function in the same way and they aren't all that complicated. So what does a Nightforce, SWFA SS, Trijicon have or do that a Leopold doesn't?

I was given a mark 5 and I've been keeping track of zero over the past 18 months on the same target. The rifle lays on the floor board on my bucket of bolts 2001 Tacoma as I drive up and down 20 miles of wash board Wyoming roads daily.I shoot a 5 round group every other week or so and it has never lost zero. So what is special about this one?

That scope will NEVER last !! Sure as hell, in 15-29 more years of doing what you are doing , it will lose zero and you will be screwed!!!