Zeiss durability vs NF, Trijicon?

[Macintosh]

Man, we go around in circles on this, it gets super old. Ilya does a great job talking about optical quality. He claims to have data on durability, but he won’t share it. I’ve read a lot of his stuff, he’s the first one to tell you that he doesn’t treat his equipment hard and has no real firsthand knowledge of using optics heavily. so I have a verbal assurance from somebody who himself says he has little experience on the matter, won’t share the information they claim to have, and I’m supposed to believe THAT over the only source of reasonably objective information on the topic, even if it is small sample sets and less than standardized? You guys make me laugh, thats not being cultish thats called common sense. Verbal assurance from somebody I dont know, with something to lose in the industry, without public data to back it up, is nothing more than hot air. That’s not to discount Ilya or give undue props to form, its simply SOME data that I can repeat on my own and make my own judgements around, versus NO data at all. Give ME the data, or shut up and go home.

 

[JGRaider]

I don't know Koshkin from Adam, and haven't read through much of his stuff. From what I do know though, is that he knows more about optical construction, functionality, etc and would tend to believe what he says more than anyone on this board with the exception of Form since his job is apparently shooting.

Like everything else, you side with the guy that believes more what you believe, and discount the others. It's human nature. It seems as if everyone has an agenda nowadays, which is why I take everything I read on the 'net from people I'll never meet with a grain of salt.

 

[Macintosh]

No, I side with the guy that shows his work in a clear and transparent manner. Show me how you arrive at a 2, a 5 and a 3, then show 2+5+3=10. It is REPRODUCIBLE, and even if there are flaws I can see them and account for it.

Regardless of whether I am inclined to see eye to eye with the result, I will always side with that over the guy who insists the answer is 12 but wont show how they arrived at that result. Saying something is true is not the same thing as demonstrating it.

Show me ANY better way to demonstrate the path to get a more valid result and I’ll follow that too. Simply pointing out the flaws, some of which are valid and some of which aren't, accomplishes nothing. Talk minus action=zero.

 

[308Baer]

Owner of 2 Zeiss v4s, NF SHV and NF NXS. All have performed well and have held zero.
If I had to pick one which brand, NF without a doubt.

 

[JGRaider]

No, I side with the guy that shows his work in a clear and transparent manner. Show me how you arrive at a 2, a 5 and a 3, then show 2+5+3=10. It is REPRODUCIBLE, and even if there are flaws I can see them and account for it.

Regardless of whether I am inclined to see eye to eye with the result, I will always side with that over the guy who insists the answer is 12 but wont show how they arrived at that result. Saying something is true is not the same thing as demonstrating it.

Show me ANY better way to demonstrate the path to get a more valid result and I’ll follow that too. Simply pointing out the flaws, some of which are valid and some of which aren't, accomplishes nothing. Talk minus action=zero.

I'd guess Koshkin doesn"t give a ratsazzz if you believe him or not

 

[SDHNTR]

Ilya could easily put this silly pissing contest to rest by coming up with his own standard for a durability and zero retention test.

If I were him that’s exactly what I would do. He obviously has the experience, and he has even spoken out against what he thinks the tests here are lacking, but he hasn’t gone so far as to create his own or validate another test. He should. Silence the haters. I for one, would be genuinely interested in the results.

 

[Macintosh]

@JGRaider Nor do I give a rats ass if he cares one way or another. Im not talking to him, Im talking to you and the other folks here—the only reason he was brought up is as a straw man appeal to refute the only data on the topic we have, and Im saying the reason he gets discounted is because he has nothing to SHOW to back up his claims that scope reliability isnt a thing. I disagree with YOU in this topic frequently. But if you DEMONSTRATE your point I could be easily swayed. I dont know you from a hole in the wall, I dont care what your experience is, but if you SHOW me something that I can confirm myself, I will 100% believe YOU over form or Ilya as well.
Talk=nothing regardless of who is talking. Data > nothing. Data always wins, nothing always loses. Until I SEE other data and the methodology to arrive at it, it’s just talk, and talk=nothing.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Ilya could easily put this silly pissing contest to rest by coming up with his own standard for a durability and zero retention test.

If I were him that’s exactly what I would do. He obviously has the experience, and he has even spoken out against what he thinks the tests here are lacking, but he hasn’t gone so far as to create his own or validate another test. He should. Silence the haters. Hi, for one, would be genuinely interested in the results.

I'm not really sure of his experience level on that sort of thing. His actual job is to build instruments that test image quality in lenses. So for talking about image quality in scopes, and all the stuff that goes into that, I think he's the best there is. He's obviously not entirely unqualified to talk about zero retention related things but that's not what I see as his area of expertise.

 

[SDHNTR]

I'm not really sure of his experience level on that sort of thing. His actual job is to build instruments that test image quality in lenses. So for talking about image quality in scopes, and all the stuff that goes into that, I think he's the best there is. He's obviously not entirely unqualified to talk about zero retention related things but that's not what I see as his area of expertise.

You may be right, but yet at the same time he also takes the liberty to discredit the tests here. IMO, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t trash on something while at the same time being unwilling or unable to come up with a better method yourself.

If what you say is true, and if he were entirely honest, he would simply say that his expertise is limited to optical quality and clarity, and he is not qualified to comment on durability or zero retention. Yet that’s not the case.

 

[JGRaider]

Ilya could easily put this silly pissing contest to rest by coming up with his own standard for a durability and zero retention test.

If I were him that’s exactly what I would do. He obviously has the experience, and he has even spoken out against what he thinks the tests here are lacking, but he hasn’t gone so far as to create his own or validate another test. He should. Silence the haters. Hi, for one, would be genuinely interested in the results.

Apparently he's not interested in doing so, wouldn't you say? I was under the impression he helped design some some SWFA stuff, no?

 

[JGRaider]

@JGRaider Nor do I give a rats ass if he cares one way or another. Im not talking to him, Im talking to you and the other folks here—the only reason he was brought up is as a straw man appeal to refute the only data on the topic we have, and Im saying the reason he gets discounted is because he has nothing to SHOW to back up his claims that scope reliability isnt a thing. I disagree with YOU in this topic frequently. But if you DEMONSTRATE your point I could be easily swayed. I dont know you from a hole in the wall, I dont care what your experience is, but if you SHOW me something that I can confirm myself, I will 100% believe YOU over form or Ilya as well.
Talk=nothing regardless of who is talking. Data > nothing. Data always wins, nothing always loses. Until I SEE other data and the methodology to arrive at it, it’s just talk, and talk=nothing.

You're passion is duly noted..........you can put me in the camp of "I don't care if anyone believes it or not, as I only have myself to please". I've been doing that for 50 years now and it works quite well.

 

[SDHNTR]

Apparently he's not interested in doing so, wouldn't you say? I was under the impression he helped design some some SWFA stuff, no?

I haven’t the foggiest idea. You may be right. I just come from the school where you don’t open your mouf unless you’re willing to do something about it.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I was under the impression he helped design some some SWFA stuff, no?

As far as I know the only things he helps with for some companies are reticles. He's had input into some SWFA and Leica reticles for sure, but not sure about other companies.

 

[5811]

Like everything else, you side with the guy that believes more what you believe, and discount the others. It's human nature.

I agree. It's typically posters that come over from snipershide that are loyal to koshkin. Even when they don't know him and haven't really read his stuff.

Then they go back to snipershide and talk S on rokslide posters. It's all about your tribe, as the millenials say.

 

[Macintosh]

You're passion is duly noted..........you can put me in the camp of "I don't care if anyone believes it or not, as I only have myself to please". I've been doing that for 50 years now and it works quite well.

For a guy who doesnt care you sure spend an awful lot of time throwing stones at it here and elsewhere.
Like I said, talk - action = zilch.

 

[06 SB]

I have been running Zeiss, Meopta and Swarovski on many rifles since two of my Leupold scopes failed internally. Not a single one has failed. My Zeiss V4 6-24 on my 223 gets dialed a lot out to 1000 yards and back. It has been perfect. In my experience, I would not shy away from a Zeiss V4. I use scopes but do not abuse them either.

 

[mtwarden]

Question—does the military have a standard(s) that the scopes they use/purchase must pass?

If they do, I would think that it would outline exactly how said scope is to be tested and what constitutes a pass. Might not be the perfect standard, but might be a starting point.

Probably a pipe dream, but would be nice if their was a manufacturing rating/standard, something along the lines of a waterproof rating for headlamps for example. Clear instruction how to conduct the test and certify which rating is merited.

With all the sophisticating testing apparatus available for manufacturers, you would think it wouldn't be overly difficult for a group of engineers to come up with something that was repeatable and valid.

Maybe if someone had some pull at Consumer Reports

 

[Macintosh]

I dont believe that exists.

 

[Formidilosus]

Question—does the military have a standard(s) that the scopes they use/purchase must pass?

Yes there are standards- waterproof, fog proof, diveable/jumpable, etc.; but in general not anything related to long term zero retention or zero retention through impacts or drops. Most scopes used in sniper weapon systems came as a package with the rifle- and were not tested separately at all. The only scopes that have had to pass some version of live fire zero retention after drops and/or long term zero retention were the Leupold M3A/Mark 4 10x40mm M3 in the 80’s, and I believe the rest have been Nightforce.

If they do, I would think that it would outline exactly how said scope is to be tested and what constitutes a pass. Might not be the perfect standard, but might be a starting point.

The military by and large doesn’t understand zero retention either. This seems ridiculous until you understand how little the military actually shoots, and that every single time they go shoot they get a different lot# of ammo, and the ammo is generally very lot-to-lot inconsistent anyways- that results in a zeroing range being mandatory before any real shooting begins. So they can’t see or notice it regardless.

Probably a pipe dream, but would be nice if there was a manufacturing rating/standard, something along the lines of a waterproof rating for headlamps for example. Clear instruction how to conduct the test and certify which rating is merited.

Yes it would, but they don’t want it. Manufacturers are either ignorant of how fragile scopes generally are, and/or don’t want that standardized testing because the whole market would look bad.

With all the sophisticating testing apparatus available for manufacturers, you would think it wouldn't be overly difficult for a group of engineers to come up with something that was repeatable and valid.

It’s not hard at all to develop it, and despite what people want to claim about the drop eval, something very similar has been used officially by multiple entities. Dropping a rifle onto a grass field and checking zero isn’t some wildly inconsistent magical thing. Hold it 36” above ground, drop it- did the zero shift? Does it consistently shift zero? If yes, is there another scope that constantly does not shift zero? If yes, use that one.

 

[mtwarden]

Thanks for the info!

The only scopes that have had to pass some version of live fire zero retention after drops and/or long term zero retention were the Leupold M3A/Mark 4 10x40mm M3 in the 80’s, and I believe the rest have been Nightforce.

Interesting that someone had thought about this 40-ish years ago, but not today—kind of crazy. Military/LEO snipers I'm sure would prefer to have something mounted to their rifle that had passed muster with a big check mark. Obviously hunters too, but the "impact" of a scope losing zero could have much greater ramifications for the above job titles.