Zeiss durability vs NF, Trijicon?

[AlpineBeard]

I don’t buy the low sample size argument. If there is a problem with a design, and all scopes of that particular model are designed according to the same specs, then if one fails, odds are the rest will too.

I understand where you’re coming from but If this were true any optic you find to fail would bankrupt a manufacturer if they offered any sort of warranty. You mention NF as a standout in reliability….

I’ve seen many NF products fail over the years… even on the ATACR which I personally consider to be a reliable and robust product. I even witnessed an ATACR fail that was owned by the other instructor of a class in which one students NXS failed. If someone was looking for a reliable optic I would not steal them away from an ATACR. I lost zero on some of my personal NF scopes also had buddies personal NF products fail. I’m not knocking NF I’ve seen so many… experienced a large sample size compared to most other brands.

I’ve tried to find value in Ilya’s stuff. But the fact that he doesn’t test for THE most important quality in any rifle scope, but then writes pages about stuff that matters less and is virtually all just fine these days,

I’m not saying there’s no value in testing an optic for reliability. Ultimately I’m ok with low sample size when it comes to the sample sitting on top of my rifle. I bang my personal scopes around and test them. I bang my rifles around with optics attached to test the mounting system etc. I care that my set up will hold zero whether it’s a match rifle or a hunting rifle.

I’ve never had an S&B fail, never seen one fail, but if I had a large enough sample size I would find a failure. I have personally never had a Kahles fail, but I have seen one fail. I would still recommend them if someone wanted a scope that holds zero. Frankly NF haven’t faired as well from what I’ve seen personally. You obviously have never seen a NF fail and if that’s the case I’d stick to what you trust. I’d suggest this faith comes from small sample size but you don’t buy into that argument… it’s all good. Your NF ATACR and my Zeiss S3 come from the same factory and largely share design in terms of the parts that make them reliable. This reality should influence our understanding of modern optics brands and our opinions of them.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

I’ve tried to find value in Ilya’s stuff. But the fact that he doesn’t test for THE most important quality in any rifle scope, but then writes pages about stuff that matters less and is virtually all just fine these days, leaves me scratching my head. It’s truly missing the forest for the trees.

I don’t buy the low sample size argument. If there is a problem with a design, and all scopes of that particular model are designed according to the same specs, then if one fails, odds are the rest will too.

When NHTSA does crash testing on a particular make/model of a vehicle, how many samples do they use? It can’t be many. They are looking for flaws in the design. This is the same concept.

Or, to rule out the low sample argument, a scope manufacturer could just do their damn job and do the testing for us and build stuff that works. Wouldn’t that be nice. Then maybe we’d have more than just Nightforce to rely on.

100% to all of this.

 

[bluekiss]

I think Zeiss is better. I would expect the NF to be more durable with less obnoxious turrets.

 

[fwafwow]

100% to all of this.

IIRC he has also alleged (I don’t believe with any support) that the drop tests here are biased due to payment or other incentives. Yet he has links on at least one of his sites that he readily admits result in payments to him.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’ve never had an S&B fail, never seen one fail

S&B has the nickname "Shift & Bender" in the PRS/NRL scene. Apparently their reputation is not amazing on reliability. Having said that, the European version of their 6-36x56 that isn't restricted by Swarovski's moronic patent is supposedly amazing optically.

Your NF ATACR and my Zeiss S3 come from the same factory and largely share design in terms of the parts that make them reliable

I don't agree on that. Companies are not giving LOW their internal specs. Vortex Razors, for instance, are made in the LOW facility and then when they arrive at Vortex HQ, Vortex switches out all of the internals on them. I don't believe for a second that NF, as much as they guard their reputation for reliability, is giving their internal specs to LOW either.

I do agree that part of Nightforce's bulletproof reputation is the result of very aggressive marketing and that NF scopes do fail, though probably at lower rates than most other manufacturers.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I know someone that has a v4 that’s worked flawlessly. He just completed year 4 with it. No POI shifts, no issues. Very clear glass

 

[SDHNTR]

I understand where you’re coming from but If this were true any optic you find to fail would bankrupt a manufacturer if they offered any sort of warranty. You mention NF as a standout in reliability….

I’ve seen many NF products fail over the years… even on the ATACR which I personally consider to be a reliable and robust product. I even witnessed an ATACR fail that was owned by the other instructor of a class in which one students NXS failed. If someone was looking for a reliable optic I would not steal them away from an ATACR. I lost zero on some of my personal NF scopes also had buddies personal NF products fail. I’m not knocking NF I’ve seen so many… experienced a large sample size compared to most other brands.


I’m not saying there’s no value in testing an optic for reliability. Ultimately I’m ok with low sample size when it comes to the sample sitting on top of my rifle. I bang my personal scopes around and test them. I bang my rifles around with optics attached to test the mounting system etc. I care that my set up will hold zero whether it’s a match rifle or a hunting rifle.

I’ve never had an S&B fail, never seen one fail, but if I had a large enough sample size I would find a failure. I have personally never had a Kahles fail, but I have seen one fail. I would still recommend them if someone wanted a scope that holds zero. Frankly NF haven’t faired as well from what I’ve seen personally. You obviously have never seen a NF fail and if that’s the case I’d stick to what you trust. I’d suggest this faith comes from small sample size but you don’t buy into that argument… it’s all good. Your NF ATACR and my Zeiss S3 come from the same factory and largely share design in terms of the parts that make them reliable. This reality should influence our understanding of modern optics brands and our opinions of them.

I’ve heard Ilya make the same argument, that they are all LOW built so all essentially the same. As if their design standards don’t matter. Funny.

FWIW, I don’t own an ATACR either.

 

[JohnJohnson]

FWIW, I don’t own an ATACR either.

I bought a 5-25 ATACR last month since it was on sale and immediately returned it to buy another Razor GIII 6-36. It's for match purposes, not hunting purposes, and the negatives outweighed the positives for my uses. I wish NF would overhaul the ATACR design entirely, it's becoming pretty antiquated. The dumb rotating ocular, tunneling between 5-7 power, and limited FOV make choosing to buy one difficult these days especially around a $3,000 MAP.

 

[SDHNTR]

There are a lot of things I wish NF would do differently. They are far from perfect. That said, overall, they remain the best option IMO.

 

[NevadaMike]

I would have no hesitation about getting the Zeiss at that price. I have two V4 scopes in Alaska that get soaked and bounced around and a V6 on my Nevada/Idaho 7mm PRC. They have all been great. At a little weekend shooting class last year my V6 on a Seekins element was able to take the last day shooting competition at milk jugs out to 1000 yards. I was shooting against a 26 pound, Nightforce wearing 300 PRC and a few other super class platforms. I am not saying they will or won't survive a 36” drop but I don't plan on doing that any time soon. I zeroed my V4 on a Tikka 6.5 CM years ago and put a custom cut turret on it. Its my loaner rifle. I have never needed to adjust zero. I take it out to the range and confirm at one hundred and then out to 350 with the 12” gong so they are confident with the rifle. I am not saying it isn't deviating from year to year but it sure is not enough to notice.

 

[AlpineBeard]

I’ve heard Ilya make the same argument, that they are all LOW built so all essentially the same. As if their design standards don’t matter. Funny.

FWIW, I don’t own an ATACR either.

Too bad, they are nice scopes. You should get one . I’m sorry if I’ve said something that sticks in your craw… I was just sharing my opinion based on what I’ve seen as well as a potential source of useful information.

I don’t worship Ilya, but he is an expert in the field. Obviously you are taking your time to listen to him as well. I’m not an expert on rifle scopes, I’ve said this before. Maybe you are. I don’t take anyone word at gospel but given that Ilya has relationships with these companies and the optical engineers I have to take his word… if you have information to the contrary please enlighten us.

Obviously scopes coming from LOW have differences and manufacturers can change specs where possible, if they like. Most of the differences are obviously cosmetic or ergonomic. They can also enforce their own QC protocols etc. Some of the design and engineering are the same, especially those components that would relate to the erector system etc. If there were significant differences in the design we’d see larger variations in FOV, total adjustment range, etc.

I’m glad your NF scopes have worked so well for you but they can and do fail. I’ve seen it.

 

[SDHNTR]

He gives a clear explanation of why he doesn’t do this type of testing… with a small sample size the results would be misleading in both directions. You would need access to the warranty data. Unfortunately it generally comes down to marketing until a product has been out long enough to develop a good or bad reputation… but the bias helps prop up misconceptions for a long time or in some cases long enough for a manufacturer to get its act together.

I know a couple guys who’ve worked for multiple “American” rifle scope manufacturers and have supposedly seen this data… you also have to keep in mind some end users could get a faulty product but not realize it… other send scopes back that are functioning perfectly. The latter results were supposedly accounted for. All I’ll say is the results I have seen while instructing, the results reported to me and the general public consensus don’t all align. Marketing is king.

Yes, Marketing absolutely is king. Especially good marketing that demonstrates a product is dependable. As such, NF deserves their sales. Which begs the question, why does no other scope manufacturer utilize similar marketing material? You can’t tell me Zeiss, or anybody else, wouldn’t sell more scopes if they marketed some video material showing torture testing. If they believe in their product, it makes you wonder why they don’t.

 

[SDHNTR]

Too bad, they are nice scopes. You should get one . I’m sorry if I’ve said something that sticks in your craw… I was just sharing my opinion based on what I’ve seen as well as a potential source of useful information.

I don’t worship Ilya, but he is an expert in the field. Obviously you are taking your time to listen to him as well. I’m not an expert on rifle scopes, I’ve said this before. Maybe you are. I don’t take anyone word at gospel but given that Ilya has relationships with these companies and the optical engineers I have to take his word… if you have information to the contrary please enlighten us.

Obviously scopes coming from LOW have differences and manufacturers can change specs where possible, if they like. Most of the differences are obviously cosmetic or ergonomic. They can also enforce their own QC protocols etc. Some of the design and engineering are the same, especially those components that would relate to the erector system etc. If there were significant differences in the design we’d see larger variations in FOV, total adjustment range, etc.

I’m glad your NF scopes have worked so well for you but they can and do fail. I’ve seen it.

Nothing stuck in my craw. You posted an intelligent and polite response. I certainly respect opinions and takes that are different from my own, as long as they are presented respectfully, as you did. No bad ju ju here.

 

[AlpineBeard]

S&B has the nickname "Shift & Bender" in the PRS/NRL scene. Apparently their reputation is not amazing on reliability. Having said that, the European version of their 6-36x56 that isn't restricted by Swarovski's moronic patent is supposedly amazing optically.

Again, I see a much smaller sample size of S&B. I own a couple personally and have had no issues. They are expensive scopes and much less popular compare to NF, Leupold, Vortex.

I don't agree on that. Companies are not giving LOW their internal specs. Vortex Razors, for instance, are made in the LOW facility and then when they arrive at Vortex HQ, Vortex switches out all of the internals on them. I don't believe for a second that NF, as much as they guard their reputation for reliability, is giving their internal specs to LOW either.

If by internals you mean the turrets, yes, but I don’t believe they are changing out the erector system, spring etc.

I do agree that part of Nightforce's bulletproof reputation is the result of very aggressive marketing and that NF scopes do fail, though probably at lower rates than most other manufacturers.

I don’t hesitate to recommend ATACR scopes personally based on what I’ve seen, but they do fail occasionally as well.

 

[SDHNTR]

Again, I see a much smaller sample size of S&B. I own a couple personally and have had no issues. They are expensive scopes and much less popular compare to NF, Leupold, Vortex.

If by internals you mean the turrets, yes, but I don’t believe they are changing out the erector system, spring etc.


I don’t hesitate to recommend ATACR scopes personally based on what I’ve seen, but they do fail occasionally as well.

I think a lot of what makes NF so durable is simply their thicker tube walls.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I bought a 5-25 ATACR last month since it was on sale and immediately returned it to buy another Razor GIII 6-36. It's for match purposes, not hunting purposes, and the negatives outweighed the positives for my uses. I wish NF would overhaul the ATACR design entirely, it's becoming pretty antiquated. The dumb rotating ocular, tunneling between 5-7 power, and limited FOV make choosing to buy one difficult these days especially around a $3,000 MAP.

100%
I've spent the past two months checking out atacrs for my match rifle.
I took a gen3 Razor, Atacr5-25, and an atacr 7-35 out for about 30 minutes for some optical comparisons.

I immediately noticed the 5-25 was super disappointing in every optical category, honestly I'm shocked how bad it sucked for a $3000 scope.

The 7-35 and Gen 3 Razor were too close to call, I will say though at $3600 the 7-35 is underwhelming. We're talking $350 off ZCO territory, which is ultimately where I landed.

NF really needs to up their game, I think they would have already if so many people weren't duped by their "bullet proof" marketing.
That pick of an NXS with a bullet hole through the tube made those Jokers a fortune..

 

[Hotmail]

I personally think Nightforce would be more reliable than Zeiss plus another thing to consider is the warranty and customer service. I do own one Zeiss which is an older Conquest V4 and bought it because I just couldn't pass up the deal. I didn't know about the possibility of warranty delays in turn around time back then. I own many Leupolds and only one scope so far has to be sent in for warranty after over 20+ years due to broken extremely fine crosshair reticle while zero problems with the rest of them and always held zero and tracked reliably.

I personally avoid buying Zeiss brand after hearing horror stories regarding folks who sent their Zeiss products in for warranty that needed to be sent to Germany and the extremely long wait time. This is the main reason why I chose to buy several Vortex Razor Gen 3s instead of the cheaper Zeiss LRP S3s.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

I personally think Nightforce would be more reliable than Zeiss plus another thing to consider is the warranty and customer service. I do own one Zeiss which is an older Conquest V4 and bought it because I just couldn't pass up the deal. I didn't know about the possibility of warranty delays in turn around time back then. I own many Leupolds and only one scope so far has to be sent in for warranty after over 20+ years due to broken extremely fine crosshair reticle while zero problems with the rest of them and always held zero and tracked reliably.

I personally avoid buying Zeiss brand after hearing horror stories regarding folks who sent their Zeiss products in for warranty that needed to be sent to Germany and the extremely long wait time. This is the main reason why I chose to buy several Vortex Razor Gen 3s instead of the cheaper Zeiss LRP S3s.

I can speak to zeiss customer service from awhile back.
I had the parallax knob on an old model conquest start slipping, I sent it in to their headquarters in CA and within a week they sent me a brand new HD5.

 

[NevadaMike]

When NHTSA does crash testing on a particular make/model of a vehicle, how many samples do they use? It can’t be many. They are looking for flaws in the design. This is the same concept.

It is interesting to me that I have seen this reference twice here in a few days. The first time I saw this as a public safety I guy I thought hmm I would like to know. As it turns out they test several. I could not get an exact number for NHTSA but manufacturers test many. I learned Volvo tests as many as 70 vehicles per year. What I do find significant is the testing is very precise and repeatable every time. The vehicle is mounted to a rail where it strikes the offset barrier at exactly the same speed and position every time for every manufacturer. Even the crash test dummies weight the same, the atmospherics are the same and so on. The same applies to side and roof intrusion impacts and all other testing.

 

[JGRaider]

Bottom line around here is that Illya's expertise, and everything except NF, SWFA, and Trijicon sucks. Be prepared to be left hanging if you believe (or have proven) otherwise.