Zeiss durability vs NF, Trijicon?

[Macintosh]

… It’s your vote of confidence and if you only trust one candidate that’s the scope of the matter…

Yes. One possible quibble though, but not sure if Im understanding this correctly. It sounds like you’re suggesting I only trust the “one source” of the evals and no one else (no one else= the “instructors and end users” you referred to?). If thats what you meant that’s exactly the opposite of what I am saying—Im saying I trust transparent data that can be reproduced, and that I dont trust ANY non data-driven conclusion. The whole point is that I dont have to trust anyone, because I can see the whole process, see the result and make my own judgement, and even reproduce it on my own. I simply dont count anecdotal, verbal assurances nearly as much as I do transparent data. To me its just not an information pool UNTIL it is based on transparent data that I can see myself. By that measure I dont see any other information available.

BUT, any of us have the ability to document that our equipment is zeroed, and show subsequent zero checks over multiple range trips with a description of usage in between (or better yet a video so theres no need to interpret or guess). Anyone on this forum with a gun and a cell phone has the ability to easily do this with virtually zero extra effort from a normal range trip, yet no one does, and especially none of the folks constantly trying to discount the evals ever does that Ive ever seen. People keep asking for more data, and counter only with verbal, anecdotal stories—thats not data. If people think the only data we have is wrong, the only effective way to counter is with data that shows that, so BRING DATA.

 

[LostWapiti]

I’ve got a Zeiss V4 on a 280ai and it has performed perfectly for a few years and used it to take an elk at 500 as well as many other animals.

 

[plebe]

Yes. One possible quibble though, but not sure if Im understanding this correctly. It sounds like you’re suggesting I only trust the “one source” of the evals and no one else (no one else= the “instructors and end users” you referred to?). If thats what you meant that’s exactly the opposite of what I am saying—Im saying I trust transparent data that can be reproduced, and that I dont trust ANY non data-driven conclusion. The whole point is that I dont have to trust anyone, because I can see the whole process, see the result and make my own judgement, and even reproduce it on my own. I simply dont count anecdotal, verbal assurances nearly as much as I do transparent data. To me its just not an information pool UNTIL it is based on transparent data that I can see myself. By that measure I dont see any other information available.

BUT, any of us have the ability to document that our equipment is zeroed, and show subsequent zero checks over multiple range trips with a description of usage in between (or better yet a video so theres no need to interpret or guess). Anyone on this forum with a gun and a cell phone has the ability to easily do this with virtually zero extra effort from a normal range trip, yet no one does, and especially none of the folks constantly trying to discount the evals ever does that Ive ever seen. People keep asking for more data, and counter only with verbal, anecdotal stories—thats not data. If people think the only data we have is wrong, the only effective way to counter is with data that shows that, so BRING DATA.

It’s a bit ironic to be pressed for more data when my initial proposition is more data is necessary, lol.

 

[Macintosh]

Ironic, perhaps. But yes, data is exactly whats missing. This should not be an argument, it should be an experiment.

 

[MidGAHunter]

It’s when a single scope is the judge and jury, I’ll look for more.

I agree that a test of one and only one scope should not be judge and jury, but a failed test should absolutely give you pause, statistically speaking. Two scopes failing I'd say most certainly begin to point to a design flaw. Two scopes passing point to the potential for a good design, but still needs more samples (again just based on simple statistics). I think we are up to about ten of the Maven RS 1.2 between Forms two test scopes and the Roksliders who are putting theirs through the paces (myself included). We all want more data, especially when scopes pass but no one else is doing these tests. I'd say two consecutive scopes failing points to the need for a scope redesign.

 

[plebe]

Ironic, perhaps. But yes, data is exactly whats missing. This should not be an argument, it should be an experiment.

Again I’m all for more data. But where it’s lacking, as in the cases of 1/1 scope evaluations, I look to other information/resources.

I’m not the only one.

I’ve had a 3-12x42 klassik for a bit over a year now. I have a few areas where Id change it a bit if I could, but overall its a great scope and I would buy one again if I were in the market.

Likes:
Solid reputation for reliability—above drop test and some relevant PM’s, a few friends, lots of online research all pointed toward it being a pretty darn reliable scope. Plus my own “united airlines baggage test”, in addition to a year of slipping up and down snow covered mountains (including one very hard fall where I went ass over teakettle, fully airborne, and landed HARD, full body weight onto the rifle), and zero has not shifted at all—not even one click. Ive checked multiple times.

 

[Macintosh]

Touche, but only sort of and it’s still missing my point. Totally fair to call out my own attempt tomget more data, ie this was my thought process:
-I dont have a drop test to refer to for that exact scope, but I have same brand/model. So go look for corroborating evidence.(more data/info)
-i have the verbal statements when asked directly that they are generally reliable FROM PEOPLE WHO TEND TO FIND PROBLEMS WITH SCOPES. (The source matters)
-enough to take a risk buying, and then do my own decision making…ie objective and subjective “trials” with frequent checks to see any issues. (Make my own decision based on the info I have, but verify objectively)

The problem I have is when the “robust information pool” that I think people consider the “alternative” consists virtually entirely of statements that, in their entirety, consist of “Ive used my scope successfully for years with no problems”. MAYBE including a bragworthy taxidermy collection or a single 3 or 5-shot sub-mos group on a pice of paper. This is NOT data, my point is that a statement like this, unqualified, is MEANINGLESS to me, ie I discount it almost entirely without much more info.

Yes, having more drop evals would be better. But a single drop eval is a single piece of DATA complete with a documented methodology, a control, a solid attempt at controlling variables, a defined threshold for pass/fail, etc. A statement of success without info on how it was arrived at is NOT DATA.

The data on one side needs to have more data points, yes. But as far as I have seen there IS NO data on the other side of the conversation, only stories.

Earlier, someone—maybe you?— asked what happens when you have conflicting info. This is exactly the case we are in, and this is exactly the question Im telling you my answer to. I am saying that I put more weight behind one drop eval than I do around 100 or 500 unqualified verbal statements. One piece of data trumps 500 anecdotal statements. Thats what I am saying. I have ONE data point.
Conversely, I have verbal statements that conflict with this. Its the conflicting verbal statements that need data in order for me to consider them with anything approaching the weight I give to an actual “data point”.

 

[Butcher8]

For the money it’s hard to find more features or better glass. The Maven RS.5 looks like it would be a great option too. It wasn’t available when I bought my V4. Red hawk rifles typically has demo models of the V4 at a discounted $

 

[plebe]

Touche, but only sort of and still missing the point. Totally fair to call out my own attempt tomget more data, ie this was my thiught process:
-I dont have a drop test to refer to for that exact scope, but I have same brand/model. So go look for corroborating evidence.
-i have the verbal statements when asked directly that they are generally reliable FROM PEOPLE WHO TEND TO FIND PROBLEMS WITH SCOPES. (The source matters)
-enough to take a risk buying, and then do my own decision making…ie objective and subjective “trials” with frequent checks to see any issues. (Make my own decision based on the info I have, but verify objectively)

The problem I have is when the “robust information pool” that think people consider the “alternative” consists virtually entirely of statements that, in their entirety, consist of “Ive used my scope successfully for years with no problems”. MAYBE including a bragworthy taxidermy collection or a single 3 or 5-shot sub-mos group on a pice of paper. This is NOT data, my point is that a statement like this, unqualified, is MEANINGLESS, ie I discount it almost entirely without much more info.

Yes, having more drop evals would be better. But a single drop eval is a single piece of DATA complete with a documented methodology, a control, a solid attempt at controlling variables, a defined threshold for pass/fail, etc. A statement of success without info on how it was arrived at is NOT DATA.

The data on one side needs to be more robust, yes. But as far as I have seen there IS NO data on the other side of the conversation, only stories.

Earlier, someone—maybe you?— asked what happens when you have conflicting info. This is exactly the case we are in, and this is exactly the question Im telling you my answer to. I am saying that I put more weight behind one drop eval than I do around 100 or 500 unqualified verbal statements. One piece of data trumps 500 anecdotal statements. Thats what I am saying. I have ONE data point. Plus conflicting verbal statements. Its the conflicting verbal statements that need data.

I never said accept any and all information at face value. I agree, that would be stupid. The inference seems, frankly, disparaging.

You used a process to vet information, much like I would. The resources you’ve mentioned are consistent with what I’ve mentioned.

So I guess where we differ then is that in the case of singular Rokslide scope evaluations,
I just won’t put my eggs in one basket, while you will.

I’ll remind you where I pulled that last quote from: a post you made in a thread called Schmidt and Bender Reliability, in which OP was searching for Rokslide evaluations or in the absence of such testing, critiques from users of a couple of S&B scopes. You were willing to share your opinion, some anecdotal information, and even referenced a Rokslide test unrelated to the specific scope models in question. Did I find it to be a totally useless post? Not necessarily. But by your standard…

Im saying I trust transparent data that can be reproduced, and that I dont trust ANY non data-driven conclusion. The whole point is that I dont have to trust anyone, because I can see the whole process, see the result and make my own judgement, and even reproduce it on my own. I simply dont count anecdotal, verbal assurances nearly as much as I do transparent data. To me its just not an information pool UNTIL it is based on transparent data that I can see myself. By that measure I dont see any other information available.

Why bother to share at all?

 

[Macintosh]

Sure, the same model scope in a different magnification was successfully evaled, I spoke with a couple owners about their experiences, pm’d with form about his experience, bought the scope, and tracked my zero meticulously. Why share without photos and details? I guess trying to be helpful to someone in the same position Ive been in without writing a book. Maybe some ego. A dose of expediency. And maybe even some laziness. Probably all the above. I cant say that its perfectly consistent. And it might be disparaging, unfortunately what I see in-person makes me overly cautious with vague internet statements. But in the absence of real data I gave my experience. Had someone asked for more info I could easily share zeroing methodology and targets with periodic dated notes on zero checks and after the mentioned mishaps. Is it scientific? Probably not. Is my statement something of a double standard? Maybe. But I do stand by it, when presented with conflicting info Im going to err on the side of the data and if folks providing anecdotes cant or wont provide more info I’m going to discount the anecdotes even if the sample sizes are lopsided. I wont, and I dont expect others to, post a full data set on every post. But I do think its prudent when info is conflicting or when someone is directly trying to refute the data to give a lot more credence to those who take the time to document their results so people have the appropriate context to put it in. That seems eminently reasonable to me.

 

[TREE ‘EM]

I’ve owned several of all three brands the OP listed.

Based on personal experience, I’d recommend Trijicon, and don’t look back.

They all can, will and do all fail at some point. If and when yours does, Trijicon has the absolute best Customer Service of the three. Nightforce has far and away the worst CS.

 

[Farwest]

I have two Leupold Mark 5 3.6x18x44's; a Zeiss S3 LRP 4.5x25x50 ,and two Nightforce 5x25's. All have been excellent scopes.