I think we suffer from a bit of confirmation bias here on RS meaning we get the results we want to see. We obsess over 10 to 30 shot groups, powder measurements to .02 grains or better, primer seating depth rifle platforms and so on.
The general theme of people that are focused on scope zero retention here is to not obsess over powder measurements, primer seating depth, etc.
Unless you have a huge shift, atmospherics alone can make a difference.
There are no atmospherics other than heavy wind that cause a noticeable change in zero at 100 yards.
We have ammo, the shooter, action screws and bedding, rings and so on.
If those were some hard to account for issue, then no rifle system ever would stay zeroed. They’re not.
If we take leupold scopes and the perception here there is no way the leading competitors would use them.
Why? I have shot matches for over 20 years- there is nothing taxing on equipment in almost any match in the country.
Beyond that, those same competitors have to have the bolt back on their rifle to move 6” to another port or ledge on a barricaded because none of their rifles/triggers are drop safe- but by your inference, having a rifle that doesn’t fire when dropped isn’t important because all those competitors don’t see rifles having ND’s. So too the actions and triggers that are demonstrably fragile with regards to dust/ice/sand/debris-that too wouldn’t matter, after all the competitors are using them. And by that same line of reasoning, you don’t need a 6-8lb rifle for hunting, just use a 28lb comp rifles for hunting, because the competitors are.
Using a competition as a means to gather information about techniques, equipment, etc. for hunting may be a way to make decisions lacking any better available, or- conflicting information, but one must weigh the competition as to how relevant the scenario is, equipment, and overall goal is to one’s hunting to do so. Stating “xyz item is used, therefor must be good” in tripod and barricade benchrest matches with no real inclement weather, and when checking zero and ability to rezero- is not a proper use of the competition for information.
Juxtapose what you believe you are seeing as information over what if any backdrops are in place to mitigate or eliminate variables or failures from that information. Saying “x” scopes work because they are used at matches should be immediately suspect due to the fact that nearly all matches have zeroing ranges to check zero and/or rezero.
After being a RO for two NRL Hunter events
These events- do they have a zeroing range available? If so, do most use them to check zero? If they do, how many make an adjustment to their zero?
Of the shooters that don’t use the zeroing range, how many haven’t touched their zero at all in the last 6-8 months of use?
I have seen Leupold to be the most popular by far.
Sure. At matches where people baby their gear, and get to check zero and rezero.
For testing to have any real statistical validity in my mind controls would need to have much tighter tolerances. Multiple scopes would need to be tested on the same day, dropped off of some platform or jig, at the same temperature, mounted in the same rings with some ridiculously precise ammo and so on. It would then need to be tested in some type of jig taking us out of the equation. The scope could also be moved to a collimator further elimination variables.
That’s incorrect- insofar as a failure “test”. Car manufacturers do not crash test 10 identical cars in the identical test in order to see if the engines get pushed back into the drivers seat. Likewise, Lockheed Martin does not drop 10 identical planes during development to check the failure of the plane in a crash- they test one, maybe two.
To see an average relatively small difference between items large sample sizes are needed. For instance, to see the difference in long term zero retention between Nightforce’s SFP NX8 4-32x and FFP NX8 4-32x’s you might need 20-30 samples (or more), however to see if a scope design will hold zero through a 20” drop on a golf course- you only need a couple, and the very first one gives a decent indication of what you will find. 2x of the same model failing to hold zero is almost a certainty that there is an issue, and 3x it IS an issue. Just like if a 30mph rear end causes the motor to be pushed through the front seats into the rear seats- that’s a design issue and testing 10 more is a waste of time.
Even better the optic could be mounted in a jig and subject to varying levels of shock like the manufacturers do and then moved to the collimator.
Shock and vibration is one part of zero retention; bending and stress in the tube and turrets are another.
Maybe it’s just me but I gladly snap up $700 VX-5 scopes people sell here because they have lost confidence with it. I can slap that thing on a Ruger American Gen 2 in a good set of rings and have a 500 yard rig all day long and twice on Sunday. I actually shoot Seekins but you get the idea.
Ok? Good luck with that. The last 3x VX5’s I watched shooters use had zero shifts large enough to cause misses at 400 yards on an 8” plate before 400 rounds. Same two the last LRP’s, and VX3 HD’s.