Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[Dobermann]

I know it's not up to us to say what scopes Form should test and/or Ryan should arrange to be tested.

But I wonder if we can still have a thread where we list the scopes we'd love to see tested - and possibly some context for why.

Here were my initial suggestions from the Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards thread:

• ZCO - with Jeff behind it, and listening to his discussion of the internals, I'd expect them to do well.
• Bushnell XRSIII and DMRIII - I think Form mentioned that some of the folks behind the original Elite Tactical line left, and he started to see some QC issues towards the end of the last iteration of scopes; would be interesting to see what the new ones are like.
• Bushnell LRHS 2 - only available through GAP; would be interesting to see if they both retained the old internals, as well as current QC.
• Zeisss LRP S5 - as it's had good reports so far, but I haven't seen any drop tests; personally, I'd love for Zeiss to get their scopes up to scratch.
• As others have stated, the new Leupy - Form has said he'd love to see Leupold do well; again, it's picking up traction in the comp world, but then they also have sponsored shooters. More important to me is that Jacob at RO has recently been singing their praises ... would be good to know one way or another.
• While we're at it, I guess the new Razor Gen-whatever ... ho-hum.
• NF SHV F1 - I know Form has said he's generally found them reliable, but they're probably the best entry option for NF, so would be good to have a documented test.

Since then, I've been thinking it would be interesting to see if there are any LOW-produced scopes that have similar internals to the Elite Tactical line.

Specifically, I know Frank has reported that Athlon Cronus and Ares s have held up well in his and Marc's tracking evals.

The Delta Stryker has had some positive reviews, but I'm not sure I've seen any serious tracking testing, RTZ, zero hold, etc.

Anyway, what else would you like to see tested?

[And mods: please delete if this isn't appropriate for any reason!]

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I wouldn't mind seeing some tests on the credo line from trijicon myself!

 

[cmahoney]

A March


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RussDXT]

Would like to see how the Burris XTR 3 and pro fair. Being made in the USA they seem to be doing well and built like a tank.

Also the higher end Sig scopes (Japan made) like the tango 6 and Whiskey5.

 

[Blackdog317]

Leica Amplus 6 3-18x44
Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15x42

 

[kickemall]

Zeiss V4 but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t like the results.
Definitely the Trijicon Creedo after the Zeiss fails.
Edit - Add a Leupold MK5

 

[madcalfe]

kahles k3-18i

 

[SDHNTR]

Tract Toric 2.5-15x50 UHD

 

[Lawnboi]

LRHS2, If they are good I’d likely grab one here pretty quick

 

[zion zig zag]

Put me down for the Trijicon Credo as well.

 

[JAM7]

Would like to see how the Burris XTR 3 and pro fair. Being made in the USA they seem to be doing well and built like a tank.

Also the higher end Sig scopes (Japan made) like the tango 6 and Whiskey5.

I’ll second the Burris XTR 3.

 

[MidGAHunter]

•ZCO
•A second Tangent Theta (just to see if the first was a fluke or not)
•Leupold Mark 5
•Leupold VX5HD

 

[prm]

I’ll be different. How about a 2.5-8x36 VX3i. Not concerned about the dialing part, just holding zero if getting bumped around.

I have a 2.5-15x42 Credo, but it’s SFP with Mil reticle.

 

[Maverick1]

For inexpensive grins, some of the lower end brands. Tasco. Simmons. Barska. CVLIFE.

You never know, one of them might surprise you!

Also kind of looking forward to how poorly they would perform. “Reticle loose after second shot”. “Failed drop test from one inch”.

 

[Dioni A]

LRHS2, If they are good I’d likely grab one here pretty quick

I've had one of these and multiple LRTS/lrhs scopes. It's completely identical with the exception of upgraded glass and very slightly different donut on the reticle. Otherwise they weigh the exact same and are 100% the same

 

[JollyRoger]

I think you named off everything on the list I’d be interested in seeing.

SHV F1
ZCO 4-20
LRHS2 4.5-18… I like the looks of this reticle on paper, would love to hear more about its usability compared to the NF offerings for hunting and steel from 0-800 or so

We hear and see SWFA a ton but seeing all the steps would be nice. I’ve got 2 3-9s, and a 3-15 and I they’ve been good to me so far. But I’m not dropping them and doing the same procedures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SDHNTR]

Another thing I would love to see, would be an official manufacturer response to one of these tests? I’d kind of like to see see their explanation. That ever happened?

 

[freddyG]

A March


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. At their lower weight, I’d expect them to do poor, but they really don’t have much bad feedback.

 

[freddyG]

I’ll be different. How about a 2.5-8x36 VX3i. Not concerned about the dialing part, just holding zero if getting bumped around.

That’s one of the most fragile scopes there is. A lot of them come fubar right out of the box. I have seen this firsthand, and it seems the newer the scope, the quicker it wil fail.

 

[Formidilosus]

Another thing I would love to see, would be an official manufacturer response to one of these tests? I’d kind of like to see see their explanation. That ever happened?

Not publicly. The only real response is generally to ignore, or if they do address it, passive aggressive attempts to make it personal. I have no desire to get into a back and forth with any company. The results are what they are good or bad. I am just the shooter.

There are a couple of companies that take info seriously, want details or to see it, and then correct the product. Unsurprisingly those tend to work.