Satori of rifle scopes

Will you continue to purchase scopes from companies that do not have impact testing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • No

    Votes: 26 81.3%

  • Total voters
    32

Sled

WKR
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
2,148
Location
Utah
@Formidilosus

To get the definition out of the way:
What is the difference between satori and nirvana? Nirvana is a permanent state of enlightenment, whereas satori is a temporary state that is experienced with increasing frequency and intensity.

For those that haven't seen the new sub forum: Field Evaluations

Formidilosus and company deserve a huge thanks for bringing these issues to light. As a person who travels rough roads and steep mountains, it's helped me understand "unreliable rifle" problems much more. My hope is that this "satori" will eventually become "nirvana" as the scope manufacturers realize that the people who purchase their optics refuse to accept less than reliable scopes. There will always be a market for low end cheaply made scopes but there should be a mid and upper end of the market that is reliable through most conditions a western hunting rifle may face. We aren't carrying a Swarovski crystal vase out there. A trip down a rough road or a scope falling from a leaned fence post shouldn't cause your hunt to stop. NF seems to have figured it out, albeit probably a tougher scope than 95% of us need. SWFA and Trijicon seem to have hit the nail on the head as far as what's needed for the majority of users. My hope is that new companies like Tract & Maven ( @JW@TRACT ) can make headway in the market by taking advantage of the gap between companies like Nightforce and Leupold.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
1,102
Can you describe in some level of detail the impact testing that NF, Trijicon and SWFA use? How does that differ from what Meopta does?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
2,956
Not paying a premium just to have a passing score on a “drop tested” scope for some applications.

You (generic) can care about a “drop tested” scope for your kid’s or grandkid’s Cricket and/or pellet gun. You (generic) can care about a “drop tested” scope for a squirrel or rabbit gun. I personally don’t give a crap and won’t pay “up” for it.

Other hunts and hunt types we absolutely should pick up a “drop tested” or equivalent scope.

Form’s testing has been eye opening and immensely helpful. It’s also going to be lightening my wallet by a sizable chunk in the near future.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,230
@Formidilosus

To get the definition out of the way:
What is the difference between satori and nirvana? Nirvana is a permanent state of enlightenment, whereas satori is a temporary state that is experienced with increasing frequency and intensity.

For those that haven't seen the new sub forum: Field Evaluations

Formidilosus and company deserve a huge thanks for bringing these issues to light. As a person who travels rough roads and steep mountains, it's helped me understand "unreliable rifle" problems much more. My hope is that this "satori" will eventually become "nirvana" as the scope manufacturers realize that the people who purchase their optics refuse to accept less than reliable scopes. There will always be a market for low end cheaply made scopes but there should be a mid and upper end of the market that is reliable through most conditions a western hunting rifle may face. We aren't carrying a Swarovski crystal vase out there. A trip down a rough road or a scope falling from a leaned fence post shouldn't cause your hunt to stop. NF seems to have figured it out, albeit probably a tougher scope than 95% of us need. SWFA and Trijicon seem to have hit the nail on the head as far as what's needed for the majority of users. My hope is that new companies like Tract & Maven ( @JW@TRACT ) can make headway in the market by taking advantage of the gap between companies like Nightforce and Leupold.
I think we also have to remember that these are samples of one. Google “Nightforce Customer Service” and you will see that plenty of their scopes fail, even at inopportune times. And their customer service sucks - took a lawsuit last year to resolve one issue, I think it is documented over on the hide.

Having said that, I compare Nightforce and Trijicon to Toyota and Honda. If you prioritize reliability, they are your best bet.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,230
Not paying a premium just to have a passing score on a “drop tested” scope for some applications.

You (generic) can care about a “drop tested” scope for your kid’s or grandkid’s Cricket and/or pellet gun. You (generic) can care about a “drop tested” scope for a squirrel or rabbit gun. I personally don’t give a crap and won’t pay “up” for it.

Other hunts and hunt types we absolutely should pick up a “drop tested” or equivalent scope.

Form’s testing has been eye opening and immensely helpful. It’s also going to be lightening my wallet by a sizable chunk in the near future.
I agree with this. My son (14) has Vortex HS-Ts and a gen 1 PST on his rifles. He can shoot out to 1250 with me. The glass and reliability isn’t amazing, but we haven’t had any issues with it. He has had these for a few years now and I knew if something failed he could always shoot my gun. I also wasn’t going to stress about it getting beat up on hunts, because kids will be kids. Perfect for what we want it to do.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
1,102
Not paying a premium just to have a passing score on a “drop tested” scope for some applications.

You (generic) can care about a “drop tested” scope for your kid’s or grandkid’s Cricket and/or pellet gun. You (generic) can care about a “drop tested” scope for a squirrel or rabbit gun. I personally don’t give a crap and won’t pay “up” for it.

Other hunts and hunt types we absolutely should pick up a “drop tested” or equivalent scope.

Form’s testing has been eye opening and immensely helpful. It’s also going to be lightening my wallet by a sizable chunk in the near future.

I have found his testing to be very interesting. I am fascinated by the cult it has created. For decades, people put scopes on their guns, took to the woods, plains, deserts and mountains and killed animals with them, not knowing that one day those scopes wouldn't measure up. In fact, when I look around me at the range and at hunting camps, it occurs to me that the overwhelming majority of hunters are still using scopes that don't measure up. But freezers are still being filled in spite of the rampant ignorance.

In fairness, range finders, modern scopes, readily available reliable ballistics tables and such have made it possible to stretch distances out to a point that a little bit off makes a lot of difference.

I used to put a rifle in a cheap soft case, strap it to my Suzuki 160 4 wheeler, with almost no suspension, and go blasting across rough Alaskan gravel roads and trails 20 miles to my favorite hunting spot and kill stuff. That with cheap scopes. I'd check zero from time to time and never was disappointed.

But now, we demand that all scope manufacturers must conduct drop tests or impact tests of some sort. Though in the case of the OP, we don't really know what we are asking of the manufacturers. Nothing wrong with pushing manufacturers to up their game, but by and large, it will never make a difference to most hunters.

Another point to ponder. The overwhelming majority of shooters will never come close to wearing their barrels out, so while it's reassuring to know that a scope can make it into the tens of thousands of rounds and several barrels, that's not a circumstance many hunters face.

Form, not taking anything away from what you are doing, just framing it in the perspective of most hunter's reality.
 

Rob5589

WKR
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
6,243
Location
N CA
I think we also have to remember that these are samples of one. Google “Nightforce Customer Service” and you will see that plenty of their scopes fail, even at inopportune times. And their customer service sucks - took a lawsuit last year to resolve one issue, I think it is documented over on the hide.

Having said that, I compare Nightforce and Trijicon to Toyota and Honda. If you prioritize reliability, they are your best bet.
Form has stated that the NF isn't a one off; there are many in the stable with drop tests and tens of thousands of rounds. Anything can fail so buy the most robust system you can afford. And by afford I don't solely mean the price of the scope. That also includes being able to afford going home on a hunt if your system fails; buying another scope mid hunt; going home and coming back; etc.
 

Formidilosus

Super Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
8,017
I have found his testing to be very interesting. I am fascinated by the cult it has created. For decades, people put scopes on their guns, took to the woods, plains, deserts and mountains and killed animals with them, not knowing that one day those scopes wouldn't measure up. In fact, when I look around me at the range and at hunting camps, it occurs to me that the overwhelming majority of hunters are still using scopes that don't measure up. But freezers are still being filled in spite of the rampant ignorance.

In fairness, range finders, modern scopes, readily available reliable ballistics tables and such have made it possible to stretch distances out to a point that a little bit off makes a lot of difference.

I used to put a rifle in a cheap soft case, strap it to my Suzuki 160 4 wheeler, with almost no suspension, and go blasting across rough Alaskan gravel roads and trails 20 miles to my favorite hunting spot and kill stuff. That with cheap scopes. I'd check zero from time to time and never was disappointed.

But now, we demand that all scope manufacturers must conduct drop tests or impact tests of some sort. Though in the case of the OP, we don't really know what we are asking of the manufacturers. Nothing wrong with pushing manufacturers to up their game, but by and large, it will never make a difference to most hunters.

Another point to ponder. The overwhelming majority of shooters will never come close to wearing their barrels out, so while it's reassuring to know that a scope can make it into the tens of thousands of rounds and several barrels, that's not a circumstance many hunters face.

Form, not taking anything away from what you are doing, just framing it in the perspective of most hunter's reality.


I agree with most of that, not that it would matter if I didn’t, however- yes, people used scope and just hunted, yet misses even at close range are extremely common. I did one hunt this year with some relatively well known people, and there were misses. Quite a few actually. Some of those misses were traced back to scopes being off zero.

If a long shot is 150 yards for someone, then a scope losing zero by inches won’t cause to many misses. However, once people start shooting past 200’ish regularly, those zero shifts certainly do.
 

Seeknelk

WKR
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Messages
769
Location
NW MT
I have found his testing to be very interesting. I am fascinated by the cult it has created. For decades, people put scopes on their guns, took to the woods, plains, deserts and mountains and killed animals with them, not knowing that one day those scopes wouldn't measure up. In fact, when I look around me at the range and at hunting camps, it occurs to me that the overwhelming majority of hunters are still using scopes that don't measure up. But freezers are still being filled in spite of the rampant ignorance.

In fairness, range finders, modern scopes, readily available reliable ballistics tables and such have made it possible to stretch distances out to a point that a little bit off makes a lot of difference.

I used to put a rifle in a cheap soft case, strap it to my Suzuki 160 4 wheeler, with almost no suspension, and go blasting across rough Alaskan gravel roads and trails 20 miles to my favorite hunting spot and kill stuff. That with cheap scopes. I'd check zero from time to time and never was disappointed.

But now, we demand that all scope manufacturers must conduct drop tests or impact tests of some sort. Though in the case of the OP, we don't really know what we are asking of the manufacturers. Nothing wrong with pushing manufacturers to up their game, but by and large, it will never make a difference to most hunters.

Another point to ponder. The overwhelming majority of shooters will never come close to wearing their barrels out, so while it's reassuring to know that a scope can make it into the tens of thousands of rounds and several barrels, that's not a circumstance many hunters face.

Form, not taking anything away from what you are doing, just framing it in the perspective of most hunter's reality.
And also, if it's a set it and forget it type scope ,like probably 90 percent of the old timers your talking about were using, that's a bit different. If your dialing and moving stuff a LOT , it's more chances for things to go wrong, or just be noticed they are wrong.
And like you alluded to, if you practice a lot more at extreme ranges, folks start to notice little shifts in zero WAY more. As in, 1/2 inch higher at 100 is suddenly causing issues at 900. Where as before ,if said group was ,oh bout 1-2 inches high at 100 then dang it! I'm good to go! And still are out to moderate ranges, depending.
 

ElPollo

WKR
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
1,012
So I’m mostly a bird hunter. I hunt big game for the freezer, but it’s always been a side gig for me. I hunted with the same rifle for more than two decades. That rifle was a ‘Walmart Special’ Savage 110 that came with a Bushnell Scope Chief 3-9 variable. That combo did everything I needed it to do and survived multiple hard impacts and years of washboard roads without ever losing zero. I had friend and hunting partners who’s guns lost zero and missed or wounded and lost game, but it never happened to me.

Then in year 24, the glass in the old Bushnell started to turn yellow suggesting a loss of integrity. So I thought, I would give the old Savage an upgrade. Over the past few years, I went through three brand new scopes from reputable manufacturers that all lost zero, repeatedly. From a couple of inches at 100 to 18”, and from stuff that my old Bushnell would have laughed at. I don’t know if I was just lucky with the the Bushnell or if all scopes have always sucked and I just didn’t know it. But wondering where your first bullet is going to land wears on you. I’m now using a rather monstrous SWFA scope that is thus far reliable.
 

Dobermann

WKR
Joined
Sep 17, 2016
Messages
1,612
Location
EnZed
Personally, I'm not sure the OP's poll question is the right one.

There are some scope manufacturers whose scopes we know work, and they don't need to drop test them (such as SWFA). I'm not going to stop buying them just because they don't test them - they don't need to; the specs they use work.

There are others whose testing has been matched with real-world confirmation (NF). There are others who now state drop-testing, but we need to see longer-term outcomes (Trijcon).

But for me, if all scope manufacturers suddenly announced they were drop-testing scopes, I'm not sure how many of them I would believe. And there's at least one company I probably wouldn't believe.

So if they were to genuinely test scopes to know that what they were putting to market worked, great. But I'm not sure most would want to - and I'm not sure we need them all to. It would likely increase costs across the board; some would be transparent about their tests while some would not; some would be honest in the failure rates and some would not (just look at hunting companies' claims for waterproofness of rain jackets as one example).

My question would be - how can we find the scope companies who want to make reliable scopes and challenge and support them to do so?
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
4,979
Location
oregon coast
I think the value of doing your own testing on top of what’s done is to exploit weaknesses in your mounting system or even rifle… taking his word for it is an incomplete trust you could put into your system
 
Top