Scope field evaluations on rokslide

[koja]

I think the term for most of us is re-check our zero.
For most of my hunting career every year when the check is done the point of impact has not changed. Occasionally while hunting I have dropped my rifle and needed to fire a few rounds to confirm POI and it has usually been just fine. I believe I am super lucky or that all the extra time that I take to properly mount the scope has paid off.
I have owned many different brands of scopes but most have been ok after a drop. This year it was my Burris RT6 on my Rem. 700 bolt action. I had a bad ankle stepped in a hole and threw my rifle down hill about 15 feet. Checked back at camp and took the x- out of the bullseye. All good. I killed a deer the next day, confidence is important in shooting.

Got the rt 1-6's on some beater 6.8' gas guns in tractors,somtimes gun exit tractor before I do or helper,4' drop multiple times ,all have held zero.

 

[1mechanic]

I think in this entire thread, the nugget is above

The take away for me is who uses a system that is more like to fail and who has a system that gives the highest chance for durability.

As far as the retesting at a higher torque, I would have to look at the weights of all of the scopes. Did he only re-torque the heavier scopes?

I know that the chances of me having an accident are slim, but it did happen to me while I was distracted by killing a rattlesnake. I will find out later today if my system failed. I know that the brand is one he tested that failed that has never given me an issue.

I have seen members of several different forums try to replicate the testing, post their results and then all of the fallout and ridiculousness that ensued.

In a perfect world, we have vehicle insurance for the other guy, not ourselves.

If I remember correctly he was torquing to what the scope manufacturer was saying to use and if it wouldn't hold then he was adding torque. Also there were a few rings that caused problems and he would change them out and rerun the test.

It seems he was trying to do the test as much the same as possible but with keeping with manufacturers recommendations but when they wouldn't work he would go a little off book to try and fix the problem.

He did make mention of the scope companies that wanted very little torque to mount that maybe the company's knew they had problems and this was their fix but that doesn't work if the small torque won't hold the scope in place

 

[6.5x300 WBY]

Kind of shocked about the Minox zp5. They state its great but watch a few videos on it and it shows a decent amount of error in reticle tests for turrets. CDoes does a great video on it and kind of blows my mind a bit. Ugg

 

[lachoneus]

Recently had a new 22 creedmoor that was shifting zero. Scope was a swfa 3-9 that is supposed to be one of the reliable, passes drop tests kind of scope. I immediately blamed the scope. After re-torqueing the action, remounting rings, swapping scopes around…found out it was actually my barrel not torqued enough to the action (prefit barrel nut setup, didn't torque it on enough). Scope was/is fine. The gun system now stays zeroed on 12-18in drops. Personally 36" is more than I feel like risking a total breakage of something.

My biggest take away from following along with these drop tests (other than just start with a model that seems to pass) is how to trouble shoot and identify a zero shift.

All of my rifles now have a baseline 20 shot group and perfect zero. Periodically I will check a 100 yard zero and if the round falls outside my 20 shot expected group..I know there has been a shift somewhere.

I've since identified weak points in my bedding/torque, rings/mounts, and my buddies leupold scopes..so far none of my scopes have been the culprit since switching everything over to bushy LRHS and SWFAs. And now all my systems are rock solid as they can be.

Everything in a rifle system can fail, my goal is to know what that point of failure could be and correct it before it has a chance to ruin a hunt.

I have three SWFA scopes and each has been absolutely reliable. They are what I use to test every new rifle I get. They do not have the best glass I have ever seen and they do not have some features I like in other scopes. But if a rifle is not shooting well and is wearing one of my SWFA's, I know it is not the scope's fault.

 

[WeiserBucks]

First off I owe an apology to @Paladin300 . I got a little carried away and it's not always easy for two people to convey their opinions in a respectful manner.

I still think the scope testing threads have value and we should approach them with an open mind and a grain of salt.

 

[Jake 51]

My problem with every Swarovski I have owned has been the eye boxes. They are just to tight for my liking. I never kept them long enough to see if they would fail at the 400 round mark. Again, most hunter will never get to four hundred rounds and if you are shooting that much a Swarovski is probably not your best option. Agreed that the problem with NF is the reticle choices as well for me as the ocular bell on the Atacr. In the test of the PM2 it initially failed but he states that he tightened the rings to between 20-22 ft lbs because he noticed the scope had moved in the rings.

That wasn't a PMII, it was a $1000 klassik hunting scope.

 

[Paladin300]

That wasn't a PMII, it was a $1000 klassik hunting scope.

My apologies. I read through them and thought I remembered it being the PM2. I knew he had changed one or two and that one was a Schmidt. Either way the scope failed but then past after the adjustment, thereby rendering the previous results suspect. I like his approach and appreciate his effort. However, the OP oringinal question ask for our thoughts and because the results don't affirm my experience I looked a little closer and noticed the discrepancy. The shear number of scopes that failed bares a question about the rings which if change and adjusted may yield a different result. JMTs

 

[Jake 51]

My apologies. I read through them and thought I remembered it being the PM2. I knew he had changed one or two and that one was a Schmidt.

He did the same for Zeiss and ZCO, after he switched the rings the Zeiss passed and the ZCO did not.
He openly changes the rings if they are bad, and tightens them down if he sees them slip, then repeats the test.
Him tightening the rings doesn't invalidate the test because he re does the test over again and lets everyone know what happed.

He does this just to show people that they should be using good rings and higher torque values, I personally use 25 in lbs, and have had one of, if not the best gunsmith in the US tell me he uses 28 in lbs ( DRY, DO NOT PUT LOCKTIGHT ON YOUR SCREWS IF YOU ARE TORQUEING THAT HIGH ).

 

[Paladin300]

First off I owe an apology to @Paladin300 . I got a little carried away and it's not always easy for two people to convey their opinions in a respectful manner.

I still think the scope testing threads have value and we should approach them with an open mind and a grain of salt.

No apologies need friend! It is all good. I ribbed you just as hard. We all have opinions and experiences and sometimes are looking for validation. You know what they say about opinions though, mine, yours or whomever's? They are like buttholes everybody's got one! and everyone of them has the potential to stink! Most assuredly mine. I am sorry for my part.

 

[Darryle]

Well, here's an update

100yds, first round out of the rifle post drop/fall over/accident

Tract Toric
Seekins 20 MOA Picatinny
Seekins low rings
APR 280 Ackley
26" Proof

 

[Mark37082]

Well, here's an update

100yds, first round out of the rifle post drop/fall over/accident

Tract Toric
Seekins 20 MOA Picatinny
Seekins low ringside
APR 280 Ackley
26" Proof

View attachment 518013

Dang!! What is causing the massive shift?. I believe you're good to go with maybe a tiny tweak for bench rest competition.

 

[Old Rooster]

I like Darryle's method for testing a scope.Only drop to get out of the way of a rattle snake!

 

[pavementends]

As with group size we get to what is a statistically significant number to test? My experience is scopes work until they don't. Not sure if one can quantify a likely life span considering the widely variable use. A friend had 2 Leupold scopes with a wandering zero. The original and a new replacement customer service sent. It was on a .416 Rigby and failed here rather than in Africa. About the best you can do is buy what you have faith in. There may be some merit in Cooper's idea of a fixed scope with a robust adjustable mount. Emphasis on robust.

 

[Darryle]

I like Darryle's method for testing a scope.Only drop to get out of the way of a rattle snake!

Well, it wasn't anything that drastic, actually kinda stupid on my part. Rifle had been riding around the lease in the truck un-cased on Thanksgiving day. Then when I was heading to town to try to find a fitting to fix a leak, I saw said rattlesnake sunning himself in the road heading out of camp. I decided I better case my rifle before getting to town and I needed to kill that snake before any of the kids got down there because they like to zip around the camp on scooters and atvs. I leaned the rifle against the gap between the taillight and bedside, in the process of getting the garden hoe out of the truck and killing said snake, the rifle fell to the rocky camp road. Not a bad fall, something you occasionally see at the range. Moved it as shown, would have still killed deer out as far as I would shoot though.

Proof that you need to know about what if. Am I believer in his entire testing process, no, but then again, I don't hunt like the majority of the members here. If it's warm like today this weekend, I very well could come across a rattlesnake in the dark to or from the blind, then the 36" drop method will be tame in comparison.