Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
When to consider a scope defective |
Post Reply |
Author | |||
dbooksta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/01/2009 Status: Offline Points: 31 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: August/29/2017 at 11:52 |
||
I've learned the hard way that it's important to run a battery of tests on scopes as soon as I receive them, and occasionally as time goes on. But I'm not sure what the acceptance criteria should be for some of these:
I assume that absolute perfection in the above measures can be expected from top-of-the-line scopes (i.e., $2k+). But I suspect that not allowing any errors in these tests with many scopes would be unrealistic. (I.e., one could test every scope coming off a production line and not find a single one that satisfies, or can be repaired to satisfy, all of these.) So how much allowance should be granted and at what levels? |
|||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Interesting questions.
I am very curious to see what the responses to this will be. ILya
|
|||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I'm not sure "mechanical" and "perfect" go together in the same sentence, at least not perfect "perfect." Lower limits of detection are a reasonable line, "perfect" is a stretch. I have match barrels with thousandths of an inch of run-out, they are not technically perfect, but are just above the limits of what I can detect. That said, they outshoot me constantly. As a general rule, if there is a problem I can detect, then there is a problem. Kinda reminds me of all the Leupold owners telling me their turret adjustments are perfect, then tell me they don't twist turrets anyway.
|
|||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
|||
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I think perfection is too high a standard. It would require a very consistent cheek weld and a absolutely solid mount. That doesn't move at all to rule out movement of the scope.
If #5 occurs I would think it is operator error and not a scope issue. For me #6 would not be an issue since I am not aiming at the edge of the FOV. The reticle isn't there. Even if I am using extreme Kentucky windage. #7 I think you are referring to a FFP scope not a SFP scope. SFPs are only calibrated at one magnification setting. With #8 I am not sure you could duplicate the recoil impulse by slapping the scope. |
|||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
That would be considered some sort of assault, anyway... "scope abuse"... can't have that... you should never slap your scope under any circumstances... |
|||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
|||
3_tens
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again. |
|||
dbooksta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/01/2009 Status: Offline Points: 31 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Ilya at least once wrote that condition #5 is a sign of something amiss in a scope's internals. I didn't realize this is in dispute. Should I post as a separate question? "If you can't dial out reticle parallax (beyond the scope's minimum adjustment range, which in every scope I've seen is no further than 50 yards) and simultaneously have the target in focus, is this an indication of a opto-mechanical defect, or a user error? If user error, how is it corrected?"
Right: On a SFP scope there is a magnification at which they are supposed to be calibrated. Maybe they don't nail the calibration at that exact magnification, but if you can't adjust the magnification to bring the reticle into calibration at any point I would consider that to be a problem!
True, I expect a bare-handed blow to be less demanding on the erector spring(s) than even middling recoil, but when it does cause a reticle shift ... well, I just returned a scope for repair because it failed this test! The only other way I can imagine to detect recoil shift is to simultaneously mount a second scope to the same gun, then shoot it. If the reticles diverge, then you know at least one scope is bad, but then you have the problem of figuring out which one.... Or are there other reliable tests for this?
|
|||
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||
I consider it defective when it say's...Barska on the box.
|
|||
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|||
BeltFed
Optics Retard Joined: February/12/2008 Location: Ky Status: Online Points: 22289 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Unless they like it. |
|||
Life's concerns should be about the 120lb pack your trying to get to the top of the mountain, and not the rock in your boot.
|
|||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
SEMO Shooter
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/06/2013 Location: SE Missouri Status: Offline Points: 199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
My thoughts of what applies to these has very much to do with price level. I would not expect at all the same level of performance for a $300 scope that I would expect from a $3000 scope.
Are these tests conducted by shooting a rifle with the scope mounted, or with the scope mounted in special stand for test purposes? I don't know any shooters that can shoot exactly to point of aim every time. Even if the shooter was capable, the rifle & ammo may only be able to produce 1/4" to 1/2" MOA results. Some variance will occur even with an expensive rifle/scope combination and excellent shooter. Parallax and focus are not interchangeable. Parallax may be correct, and focus not be perfect in even expensive scopes. I have one that will be sent back to the manufacturer this winter to be checked. When parallax is set, focus is sometimes quite off. The further the distance, the more out of focus. What is acceptable to me depends on price, and how it will be used.
|
|||
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Barska made the best set of $7 binocs I've ever owned. |
|||
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|||
Peddler
Optics God Joined: July/04/2012 Location: Oswego,NY Status: Offline Points: 13532 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
😂👍🥃 |
|||
When you are dead, you don't know you are dead.It is difficult only for others.
It is the same when you are stupid. |
|||
rogn
Optics Apprentice Joined: September/23/2006 Status: Offline Points: 68 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Seems to be a very relative set of guidelines. If you are a serious 1K shooter then all apply. If you are destroying coke cans in a gravel pit, theres a lot of leeway. That said even for 7$ we still would expect functionality. I did get a scope in a rifle combination and its function is to hold a freezer lid propped open, which it does well.
|
|||
tahqua
MODERATOR Have You Driven A Ford Lately? Joined: March/27/2006 Location: Michigan, USA Status: Offline Points: 9044 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
It was nice to get a chuckle in today.....thx
|
|||
Doug
|
|||
dbooksta
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/01/2009 Status: Offline Points: 31 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Here's another way: 30 rounds of .338 Lapua Magnum. Both scopes start dialed to the same point of aim. At the end, if they're still centered on the same point, I feel more confident in their recoil resistance! |
|||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
That's a good test, but if you really feel adventurous, remove the muzzle brake and repeat it.
ILya
|
|||
rogn
Optics Apprentice Joined: September/23/2006 Status: Offline Points: 68 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
There are a very few people making double mounts solely for the purpose of shaking out defective reticle mounting systems. They are as suggested, mount 2 scopes, one of which has an impeccable history, shoot the bejeus out of the rifle and check after each bang and see if they are still in agreement. Any body wanting to research that can dig around at 6mmBR.com/ accurateshooter.com. Id love to run the tests, I think I may have 2 scopes that might be trustworthy. Both are more than 30 years old fixed power 6Xs
|
|||
gdpolk
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 87 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
A scope goes back as defective when it doesn't meet my expectations.
Sometimes a $100-120 scope on a crummy rimfire for plinking coke cans at 30 yards with the kids is good enough for it's intended purposes. One of my favorite rimfires is a Marlin 60 that was my grandfather's. With ammo it prefers I'm lucky to get 1-1.25" groups at 50yds; most of the time I get about 2" groups at 50yds. I was given a $65 TruGlo red dot and slapped it on papaw's Marlin 60 since I also have a Marlin 60 of my father's just to give me two different "Marlin 60 experiences." Well, the optic on it is truly pitiful, but it's absolutely adequate for what I actually use the gun to do and is very appropriate for the accuracy potential of that gun. Sometimes a Leupold VX3 on a 1moa hunting gun that is set and forgot about is all that is needed. Almost all of my hunting guns have VX3's on them because to my eyes they just barely give me dark thirty to dark thirty performance in heavy cover on cloudy days. They are relatively consistent and easy enough to sight in at the range. They are durable and hold zero really well. They have a great warranty program. And, the smaller ones tend to be smaller/lighter than a lot of other stuff; I'm most fond of the 1.75-6 and 2.5-8 for real world hunting. They just work well for that use. Sometimes a high end Nightforce or similar quality scope on a 600m or 1000m F-class target rig is really truly worth every penny and more standard quality scopes simply aren't up to snuff as it's either got PERFECT reliability and tracking or it just isn't going to do it's job properly. On a gun that is built by a master craftsman that is capable of picking which letter on a Coke can you want to hit at 600yds and consistently doing so, you really benefit from tighter manufacturing tolerances. When used exclusively at longer ranges where your dialing in for everything (temp, altitude, wind, humidity, Coriolis affect, etc) even extremely minor variances in equipment make the difference between dead center hits and missing the entire target. Anything less than the absolute best equipment in these situations is truly a measurable handicap. That explained, I digress back to my original comment that an optic goes back or gets sold when it doesn't meet my expectations. I can't expect my $65 TruGlo red dot to track like a Nightforce, but then again I don't need it to and realistically wouldn't benefit from that quality of an optic on that particular gun anyway. |
|||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |