Nobody ever does until they do. If youve ever had to tweak your zero, youve had an issue. Swarvoski scopes all fail drop tests miserably.

Do you really want to spend a boatload of money on a sight that might no longer be right because it got bumped?

quote:
there is a LOT to be said for having high quality glass

There really isn't. It only needs to be good enough to see what youre trying to shoot when it is legal to shoot it. Your scope isn't for glassing, it's for telling you where the bullet will land. If it can't do that 100% reliably in 100% of used conditions, the glass is worthless. Good glass matters when you're spending a few hours behind binoculars or trying to "measure" a buck at very long range. It doesn't matter for your sight.

I've gone from great glass and questionable reliability to good enough glass and absolute reliability and trust me, it's the right way to be. Glass quality, features, weight, etc are all meaningless without 100% reliability.

Eta: I'm using a non-HD SWFA right now which is absolutely poo garbage glass compared to anything swarvoski. I can still easily kill deer in the last minutes of legal light in thick woods. That's all it needs to be able to do.

This post was edited on 1/3/23 at 3:22 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by ccard257

Fort Worth, TX

Member since Oct 2012

1316 posts

Posted on 1/3/23 at 5:46 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt

quote:
If youve ever had to tweak your zero, youve had an issue

I get what you are saying here, and with sufficient data you are absolutely correct. However, I would counter that much of the “zero tweaking” done by hunters who are not shooters are doing it based on not enough data to matter.

I.e. their zero checking process consists of a single shot. Maybe three. So they take their yearly check shot and then make a click or two to adjust, even though that rifle/load is 1.5ish MOA and they have no idea where their actual zero is. That’s without getting into that this year was a new box of ammo year and it’s not the same lot as the box they’ve been using for 3 seasons.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Flats

Member since Jul 2019

21999 posts

Posted on 1/3/23 at 6:26 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt

quote:
Eta: I'm using a non-HD SWFA right now which is absolutely poo garbage glass compared to anything swarvoski.

Meh, Swarovski has price ranges like anybody else. I haven't looked through an SWFA in a long time but it's probably better than anything produced 30 years ago.

That's why I compared the $500 Trijicon to Razor HD glass. Whatever one thinks of Vortex their Razor HD is legit $1k glass by any standard. An optics junky might could pick out some "chromatic aberration" difference between the Huron and the Razor that I couldn't see, but at some point clear is just clear to these 50+ year old eyes. And as you correctly point out, a sight that doesn't accurately show point of impact because the rifle was leaning against the truck and got knocked over is worthless regardless of how much resolution it has.

0 ...

Report Post

Outdoor Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board