Galbadrakh Bayarsaikhan we are not sponsored by nightforce. At the time we were actually using usoptics heavily. We set standards and tested each scope based on those standards. Failing doesn't mean it's shorty it just means it didn't meet our standard number we plugged in. There is no industry standard for scope performance. Sorry we set them too high and failed a bunch of scopes.
Is there a listing of what scopes failed your testing, and what scopes passed with flaying colours? Also why didn't you include water submersion testing, ussualy most of the scopes faill that testing, despite the claims that they are able to sustain 1m submersion for 30min (the waterproof standard).
Hey guys, I was waiting for the rest of the videos as I am trying to pick out my next scope. I have around $3000 to spend, its going on a Desert Tech in 6.5 Creedmoor and .338 Lapua, it will regularly be shot at 1000 yards and am going to try to get out to 1 mile this year. I was using a 3-18x42 IOR Valdada which is good, but wanted to upgrade.to a higher magnification scope this year. It's tough without actually getting to try them out so can you help? I'm torn between the IOR Valdada Recon 4-28x50, Kahles K624i (not so much after watching your video), US Optics ER25, or should I sepnd more and look at the Nightforce Beast 5-25x56 or Scmidt and Bender PMII 5-25x56. Problem is I get eye fatigue and headaches after a full day of shooting with the Valdada even after taking time to adjust the focus, maybe chromatic aberration or lense issues??? Thanks, JAckson.
Buried Alive Beast F1 would be my choice. I hear you can wait 10 months for a Scmidt & Bender because they fill their military contracts first. precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/ All the ones you picked are right at the top, the S&B and Nightforce nearly neck and neck, the other three a bit below them, but also very close together.
mai tai Hey Mai Tai, I ended up with the Valdada Recon, It is Absolutely Amazing...Check out a new video I posted about it this weekend, and let me know what you think.
Just did a video review of the IOR Valdada Recon and a video from my Long Range Shooting School using it, see my wife shooting at 715 yards and 1010 yards, first time out, making firs round hits
GodGunsGuitarsGadgetsGovernment did you watch all of the videos? The computer program has a threshold that we set. If the scope doesn't meet that criteria it fails. Period. Does it mean it's a shitty scope? No it means it didn't meet the criteria we set. It could be 1 moa, could be 1/16th moa. Regardless in the beginning video it is explained what the parameters were set too.
That's my point. What is the basis for the threshold you set? How do you know that this threshold reflects something meaningful or useful? Does it reflect something like 10GRMS or 15GRMS? How about setting it at something like "Comparable to the recoil of a .338LM in a 12lb rifle for 500 shots." Until and unless your viewers know WHY this value is set where it is, and what it means, it's just an arbitrary value that has no meaning at all to a viewer, and the fact that so many reputable scopes fail that "test" further undermines its credibility and reinforces the arbitrary nature of such a test.
@@G5Hohn completely disagree it’s objective data and the issues you assert like the weight of the gun makes no difference. For example presume any poundage you wish the shaker table to generate you’d then simply subtract the from the force of the test. If the test is 60 pounds of recoil and your gun weighs 20 pounds the rifle would impart roughly 40 pounds of force to the scope.
@@charleshetrick3152 There's a lot of "objective data" that is worthless. Data itself makes no conclusions. It's just data. I can tell you that a temperature is 70 degrees and you can make no conclusions about whether that's hot or cold for whatever it's supposed to be. The same data is interpreted radically differently if I tell you it's outdoor temperature, coolant temperature, or Celsius vs Fahrenheit vs Kelvin. So yes, it's objective data. NO, it doesn't prove anything at all. Also, your example shows you really don't understand what's happening. If the shaker table is applying 60lb of force, we know nothing about what the scope is seeing because we don't know how much the table weighs. If I put the scope on a car hood and push with 60# on the bumper, do you think I'm putting 60# of force on the scope? of course not. Shaker tables apply acceleration, not force. The effective force is the scope's weight resisting the acceleration. The questions that are relevant are: 1) What is the magnitude of the peak acceleration on the scope during the "fire" test? 2) Is this representative of the peak accelerations while the scope is in use on a rifle? Now lets say you actually are putting 60# of true peak force on the scope as it accelerates through the shaker table cycle. If the scope weighs 2#, then we know the peak acceleration is 15G (15 times gravity). So we've answered the first critical question. What about the second question of whether that force is representative of a rifle in use? That requires us to know the peak acceleration the scope will see in the field. Since the scope can only be exposed to recoil force through the rifle, we then must know the acceleration of the rifle it's mounted to. The Rifle accelerates twice: once from a standstill to moving rearward, than back to a standstill. Obviously the initial force of the rifle gaining speed to the rear is greater than the force slowing it down is. So we reasonably assume the acceleration while the bullet is in the barrel is what we care about, not the "catching deceleration" the shooter is applying after the bullet is gone. But it gets even more complicated, because the scope isn't mounted to the rifle with a perfectly stiff mount. Instead, as the rifle accelerates rearward, the rings or mount will flex. This reduces the peak acceleration acting on the optic. (taller mounts flex more). The effect of this reduced stiffness is to take the peak and reduce it while dragging it out over time. (Keeping the area under the curve constant). It turns out that simply calculating the peak acceleration on the optic while it's in use is far from straightforward. Even things like the powder charge matter. The better approach would be to put an accelerometer on the scope, mount it to a "worst case" gun with sharp recoil impulse (Maybe an elk rifle in a bruiser caliber that's still a light rifle-- maybe an 8# 338 win mag). Collect the acceleration data while the rifle is fired by a real shooter under real conditions. Take that PSD from your vibration data and use it with some additional margin in programming your shaker table. You simply cannot take your "60 pounds of recoil and subtract the force of the test". Acceleration, not force, is the relevant parameter here.
Wow! These tests have been a bit depressing! The main thing I've been interested in is the shift upon firing. I would have expected ZERO -- which I haven't yet seen on ANY of the scopes you tested!
Azzie Blankenship totally agreed!!! Like testing these scopes as they vibrate 100 shots and expect nothing to get distorted while they run the test!! That machine can't be trusted for real. And they would have to text at least 3 scopes if each model.. and notice that they his attitude is based on failure on most aspects.
50 shots from a 300winmag in 2 seconds?? What is your reasoning for setting that as the test standard? I don’t want to seem ungrateful for your efforts but when is any rifle likely to experience the recoil of 50 consecutive shots from a 300WM in 2 seconds? I’m all for my rifle scope being able to handle more than what I’m likely to put it through under normal use but this just seems needlessly excessive. Seems like you could have set the test to a more reasonable level, say 5 consecutive 300WM shots, which would have provided you and your viewers with some valuable and useable info about the various scopes being tested. Unless I’m missing something here?
It doesn’t matter how quickly the shots occur. Presumably you’ll take at least 50 shots before you change scopes? It doesn’t really matter to the scope how close together those shots are. Maybe to your shoulder
I don't see all this equipment on my rifle out in the field. The best scope I ever had for low light and night time shooting was a Kahles 8x50. I dojnt see the value of this kind of test, sorry!
It’s objective data, they’re not telling not to like your scope. Specifically to light trans. the point is most scope manufacturers claim 99-100% which is misleading. Often times they will test each piece of glass individually not as they’re actually stacked in the scope.
@@charleshetrick3152 Most scope manufacturers other than Swarovski dont claim light transmission above 90%! My Z81 2-18x50 is at 93%. Its one of the most expensive, and I love it!
@@BlueTJay the point is the tests are to give you reference point. They have to start somewhere. It’s a lot like how R-Values are determined for insulation, properly installed R13 is better than poorly installed R19 but the R-values are valuable as a reference point. They could have easily chosen 800 .308 Win. recoils instead of 50 .300 Win Mag. The tests and data are no less valuable than torture tests other channels do such freezing scopes in a bucket or whatever.
Hello Tyler: Based on your experience, witch scope around the $2k will you recommend for a .308?
Please test a IOR Valdad scope.
Cheers!
i guess they will fail it IOR! i dont trust this video. They sponsored by NF ! Any NF scope will pass their tests!
Galbadrakh Bayarsaikhan we are not sponsored by nightforce. At the time we were actually using usoptics heavily. We set standards and tested each scope based on those standards. Failing doesn't mean it's shorty it just means it didn't meet our standard number we plugged in. There is no industry standard for scope performance. Sorry we set them too high and failed a bunch of scopes.
@@geemng7391 lo dici tu...
Is there a listing of what scopes failed your testing, and what scopes passed with flaying colours? Also why didn't you include water submersion testing, ussualy most of the scopes faill that testing, despite the claims that they are able to sustain 1m submersion for 30min (the waterproof standard).
Hey guys, I was waiting for the rest of the videos as I am trying to pick out my next scope. I have around $3000 to spend, its going on a Desert Tech in 6.5 Creedmoor and .338 Lapua, it will regularly be shot at 1000 yards and am going to try to get out to 1 mile this year. I was using a 3-18x42 IOR Valdada which is good, but wanted to upgrade.to a higher magnification scope this year. It's tough without actually getting to try them out so can you help? I'm torn between the IOR Valdada Recon 4-28x50, Kahles K624i (not so much after watching your video), US Optics ER25, or should I sepnd more and look at the Nightforce Beast 5-25x56 or Scmidt and Bender PMII 5-25x56.
Problem is I get eye fatigue and headaches after a full day of shooting with the Valdada even after taking time to adjust the focus, maybe chromatic aberration or lense issues???
Thanks, JAckson.
Buried Alive Beast F1 would be my choice. I hear you can wait 10 months for a Scmidt & Bender because they fill their military contracts first. precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/
All the ones you picked are right at the top, the S&B and Nightforce nearly neck and neck, the other three a bit below them, but also very close together.
mai tai Hey Mai Tai, I ended up with the Valdada Recon, It is Absolutely Amazing...Check out a new video I posted about it this weekend, and let me know what you think.
Just did a video review of the IOR Valdada Recon and a video from my Long Range Shooting School using it, see my wife shooting at 715 yards and 1010 yards, first time out, making firs round hits
Was this a scope new out of box or being tested for a reported problem by owner?
Jim ozkjim this was a new scope.
Was this a new scope out of the box? Can you put a video up on the new and improved out of the box kahles scope.
0.7 shift in moa is quite a lot. Almost 3/4 of an inch at 1000. Literally 10 times that at 1000.
Gen 2 in your test is so old. Maybe you try Gen 3 next time?
There's no way to know how valid this "fire test " is, and I find it highly unlikely that so many *very" reputable scopes fail it.
GodGunsGuitarsGadgetsGovernment did you watch all of the videos? The computer program has a threshold that we set. If the scope doesn't meet that criteria it fails. Period. Does it mean it's a shitty scope? No it means it didn't meet the criteria we set. It could be 1 moa, could be 1/16th moa. Regardless in the beginning video it is explained what the parameters were set too.
That's my point. What is the basis for the threshold you set? How do you know that this threshold reflects something meaningful or useful? Does it reflect something like 10GRMS or 15GRMS? How about setting it at something like "Comparable to the recoil of a .338LM in a 12lb rifle for 500 shots."
Until and unless your viewers know WHY this value is set where it is, and what it means, it's just an arbitrary value that has no meaning at all to a viewer, and the fact that so many reputable scopes fail that "test" further undermines its credibility and reinforces the arbitrary nature of such a test.
@@G5Hohn completely disagree it’s objective data and the issues you assert like the weight of the gun makes no difference. For example presume any poundage you wish the shaker table to generate you’d then simply subtract the from the force of the test. If the test is 60 pounds of recoil and your gun weighs 20 pounds the rifle would impart roughly 40 pounds of force to the scope.
@@charleshetrick3152 There's a lot of "objective data" that is worthless. Data itself makes no conclusions. It's just data. I can tell you that a temperature is 70 degrees and you can make no conclusions about whether that's hot or cold for whatever it's supposed to be. The same data is interpreted radically differently if I tell you it's outdoor temperature, coolant temperature, or Celsius vs Fahrenheit vs Kelvin. So yes, it's objective data. NO, it doesn't prove anything at all.
Also, your example shows you really don't understand what's happening. If the shaker table is applying 60lb of force, we know nothing about what the scope is seeing because we don't know how much the table weighs. If I put the scope on a car hood and push with 60# on the bumper, do you think I'm putting 60# of force on the scope? of course not.
Shaker tables apply acceleration, not force. The effective force is the scope's weight resisting the acceleration. The questions that are relevant are: 1) What is the magnitude of the peak acceleration on the scope during the "fire" test? 2) Is this representative of the peak accelerations while the scope is in use on a rifle?
Now lets say you actually are putting 60# of true peak force on the scope as it accelerates through the shaker table cycle. If the scope weighs 2#, then we know the peak acceleration is 15G (15 times gravity). So we've answered the first critical question. What about the second question of whether that force is representative of a rifle in use?
That requires us to know the peak acceleration the scope will see in the field. Since the scope can only be exposed to recoil force through the rifle, we then must know the acceleration of the rifle it's mounted to. The Rifle accelerates twice: once from a standstill to moving rearward, than back to a standstill. Obviously the initial force of the rifle gaining speed to the rear is greater than the force slowing it down is. So we reasonably assume the acceleration while the bullet is in the barrel is what we care about, not the "catching deceleration" the shooter is applying after the bullet is gone.
But it gets even more complicated, because the scope isn't mounted to the rifle with a perfectly stiff mount. Instead, as the rifle accelerates rearward, the rings or mount will flex. This reduces the peak acceleration acting on the optic. (taller mounts flex more). The effect of this reduced stiffness is to take the peak and reduce it while dragging it out over time. (Keeping the area under the curve constant).
It turns out that simply calculating the peak acceleration on the optic while it's in use is far from straightforward. Even things like the powder charge matter. The better approach would be to put an accelerometer on the scope, mount it to a "worst case" gun with sharp recoil impulse (Maybe an elk rifle in a bruiser caliber that's still a light rifle-- maybe an 8# 338 win mag). Collect the acceleration data while the rifle is fired by a real shooter under real conditions. Take that PSD from your vibration data and use it with some additional margin in programming your shaker table.
You simply cannot take your "60 pounds of recoil and subtract the force of the test". Acceleration, not force, is the relevant parameter here.
@@G5Hohn I’d like to subscribe to your RUclips channel and watch the videos of your scope testing.
Wow! These tests have been a bit depressing! The main thing I've been interested in is the shift upon firing. I would have expected ZERO -- which I haven't yet seen on ANY of the scopes you tested!
GetMeThere1 the recoil is equivalent to 50 shots from a 300winmag in 2 seconds.
every video produced on this channel shows failed scopes. Has there ever been one to pass this test? at least every one I've watched anyway..
Azzie Blankenship totally agreed!!! Like testing these scopes as they vibrate 100 shots and expect nothing to get distorted while they run the test!! That machine can't be trusted for real. And they would have to text at least 3 scopes if each model.. and notice that they his attitude is based on failure on most aspects.
Lol The only one that passed was a Vortex......right......
What a load of crap.
Maybe the OP and present replies should describe a proper test and make their own channel.
50 shots from a 300winmag in 2 seconds??
What is your reasoning for setting that as the test
standard? I don’t want to seem ungrateful for your efforts but when is
any rifle likely to experience the recoil of 50 consecutive shots from a
300WM in 2 seconds?
I’m all for my rifle scope being able to handle more than what I’m
likely to put it through under normal use but this just seems needlessly
excessive. Seems like you could have set the test to a more reasonable
level, say 5 consecutive 300WM shots, which would have provided you and
your viewers with some valuable and useable info about the various
scopes being tested. Unless I’m missing something here?
It doesn’t matter how quickly the shots occur. Presumably you’ll take at least 50 shots before you change scopes? It doesn’t really matter to the scope how close together those shots are. Maybe to your shoulder
So what are you saying with these test, that Kahles is below standard? What is your point!
What part don’t you understand?
I don't see all this equipment on my rifle out in the field. The best scope I ever had for low light and night time shooting was a Kahles 8x50. I dojnt see the value of this kind of test, sorry!
It’s objective data, they’re not telling not to like your scope. Specifically to light trans. the point is most scope manufacturers claim 99-100% which is misleading. Often times they will test each piece of glass individually not as they’re actually stacked in the scope.
@@charleshetrick3152 Most scope manufacturers other than Swarovski dont claim light transmission above 90%! My Z81 2-18x50 is at 93%. Its one of the most expensive, and I love it!
@@BlueTJay the point is the tests are to give you reference point. They have to start somewhere. It’s a lot like how R-Values are determined for insulation, properly installed R13 is better than poorly installed R19 but the R-values are valuable as a reference point. They could have easily chosen 800 .308 Win. recoils instead of 50 .300 Win Mag. The tests and data are no less valuable than torture tests other channels do such freezing scopes in a bucket or whatever.
More chew, less BS.