Do you trust your scope 100%

[JCann]

Years ago I thought of having this company build my rifle (Quarter Minute Magnum) the owner is a tad bit eccentric and definitely opinionated but he does good work and usually develops load data for every rifle he builds or he did in the past.

He posted this video recently and I found it to be food for thought. It’s rather long but interesting. I don’t know if I fully stand by his decision with out retesting the scope in question but if the warranty is rock solid I see no issue sending it in.

Let me know your thoughts

 

[JEVapa]

I went and looked at his site. If I was wanting a custom rifle, I'd definitely chat with them and see what they could do. However, if I wanted to get rid of it, nobody out there in the world would buy it except maybe two people, so it's probably not a thing for me.

I get where he's coming from, but I don't necessarily agree on several points. For sure on the scope like @JCann said...I would have used different rings and whatnot to see if it's the scope, the mount, or what. I've learned over the years that most of the time, it's the mount/rings. I'm more picky with mounts and rings than anything.

I know who he's talking about that's formerly of NFO and the one piece issue. This "damage" thing is extremely old ass news, like 6 years plus old ass news. And the guy he's talking about got canned. Here's the issue: NFO tubes/optomechanics are made to a high tolerance dimensionally, especially the US scope (ATACR). The mounts he's referring to are from TX and PA and their dimensions are extremely close tolerances as well. What happens is when the two are mated up, at 25 inlbs, the front rind would start crushing the side focus (parallax knob for the retards) lens assembly. This has since been corrected, but if one has an older-ish one piece mount from TX or PA and an older-ish ATACR, just torque the caps to 18 in lbs and everything is fckn happy. I still torque scope caps to 18-20in lbs. Sometime 15 if I feel the side focus being a little rough. So the one-piece mount thing is bullshitida.

I disagree with the "moving a scope in rings can't be moved from an SA to a LA and back". That's hooey IMO, UNLESS, your mount bases (Weaver/picatinny) aren't necessarily the same: ie, you have a mounted scope on a weaver base and you move it to a picatinny, you might have issues; or moving from a weaver or pic to a flat STANAG, you might have issue. You can move them but be ready to readjust and re-zero. Also, STANAG rings vs M1913(Picatinny) vs Weaver. Try to stick to one standard and make sure your rings have some kind of torque value.

I'm also highly skeptical of folks like this, it's real easy to not shoot that well to get your opinion across the finish line. He's probably a great guy but everybody's got an angle.

But, to your title question, yes, I trust my scopes 100% for what it's being used to do.

 

[KurtM]

There is magic in optics which I don't understand, therefore they are evil and not to be trusted. I have seen just about every name of optic known to man fail at one time or another. Zeiss, Swarovski, Night Force, Trijicon, Leupold, Meopta, U.S. Optics....etc. Most high end optics are very good, but I don't "trust" any of them 100%

 

[JCann]

I went and looked at his site. If I was wanting a custom rifle, I'd definitely chat with them and see what they could do. However, if I wanted to get rid of it, nobody out there in the world would buy it except maybe two people, so it's probably not a thing for me.

He use to be reasonable on his prices but not anymore. That 7PRC he was shooting shot those factory rounds damn good

 

[JCann]

I ran a tall target test for my Razor and had to change my elevation correction factor from 1 to 0.9 in my ballistic app due to tracking error. Naturally you really notice it the further you shoot without the correction. I’ve thought of sending it back to Vortex but I don’t believe it’s still made and don’t know if they would fix it or give me credit for a newer scope. I haven’t run a tall target on my Bushnell.