• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

is Alex' scope checking thread gone?

Yep. Boyd Allen saved all the "data" but the thread was lost on too many unfortunately. I thought it was unfair to leave it up as people were missing the whole point which was ANY scope can fail (and its not rare) and the ONLY way to know is TEST yours, it was not meant to be a buyers guide but it turned into that. Boyd is free to do as he wishes with that data but it has limited value. All that was valuable in that thread was how to perform the testing and how poorly many of the top end scopes performed. It was not a waste as one of the big names in scopes purchased and uses a scope checker to improve their scopes now. So we will get better stuff out of it.
 
Last edited:
True, but you had to dig through 50 pages to find it. Far from user friendly. The guys selling scope checkers know how to use them and can explain the test. You need a scope checker and frozen scope for the testing. Or anybody can start a new thread, a lot of guys are testing now and know how its done.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was a valuable resource. I agree that it was lengthy, but it was also an eye opener when guys posted results. I’m interested in a Vortex GE, and the first thing I thought about was to check that thread. I was disappointed when I couldn’t find it.
 
Alex Wheeler said:
True, but you had to dig through 50 pages to find it. Far from user friendly. The guys selling scope checkers know how to use them and can explain the test. You need a scope checker and frozen scope for the testing. Or anybody can start a new thread, a lot of guys are testing now and know how its done.
Click to expand...

The frozen scope makes things much easier & definitive, but IMO, is not a necessity. Perhaps I should take the time to document a testing procedure without one and start that thread... That & all of the things that can be done with a checker that aren’t checking point of aim holding. Mine get used 75% of the time at the house leveling scopes, doing tracking tests, lapping rings, rough zeroing, etc. They are versatile, handy tools for sure.
 
Sounds like some pressure was applied to someone at some level to remove this thread. The results were the results regardless of how some people chose to interpret or use them. We should be able to decide what to think of these results on our own.
 
dminn1 said:
Sounds like some pressure was applied to someone at some level to remove this thread. The results were the results regardless of how some people chose to interpret or use them. We should be able to decide what to think of these results on our own.
Click to expand...
Like maybe the scope manufactures that are AS sponsors?
 
Not at all. No pressure, trust me, if there was pressure I would keep it up forever, thats not how you move me. I just take personal responsibility for what I post. If I feel like its not being interpreted correctly, misused, not understood, whatever I will edit or pull it. We are seeing in this thread why I pulled it. How did the GE eagle do? It doesn't matter, we didnt test 1000 of them, only a few and its not a good representation of the entire line. All that matters is how your scope performs, any one of these better scope can hold or fail. It was not a buyer's guide. I dont want people buying or not buying a scope based off of the half dozen GE tested. I want you buying a scope checker and testing your scopes.
 
Alex Wheeler said:
True, but you had to dig through 50 pages to find it. Far from user friendly. The guys selling scope checkers know how to use them and can explain the test. You need a scope checker and frozen scope for the testing. Or anybody can start a new thread, a lot of guys are testing now and know how its done.
Click to expand...
The fact that there are now scope checkers on the market and people properly using them, is a huge success.
Alex, this alone is of tremendous value to the sport.
Nicely Done!!!!
CW
 
AlloyTargets said:
The frozen scope makes things much easier & definitive, but IMO, is not a necessity. Perhaps I should take the time to document a testing procedure without one and start that thread... That & all of the things that can be done with a checker that aren’t checking point of aim holding. Mine get used 75% of the time at the house leveling scopes, doing tracking tests, lapping rings, rough zeroing, etc. They are versatile, handy tools for sure.
Click to expand...

Please do
CW
 
Alex Wheeler said:
Not at all. No pressure, trust me, if there was pressure I would keep it up forever, thats not how you move me. I just take personal responsibility for what I post. If I feel like its not being interpreted correctly, misused, not understood, whatever I will edit or pull it. We are seeing in this thread why I pulled it. How did the GE eagle do? It doesn't matter, we didnt test 1000 of them, only a few and its not a good representation of the entire line. All that matters is how your scope performs, any one of these better scope can hold or fail. It was not a buyer's guide. I dont want people buying or not buying a scope based off of the half dozen GE tested. I want you buying a scope checker and testing your scopes.
Click to expand...


When I'm spending hard money, any and all information that is relevant to my research is considered. If I can find cold hard evidence of actual performance whether it's over a test of six or 1000 of what I'm looking at it then I'm way farther ahead in my efforts. At least that way, I can make a more educated decision in the hope of not blindly spending X thousands of dollars. This is always how I research. It tends to keep me out of bad purchases.

I understand that your intent was to not have it become a buyers guide, but by default it's easy to see where it would turn in to that. If you couldn't see that from the outset, then it wasn't completely thought through. I do appreciate your efforts in this endeavor even though it morphed in to something you never intended. Your testing was real and factual. That is why it carried weight with me regardless of intent. It sure beats the heck out of internet jockeys chiming in with this scope is great or that scope is great. At least you provided real world results.

Best regards...Jim
 
Jim, Im not against the data being posted. 50 pages made guys skip to the end and ask what scope do I buy? I can sum up all the testing pretty easily. Kahles is in a class of its own, then you have the NF BR, GE, and March. Out of those there was a lot that didnt move especially March, but enough moved that you really have to test everyone. If a guy wants to skip testing, buy a Kahles, thats my advise.
 
Thanks for boiling that down Alex.

It would be great to have all the results compiled, then added to as more and more shooters come on line with these scope checkers. Not sure how the logistics of that would work, but it would be awesome. If in the end, it helps people make good buying decisions then we are all farther ahead. A side benefit would be if the scope manufacturers take notice. If a pattern repeats itself, then maybe there would be more motivation by the manufacturer to provide better designs and eliminate old problems before more scopes hit the streets. A guy can dream right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
165,991
Messages
2,207,854
Members
79,255
Latest member
Mark74

Share This Page

Back
Top