Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scope Torture Test

Apparantly we don't all live on the same planet. Where I live and hunt we do not subject our scopes or rifles to such treatment. This is akin to the guy who said his rifle would feed upside down or underwater..I do not hang upside down from a tree and shoot nor have I ever gone under water after a wounded Hippo or Croc.

For what its worth, the only test I have done that I think was worthwhile was to shoot 300 or so rounds through my .458 Lott and a 505 Gibbs Imp, and the ONLY scope that held up to that treatment was the 2.5X Leupold compact and I tried about all of the major brands, both European and USA, at one time or another..I did this after reading an article on the .458 Lott in Rifle Magazine no. 135, May-June of 1991 and they claimed the Lott destroyed every scope tried..I, was somewhat amazed at these results so I did the same testing and they were spost on correct..Then, some years later I tested the 2.5X Leupold compact and it is still shooting after perhaps a thousand big bore rounds and half of those were 458 Lott and 505s..Why does this scope work? Leupold says it's because the cross hairs are directly under the adjustments in the scopes center, and it certainly seems to work...They repaired my 3X 4 times and then sent me a free gratis 1.5X compact and ask me to test it..

Most of the stuff you read about how good a certain scope is comes from "because I own one", not from tests or from being used, and then you get the most ridiculas of scope tests such as beating them with a sledge hammer, running over them suppended between two blocks with a tank, tractor, or whatever...Sillyness at its best, an overdose of something to write about in an industry that has written everything that can be written, and now everything written is repititious, re: 270 vs. 30-06, which scope is the toughest and so fourth.

Bottom line is most of the high dollar scopes do what they are designed to do, and like most things one is as good as the other. I personally only use Leupolds anymore because I am no longer caught up in the more money you pay the better the merchandise, I also have an aversion to hype, and distrust salesmanship, and I am old fashion and still like to support made in America if I can. I find European Scopes heavy, clumsy, and the finish slick and hard to hold in rings, they require higher mounts as a rule, but all this is opinnion, but its my opinnion, and in my case I am the buyer..The same applies to all of us.

Scopes? Like my golf clubs are reminesent of "The only difference in men and boys is the cost of mens toys" and the truth is a scope has one function and that is to place your shot where those crosshairs intersect on the target..My question is do we need to spend an extra $500 to get that done in the hunting field..I personally don't think so, and that is why I use Leupolds. Leupold has served me 100% over the last 60 years, and I have yet to run into a situation wherein an expensive Eruopean scope would have changed that scenario..The other is cosmetic, the Leupolds have slimmer cleaner lines on my slim custom rifles.

All that said, it is a personal choice and I have stated my case. It is a discussion on my part, not an arguement.

Thanks Bob!

For some reason they wouldn't hire me at the dynomite factory

Merry Christmas!
Terry

Take a chill pill! Never did I knock USO scopes, in fact I said that they were great scopes. It doesn't bother me but IMO this test is nothing more than fluff.

That was more of a test of you Ray!

lol

No, an example of a gentleman is Dr. Howell.

E is another story entirely. E constantly tells others they don't know how to use their equipment, their equipment is the wrong kind for the job, etc.

He has been proven wrong on many occasions and refuses to acknowledge he is wrong. The most he will post on any thread is 3 to 4 times; usually it's 2.

He gets embarrassed (if he is capable of feeling shame - I have my doubts) and leaves, only to resurface on another thread spouting the same, tired BS.

Gentleman?

No.

That is correct. USO was present in many military trials (USMC, Canadians, etc) but was never chosen. Schmidt and Bender scopes remain the chosen optic. USO makes very good scopes but they never win any contracts.

Magnumdood, I know, heck everyone knows because you make certain they do, that E has your buttons pushed. I read his stuff objectively and cannot recall ever seeing anything in one of his posts that comes close to matching the derison he recieves from the usual suspects. I do notice a preconceived bias has some reading insinuation into what he may say at times. I just don't see it for myself when I read his posts -which I don't always agree with. I find his posts fairly well thought out most of the time. I just feel the vicious nature of some remarks against him are counter to the idea of a campfire. Please accept, as offered, with sincerest good wishes for a wonderful Chrsitmas season.

twisted8 - why do you think USO would never win a contract? Just curious.

kenjs1, please read my post again. I did not express an opinion I just stated a fact. They have not won any contracts but have been involved in a lot of trials over the years. The cases have been documented you can search and find if you dig deep enough as to the failure(s). USO makes good scopes in my personal opinion.

re-read you post Twisted, thought you had said they would never, instead of had never -sorry for my error. It's too bad. Got me curious about the failures- will go snoop around as suggested. kind of moot though. Can't see me ever ponying up for one.

Does it matter to you when the content of a "well thought out" post is completely made up?

JonA, yes it would. I just don't find that "most of the time" as I wrote. Nothing wrong with calling someone out on BS if the intent is to honestly educate the whole. What I don't understand is the obsession so many have with him and find the ridicule detrimental to the fire and a bit schoolyard. Often I have read a post from him and found it grounded and certainly less salacious then the counterpoints. Look, I'm no choirboy and sorry for being preachy (face it _ I guess I am\was) but my point is that Christmas has a way of making me a little more ...aware? It brings me joy, does me good, and I offer that it might do some others good as well. It is strictly in the spirit of well meaning.

The USO torture test did prove one thing and one thing alone. Their scope tubes are tough ! If USO and the Leupold cost the same , I would take the Leupold ! A hi mounted big heavy scope throws a good handling rifle out of wack.

Note I underlined a portion of your quote. I've tried ignoring him; his posts remain the same. He's not posting to push my buttons. He's posting because he thinks he's right. I think he's wrong. Pointing that out makes me feel better.

I hope you had a great Christmas and I hope you have a safe, and better New Year!

While I respect Mr. Atkinson's experience I'm not sure it tells me a whole lot about what a scope will do when subjected to rough handling under field conditions. There seems to be quite a few scopes out there these days that can handle directional recoil whether it be real or simulated. It does sound like the 2.5 fixed is up to handling the task of recoil although it appears that even Mr. Atkinson has had the same problems with Leupold's other fixed offerings as witnessed by his multiple repairs of the straight 4x Leupold. All this makes for interesting reading but the real test is the test of time.

A couple of things.
Mr. Atkinson's recoil testing was not done with ordinary rifles which many of the better scopes can handle. He was using some of the very worst when it came to recoil.
He has described this testing on other occasions. Basically he tested the smaller, fixed magnification scopes, like the Swaros and the S&B's to see if he could find anything that would hold up better than the 3X Leupolds he had used for years. He found nothing better. Leupold got tried of rebuilding his old 3X's, and sent him the 2.5X Compact. It held up much better. Leupold's people odviously knew this in advance. A benefit from their extensive testing and development work.
I agree that handling recoil w/o breakdown isn't the same as resisting changes in zero from outside impacts.
Mr. Atkinson has also tested for that since he sees hunters show up each year with big scopes that get their zero shifted from rough handling. He has posted a couple of times that the best he has found in holding zero, from his testing, have been the older 3X, the 4X and the 1.5-5X20 Leupolds. E

When the scope scooped up a bunch of dirt on the 1st throw I figured the test to be fluff at best. A rig propped up in a corner that slips and falls on a hard floor takes more of a beating than the tossing on that video.

I'd be more impressed by rapidly heating/cooling the whole rig a few times and shooting groups between heating/cooling cycles. Seeing how the whole rig reacts as the different materials heat/cool at different rates is my idea of a torture test. To me that's a better simulation of the hunting I do in the winter. Get out of a warm truck into -20F ambient air, call predators for 30-90min, back in the truck (that's still 75 degrees inside because I didn't shut it off) for 10-30min while heading for the next setup, over and over again.

This is what Ray Atkinson said. Only one compact held up to his very specific type testing. Not enough information here to draw any conclusion anyway.

It's the only scope that held up to that much shooting and that is inconclusive ?
All of the other scopes he tested gave up at about 100 rds. If you don't want to take my word for it, ask him.
How about his impact testing ? That doesn't tell you any thing ? E

No, it doesn't. He reported his limited findings. When you cite the 15 year old DEVA impact testing you fail to note that the only brand of scope that failed their testing was Leupold. Of course those "tests" were flawed as well. No reason to question Mr. Atkinson as he only reported what he did on a non scientific basis.