I don't think a definitive study on long term scope durability, zero retention, tracking, etc. has been done. At least none that I've seen.
What we're left with is a bunch of anecdotal reports. Some of those reports come for credible sources, with hard use, high round counts, and a lot of turret use. Frank Galli and other instructors have recommended SWFA scopes, based on observations in their classes and field use. Here at the Campfire, we have Boxer, Formidilosus, Jordan, and many others with extensive use of SWFA scopes. So even though we don't have data from a test study, these scopes have established a solid reputation. Difficult to quantify how good, but the reports seem to indicate that they are as tough as anything else. The advantage is that they cost much less than a Nightforce, for example. And frankly, the Mil-Quad reticle is simply awesome, but preferences vary.
So all that to say that this thread won't be able to provide objective, measured data on failures, causes, rates, etc. Everyone will need to do their own evaluations, and review the notes of those mentioned above. And review against other scopes, if that is desired. Still, I will summarize the feedback from the last thread, regarding failures.
Last edited by 4th_point; 09/21/17.
