Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics toughest scope

Forget about anything else, what is the toughest scope on the market today?

nightforce

Guy I fished with couple weeks ago in Oregon dropped his nxs guiding a client, didn’t retain zero. But there’s videos of Nightforce gettin shot with a 12 gauge perty close, so he’s lying. 😂 rut roh…

Steiner, if you can stand the weight.

He even has a Nightforce sticker on his cooler!!! Oh lord, pm’s and texts are flying, boo boo lips are dragging and excuses are in the making!! Haha 😂

Yep, My vote would slso be for Nightforce, they are built like a tank!.....Hb

Nightforce.....case closed!!

Ignore the prior answers.

Yours is a good question and, as you would expect, there are several variables or components to consider.

The first one is obviously the main tube. Here we can quickly cut through the chaff. The vast majority of scope tubes are made of aluminum. There are a few that are made of steel and I have no first-hand knowledge of those so this discussion is all about aluminum tubes. You can immediately eliminate the 1inch and 30mm tubes from the ranks of the toughest scopes; their tube wall will be a maximum of 2mm thick. Then you are faced with the 34, 35, 36, and 40 mm tubes. In the 34 mm tubes, if the range of adjustment is much greater than 60MOA (or about 20MIL), the tube wall will 2mm thick also. For example, I know that the 34mm tubes from March are all 4mm thick; extremely strong. I also believe that some Nightforce scopes are 34mm and have thick wall; the NXS series is not one of them. There are many other brands with 34mm tubes and thick wall. But again, I come back and say 1inch and 30mm tubes do not make the cut.

Next is the design of the tube. If it's a two (or more) parts main tube, they don't make the cut. If the objective bell is extruded, they don't make the cut.

If the tube is bent by accident, your zero will shift, to say the least.

After that, you have the knobs and the magnification ring. Now, any scope that lands on the elevation knob may get damage to that assembly. Some are tougher than others.

Let's talk internals. The first thing that comes to mind is the erector tube. If you have a heavy erector tube, any hit on the scope will cause more internal stress on the knobs and springs than if the erector tube is lighter. But if a light erector tube is not engineered properly, it will be easily damaged. You also have the choice and use of proper material for springs and knobs and so on. Some last longer than others.

Then there is the issue of how everything is assembled internally and sealed overall. Again, one piece tubes are superior to multi-piece tubes for sealing. I've also seen scopes with an access plate to the knob assembly. That's not conducive to sealing life.

Internet lore is one thing; real life engineering is another.

I checked out the Nightforce site and discovered the only line that has a 34mm tube is the ATACR; the NX8, SHV, NXS and competition all have 30mm tubes.

Checking various ATACR offerings reveals Nightforce uses the 34mm tube to provide a larger range of internal adjustments; the main tube walls cannot be thicker than 2mm.

Scopes weren't designed to take physical abuse.

Back in the 1960/1970s Leupold had a scope and rifle pictured in an advertisement I believe in the NRA magazine along with the story of how the rifle and scope were lost in a pretty fast flowing western stream....I believe in a horse crossing.

The rifle and scope were found a couple years later the rifle and scope were trashed...the Leupolds internals were still nitrogen filled.

Unless someone has a better verified example of extreme use then I give Leupold the toughest scope award.

Zeiss is the only manufacturer that used to have a rubber cover over the front objectuve bell that I'm aware of.

Tough....can the scope take heavy recoil and remain zeroed.

Thanks. I own one Zeiss and numerous Leopold’s (mostly older ones).
I’ve never tried Nightforce. But I’ll be considering them.
Let me put the question another way: a friend has a specially ordered 460 Weatherby without a muzzle break. He hates muzzle breaks. He also owns a bolt action single shot 50 BMG. The 460 kicks much more than the 50 BMG, because it’s much lighter.

What scope would be able to last the longest on that Weatherby?

In my younger years I had mostly steel tube Elpaso Weavers 2 1/2x, 3x, 4x, 6x, 10x and 12x. Granted the only hard kicker I mounted any on was my 350 RM 600 Remington and that was a 2 1/2x. I had 4x scopes on the ‘06’s and the higher power on lighter kicking cartridges.

I never had scope failures that I was aware of. But I wonder if I let some scoped rifles go due to a bad scope??

I always preferred fix power scopes.

I’d probably try the NF ATACR 1-8x.

Never seen a broken SWFA 6x MQ, or a SWFA 1-6 HD.

Might happen, but I haven't seen it.

With all the experience MD has in testing scopes, you might ask him.

It can definitely happen, but the beauty in SWFA is they have awesome customer service. If you drop one of their scopes and damage the eyepiece (just for an example), they will replace it for free.

I have a 25+ year old Vari X iii 1.5-5 that's been through hell and back and has never lost it's zero on a 338 WM. I haven't used it for dialing obviously but for it's purpose, it's been flawless.

Yep, he's the man for this. Yet, let's not put him on stage to say anything bad about any product.
I guess that's up to him.

I have one too, I use it on my 338-RUM. It has never missed a beat.

IIRC he's stated he's had something like 12 or 15 different brands of scopes go tits up at one time or another, including alpha brands.

Not known him to pull punches, IIRC every BRAND of scope tested, has gone belly up on his "test" rifle.

I like the older Leupolds. I thought and maybe I’m wrong that the old M8 line of Leupolds were the toughest of the lot. I have some old variables too. But ever since I was a teenager I had the belief that variables were weaker. I think I have a M8 4x on my 375 H&H AI - I have not shot that other than at paper, but that’s held up so far.

Don`t know if it`s available to the general population, but Marcus Luttrell`s account of he and his MK 12 with a Leupold MK4 going full tilt down a mountain side, with both being fully operational at the bottom, impressed the hell out of me. You might want to look that up.

I would consider that "Tough".

No, not every brand tested--but right now far more than the 12-15 brands JGRaider quoted.

Have had 20 brands of scopes now go bonkers on various test rifles. Some I expected to, but some I didn't.

I don't recoil-test nearly as many new scopes as I used to, partly because I don't write a regular optics column for any publication anymore. To tell the truth, this was something of a relief, due to growing a little weary of shooting hard-kicking rifles enough to determine anything.

But I also grew weary of scope companies claiming that there was nothing wrong with the scope that failed to work correctly when I sent it back to them. One major company with a reputation for making VERY tough scopes even claimed this, and said the problem was the scope slipping in the rings--which they determined by seeing tiny impressions from rings in different places in the scope. They said they refinished the scope and sent it back to me.

There were two problems with this. First, I'd already told them that it had been my major rifle test-scope for around 5 years, because it worked so reliably--which meant that it had been mounted on a bunch of rifles, with the rings in different places.

The other problem was that I record the serial number of all the scope I own. Started doing this maybe a decade ago, just to keep track of which scopes had been on which rifles. The scope they "returned" to me had a different serial number than the one I'd sent them.

Old Burris Signature with the Posi Lock is battle tank tough.

Question MD, would you mind, “What scope or scopes has never failed in your tests?” I am tired of scopes failing, though admittedly I know you have way more experience than I dream to have had.

(Other than the one El Paso scope I sent in and maybe another, I record the serial number on scopes. But only the ones I’ve sent in.)

What irks me is a major scope company sent me a scope back and said there’s nothing wrong with it, yet when I mounted it on an accurate rifle the group size was much much larger than normal.
It sort of soured me on their warranty.

Lost faith in Leupolds, moving most of my optics to SWFA. If $ allowed I'd add some NF

Can anyone be trusted anymore??

Thanks for the reply.

Earlier, I said that 1inch scopes have 2mm walls, like the 30mm scopes. I have since found out that this is not the case. The 1inch tube walls are closer to 1.2mm thick. (We always thought the 30mm tubes were stronger than the 1inch tubes because of the larger diameter. It would appear that it's mainly because the walls are thicker.) Also, it is possible to have a large range of adjustments in a 34mm tube with 4mm thick walls by reducing the focal length of the objective. Age is a terrible thing; I knew that last one and forgot. As an added bonus, a shorter scope body will be tougher than a longer scope body with the same wall thickness. I am not aware of any riflescope with walls thicker than 4mm at the moment. So look at the 34, 35, 36 and 40mm for the maximum in toughness and look for the shortest one as the king in that department.

Bugger,

So far haven't had an SWFA scope fail, but haven't owned as many of those as some other brands. Did own one where the clicks didn't move POI exactly what they should have, but were still very consistent.

One of the problems with a lot of scope "brands" is a wide variety of scopes, in both price and quality, with some even made not just in different factories but different countries.

A fixed power SWFA SS is probably one of the toughest scopes you can buy and the toughest sub $900 scope. Its pretty rare to hear about a SWFA SS 6x42 or 10x42 failing.

I remember that add
I saw a rifle hanging in a Marine hardware store in Anacortes Wa years ago. Looked just like it a wetherby I think
I aske to see it the scope was still
Perfict. I asked if it was the one used in the add but the employees there didn’t know. And I never presued it further as I bought an 88 win the same day they had hangin in there it was too cheap and I wanted to pay and run before they changed there mind

Finally someone mentions this. You can’t beat physics, and three points of opposing contact on the erector assembly vs. two and opposing springs wins every time. Good engineering. Too bad morons kept trying to adjust the scopes without loosening the posi-lock feature, I believe Burris got tired of repairing user induced damage.

Probably vortex- they have a good warranty and lots of soldiers Ive seen on Instagram use them.

Likely the answer is the Trijicon ACOG. Is has been said that the handle on the AR will distort or break before the ACOG.

Just returned a signature that had some
Debris floating around in it it had damaged the glass internally those feel like a brick solid built scope but first scope I ever had with crap
Floating around in it

Nightforce.

2.5-10x24
2.5-10 Compact
5.5-22 from back in the day, saw em take some pretty solid licks, they never done anything but lie there bolted on ready to go to work for you!

Overall, I've found the USA built Burris offerings to be very tough and consistent in their tracking. Still have a couple of their USA built Short Mag and older gloss compacts in service, and I wouldn't say no to more of them for levers and "woods" rigs.

Perhaps their current offerings are just as tough - the FF2 seem widely regarded as a tough scope - but I don't have much first hand experience with thier Asiatic offerings.

I just saw this posting on another site. The rifle in the video is chambered for a 14.5X114 necked down to .50 cal, shooting a Hornady 750gr .510 A-Max.

https://marchscopes.com/news/10738/


The presenter says the recoil is much worse than a 50BMG rifle, and that means I do not want to try it as I do not like recoil. Yes, I am a wimp, but that March Genesis scope isn't.

I bounced my Remington 700 with a 2x7 Leupold directly onto the scope from a 6' top bunk at our cabin, and it hit the floor and actually bounced about 2'. It was only off by about 1/4" at 100 yards when I checked it.. Sold me!

I would hate to think as an American that I'd lost faith in a great American company like Leupold.

Finish selling your soul to the Asian Mongols.

Who.gives a Nightforce scope "licks" ?

That Philippine made crap will break too if you mistrreat it.

To be fair, expectations of riflescopes have grown vastly in the past 30 years. Back then holding zero and not fogging up where pretty much all anyone expected. Then the optics got better, and consumers did, or pretended to do, more long range work.

So far I haven't broken a NF or Bushnell Elite Tactical scope, but then again I haven't owned many of them and haven't put them on hard kickers yet.

I have used quite a few SWFA's, and they're great values but I've had two break. One was a fixed 6x on a 7 mag, the other was a 1-4 on an AR. Both were replaced quickly with no questions asked by SWFA.

On the cheaper end of the spectrum, I had an old Burris Fullfield 3-9 that took a lot of abuse. It didn't track great during sight ins but once zeroed it did hold zero very well.

Jordan's suggestion is a good one.

I like buying American and I work to do so whenever I can. But I don't care for companies wrapping themselves in an American flag just to carry favor with a certain cohort of customers. They also need to deliver a superior or at least comparable product.

Your ire and derision towards people who've moved on from Leupold is misplaced. I can't speak for everyone who doesn't buy Leupold but used to at one time, but after having more than a few go south, I felt like a good ole American company gave up on the consumer, not the other way around. They owned a huge the market share for decades. They rested on their laurels while the industry evolved and expectations changed. In short, they left the door open as little known marketing companies who don't produce anything stole market share and became big names. Now they pull at heart strings of working Americans while peddling the same internals as Asiatic scopes in a gold ringed package.

I sincerely do hope that they get the ship righted and that I start reading reviews of how tough and reliable their current offerings are. I would love to go back to supporting them.

The Asian scope manufacturer has stolen every design they peddle...the price point on Asian made scopes should be nickles on the dollar.

Probably someone who uses their schidt in the field vs. letting it sit in the closet . Nightforce isn’t made in Phillipines

Leupolds are mechanically poor. Just a fact

On a budget, Burris.
No budget, NF i would say.

Toughest? I have Swaro, Trijicon, and Zeiss on rifles, but they never been thru the beating I've given a Burris. My FFII has been dropped from a treestand, fell off swamp buggys, ATV's and still held zero. So hands on experience my vote goes to Burris 3-9x40.

Your ass is itchy.... LOL!!!

Harshest test 300MAG puts his scopes thru is setting them on dining room table to take a pic for 24hr classifieds one week after purchasing. Lol

What’s up Jeffrey! been awhile, I still lurk around here or post once a month.

LOL.....I was expecting a good reply!! I'm ok....just got over a month with Covid...it was scary schit!!

Hope you are good buddy....stay in touch.

Sorry Bob....how many islands I miss it by ?

I have owned the following and used them enough to consider them tough:
Burris FFII line
Burris signature select with the posi-lock
Older Leupold variables and fixed powers. Vari-X III -VXIII, FXII both the 4x and 6x36mm never used the FX3 6x42 enough to have a good opinion.

Bushnel Banner 1.5-4 used on several Big Bore Marlins over the years. At $80 I thought they were a joke but good enough glass and held up to years on 45/70s

Super chickens

Older Bushnell 4200 Elites were 1 piece tubes composed of titanium. I’m not saying they were nightforce tough but they were tougher than any of the Leupold scopes of the time. Feel free to trash me as I’m into my 2nd Manhattan and just don’t care.

> even a seal sniper proved Nightforce is the toughest scope , this sniper kept using his Nightforce scope even with a bullet from a enemy sniper in his scope and the Nightforce scope still held zero .

It’s an impressive (if overused) story, no doubt, but there was a lot of luck involved. If the enemy bullet had hit the erector assembly, the story would’t have ended so climactically.

Many years ago now, a young soldier was about to deploy to Iraq out of Fort Hood. His issued Leupold Mark IV was not working correctly (typical) and there were no spare scopes to issue him days before deployment.

I lent him a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22 off my backup rifle to take with him. He was worried about damaging it, but I told him use it and just bring it back.

While deployed, he was in a vehicle that was hit by an IED. The vehicle rolled over and he landed on his rifle so hard it bent where the barrel goes into into the receiver. He was treated and released to return duties a few days later. He had the armorer put the Nightforce on a replacement rifle and it worked fine for the rest of his deployment.

When he made it back, he returned the scope as promised, but asked if he could buy it. Of course I agreed. That convinced me of Nightforce’s durability.

Brands that have broken on me with just use hunting and target shooting are Leupold, Redfield, Zeiss, USO, Nikon, and maybe forgetting a few.

Never had a Nightforce break despite far more rounds fired than all the others added together. Nightforce is all I will buy now. Been using the NXS Compact 2.5-10x42 the most the last few years, but still use my big NXS and liking the NX8 a lot.

Oh, there’s no doubt that they’re beyond tough, but taking a bullet is a bit beyond what they can handle, and definitely requires some luck.

My vote will also go for Nightforce

You might be better off sticking to iron sights with the luck you have.

The problem is, when a guy actually uses his stuff, instead of sitting at home in his rocking chair, his stuff breaks. Fragile stuff breaks more often than tough stuff. Simple concept.

Yep - you want stuff that's Not Fragile (queue up some BTO on 8-track and set volume to 11)

I was unfortunate enough to have a SWFA 2.5-10x32 crap out on me this weekend. Well....actually I can consider myself fortunate that it happened while sighting in and not while in the field.

357 Max single shot with 180 grain A-frames an H110, weaver rail, Vortex low 1" precision rings. Recoil is very light. A few shots to get it close to zero after bore sighting. Dialed in the last adjustment to get it perfect and was going to shoot a 5 shot strings to verify all. On the 4th shot the view went fuzzy. Sounds like a baby rattle. Inside has trash in the view and from time to time a large black "something" in the picture. I'm sure SWFA will handle it well.

Really, I was lucky. Pre-crapout it adjusted correctly and the view from 2.5-8 was pretty good, 9-10x could be cleaned up a little with focus, it fit the rifle really well being light and small with planned use at short range woods shots. I was liking it. If it would have held out 2 more shots it would have been in the woods next weekend.

I had a friend had a Sauer 270 he earned delivering newspapers or selling trinkets or some schit back in the 60's or 70's. He hunted everything with it and when I met him in the 80's he was still using a Bushnell Sportview 3-9 on it. He continued using it another 20+ years. Never lost zero.

Weird.

My Barrett Fieldcraft in 7-08 is turning out to be a scope killer. I think the light rifle with a fast recoil impulse is tearing scopes up. I just had another SWFA SS 3-9 HD go bad on it. It ate one last fall that I sent in and still haven't got the replacement back for it yet. Now I have another to send in and they are still on back order.

It also killed a VX-3 3-10x40. I've thrashed a lot of leupolds over the years but the vx3 3-10x40 usually hold up fairly well. I though it might do better under recoil because it's a lighter scope. I just put a new vortex razor hd hunting scope on it. Probably be testing the vortex warranty soon.

I'm bummed to be down 2 SS 3-9 mil mils because they are one of my favorite scopes. This recent one makes the 4 th one I've had go bad but I have several that get used. I will throw a SS fixed 6 mil mil on it if it eats the vortex. The little 7-08 doesn't feel like it kicks much but it is a scope killer.

Bb

Very interesting Burley. What rings and mounts on that Fieldcraft? I don't doubt what you wrote as I have experienced somewhat similar issues with a Kimber. Just curious about the configuration.

I have a leupold 20 moa one piece rail fir a base. For rings I started with SS 6 screw tactical lows. The scope slipped in them at first so I really cranked them down. It shot well for long enough to shoot an elk last year and then went to crap. I put another scope on in I believe ugi brand rings. It shot well the first trip to the range and then toasted a scope the second trip. I put on another SS 3-9 in some Warne rings and started working up a load for 180g elds. I found a load shooting 1/2 moa.

The next range trip I had loaded more of that load. The first group shot great again. The second opened up and shifted about 1.5" low. I thought maybe the scope slipped again until. The 3rd group went about 1.5" higher and an inch left of the first which was about 4 inches from the second. It was opened up to about 2" group too. Now I've got to get out and try this razor HD hunting model scope. I'm not a fan of a lot of vortex but this ones a LOW built in Japan model.

Bb

I have no personal experience with them, but the military contracted with US Optics for some time. I imagine their product testing included the ability to withstand battlefield abuse.

I have a Steiner T5Xi 5-25x on my Tikka CTR in 308 and just received yesterday a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x F1 scope. Both are built like tanks, and weigh as much. My Steiner has not been babied but not abused either and I have had zero issues with it. I expect the Nightforce to act the same, and in a pinch I could take it off and beat someone or something with it as it feels that durable.

I have a Leupold VX6 3-18x on my go-to deer hunting rifle. I would be concerned with any hard knocks or falls happening to this scope but it has performed flawlessly at distance since I have babied it.

My new in the box Leupold VX5 HD was DOA when I removed the cellophane shrink wrap. Had a 25 year old Schmidt on my custom 300 Win mag...shooting 0.4" with the scope (has the fat hot dog weenie recticles). Wanted something with a little more magnification as its 10X and its used for longish shots on powerlines. Strapped on the VX5 HD and the same load printed 2" plus. Worked with it all summer...nothing worked. Strapped the Schmidt back on......0.4" groups. I'm a "Leupold guy" and have 27 of em. All are older models. It kills me but will send this scope back and keep the S&B on it for now. Need light gathering out of this scope so that takes NIghtforce out of the question. Need it to be able to take recoil of a 300 so that takes out Swarovski. I'll keep the S&B but absolutely hate those thick crosshairs.

How far is a longish shot on a powerline?

If you're repeatedly shooting sub half inch groups it doesn't seem like the fat crosshair reticle is holding you back.

How did your other SS 3-9x scopes fail? Also failure to hold zero?

400-500 yards. I’m not one of the “long range sniper shot only” crowd but potential long shots are a reality where I live. Huge ag community with large flat fields. Those 50-75 yard shots don’t happen too awfully much here. Needed a doe to close out the season last year and a nice fat one stepped out right at 400. I had to take a little longer than usual to aim….the dang crosshairs seemed to cover her whole vitals.

What's the subtension of the crosshair?

They all make good ones and bad ones. I'd have to say Nightforce is pretty impressive. I've been using them for last couple years and they are pretty tough.

I have 2 other scopes that have proven themselves thru the years.

3x9x42 Zeiss Diavari that has been on my primary deer rifle. Has had the crap beat out of it for 12-13 long deer seasons and has held up beautifully. Shot it last week, still dead on after all those years.

Leupold VX6 1x6x24. Has been on different 375s and to Africa 4 times and Kodiak once. Has taken an incredible beating on those safaris, brush trucks, bush planes, boats, you name it. Never let me down.

Well I always thought it was how thick the crosshairs are or say the distance between the crosshair and the top of he post on duplex style reticles. Or the distance between various dots and such. That said many variables can change "subtension" when changing the scopes power.

I was asking about the thickness of the reticle in his S&B on 10x, assuming he turns it up for the longish shots.

They subtend an inch at 100 if I remember correctly.

The last one did the same thing this one did. Groups went and zero started walking a bit. I sent it in and they said it was bad but didn't say how. I'm going on a year waiting for a replacement. Two of the 3-9 SS I had that failed all the sudden wouldn't adjust more than a few mils one way on windage. I used a mirror to set center and then had plenty of adjustment one way and very little windage the other. I sent them in and they replaced them.

The 3-9 SS is a favorite so it bums me out to have a few more fail. Although nothing has survived the 7-08 fieldcraft yet. My first gen Ti in 30-06 munched a few scoped back in the day. I had better luck putting lighter scoped on it. Oddly enough the TI still wears a VX2 3-9 LR reticle. That it hasn't broke yet. It sent a few other heavier scoped to the grave.

Maybe mathman or someone could explain the physics behind lighter scopes holding up better. Something about them being easier to set in motion and not send their lenses forward maybe.

Bb

The overall weight of the scope isn't the factor. The mass of a particular internal part relative to the strength of its mooring is what counts.

"...so I really cranked them down."


Don't do THAT any more.

If scopes were slipping in the SS rings one thing to try would be scuffing the inside of the rings with some coarse abrasive paper.

I did scuff them and they are lapped first and then cleaned off good with rubbing alcohol. After the lapping and cleaning I scratched them a bit with a hex key after they slipped the first time. I'd set them somewhat light around 20 pounds initially. Obviously it wasn't enough so I tightened them up. I didn't go full gorilla on them but those scopes have a fairly heavy tube. I know a lot of manufacturers recommend like 18 pounds but I usually go tighter than that.

This last one shot great for a while being fairly tight and then went to crap. I've had some scopes that acted weird when too tight but I notice it right away. I don't think that's the issue here. The same inertia that makes them really want to slip forward I'm guessing is unseating a lense or something. I usually only go as tight as I can cranking on the short end of a hex key for leverage.

Bb

Thanks for the explanation.

I've actually explained the physics behind the opposite effect. Heavier scopes in reality hold up better (they add more weight to the rifle/scope system that accelerates as one system upon the rifle firing), all things being equal, since for a given force light objects accelerate faster, and that change in inertia is what is hard on things. The mass of the internal parts and the strength of their connections is a large factor, as well. In that case, the rifle system has a given acceleration and the heavier the internal part, the more force is applied to it to get it to accelerate at that rate.

This makes sense but also the heavier the internal parts, the more they resist acceleration due to a given force...right? I always get confused on these things.

So why has the 6.5-ounce 2.5x Leupold M8 that's been on Phil Shoemaker's relatively lightweight .458 Winchester Magnum managed to retain zero for decades now?

Thanks for the deatils details, Bb.

J

Yeah, sort of. The heavier the part, the more force it takes to get it to accelerate at a given rate.

To really explain it, we have to break it into two parts. First, consider the scope and rifle as a single object. A certain fixed amount of force gets applied to the rifle in the form of recoil. Well, I think it’s fairly intuitive for most here that the heavier the rifle, the less it accelerates due to that fixed amount of recoil. A heavier scope makes the rifle/scope object heavier, so it accelerates less under recoil.

Now, for the second part assume the rifle/scope is accelerating at a given fixed rate. For a heavy part to accelerate at the same rate as a light part, more force is applied to the heavy part. As mathman correctly pointed out, the strength of the fastening system of the part, relative to the force applied to the part, is what determines whether the fastening will let go or not.

So the factors that contribute to scope durability are overall heavy weight, and strong internal fastening systems relative to the weight of the internal parts.

A simple analogy would be someone driving a car. The engine (like the rifle’s recoil) has a fixed amount of power it can apply to accelerating the car with everything in it. If the car with its contents (rifle/scope system) weighs more, it’ll accelerate slower than if it weighs less. Now take one particular item in the car (like an internal scope part). The car and its contents accelerate at a given rate, and if that one item inside is heavy, let’s say it’s the driver, then the seat will have to apply more force to accelerate the driver at that given rate than if the driver was lighter. And if the strength of the seat is insufficient compared to the weight of the driver, the seat will collapse and the driver will break loose inside the car (like an internal part breaking loose inside the scope).

Well, as with most things, a single anecdote doesn’t prove a concept, but I would say that the scope in question has retained zero despite being lightweight, not because of it. I think you would agree that a 7 lbs rifle/scope combo is harder on the scope than a 9 lbs rifle/scope combo.

The fastening of the internal parts, relative to their weight, must be fairly exceptional.

Thanks. I get the internal scope part analogy and certainly understand that the momentum of said parts can cause issues under recoil, but I am not a physics person...it seems that with a given force, a heavier scope (or scope parts) would both accelerate and also resist that acceleration more.

People say a heavier rifle soaks up recoil more than a lighter rifle...and thus kicks less. I see the same logic confliction here as a heavier rifle (assuming enough recoil is there to get it moving) would both kick more due to more momentum and also resist that momentum more, and thus kick less.

I dunno......

Heavy objects have more inertia than light objects, which means they resist changes in momentum. Force is equal to the rate at which momentum changes in time. So for a given force, the light and heavy rifles will both gain the same amount of momentum in a given period of time, but the lighter rifle will accelerate faster to gain that momentum. If the rifle/scope is accelerating faster, then there is more force applied to the internal parts and fastening systems.

Nightforce

Jordan, I have far more than "a single anecdote" about lightweight scopes (especially Leupold fixed-powers) that have retained zero for years in harder-kicking rifles. I suspect the reason is that Leupold's internal parts during the era when they made very tough M8s is that they used adjustment springs far heavier than required for the very light erector tube.

Also have "anecdotes" about other brands of lightweight, fixed-power scopes that also retained zero on hard-kicking rifles. Among them was the early 2.5x Bushnell that one of the first PHs I hunted with in Africa had had on his .458 Winchester since the early 1950s. His initial experience was with culling many, many of Cape buffalo on ranches in what was then Rhodesia. Afterward he transitioned to a PH for safari hunting, and had done that for many years when I hunted with him and his son in South Africa in 1992. The same Bushnell was still working fine on the same .458.

Dunno if you know the background of Bushnell scopes. The company was started by Dave Bushnell, who spent some time in Japan during his military service. He eventually asked a Japanese optics company if they could make scopes like of the post-WWII El Paso Weavers (which also had a reputation of being very recoil-resistant), and they said yes. They worked very well, including retaining zero under repeated heavy recoil. Of course, the Bushnell "company" continued on long after Dave Bushnell was gone, just as "Weaver" did. But the toughest scopes from both companies were VERY tough, despite being light.

unertl.

Thanks for your comments, John.

The “single anecdote” thing wasn’t meant as a slight or jab. You asked how that single example fit with the physical concept, and my intention was just to point out that a counter example doesn’t disprove a principle when there are other confounding variables involved.