Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scope Torture Test

If the test was only based on one or two samples of each scope,the test is hardly scientific.If however he installed several scopes of each make and model on the same gun,and used the same load until each scope failed,that would be useful information.


Any test that doesn't produce the results that favors E's opinion are obviously flawed.Any test whose results favor his opinion are obviously credible.

It's called anecdotal evidence ERRORcus; look it up.

You mean the DEVA testing ERRORcus so proudly crows about when he gets the chance only failed one scope brand, the loopie?

The worst offending scope was a Redfield which is no longer made, so I left that out. Out of the remaining 6, all held their zero, with the exception of a Leupold 3.5-10x40. Lost it's verticle and horizontal adjustment. Even a very inexpensive Tasco passed without shifting zero.

My my, do tell!

A Trashco?

What I don't understand , is why are people so polarized for or against Leupold ? My family and I have used Leupold scopes for 40+ years. If they were not any good I would say so. We must have over a dozen of them (I lost count). They have been trouble free. What more can I say? We have used other brands that have worked fine but none have been better than Leupold. Our best guns wear Leupolds.

I have owned over a dozen Leupold scopes myself without a single failure.However,the competitors are now producing scopes as good as Leupold,for less money.And it is my opinion that some manufacturers are now producing even better scopes than Leupold.

stubblejumper , you could be right. I am takeing a hard look at Sightron II Big Sky. It is hard to switch brand loyalty after 40+ years of trouble free service. If it is not broke don't fix it.

I don't feel that I owe loyalty to any company,they have already made money from me,and if they want to make more money from me,they need to earn it by offering the best product,or the best product for the price.



If everyone felt that way,we would still be hunting with pointed sticks,or by driving game over cliffs.

My first scope was a Leupold Vari-X II 3-9X40. I've probably owned, and used over a dozen Leupolds since then. They are about even with the other type scopes I have used in numbers if you leave out red-dot type sights. The largest percentage of scope I have owned and used is overwhelmingly Leupold.

I have nothing against Leupold scopes, they are what they are; a good 3rd tier scope.

Magnumdood , I do not know what tier scope Zeiss or Swvarski would fall in but I have sighted in rifles with those brands of scopes and did not see that much differance from my Leupolds. The 4X Zeiss left a lasting impression because it was so clear and sharp but the little differance in optical quality over my Leupold , verse its price left me cold.

Were the sight ins done in broad daylight,or at dust or dawn?The differences between scopes are much more noticeable in low light conditions.

It isn't the scopes that cause the polarization. It's the blowing smoke up peoples' backsides on their behalf by certain individuals that does.

Terry: The "oops" factor is there for us all....a buddy was glassing at the rim of a canyon in Colorado,and forgot he did not have the strap attached to his binos around his neck....you know the rest

A Belated Merry Christmas to you,too!

I have nothing for or against Leupold scopes. I still own 3 that work good enough for their applications. I do however have a dislike for persistent lies and cherry picked information.

RD, that BS and you either know that or should.
The tests you cite are highly biased. The US/asian rim scopes were impacted 10 times, the euro brands only 5 in that test. Since the effect is cumulative, i.e. most of the reticle shifting would occur with the last of the impacts, not evenly distributed as the scope is hit. On top of that, the extra impacts were done to the ocular which is particularly sensitive.
Second, the results you cite are for the large scopes only. When it comes to the smaller scopes, inspite of the fact that the scope was hit twice as much, the small Leupold held up as well as the 1.5-4X20 Swarovski. It's reticle shifted only .5 cm's vertical and none horizontally.
I believe that this odvious bias was done because the testers knew that the euro brands would not do well. E

Again, you are cherry picking and avoiding the truth. You continue to cite only the tests that favor your opinions. Look at the "test" that was conducted on the mid-range variables. The Leupold tested and the Tasco tested were impacted the same way as you already know. The Leupold failed miserably (lost 4.5 inches of zero) and the cheap Tasco passed (lost nothing) with flying colors. If you want to ignore printed fact, don't bother responding.

What you say is true as far as it goes. However, if you want champion Tascos as being tougher, more reliable than Leupolds, I wish you luck.
Second, you quoted, again, an inaccurate figure. The loss was 2.4 cm's vertical and .8 horizontal, not the 4.5 inches you reported. 2.5 cm's equals one inch.
You also failed to mention that the small Tasco moved 2.0 and 2.5 cm's while the small Leupold moved 0.0 and 0.5 cm's in the same test.
Anyone who wants to read about these older tests needs to read pages 35-51 in John Barsness's great book, "Optics for the Hunter." Very good read, much of which still applies today. E

Now you want to dispute what you admit to be true.



You are the one that keeps using the DEVA tests as references to back up your opinions.Either they are to believed,or ignored,if they are to be believed,you must accept that the Tasco did better than the Leupold.



And much of which is outdated and no longer applies today.

So, what we should do to make you happy is accept DEVA light transmission test results that are 15 years old, only accept the low power variable scope impact test results that are slightly suspect of your desired results, accept Mr. Atkinson's impact test results as gospel know nothing about the results or how he arrived at them and we now need to disregard the DEVA test results that were conducted with mid range powered scopes because they are bias. Yes, that sounds like a good plan going forward. Perhaps we can come up with a blended test result acronym for the DEVA/Atkinson light transmission/impact testing that would be acceptable. Lets try, DLAI test (Deva light and Atkinson impact test). Or, maybe not. This is just a another example of why most folks here distrust the information you post here. Two parts DEVA + one part Atkinson doesn't add up to one for all.