We blather all the time about our personal experiences that this scope never failed, that old Leupold friction adjust scopes hold zero, that SWFA scopes dial correctly, that NXS scopes can drive nails into a fence post be remounted and still hold zero but no one ever states what construction parameters are responsible for one rifle scope being more mechanically sound than another.

Why the hell does one stand up to more recoil, dial better, hold zero better than another? Does anyone know?

Good question jimmp. I'm looking forward to the replies.

Just peering into my SWFA scopes (objective end, with flashlight), I see the leaf spring screwed/pinned into place. On the 3-9x and 6x, there is one screw. On the 10x, I can see two screws. People claim that using a fastener to keep the leaf spring in place helps with zero retention, since the spring can't slip. If it slips, the erector tube moves and zero changes. Of course, the downside is more cost due to the extra machining, parts, and assembly time. Maybe a freckle more weight too?

On the Burris Fullfield, they are still using the big circular design that fits against the inner wall of the outer tube. I just looked at a new one the other day at the store. Supposedly this helps keep the spring in place, since the mounting area goes 360 degrees around the inner wall, instead of the typical narrow spring.

I've been told that Leupold used to have a leaf spring with barbs. The barbs were supposed to dig into the inner wall of the outer tube. The assembler would slip the leaf spring between the erector tube and outer tube. The spring tension and barbs would then hold the spring in place, without fasteners or glue. Maybe sandwiched between an inner ring. People have stated that the barbs could slip, allowing the spring to move, which can result in a change in zero.

I'm not sure if Leupold used this design, and if they did, if they still do. However, I've never observed any sort of fastener on the Leupold scopes I've looked into, but that doesn't mean that they don't do use something than can't be seen from the outside looking in.

My observations above are related to zero retention. In my simple brain, when I think about a scope "losing zero", I wonder about the leaf spring and how it is held into place. Maybe there is more to it than that, such as the amount of force pushing against erector, spring relaxation, etc.

For tracking, I don't know

I can only speak to swfa, and older leupolds, as that is what I have experience with. Swfa uses brass internal parts,and heavy duty erector springs. This allows precision, and longevity. As stated in other posts, my old leupolds had weak erector springs, and nylon internal parts. This caused poor return to zero, after a couple of hundred rounds. Night Force, uses brass internals,as I am sure some other good scope manufactures do. Those are the only 3 that I have torn apart ,or researched. Regardless of your choice,make sure the brands components are top notch.

you have to wonder why they use brass instead of steel? I do however get nylon...

I tore a Tasco apart years ago when somebody on a forum said they were junk because they had internal parts made of plastic. Like 90% of the crap posted by internet geniuses, they were wrong. No plastic parts to be found.

I tore my old leupold caps off and looked for myself. They were nylon.

Likely because brass is more resistant to moisture and corrosion than steel.

The Toric use the same system as the Night Force?

No idea, but I would like to know.

looks like no one really knows

I am waiting to hear from the toric reps in regards to this.

I suppose you all should know it depends... And that means what Mfr. and what model scope.

No, the scopes are supposed to be sealed from moisture intrusion so that isn't an issue any more, brass machines easier, is nice and stable, and has a lower coefficient of friction.

The problems with zero retention and tracking originate from the fundamental flaws that are inherent in the mechanical method used to adjust for elevation and windage. Modern riflescopes, put the reticle and the erector lenses in an inner tube. This tube is hinged at its rear end and is supported by the knobs near its front end. The knobs tilt the front of the tube up and down or left and right. A spring pushes the inner tube against the knobs and holds it in place.

The reason for using this method is that the reticle, even after adjustments, will appear at the center of field of view. If you only shift the reticle and keep the erector lenses centered, the reticle appears to move in the field of view like in vintage riflescopes. This is not very appealing to the shooter.

So, what is wrong with this mechanism? A lot actually. See the drawing below.

-Omid

from the other thread:






looks like Tract uses brass/ metal on the inside... not bad for the price point...

So did Tasco.

so does a FFP scope move the reticle out of the erector mechanism, hence FFP scopes are better to dial with and hold zero better? You also have to wonder what secret sauce NF uses in the SFP scopes.

FFP scope are better to range with the reticle because your dots/hashes are the same subtension at any magnification.

Hawke Optics are supposed to use coil erector springs and have etched reticles. Couldn't tell you about the rest...

Dan

The Tract Torics and Tekoas are etched, others are the conventional wire.

Your posts remind me of an engineer I used to work with. He could hardly ever make a decision because he was all caught up in the extreme minutia things. You are ignoring years of successful and precise use of SFP scopes.

Simmons did as well.

Hi Ringman,
Please see my comments in response to jimmy's question below. (and thanks for the complement!! )




Hi Jimmy,

No, the design flaws (or maybe we should call them weaknesses) I mentioned in my post above are not related to the position of the reticle. In FFP scopes the reticle is mounted in the front end of the erector tube, in SFP scopes it is mounted in the rear end. Both types are susceptible to zero shift due to flaws I mentioned above. In SFP scopes, there is an additional cause for zero shift due to erector lenses moving during zoom (they could get de-centered during movement).

Of course premium scope manufacturers minimize the possibility of zero shift by utilizing better mechanical design and higher quality material. But they are still using this "tilting inner tube" concept to provide elevation and windage adjustment. It is the traditional method but it is not the best method. I myself have invented a totally different mechanism. In my design, all the lenses and the reticle are fixed and perfectly centered. The point of aim of the scope is adjusted by optical refraction not by mechanically moving the reticle.

In the picture below you can see a proof-of-concept prototype scope I have made to demonstrate my invention. In this model, the optical element covered by the round black ring inside the scope moves forward and backward and that gives you your elevation adjustment. There is no lateral movement of any element. I am also working on a new variation where there is no movement at all

Have a nice Friday both,
-Omid

Got any manufacturers interested?

I'd be interested in seeing a writer do an article with a complete breakdown of some quality scopes. Testing them for all the regular stuff (especially dialing, return to 0 from dialing, and recoil) across a standard for all of them, then dismantling them to take a look at how they differ in components. It would be a bit costly. I wonder how many company's would donate a scope if they knew it was going to be broken down and compared to others?

I'd say you have a better chance of beating Usain Bolt in the next Olympics than that test ever happening.

I know this has been done years ago, But it seems to me with modern CNC machining and advanced mechanics makers could incorporate all the moving parts integral with the mounts and just make the scope fixed.

lol.... It'd be an even race until the starting pistol.

Good luck with that! Firstly, very few writers are really qualified and/or equipped to make an accurate assesment. Secondly, no magazine is going to risk offending major advertisers with negative reviews.

Somewhere I read the standard practice for honest publications is that when they review something that doesn't measure up, they give the maker a mulligan in hopes that the failure was a fluke. If the second try goes badly, or the maker doesn't respond, their products get ignored henceforth. That is why, I think, that negative reviews seldom, if ever, get published, and why some products seemingly never get reviewed.

I pay attention to the stuff that writers use themselves outside of reviews, figuring that if they use something on their own time and dime, it's probably at least okay.

Anilizing scope design could be somewhat misleading considering the fact that no design is proven until tested by the consumer. Even then there are problems with quality control which means you might read up on a great design that someone completely fumbled in assembly. I think in the end what the consumers say and proven track records speak far more than simply learning about internal components of a scope IMO.

Trystan

The thing about the engineer I worked with had a very hard time getting past theory. When we worked on something and it didn't come out exactly as the theory suggested he was frustrated and tried to use more theory.

I sincerely hope your ideas work. I am ready for a very high quality glass in a very light weight scope. And of course great reliability.

engineers can build most anything...for a price.

Actually that should read some engineers. After working in manufacturing for 20 + years I never saw an engineer actually build anything. They conceptualized and designed but never built. I'm sure there are many that are but none of the engineers I worked with were especially good with tools or their hands that I can recall.

If most engineers had to build what they engineered there designs would change and improve in a hurry


Trystan

If someone made me such a scope I could sight it in a hurry with Burris sig rings if I had extra inserts at close intervals. Such a scope IMO could be made to be lighter and stronger than anything out there and at a price point that would sale. The problem would be finding customers that could negotiate the ring setup. Hell, your average hunter can't even turn the dial the correct direction to adjust a scope.


Trystan

You think zeroing a scope using the rings is the way to go?

I did that to entertain myself one time. One needs to not be locked into the idea the spits need to be horizontal. I had one at a 45 degree.

Sounds ideal. Almost as good as a scope with reliable adjustments.

Curious as to how much better the optics could be if the makers deleted all the springs, gears, clickers and erector tubes.

Scopes are aiming devices, not observation devices.

According to you, most of them are pretty poor aiming devices. (And yes I know a couple are dependable).
If all these scope makers struggle to make a reliable aiming system, maybe an enterprising mechanical engineer can design a positive adjustable exterior mounting system. Without the restriction of containing it within the scope body.
Just throwing this out there, and thinking outside of the box. Since most scope makers cannot, or will not.
Or, maybe we have already evolved to aiming perfection?

Balvar 8 2 1/2-8X fifty years ago. Anyone else remember them?

External adjustments create way more problems than they solve. Scope manufacturers can build reliable hunting scopes that can take some dialing that are not high cost, but not unless hunters start demanding it. When hunters and shooters stop talking "glass" and start talking "reliability and function", you'll see $200-$300 scopes that are solid aiming devices.

I remember the Balvar variables and the B&L fixed scopes but what I remember best is Jack O'Connor's discussion of them with the manufacturer that appeared in a couple of books. I also remember the Kuharsky (sic) and Buehler mounts for them.

I remember the ads where they froze them, pounded nails, and scraped them with a knife.

I've often thought about picking one up for a Mauser maybe, but fear stuff inside might come unglued on me. Mounts for older rifles abound on the www.

Most of us are wannabees. We can't play with the long rangers so we talk about glass. I recently insulted my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's the other day when I decided to learn to shoot long. I purchased a Nightforce and then a Track Toric 3-15X50.

There's a local shop with a NIB B&L with no internal adjustments if someone wants to play with one. $75.

I agree and this is very obviously true since there is nothing particularly remarkable about the materials used inside _any_ reliable scope. The unfortunate corollary to that is that it's super difficult to want to pay NXS prices for something that needs only be 10-15% that expensive.. Even the ex-Tasco designs are only barely within the price range you mention. I can think of another design or two, sold under multiple names, that is (are) proving to be surprisingly reliable. Have you seen those at your school enough to comment on them?

Even the Tract offerings themselves, if they are durable (they're already proven reliable), prove that reliability and durability of a riflescope is very inexpensive to manufacture, because clearly Tract is spending a lot of money on the optical characteristics of their product, yet they're still apparently priced well below optically-comparable options.