Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To enter, all you need to do is add an image of yourself at the range below! Subscribers get more entries, check out the plans below for a better chance of winning!
Join the contest SubscribeIn theory, yes...@koshkin could changes (expansion/contraction) of the resins/epoxy holding the lenses account for these alleged issues?
But in practice, you'd need to have some fact specific analysis...When materials bonded by epoxy have different rates of expansion (thanks to differing thermal expansion coefficients), it creates stress within the adhesive bond. With temperature fluctuations, these materials expand and contract at different rates, stressing the adhesive through shear and tensile forces.
I honestly would not put too much stock in what top PRS shooters are using.
I think there are a few of shooters who choose their sponsors. Talking with Vibbert at a match a couple of years ago, he mentioned that he went to the various vendors he had bought stuff from and told them to pay him for the attention he was getting for them, and it worked. If my favorite optics company offered to pay my match fees or give me some free optics I already liked, I'd stick with them and print it on a jersey.^^^This.
The sponsorship game muddies everything to the point that a guy would be foolish to assume that a shooter with an optics manufacturer printed on their jersey chose their scope solely because it is the highest quality option available.
The same is true for a shooter changing sponsors. It could easily have nothing to do with the quality of a product and everything to do with a sponsorship or even a tangential business relationship.
Even if the shooter in the jersey swears otherwise.
I think there are a few of shooters who choose their sponsors. Talking with Vibbert at a match a couple of years ago, he mentioned that he went to the various vendors he had bought stuff from and told them to pay him for the attention he was getting for them, and it worked. If my favorite optics company offered to pay my match fees or give me some free optics I already liked, I'd stick with them and print it on a jersey.
But the sheer number of people moving over from what I consider to be better optics to use MK5s and printing "Leupold" on their jerseys tells me that Leupold's marketing budget has to be YUGE.
But again, to your point, "What the pros use" blog posts are suspect when it comes to optics, chassis, projectiles, and barrels.
It’s interesting that only a few top shooters are still shooting Gen3’s and TTs
Those guys don’t change unless there are issues
I’ve been behind Leupold and the glass is definitely below a Gen3, so that is not it
In theory, maybe. In practice, not likely. The way lenses are glued into their holders is radially symmetric. Epoxy expansion would not cause a sufficiently significant lateral shift unless something was done very incorrectly. However, a screw up of that magnitude would likely manifest itself in other ways as well.@koshkin could changes (expansion/contraction) of the resins/epoxy holding the lenses account for these alleged issues?
Also, there is a very large group of hunters and “fudds” becoming interested in “long range shooting” that have $$$ but very little understanding of the game. They are ripe for the plucking by brand names they are already familiar with.Not only that, but there's a huge herd mentality.
Even if you are spending your own dollars, you are likely to follow what others are using. Which is why sponsors do what they do - if it wasn't so effective to buy PRS shooters, they wouldn't do it.
There is no proof such shifts exist. Just opinions.Are these shifts horizontal, vertical or both?
Uh huhGen 3’s have had some thermal shift issues recently that guys have been complaining about.
rich old fudd here who is confused about new scopes techAlso, there is a very large group of hunters and “fudds” becoming interested in “long range shooting” that have $$$ but very little understanding of the game. They are ripe for the plucking by brand names they are already familiar with.
In my limited experience, a mil (vs MOA) Gen 3 Razor is the F150 of solid options. A bit heavy, but a choice that holds value when you want get something else. The zero stop and zeroing process is simple. The shooters that spend their own $$$$, are budget minded, and need predictable performance often end up here. The only way to build a well rounded understanding of what will really work best for you is to use it a lot, especially with expert coaching/classes in the beginning.rich old fudd here who is confused about new scopes tech.
I just kept the 45 year old 3x9 pentax but changed the brush mounts to lower onesIn my limited experience, a mil (vs MOA) Gen 3 Razor is the F150 of solid options. A bit heavy, but a choice that holds value when you want get something else. The zero stop and zeroing process is simple. The shooters that spend their own $$$$, are budget minded, and need predictable performance often end up here. The only way to build a well rounded understanding of what will really work best for you is to use it a lot, especially with expert coaching/classes in the beginning.
It's legit and 2 of the best shooters in the world have talked about it. One switched to zco this season and the other just won a match a few weeks ago.There is no proof such shifts exist. Just opinions.
TBH it sounds like a wonderful excuse for poor match performance.
It's legit and 2 of the best shooters in the world have talked about it. One switched to zco this season and the other just won a match a few weeks ago.
Sponsorships don't mean dick if you don't have confidence in your gear.
I don't shoot well enough to see the difference and it may only effect a certain percentage of the model but there is too much smoke to say there is no fire.
Most of the people in this thread are talking out of their ass about a product they don't know, shooters they don't know and relationships with vendors they don't undetstand.
I hear what your saying but one was a she.I heard the same shpeal and there was more than a little undercurrent of sour grapes from one of the two guys you're parroting. As in, it was clear he was pissed at Vortex and was more than happy to trash the product to anyone that would listen.
Which to be honest is a bad look for someone who makes at least part of his living as a product spokesperson. Vortex is a large company that has been ridiculously supportive of precision rifle competition for years. A Pro shooter spreading a rumor that (he most certainly knows) has clear potential to cause direct financial harm to Vortex might find himself wishing he'd taken the high road instead.
I hear what your saying but it wasn't a "He".
I was under an impression that they did not sponsor anyone. They do have a sense of humor though.Well, I asked to be sponsored by Tangent Theta one time.
They laughed in my face.
Then apologized to me.
(Insert Canadian joke...)
The most plausible question is probably that riflescopes do not really shift zero with temperature very much if at all. Even if they do a little, out in the real world, other factors overshadow this potential small shift enough for it to be completely unnoticed (if it exists at all).Being the stupidest guy here (trust me, that will be apparent in a moment,) and I know that military grade or approved is not the ultimate seal of quality, if a number of SF guys are using, say, a NF optic and they are in the GWOT and go from 32 F in the mountains to 105 in the sandbox and still make hits, is it because they are not shooting far enough? Or some other thing?
I say this, having read the memoirs of some former snipers who were in the Rangers.
I am also mindful that their job description is vastly different than that of PRS.
In fact, my whole question may be apples to oranges. But I simply could not pass up the chance to ask what might a silly question or just another facet of an academic discussion.
well let’s just throw names out. No need to skirt around it.
The thermal shift started from Baker. I feel like half of the PRS heard about it at the 2023 finale.
The only other person that isn’t a he that dropped Vortex for ZCO would be Zane.
I have no personal dealing in the matter in regards to the company or the people involved. I have a G3 I use on my 308 trainer and have not had the issue.
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean. I’m just delivering the message that I get from said shooters. Some still shoot for Vortex and some don’t. They’re stand up people that haven’t made excuses for bad matches before so I don’t imagine this is the case now.Uh huh
It's legit and 2 of the best shooters in the world have talked about it. One switched to zco this season and the other just won a match a few weeks ago.
Sponsorships don't mean dick if you don't have confidence in your gear.
I don't shoot well enough to see the difference and it may only effect a certain percentage of the model but there is too much smoke to say there is no fire.
Most of the people in this thread are talking out of their ass about a product they don't know, shooters they don't know and relationships with vendors they don't undetstand.
You don't even shoot so why do you care?It's a complaint without evidence
Ummm...aliens?To re-iterate: if anyone has any details on what kind of a shift was observed and at what conditions, I would really like to figure out what caused it.
Summarizing this thread, this are several distinct possibilities:
1) It is a real phenomenon that may occur in some Razor Gen3 scopes. It appears that two people are complaining about it, but noone has been able to produce any details.
2) It is a real phenomenon that was caused by something else, but again without any details it is hard to say.
3) Someone is pissed at Vortex and is trying to get back at them for something (badmouthing Vortex is a pretty fashionable thing these days). Again, not knowing anything about the people and what they are claiming, I can't tell. It is a little underhanded, but not unheard of. I was hoping that this kind of nonsense was contained to Youtubers, but perhaps it extends to the shooting world at large.
4) This is simply a convenient excuse for poor performance, which would be the most human of failings.
Was there any other possibility brought up in this thread that I missed?
ILya
I plan to when I am back home in a couple of weeks. There is a 100 yard shooting tunnel at my range. I'll go set up there with a few icepacks and a hair dryer to check this out. I have a very accurate 17HMR from Vudoo that should be a nice test bed for this.I'm calling BS on this thermal shift theory. Never heard of this issue from ANY scope and they're all made from basically the same materials. If there was one brand they would start this nonsense about, it would be Vortex. Someone with a G3 needs to take a heat gun to the range.
Our last stage of the day was a benchrest style accuracy stage at 50 yards. Shooters had 2 minutes to break 5 shots on paper while seated at a bench. I definitely did not lose zero.
Because I hug nobody's nuts.You don't even shoot so why do you care?
If the thermal shift is real, we should see an immediate change in their scores after switching... but we don't, we see the opposite provided you want to call a 2-point deficit average for one and a .37-point deficit for the other a "Change". Which leads me to believe that if it is real, it effected very few shots.well let’s just throw names out. No need to skirt around it.
Gonna have to concur to a large degree. I know I "had a Gen2 Rzr go down", only to find out it was the rings slipping in the pic rail (after Scott from Vortex had checked the scope, found nothing wrong, then called me up, asking for me to look for rub marks on the rail). It appeared as if it was shifting .5 mils (exactly, every time) vertically. So I'm sure some who shot that match can say "I saw a Gen2 Rzr go down", and never got the full back story on it (note to self; never use minimum torque settings on rings in 80* temps, when the match is shot a 29* temps). That year's Big Horn Classic was a cold MF!In seeing the whole story I call BS on this whole "thermal shift problem" with the Gen III. As most know I have no love for Vortex now but not going to jump on some made up bandwagon of something that has never been seen in any other scope and all of a sudden just this scope has it happen. Seeing the rest of the story in shooters claiming this hurt them and having shot this sport over 20 years and seen people come up with all sorts of reason why they shot bad (Hint- it's always the gear and never them). Not even going to entertain this BS anymore.
And Ilya I wouldn't even waste a minute trying to prove this.
So looking back on private conversations months back (Oct-Dec), I was hearing stuff about parallax issues in hot temps, not zero shifts. As I said previously I heard about this at the 2023 finale and haven’t experienced it with the G3 on my 308 trainer.
Not sure. The member I talked to at the finale about it said he thought he was having the same issue Keith Baker was having. I’m not going to give a judgement on if that member knows how to use parralax or not. However, I talked to Vortex about the issue and they tested all of Bakers scopes from below freezing to boiling point and could not recreate the issue. Just being transparent.Could this be a user error, not equipment?
It seems like the parallax function is the most misunderstood of any scope function.