Almost the entirety of riflescope marketing and advertising by all companies is certifiably illiterate bullshit aimed at obfuscating anything that might actually offer information.
Primary Arms Optics - Discovery 2025: PLx Compact Long Range Scopes Unveiled
- Thread starter Realwar
- Start date
I do not know of any decent scope company using extruded tubes. I’ve visited a bunch of them and they all machine them out of billet.
Wall thickness argument is the same kind of nonsense. I think we had a long thread about it a year or two ago.
Most riflescope marketing people have a hard time figuring out which end of the scope to look into and they most certainly have no comprehension of anything technical about them.
The general rule is that if you see something technical sounding in an advertising of riflescope, it is either a lie, a mistake or an irrelevant fabrication. Every once in a while i am pleasantly surprised, but that’s very rare.
Ilya
I have no idea how to look that up to verify (without buying one of each and dissecting them beyond repair, which is well beyond my household R&D budget), but if Primary Arms were doing something special to increase the durability of their PLxC scope, wouldn't you think they'd be bragging about it?
I think you are missing my point. Machined tubes are not anything special. Neither is the rest of the claims. How much you hear about these things only depends on how shameless the marketing people at each company are.
Would you stake your reputation on this optic performing as well in a TBD drop test as a Night force equivalent?
S
Not trying to start a fight; I'm genuinely curious. "Duty optics" have a whole industry of YouTubers abusing them in reasonably standardized/scientific ways to evaluate their durability and performance (Sage Dynamics and similar), but I haven't seen similar evaluations of these sorts of higher-magnification scopes.
So this idea that Nightforce optics are more durable/shock-resistant/etc. than other brands...just marketing hype?
Not trying to start a fight; I'm genuinely curious. "Duty optics" have a whole industry of YouTubers abusing them in reasonably standardized/scientific ways to evaluate their durability and performance (Sage Dynamics and similar), but I haven't seen similar evaluations of these sorts of higher-magnification scopes.
Pretty much. Except there isn’t a single YouTuber abusing anything in a remotely standardized or scientific way.
Nightforce waqs absolutely instrumental in getting LOW to learn how to build robust scopes when they were just starting.
That differentiation is long gone.
They build nice scoeps with very good QC. The rest is legacy marketing.
ILya
You can quibble over precision, but re: overall scientific rigor, I think Sage Dynamics's shoulder height drop test is adequately precise across its repititions to yield usefully rigorous datasets on durability against the most common shocks likely to be endured by weapons in the field.
But also, thank you for the perspective on Nightforce! This is exactly what I was hoping to find out.
But also, thank you for the perspective on Nightforce! This is exactly what I was hoping to find out.
I have little doubt that PA has priced their scope according to what they believe the value of it should be. The bigger question is whether or not the market will sustain that price. I made a prediction early on in this thread that if PA prices this scope close to or above the current street price of the NF NX8 2.5-20 then I think they will struggle to sell at adequate levels which will likely force sales or reduction in price. Now we know the price is above and even though the PA may be optically and mechanically better than the NF (which I hope it would with a 7 year newer design) it will be difficult to compete with the Nightforce name even though the NX8 is not their most robust line.
At some point I would like to get ahold of this scope and do a direct comparison with a newer NX8 2.5-20, I think it would make for a great shootout.
Nightforce scopes are durable not because they have thicker tubes, but the design and the process in which they are manufactured.
For the USA made NF scopes, each objective lens is cut for a precise thread fitment in the tube. If the objective lens moves at all during an impact then your point of aim will change.
And the turrets are also made that way, the screw is cut for a snug fit, then hand lapped for the right feel and zero backlash. Once those parts are matted they are a married set, if they get separated its junk.
Among other things, that all becomes very time consuming.
Then each and every scope is put in the collimator and tracking tests are done with their fancy little post they bang it on. If it fails it is taken apart and fixed or scrapped.
LOW may or may not be doing all that hand fitment during manufacture, but they are still all tested 100% once they get to america. (The exception is the SHV, not 100% tested)
For the USA made NF scopes, each objective lens is cut for a precise thread fitment in the tube. If the objective lens moves at all during an impact then your point of aim will change.
And the turrets are also made that way, the screw is cut for a snug fit, then hand lapped for the right feel and zero backlash. Once those parts are matted they are a married set, if they get separated its junk.
Among other things, that all becomes very time consuming.
Then each and every scope is put in the collimator and tracking tests are done with their fancy little post they bang it on. If it fails it is taken apart and fixed or scrapped.
LOW may or may not be doing all that hand fitment during manufacture, but they are still all tested 100% once they get to america. (The exception is the SHV, not 100% tested)
Can someone get Trump to sign an executive order that all products announced at Shot show must be available to ship within 30 days of announcement......
Does durability correlate with glass diameter as well? I.e. would you expect a Nightforce 1-8x24 ATACR, and/or a 4-20x50 ATACR to be substantially more resistant to shocks/drops than a 7-35x56 ATACR? Or (given what I assume would be similar care in hand-fitting in the turrets and lenses across both ATACR products) would you expect roughly similar shock resistance from both of these optics?
Thats something i have no idea of.
Suffice it to say, Poi shift from objective lens movement is not a problem people have with ATACRs.
Still crickets on the 2.5-20x48??? Interesting, I'm not used to seeing PA take this long to come to market with products they announce, they are usually pretty quick.
I would expect the latter... it's more about the quality of the parts and assembly that play a bigger role than the size of the parts.
That would be one hell of an acrobatic achievement...Ah, I'll crawl back under my hole now...
Just a purely theoretical question, but if the community response to their initial reticle offerings was not as positive as they might have hoped, what would be the chance they could modify same before initial delivery to market-the thought that a minor delay for better market acceptance better than revision post first release.
Zero chance. Getting new reticle cells made and into the scope with a Japanese OEM takes a surprisingly significant amount of time.
Maybe way of topic here. If thats the case please disregard. It seems the more information we (meaning the masses consuming equipment) get on products, the more it appears to be mostly marketing hype and produced by a handful of manufactures. Which leads people to a very confusing place as to what is the best value for ones money. Maybe its just my personal feeling on the current offerings from companies. 
I went down a long dark rabbit hole on LPVO's on which our Dark Lord @koshkin assisted me. (thanks again) But, i ended up not buying anything for several reasons. One of which being most options appeared to be manufactured by the same handful of companies with only the reticles being the different. But, wildly differences in price. The entire process left me completely flaccid (yes that flaccid) on the LPVO market and purchased nothing. Maybe that means it only appears we have many options. but in reality we are only picking reticles at different price points? Or maybe it means the market is so healthy the options are endless? Hey, look at me im a philosiphizer..... well, with some help from Wild Turkey.
I went down a long dark rabbit hole on LPVO's on which our Dark Lord @koshkin assisted me. (thanks again) But, i ended up not buying anything for several reasons. One of which being most options appeared to be manufactured by the same handful of companies with only the reticles being the different. But, wildly differences in price. The entire process left me completely flaccid (yes that flaccid) on the LPVO market and purchased nothing. Maybe that means it only appears we have many options. but in reality we are only picking reticles at different price points? Or maybe it means the market is so healthy the options are endless? Hey, look at me im a philosiphizer..... well, with some help from Wild Turkey.
The most recent new tariff increase on Japanese imports was changed a few times and is currently going to commence in early July but the rate may change again so if PA hasn’t shipped these yet then they will have to hope that the 24% stays as is.
Thanks Ilya-what I thought. Not having one of the 2.5-20’s in hand, am hoping the Athena may be less busy tree style reticle for use on 6.5GR/CM AR’s. The Neptune option on 5.5-30, while providing lots of ‘information’, is entirely too crowded for my purposes. The website pics lack sufficient resolution for any determination.
Like others here, anxious to get one in the flesh….sometime in not too distant future.
Like others here, anxious to get one in the flesh….sometime in not too distant future.
Just because two optics are made by the same manufacturer, doesn’t mean they’re made to the same specifications.Maybe way of topic here. If thats the case please disregard. It seems the more information we (meaning the masses consuming equipment) get on products, the more it appears to be mostly marketing hype and produced by a handful of manufactures. Which leads people to a very confusing place as to what is the best value for ones money. Maybe its just my personal feeling on the current offerings from companies.
I went down a long dark rabbit hole on LPVO's on which our Dark Lord @koshkin assisted me. (thanks again) But, i ended up not buying anything for several reasons. One of which being most options appeared to be manufactured by the same handful of companies with only the reticles being the different. But, wildly differences in price. The entire process left me completely flaccid (yes that flaccid) on the LPVO market and purchased nothing. Maybe that means it only appears we have many options. but in reality we are only picking reticles at different price points? Or maybe it means the market is so healthy the options are endless? Hey, look at me im a philosiphizer..... well, with some help from Wild Turkey.
The BMW 116i and M8 are both made by the same manufacturer, but have a wide spectrum of price.
Now, yes there seem to be more and more companies popping up that just pick their scopes from a Chinese manufacturer’s catalog and slap their name/reticle on it. Avoid those.
But there can be situations where several optics by several brands made at Low in Japan, but they are all made to different specifications. So different capabilities, performance, features, and yes, price. This is normal. Don’t worry that they’re made by the same manufacturer. They can still have different specifications. Heck, each brand can also have different QC processes once the scopes are in their hands.
