One shot zero my arse!

[NullMac]

Not an isolated issue. Other 'precision' engineering companies can't make rings that fit on pic rails yet know how to charge a premium

 

[Pellet Pinger]

Just because dirty "Shim" has been done for ages is no reason new products can't be issued properly engineered, is it?
Cheers, Ken.

With respect, thats a fantasy, no scope, glass or digital can be engineered to fit the myriad of rifles, rails etc and drop straight on without adjustment or zeroing.
My post above explains why.

 

[kenbro]

I doubt Chinese design much of anything, since there's practically no firearms and thus no firearm related activity there. They just picked single interface (picatinny/weaver) as most of the sight manufacturers have done for a long time.

You don't go around moaning that the (traditional) scope you bought didn't come with rings to match whatever rail or attachment system you have on the rifle. You buy a set of suitable rings separately, and they match the interface on the sight (round tube). Sometimes you need to pay attention to the ring location on the tube, to get the eye relief right.

Digital sights that are not based on round tube, usually each have their own interface between sight and mount. So manufacturers offer a mount along with sight, and just do a poor job related to the interface between mount and rifle. You can buy quality aftermarket mounts like Innomount for most digital sights (including interfaces like Tikka rail, Blaser QD etc). But then you go on moaning that mount costs as much as the sight did...

Had the Zulus been available without mount (Option mounts from Arken or other ancillary makers) that would have been good.... Everyone needs to move quickly these days getting stuff to market and hindsight .......
Now mine is all set up the only thing I'd change is the sight itself, for a 3-12 model.
Having said that, things moving quickly and a show to go to.
Hope to shake a few hands.
Cheers, Ken.

 

[kenbro]

With respect, thats a fantasy, no scope, glass or digital can be engineered to fit the myriad of rifles, rails etc and drop straight on without adjustment or zeroing.
My post above explains why.

Fantasy!
Are you saying it's too much to expect a 2 part system (Sight and mount) supplied from the same source to fit together properly?
Ken.

 

[Pellet Pinger]

Fantasy!
Are you saying it's too much to expect a 2 part system (Sight and mount) supplied from the same source to fit together properly?
Ken.

No you have a fair point, even though its the first report of that particular issue with the mount.
I was referencing shimming to centralize the ret.

 

[Foxyboy43]

I doubt Chinese design much of anything, since there's practically no firearms and thus no firearm related activity there. They just picked single interface (picatinny/weaver) as most of the sight manufacturers have done for a long time.

You don't go around moaning that the (traditional) scope you bought didn't come with rings to match whatever rail or attachment system you have on the rifle. You buy a set of suitable rings separately, and they match the interface on the sight (round tube). Sometimes you need to pay attention to the ring location on the tube, to get the eye relief right.

Digital sights that are not based on round tube, usually each have their own interface between sight and mount. So manufacturers offer a mount along with sight, and just do a poor job related to the interface between mount and rifle. You can buy quality aftermarket mounts like Innomount for most digital sights (including interfaces like Tikka rail, Blaser QD etc). But then you go on moaning that mount costs as much as the sight did...

Moaning - moi?

Just because dirty "Shim" has been done for ages is no reason new products can't be issued properly engineered, is it?
Cheers, Ken.

My point exactly!

 

[kenbro]

No you have a fair point, even though its the first report of that particular issue with the mount.
I was referencing shimming to centralize the ret.

My mounts (Plural) are the opposite to Smelly dog's in that the sight sits on top of the mount.
With the correct moa mount it fixes firmly (With the ret where I want it) without resorting to shims.
Cheers, Ken.

 

[Overlay]

Because they are fundamentally completely different.
A traditional glass scope has a fixed reticle and when you adjust windage and elevation the internals of the scope move the sight picture to the desired point of aim, therefore the ret is always centered. If you run out of windage or elevation you will need to shim or buy suitable off set mounts or rails, you dont hear many long range shooters moaning about this, its just an accepted fact.

With any digital scope its the sight picture that is fixed (effectively a camera strapped to your barrel) and when zeroing the reticle is moved towards your point of impact, any discrepancy between the line of the scope and bore results the cross hairs being off center, how much depends on the amount of discrepancy including mounts etc.
This isnt anything new, its the same for all digital scopes whether tubed or brick design, as mentioned we were using camera film/coke cans to centralize the reticle on the Photons years ago and even with todays lastest stuff its still the same principle and occurs with all of them, Pulsar, Hik, Sytong, Iray, Pard etc.
Some of them now have ret centering software that once you start to zoom the reticle shifts to the center automatically, the Alpex does it, so does the Arken, the Pard DS does it slightly differently to the same effect.

Shim seems to be a dirty word but its something thats been done for ages, before digital came along!

If this is a historical feature why hasn’t any manufacturers taken the time to sort out these finer points to give purchasers a bit of assurance that they are paying for a unit they can use efficiently and doesn't require a spruce up to get it working correctly

Why people buy something on a hope it will work accurately with minimum maintenance is a mystery - customers put a trust onto what they buy and from who, right or from say when pard for introduced the 008 the mounting system was pants and some had their own made by engineering people on here to resolve that issue, that was years ago and there are still problems
Failure here is the loyalty to a product right now is a one way street from the customer to the seller pretty obvious now after all the years passed it is still not vice versa or reciprocal

Someone who knows all about these pitfalls could point us in the right direction to a company or companies that are genuine in selling a fit for purpose unit that works and fits properly It is getting to a point of pay your money and take a chance - totally unexceptable full stop

It can be done look at Skoda after VW. Purchased it, car of the year is now common with them

 

[jthyttin]

If this is a historical feature why hasn’t any manufacturers taken the time to sort out these finer points to give purchasers a bit of assurance that they are paying for a unit they can use efficiently and doesn't require a spruce up to get it working correctly

Because it would add something like 30-50% to the product price, done correctly. And then people would buy the similar product from competitor, and moan about it.

The mount supplied with Pard, Arken etc. costs maybe £5 to make, fair wholesail price would be £10 and fair retail price £20. Of course it would be priced £50 but it's still far cry from 3rd party externally adjustable (rail) risers or mounts costing £150-£300 in the low end of spectrum. Products that can take real centerfire recoil start from about £500 and go to at least £1000.

 

[Pellet Pinger]

If this is a historical feature why hasn’t any manufacturers taken the time to sort out these finer points to give purchasers a bit of assurance that they are paying for a unit they can use efficiently and doesn't require a spruce up to get it working correctly

Why people buy something on a hope it will work accurately with minimum maintenance is a mystery - customers put a trust onto what they buy and from who, right or from say when pard for introduced the 008 the mounting system was pants and some had their own made by engineering people on here to resolve that issue, that was years ago and there are still problems
Failure here is the loyalty to a product right now is a one way street from the customer to the seller pretty obvious now after all the years passed it is still not vice versa or reciprocal

Someone who knows all about these pitfalls could point us in the right direction to a company or companies that are genuine in selling a fit for purpose unit that works and fits properly It is getting to a point of pay your money and take a chance - totally unexceptable full stop

It can be done look at Skoda after VW. Purchased it, car of the year is now common with them

Manufacturers are addressing the issue, with auto centre features, go back to post #38 and scroll the vid to 4mins.
The Alpex and Zulus have this feature.
The problem is people expect a digital scope to perform mechanically like a glass scope and they physically can’t unless we are prepared to pay considerably more for them.

 

[Overlay]

Because it would add something like 30-50% to the product price, done correctly. And then people would buy the similar product from competitor, and moan about it.

The mount supplied with Pard, Arken etc. costs maybe £5 to make, fair wholesail price would be £10 and fair retail price £20. Of course it would be priced £50 but it's still far cry from 3rd party externally adjustable (rail) risers or mounts costing £150-£300 in the low end of spectrum. Products that can take real centerfire recoil start from about £500 and go to at least £1000.

Yep
I get the price /cost bit but if the product has lnherent faults to cure that with a price to suit surely is the most productive, one thing you don’t see on the box, “ you may have to purchase additional mounts or bodge it up to get this unit to work reasonably”.
I’m ok with the buy once and cry once tale, but not buy once and keep saving for another one because it may break or fail more than normal

As far as cost goes, price is irrelevant if the product works and constant with decent fit for purpose build

It all smacks of accountants and no research on quality long term equipment and it is what they want to sell and not what people want
So many different units out there, so many with inherent faults and people are influenced into buying because of price and spec , 50% of the spec isn’t even required by the majority

 

[Pellet Pinger]

Yep
I get the price /cost bit but if the product has lnherent faults to cure that with a price to suit surely is the most productive, one thing you don’t see on the box, “ you may have to purchase additional mounts or bodge it up to get this unit to work reasonably”.
I’m ok with the buy once and cry once tale, but not buy once and keep saving for another one because it may break or fail more than normal

As far as cost goes, price is irrelevant if the product works and constant with decent fit for purpose build

It all smacks of accountants and no research on quality long term equipment and it is what they want to sell and not what people want
So many different units out there, so many with inherent faults and people are influenced into buying because of price and spec , 50% of the spec isn’t even required by the majority

But it is what it is, one user on here has a problem that he has now rectified and everyone instantly writes the scope off as not fit for purpose, there’s a ton of people that have bought the scope and have no mounting or zeroing issues and just using them, there’s some that just accept that they might need to shim/tweak and get on with it without making a fuss and then a few noisy ones that have a meltdown because they struggle to set it up.
That is the same for any digital scope, i’m reading the exact same things about the new 4K Alpex, LRF box disappearing when zoomed, can’t fathom ballistic inputs, can’t see bullet holes at 100yds when zeroing etc.
It’s all part of the game lol.

 

[Overlay]

But it is what it is, one user on here has a problem that he has now rectified and everyone instantly writes the scope off as not fit for purpose, there’s a ton of people that have bought the scope and have no mounting or zeroing issues and just using them, there’s some that just accept that they might need to shim/tweak and get on with it without making a fuss and then a few noisy ones that have a meltdown because they struggle to set it up.
That is the same for any digital scope, i’m reading the exact same things about the new 4K Alpex, LRF box disappearing when zoomed, can’t fathom ballistic inputs, can’t see bullet holes at 100yds when zeroing etc.
It’s all part of the game lol.

There’s been more than one or two issues with different makes of nv, if your savvy with the atrocities of digital / NV then you would make little noise but if your not and find it hard to do and combine that with the long term problems people have had it’s no wonder people shout, they pay for a rifle scope fit for purpose whatever way you look at it if it was a car you would take it back, you wouldn’t expect a car manufacturer to advertise oh buy this model now we’ve upgraded and sorted some of the problems out
NV scope manufacturers do just that

I personally use 2 pard 007v’s and clive wards T Ceptor never had a problem with any of them and they both work perfectly one is cheapo and the other not so so it proves it can be done at a decent price across a range
What NV needs is a reasonable priced NV that works, with no special bits, good clarity and quality fittings and core

Just me but I find it a bitter pill when you have concerns after you’ve paid your money for something then new complaints roll in on its faults, the worst bit is when the manufacturer hasn’t really sorted the already know problems

 

[Pellet Pinger]

I personally use 2 pard 007v’s and clive wards T Ceptor never had a problem with any of them and they both work perfectly one is cheapo and the other not so so it proves it can be done at a decent price across a range
What NV needs is a reasonable priced NV that works, with no special bits, good clarity and quality fittings and core

But the 007’s are a completely different concept and the Tcepter is a thermal costing thousands, it doesnt really prove anything regarding your sub 1K dedicated NV build quality.
You pays your money and takes your choice accepting any foibles along the way with any NV as they all have them, like i say it is what it is.
Personally ive been using the C50 for the last 2 years, foxing and stalking and bought a Zulus just to see what the fuss was about with the intention of sticking it on a rimfire for a bit of rabbiting and if it didnt stack up return it. Suffice to say the C50 has now been sold and ive bought another, one lives on the centerfire and for me does the job better in all situations, ive shot foxes, muntjac hares and rabbits on all my land, it holds zero and just works.
I think anyone dismissing the Arken because of a thread like this is missing a trick, it wont be for everone and wont compete with the likes of a Vulpine/scope combo but its very much fit for purpose.

 

[BenBhoy]

ive shot foxes, muntjac hares and rabbits on all my land, it holds zero and just works.

Always with onboard IR mate or have you added a torch?

 

[Pellet Pinger]

Always with onboard IR mate or have you added a torch?

Onboard Ben, ive tried a PBIR and Blade and theres barely any extra throw from them.

 

[Foxyboy43]

So you just pays your money and hope that for you it works?
Can u give a few examples of other goods where you would accept this as standard?

 

[blueeyes]

It was the same with the Drone Pros which were not cheap people started to find that the mount was too flimsy for the objective bell hence loosing zero , glad to say I got one of KGs mounts and it has never missed a beat, but at that price why should we have to fork out more and there is nothing worse when you loose confidence in something

 

[kenbro]

On 11December 2023 I wrote:
Ps. Surely it would have been as easy to make it fit as not fit?

 

[Overlay]

But the 007’s are a completely different concept and the Tcepter is a thermal costing thousands, it doesnt really prove anything regarding your sub 1K dedicated NV build quality.
You pays your money and takes your choice accepting any foibles along the way with any NV as they all have them, like i say it is what it is.
Personally ive been using the C50 for the last 2 years, foxing and stalking and bought a Zulus just to see what the fuss was about with the intention of sticking it on a rimfire for a bit of rabbiting and if it didnt stack up return it. Suffice to say the C50 has now been sold and ive bought another, one lives on the centerfire and for me does the job better in all situations, ive shot foxes, muntjac hares and rabbits on all my land, it holds zero and just works.
I think anyone dismissing the Arken because of a thread like this is missing a trick, it wont be for everone and wont compete with the likes of a Vulpine/scope combo but its very much fit for purpose.

I think it does compare the 007 and t ceptor world apart on the cost, but they both work without fault perfectly the pard relies on your mounts and fixings the ceptor the quality of the build including the mounts work perfectly
It’s the ones in between that needs a tighten up