Opening caveat - debating or discussing topics on the internet can be a challenge, as the medium makes it hard to determine whether one (or both) “sides” are doing the former or the latter.
I’m trying to do the latter. So serious question - is this the answer to your question? If there is more, please let us (me) know. I’m not a math major and I figured out years ago to not try to figure out the answer to a question posed in this manner, unless it’s on a subject with which I’m very familiar. Clearly you know the answer, but - IMHO - when asked in this way, it comes across as more argumentative than perhaps you intended. Same for “bubba drop tests” - but I’m continuing with the hopes that we are all in this thread to learn.
If you have an issue with an aspect (or overall approach) of the drop tests, please just walk us through it. I don’t think Form will take offense and it might facilitate a discussion of how to compare scopes. Maybe it can be improved, or maybe there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication?
I recently tried to describe the drop tests to a friend and he was somewhat skeptical (understandably). What resonated most with him is that in my opinion if scope makers were doing strenuous tests to mimic real world situations, they would make that a central part of their marketing. I’m not familiar with the marketing of all makers, but I’m also not aware of such a front and center marketing pitch, apart from NF. The TT pieces above are new to me, and while those tests are more than I’ve ever seen described for from Swaro (as an example - and I own one), I’m also not informed enough to know how well those tests are for indicating durability.
If one of you (not just
@TK-421) has a scope you think would pass the tests, will you send one in for testing? One reasonable response might be “not to some guy on the internet I don’t know”, but short of that, would you consider it?