Bushnell LRTSi 4.5-18x44 Drop test/mini eval

[sndmn11]

Sometimes I picture @Formidilosus sitting at home laughing, "Can you believe I talked these guys into dropping their sh^t on the ground"

Best practical joke ever.

It's actually kind of fun and a bit of a rush to do it with your own stuff. I had planned on only doing the RS.3 I was sent, and then the slippery slope began of breaking a rifle stock, proofing things, etc. It has also been interesting to talk to other manufacturers, that have not been mentioned, about this and hear their thoughts and learn who has confidence in their products and who does not.

I am also now really darned confident in some of my scopes.

 

[Rifles And More]

It's actually kind of fun and a bit of a rush to do it with your own stuff. I had planned on only doing the RS.3 I was sent, and then the slippery slope began of breaking a rifle stock, proofing things, etc. It has also been interesting to talk to other manufacturers, that have not been mentioned, about this and hear their thoughts and learn who has confidence in their products and who does not.

I am also now really darned confident in some of my scopes.

Confidence can go a long way in shooting - you'll shoot much better. I know where the reticle is when I pull the trigger and know if I have a hit or miss. Confidence in the gear.

My T3/SWFA combo has never seen the inside of a gun case. Thrown in the back piled under gear and driven cross county on washboard roads, strapped to a 4 wheeler and beat to death, strapped to a pack and taken on and off, and killed animals first shot.

Never purposely dropped though.

 

[ETtikka]

On top of this, the wisest thing that should be asked for on this scope is a 10/20 shot group.

I would also be hesitant to make any conclusions off of @Formidilosus testing of single scopes. The idea is that testing a scope is simply that, testing the sample of one. It means there is a possibility the entire SKU has a chance of being mostly reliable, but that cannot be a statement until a much larger sample size is evaluated.

I also say thanks for taking time to perform these test,,,

as far as the sample size of one goes, if the rifle/mount/ammo etc are proven and taken out of the failure equation, then a failure of one sample of a certain scope is a failure. If you tested 9 more, 9/10 is still a failure in any QA program.

 

[sndmn11]

I also say thanks for taking time to perform these test,,,

as far as the sample size of one goes, if the rifle/mount/ammo etc are proven and taken out of the failure equation, then a failure of one sample of a certain scope is a failure. If you tested 9 more, 9/10 is still a failure in any QA program.

I am looking at it more from the opposite perspective. If a scope performs well, I am pretty sure the idea isn't to make it gospel that SKU is golden. I think the idea is that it warrants further evaluation. I will at some point over the summer probably do this same testing with my other SHV f1, and two other LRTSi scopes.

 

[ETtikka]

I am looking at it more from the opposite perspective. If a scope performs well, I am pretty sure the idea isn't to make it gospel that SKU is golden. I think the idea is that it warrants further evaluation. I will at some point over the summer probably do this same testing with my other SHV f1, and two other LRTSi scopes.

I understand your point now

 

[JollyRoger]

@sndmn11

If you had the rank the scopes you’ve tested… is it SHV F1, LRHS, then a distant third the Maven?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I had planned on only doing the RS.3 I was sent, and then the slippery slope began of breaking a rifle stock, proofing things, etc. It has also been interesting to talk to other manufacturers, that have not been mentioned, about this and hear their thoughts and learn who has confidence in their products and who does not.

I am also now really darned confident in some of my scopes.

That’s why it’s a good thing for people to do there own- they get to see there entire rifle system at play, find the shortcoming, and if they keep doing it eventually get to a point where the rifle system- action, barrel, stock, mounts, and scope; all stay zeroed regardless of use. Yes your doubling your own rifle and there is no doubt variables with your system (stock/mounts), however, you are learning what will actually happen with your rifle based on that.

 

[Formidilosus]

as far as the sample size of one goes, if the rifle/mount/ammo etc are proven and taken out of the failure equation, then a failure of one sample of a certain scope is a failure. If you tested 9 more, 9/10 is still a failure in any QA program.

That is correct and a thing that people generally do not understand- 1 scope “passing” only says that maybe the scope line is decent and to check more, however, 1 scope failing says quite a bit generally.

At this point enough NF’s (a lot) including the SHV F1 have been checked that they just work. With a rifle/ammo combo that is a legit 1 moa shooter, they are the only scopes that will keep all shots on a 1” dot from repeated and consistent 3ft drops.
With that same rifle/ammo combo, the next tier of scopes are about like the Trijicon just shot- they will keep all shots centered around POA, and all rounds within a 1.25-1.5” dot (for sure some of these individual scopes will hold perfectly as well, just not across multiple scopes). The groups might open up a tenth or two, but stays centered. This is where I think most want/need the scopes to be and ones that most have found to be very reliable. Those scopes are generally the Bushnell LRHS’s, some SWFA, some S&B’s.
Then there is everyone else. These scopes have consistent and large shifts from even minor impacts, and absolutely will cause missed shots at some point if used seriously.

 

[Wrench]

It would be interesting to see if the angles of force can contribute to the results. A square impact to the side or top should be equalized by the springs easier than say a yawing type impact. The weight of the rifles can vary by 5# pretty easily also....which makes me wonder if the harmonic vibration is more detrimental on a light rig vs the greater impact but dampened blow of the heavy gun.

This all makes me want to re-read Vaughn's book, "Rifle Accuracy Facts".

 

[sndmn11]

@sndmn11

If you had the rank the scopes you’ve tested… is it SHV F1, LRHS, then a distant third the Maven?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Maven is on loan and it will get shot the most until they want it back. I will probably retest at the 18" drops to see if those are well again it is asked to be returned.

Beyond that, there are things that I have opinions on about each regarding likes and dislikes. Believe it or not, that Tikka isn't even the rifle I hunt with. It was my backup rifle with the 25-06 barrel last year for my two rifle hunts. I hunt with a lightweight Vanguard that my wife got me when we got married, the tested SHV is what stays on that rifle.

SHV dislikes: I dislike that there have been times I push down the zero set and I can still dial down one click. I wish it came with a throw lever, I bought one. Some people might complain about the weight, I am not sure it bothers me.
SHV likes: I like the reticle, and I like that it made holes where it was supposed to. I also have had several conversations with different folks at Nightforce and they have all been positive.

LRTSi dislikes: It seemed to put holes close to where it was supposed to, but not as well as the SHV (samples of one), the screws on the caps are for a coin and I never have a coin. Mine range from very dinged up to kinda dinged up from using a flathead. I have never talked to anyone at bushnell.
LRTSi likes: Of the three I think the revlimiter is the best zero stop.

RS.3 dislikes: The zero stop flat head ittybitty screw to tighten the jam nut. It seems to have struggled with 36" drops. Uncapped windage without a revolution indicator.
RS.3 likes: I like the reticle, the center dot is different for me. I have had dozens of conversations with people at Maven and have a good relationship with them. The magnification range is cool; I have never used anything more than the LRTSi. I think it will be cool on my T1x. It no doubt experienced the worst testing the first try, and nothing actually "broke".

What will likely happen is that SHV will live on my hunting rifle, the LRTSi and RS.3 will switch back and forth between the tested T3 and a T1x I have, and the RS.3 will see use on my brother's 300wsm where the CRS.2 I reviewed earlier this year is now. I ran my bow over with my truck two seasons ago, so the lesson from that was to sight in multiple scopes on my primary rifle, and take multiple rifle/scope combos as back ups.

 

[JollyRoger]

Thanks man. I appreciate you and Form and others doing this stuff

I have an SHV F1 and it’s been very reliable for me. I too, don’t like the zero stop it uses compared to my ATACRs. If I spin it back to zero with authority it can slip -.1 below zero which I don’t like. But it’s 1/2 to a 1/3 of the cost so I guess it’s ok with me.

I’ve been really wanting to try the LRHS2 due to the reticle and most (it seems) from this line are reliable in RTZ after impacts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

Thanks man. I appreciate you and Form and others doing this stuff

I have an SHV F1 and it’s been very reliable for me. I too, don’t like the zero stop it uses compared to my ATACRs. If I spin it back to zero with authority it can slip -.1 below zero which I don’t like. But it’s 1/2 to a 1/3 of the cost so I guess it’s ok with me.

I’ve been really wanting to try the LRHS2 due to the reticle and most (it seems) from this line are reliable in RTZ after impacts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The inner me is ok with it going past zero with a definitive click. What gets in the back of my mind is when it can move past 0 but doesn't quite make it to the next click. It makes me wonder if it wiggled a half or something. For what it is worth, I had the same struggle with the RS.3 jam nut thing.

 

[Formidilosus]

I have an SHV F1 and it’s been very reliable for me. I too, don’t like the zero stop it uses compared to my ATACRs. If I spin it back to zero with authority it can slip -.1 below zero which I don’t like.

I don’t use a zero stop directly at zero. Probably because of how I use the rifles, but I always leave at least .5 mil under, and generally 3 mils under available with the zero stop. The stop is just to ensure that the scope isn’t a full rev off, not to blindly go back to a zero- at least for me. If the scope needs to be rezeroed for whatever reason I do not want to be having to do the zero stop as well.

 

[BBob]

^^^Same for all the same reasons

 

[Formidilosus]

Put frankly, you can't (although many have & will) just make up the statistical significance of a desired vs undesired result from a single sample. A single "failed" scope tells you exactly the same amount of info that a single "passed" scope tells you in this context - which is only how that single scope/rifle/ammo/mounts/shooter/etc. performed during that single event under those particular set of conditions.

That is not correct, and the statistical probability is easy to run on any sample size you desire. If a scope model has a 1 in 100 failure rate, the odds that you got the “1”, is just that. Which is very low. If you get two back to back that fail, you can be pretty dang sure that there is an issue with that make/model/generation of scope. Three failed problem scopes and you know there are problems.

 

[dirtytough]

It would be interesting to see if the angles of force can contribute to the results. A square impact to the side or top should be equalized by the springs easier than say a yawing type impact. The weight of the rifles can vary by 5# pretty easily also....which makes me wonder if the harmonic vibration is more detrimental on a light rig vs the greater impact but dampened blow of the heavy gun.

This all makes me want to re-read Vaughn's book, "Rifle Accuracy Facts".

I was wondering the same type of stuff. Impact angle, weight of rifle, (the scope worked for Ryan, not for Form), temps, (metal is more brittle when cold, different metals change dimensions depending on temp, etc)

 

[ETtikka]

I've seen this said a few times by some people, and it is not correct. That is the whole point of needing a statistical significant number of samples (both in terms of number of optics and shots fired for what people are doing here). If you really want to get into it, you also need to start looking at each production run independently. And then if any tooling or materials or processes are changed during any given production run, that would need to be considered.

Put frankly, you can't (although many have & will) just make up the statistical significance of a desired vs undesired result from a single sample. A single "failed" scope tells you exactly the same amount of info that a single "passed" scope tells you in this context - which is only how that single scope/rifle/ammo/mounts/shooter/etc. performed during that single event under those particular set of conditions.

So if the first scope fails, such as the Vortex tested by Form, how many passes (same production run) would be required to make that scope pass? Destructive testing is obviously not done by most manufacturers, and samples sizes of 100 are not realistic for the ones that do.

I think we can all agree that the design requirements of each scope are a much bigger factor that actual Quality Control variance from scope to scope. Such as all NF pass and all Vortex fail. I dont think it is a coincidence. Alot of these scopes are assembled at LOW in Japan by the same workers using same control, but the design is different as Form mentions previously.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yeah, you can "run numbers" on any number set you want. The results will be total and complete garbage if your sample size is one. Any "actual statistician" will tell you that. There is an entire profession built around real world testing & QC, which has associated ANSI standards.

Think of a very basic roll of a multi-sided die (number of sides purposely left out of the example). If you roll an 8, you'd be a moron to say all rolls in the future will be an 8.

I’m well aware of how it works- notice in every single instance I have stated a sample size of one, is just that. Scopes aren’t die. To use that example you’d be looking at how many die have two eights instead of a 6 per 100 die (or whatever number). The error rate, not the likelihood of landing on a number that every single die has.

 

[ETtikka]

If you're interested, you can do some research. As I said above, there's an entire profession built around this with ANSI standards as well as proven statistical methodology to back it up.

As a former Toyota employee, I have been brainwashed with enough QA and QC ( yes there is a difference)

No thanks to anymore QA, Destructive testing sample sizes are much lower than process capability sample sizes. Most manufacturing will require a Cpk/Cp of at least 1.67, sample size of 30 consective parts.

Destructive tests are normally much smaller sample sizes. Toyota does not test 30 engines to failure.
They test more engines, and test them longer than most but not 30 of them.


The biggest piece to this sample size question, is are we testing scope to see if...

1. The QC of the actual assembly is good

or

2. Does the design pass the hoho test?

 

[Formidilosus]

I was wondering the same type of stuff. Impact angle, weight of rifle, (the scope worked for Ryan, not for Form), temps, (metal is more brittle when cold, different metals change dimensions depending on temp, etc)

The scope did not “work” for Ryan but not for me, because Ryan did not “test” it the same. You can say that with less stress the scope worked for Ryan, but trying to compare his results with mine does not work because the environment was different.