Cliff Grays Podcast with Aaron Davidson

[wnelson14]

Some interesting takes on this podcast. Aaron has some great points especially on lighter calibers, negative comb stocks, and drop testing. I would love to hear him and @Formidilosus discuss/debate the drop testing and the differences they have found on a podcast.

Shout out to @Cliff Gray for having awesome podcasts.

Rifle Design, Drop Tests & Shooting Better with Aaron Davidson of GunWerks

Podcast Episode · Pursuit With Cliff - Cliff Gray · 08/25/2025 · 2h 11m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Calcoyote]

I listened to the entire podcast. It is clear that Aaron knows a LOT about shooting. And I too was interested in his spin on lighter calibers, negative comb stocks, and the $50k he spent on a bench to conduct drop testing.

My issue is most all of my rifles are either Tikka, Savage, or Weatherby Vanguard, and they all have factory barrels and Vortex Viper scopes. Someone like Aaron Davidson would laugh me out of his shop. I looked at his website and there was a scope for $2300. I am sure it is worth it too, but that is just so FAR out of my class.

 

[Cliff Gray]

@wnelson14 thanks for the feedback on the podcast. I always hope these are useful to other folks. Aaron is one of those guys I just enjoy talking to—he’s a wealth of knowledge and a sharp dude. But holy shit is he polarizing. I get it. regardless I enjoy his energy and the depth of his knowledge, which is well beyond mine.
One thing about Aaron that I think is underappreciate is his hunting experience. he's pretty transparent about things in the guided and non-guided world that few folks talk about. that's great stuff.

hope this episode sparks related podcasts. I’d like to get @Ryan Avery on, and @Formidilosus too, so we can dig deeper into some of these subjects. At the end of the day, all of these guys are focused on improving things, whether it’s gear or how we think about shooting. that's a benefit
again, appreciate the feedback

 

[Bluumoon]

Podcast was a good listen. I certainly appreciate the innovation being brought to the table. A certain swing and miss on my part made the point for the range finding binos I "didn't need", excellent product.

I'll give @Aaron Davidson the benefit of the doubt that his technical/engineering brain can't see the proof in the pudding of the drop tests. Are they done on high level engineered machines with sensors no. Is it VERY VERY clear and repeatable that some scopes almost never shift (with correct assembly) when dropped and others nearly always do. Yes.

The drop tests have been done with the same bonded action, failed scopes preceded and followed by scopes in the same setup. I have done my own drop tests and had "known" scopes fail, so far I have found it to be assembly issues on my part which were then resolved. All of my setups get the drop test prior to field use at this point.

I would argue the 50k machine is failing to provide testing that replicates known real world issues, and is therefore invalid and a waste of 50k....

@Cliff Gray, In speaking about never have issues with your guide provided rifles, you kind of proved the point in saying that you would adjust them a little quite often. Now this could be a symptom of changing lots of ammo OR you just proved the point that none of your rifles were holding zero....

Hopefully this comes across as encouraging conversation and reflection, it isn't meant to be snide. I've been bit by poor setups and continue to push to better solutions.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I listened to the entire podcast. It is clear that Aaron knows a LOT about shooting. And I too was interested in his spin on lighter calibers, negative comb stocks, and the $50k he spent on a bench to conduct drop testing.

My issue is most all of my rifles are either Tikka, Savage, or Weatherby Vanguard, and they all have factory barrels and Vortex Viper scopes. Someone like Aaron Davidson would laugh me out of his shop. I looked at his website and there was a scope for $2300. I am sure it is worth it too, but that is just so FAR out of my class.

Are you sure?

Sounds like you have a lot of different rifles?
Why do you need so many?
Sell the multiple and have 1 or 2 nice ones.

 

[Cliff Gray]

@Bluumoon with how often i was re-sighting rifles, your take that it was scopes shifting is a legitimate potential explanation. I wouldn’t argue against that. Truth is, I wasn’t even looking for shifts back then. i’d slip turrets here and there, and move on. So yeah, your explanation feels pretty likely but I'll never know given my perspective at the time. maybe it's a "wish I didn't know now what i didn't know then" kinda deal

I'd love to see Aaron's drop test setup. I'm gunna take take him up on that once i get through guiding season.

I’ve talked with Form about it enough to know there isn't some deliberate bias in his testing. Bottom line, given that, even if the test isn’t perfect, the fact that so many scopes consistently fail while just a few brands don’t - that is a real data point. Might not be something that gives us the ability to say that every individual scope from X brand is garbage, but it's powerful enough for us to know that something is going on across the equipment.

I just want to know exactly what is breaking and how that would explain the issue. I want to hear "a why"... Something like, "the xyz spring is 80% of the cost of manufacturing" or 'this part is difficult to install because of abc" and "that is why there is such a difference in performance". maybe this is just out of pure curiosity.

I’m an observer like everybody else on this, but that’s my take. and no worries, not offended at all.

 

[JohnJohnson]

@Bluumoon with how often i was re-sighting rifles, your take that it was scopes shifting is a legitimate potential explanation. I wouldn’t argue against that. Truth is, I wasn’t even looking for shifts back then. i’d slip turrets here and there, and move on. So yeah, your explanation feels pretty likely but I'll never know given my perspective at the time. maybe it's a "wish I didn't know now what i didn't know then" kinda deal

I'd love to see Aaron's drop test setup. I'm gunna take take him up on that once i get through guiding season.

I’ve talked with Form about it enough to know there isn't some deliberate bias in his testing. Bottom line, given that, even if the test isn’t perfect, the fact that so many scopes consistently fail while just a few brands don’t - that is a real data point. Might not be something that gives us the ability to say that every individual scope from X brand is garbage, but it's powerful enough for us to know that something is going on across the equipment.

I just want to know exactly what is breaking and how that would explain the issue. I want to hear "a why"... Something like, "the xyz spring is 80% of the cost of manufacturing" or :this part is difficult to install because of abc" and "that is why there is such a difference in performance". maybe this is just out of pure curiosity.

I’m an observer like everybody else on this, but that’s my take. and no worries, not offended at all.

People get tripped up a lot on the statistical significance of the drop testing. It seems very difficult for people to grasp that its goal seems to be to raise warning flags, not to conclusively 100% prove every one of that particular scope model is or is not immune to zero-shift. The "why" is something I'd love to hear from Nightforce, Trijicon, or SWFA engineers. The companies that explicitly set out (and succeed) at making durable scopes probably have some interesting input on how to do that. I don't think they're in danger of other brands copying them since I'm sure the information is mostly known anyway and those other companies just don't have an interest in doing it.

 

[AZ_Hunter]

I enjoyed the podcast. I come from a scientific background and have always viewed the drop tests from the same perspective that Aaron articulated.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I might actually listen to a podcast, thanks for sharing. 6 hour drive tomorrow and I’m curious.

I will say this, based on the posts I saw in the Rokstok thread…

I don’t know if this was actually stated, and in what context, but, a higher failure rate of Nightforce scopes compared to Leupold, completely contradicts what is seen in the field in rifles that actually get used. To the tune of hundreds of samples of each that I’ve personally seen/held/shot/diagnosed etc.

I am the furthest thing from a Nightforce fan. They don’t make a single scope with a reticle that I want to hunt with. I also no longer even own a single NF scope. But to compare their field reliability directly against Leupold, and claim the Leupold is more reliable, is flat out not what happens with guns that actually used in the field.

I’m sure the claim above was stated in a different context with a different methodology? Because making that claim on hard use hunting guns just doesn’t add up to match real life; at least in what I’ve seen. And maybe I just haven’t seen “enough” yet?

 

[JohnJohnson]

I got around to listening to it and I'm going to be honest, I'm a bit disappointed. It seems like he doesn't understand the droptesting on even a basic level. He played all the greatest hits.

"They don't control for (a bunch of variables that are controlled for)!"
"The scopes are coming from the same factory in Japan, so they're identical."

I'm going to be honest man I don't think a NF ATACR is identical to an Athlon Cronus. He even goes into why NF does some things better than others, then says their reputation for durability is mostly marketing. The anecdote about his NF "coming apart" seems pretty vague and like he was trying to avoid giving a real answer. NF's do fail but I would have liked more detail there because "coming apart" doesn't mean anything.

 

[rogerdoger]

I thought it was a good podcast. I learned a few things, I want to research a few things, and some I disagree with. The scope comments are the ones that have me skeptical. Stock information/design makes sense.

 

[Walloon459]

I learned a few things as I always do when listening to Cliff's podcasts! Hope he has more guests like this on.

 

[tm7554]

Enjoyed the podcast. Also feel there is a ton of value in the drop test being performed here. Also, agree with Aaron that the drops don't guarantee each scope see the same impacts with the way the test are conducted. However, considering the raw amount of data collected, there is def a trend pointing to a few manufacturers being superior regardless of how scientific or repeatable the test themselves are. Additionally, rokslide and the droptest have done more to bring awareness to what is important that any else in industry.

Moving forward, it would be great to see just the scope itself drop tested. No more ammo cost and takes out the variables of the bedding, mounting systems, and shooter error. Less expensive test which would be more repeatable. Drop, install in rig or comparator before and after, report.

Conceding I'm opining w virtually no skin in the game. I've been greatly influenced by the Rokslide test and Forms opinion. Grateful actually. NF, SWFA, and Trijicon should be even more grateful.

Thanks for the podcast/youtube. Was fun to hear/watch.

 

[wapitibob]

Davidson isn't wrong; if you're going to test a scope, you don't mount it in rings, mounted to an action, mounted in a rifle stock, then drop the whole assembly. While not repeatable in any way, NF seems to be able to test a one off without much trouble. Maybe smack on the turrets a little bit next time.

 

[Bluumoon]

Davidson isn't wrong; if you're going to test a scope, you don't mount it in rings, mounted to an action, mounted in a rifle stock, then drop the whole assembly. While not repeatable in any way, NF seems to be able to test a one off without much trouble. Maybe smack on the turrets a little bit next time.

Scopes are made to be used as part of a system. It doesn’t matter in the least what test they can pass in isolation, if they don’t work as intended in the system they are of no use.

It’s like saying an auto manufacturer has the best ignition system that passes durability tests, tested for a million starts, and provides all the right power requirements. When that ignition system is placed in the car half the time the car starts and half the time it doesn’t. You think people would tolerate that?

 

[bullmtn]

Davidson isn't wrong; if you're going to test a scope, you don't mount it in rings, mounted to an action, mounted in a rifle stock, then drop the whole assembly. While not repeatable in any way, NF seems to be able to test a one off without much trouble. Maybe smack on the turrets a little bit next time.

The drop test is an approximation of real-world happenings, I find it super interesting that if scopes fail the drop test, they also fail the driving test; the drop test is death by a single blow while riding in the back seat is death by thousand blows. My idea with future purchases is to reduce failures while hunting, so if I see a scope fail a drop test it's an automatic no go for me since there are good options for scopes that pass the drop test in several different price points. Drop tests give me a little hope that I am purchasing a product that's less likely to fail. My first gun was a Savage 110, due to my own personal experience I would rather remarry my ex-wife than buy another one, Savage is one of the most popular brands out there (for good reason) but after having one fail on me multiple times it has become a safe queen and I choose a different tool that I believe will give me less problems.

 

[alexnelon]

My issue is most all of my rifles are either Tikka, Savage, or Weatherby Vanguard, and they all have factory barrels and Vortex Viper scopes. Someone like Aaron Davidson would laugh me out of his shop. I looked at his website and there was a scope for $2300. I am sure it is worth it too, but that is just so FAR out of my class.

This argument isn't very self-aware. You're making a choice.

Do you want 1 $4,000 rifle with 1 $2,500 scope, or do you want 5 $700 rifles and 5 $700 scopes?

You've probably already spent more money than you "can afford" it just wasn't all at once so you think about it differently.

 

[Firth]

Scopes are made to be used as part of a system. It doesn’t matter in the least what test they can pass in isolation, if they don’t work as intended in the system they are of no use.

It’s like saying an auto manufacturer has the best ignition system that passes durability tests, tested for a million starts, and provides all the right power requirements. When that ignition system is placed in the car half the time the car starts and half the time it doesn’t. You think people would tolerate that?

View attachment 926970

Agree completely.
The important point to a hunter is whether the system stays zeroed. For somebody trying to isolate why a system loses zero and study and eliminate the causes I see value in testing whether it was the scope, whether it was the mounts, or whether it was bedding, etc. because once you isolate the cause you can focus your efforts on fixing it. But that kind of testing is going to be beyond the average guy and for him, it's the system the matters.