Cliff Grays Podcast with Aaron Davidson

I did hear Aaron fault the mounting systems as the usual culprit. And as NF scopes are generally heavier than Leupold, a NF will likely slip more easily given equally inadequate mounting.

As to Aaron’s critique of the drop tests, it sounded to me as he just isn’t aware of how Form controls for the other variables. Permanently bonding the action to the mounting system, for example. And he may be trapped in the lab-thinking. He’s so proud of that contraption that may only be testing recoil-like G forces. There’s certainly value there but that doesn’t cover many other impacts that a systematic empirical method can offer.
 
I may have misheard him but I believe Aaron said that observation was based on sold rifle systems over the years and the number of subsequent issues they had with systems sold with Leupold vs Nightforce scopes, not based on the lab testing.
If that's the case I might argue that the NF customers are more particular/picky than the Leupold customers.
 
I think the point Aaron was making was not specifically to invalidate the drop test itself. He was a fan the way I heard it. The point he was making, my understanding, is that the product of the drop test is a pass/fail on a scope. Yet, it's not a scope specific test, but rather a system level test. Said another way, we don't say the scope lost zero so the Tika failed. The scope lost zero the ammo lot failed. The scope lost zero the UM rings failed. The product is the pass/fail on a scope when many of the variables aren't controlled. His beef, again my understanding, is that it could deep six a manufacturer. I could be completely wrong here also with my take on his point. But as i stated earlier I can see both sides and I personally put more faith in Form's work and opinion than any other data published to date on scope reliability, even though it's based on system level test. Also, Aaron's point seems correct also. It could possibly be improved upon, like everything else in life.
 
Back
Top