DIY drop tests

[Hnthrdr]

Witness marks on screws are telling. The way a gun groups (stringing direction) is telling as to what could actually be happening, action versus scope/ring failure or turret failure as an example.

It can get a bit “tail chasey” sometimes using good/known gear but the culprit is always able to be identified through process of elimination and shooting.

As an example. I chased one two weeks ago. I was missing at 400-600 yards on targets as my first shots of the day and first shots with that gun in about a week. I was missing consistently but not in the same direction, in a low wind environment with good/known dope.

Went to 100 yards. 3” group with a good lot of ammo and known/good gun. What could it be?

Suppressors always checked first and it was fine. Witness marks on all screws looked good. Action properly seated in the stock. Nothing loose. Scope and rings/ring bases look fine. No debris down in between barrel and stock. Gave the scope a few light punches, nothing rattling. Turrets dialing fine. Chamber and throat look good. Barrel is tight. Nothing visibly cracked.

Shot 10 more. Same 3”ish group.

Bust out the chrono to check velocity. Here’s where it gets interesting. My extreme spread over 10 more shots was around 200 FPS.

Went home. Dusted off a cleaning rod and cleaned the barrel, chamber, etc. Went back out. Shot 10 to foul it.

Chrono and group for 10 more shots at 100 yards. 5” group, velocity extreme spread over 250.

The gun has a new barrel on it and is back to work.

Would this fit the definition of a “shot out” barrel?

I went with what you described no proofing on my own other than buying proven well made rifles and optics and using them

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Would this fit the definition of a “shot out” barrel?

I went with what you described no proofing on my own other than buying proven well made rifles and optics and using them

Yep that barrel was done. Added to the graveyard haha.

 

[UnckleBob]

I am a huge fan of Forms drop tests. I have not personally conducted as extensive tests as he does, but have used the information to influence purchases. After being surprised how many fail just riding in the truck I have strapped my rifle to my quad, slightly loose so it could really bump, and done 5 miles on a gravel road about 25 mph. Even before I learned of the drop tests I was writing information and dates on my targets for pictures. They have their own folder in my photos. If you want to drop test yours, go for it. Just remember any scope could fail. Give yourself time to recover if yours does

I am a big fan of other people doing drop tests on their rifles and scopes. I take advantage of their testing.

Personally, I am not willing to drop test expensive equipment. I don't have the funds to drop a $1,000 scope just to see what happens. If I drop it, it happens. But, I am not doing it on purpose.

 

[BLJ]

Caveat being, and this is just my opinion on it all, if you drop or bang a gun hard enough that it makes you kind of go “yeeeaaahhh that wasn’t good”. Just go check your 100 yard zero with a few shots to be sure. Ain’t hurting anything to check.

This is pretty much my take on it.

If I drop a rifle 3’ or have it on a pack and put full body weight on it when I fall, I’m going to check it.
And not trust it until I do.
Whether that’s a SWFA or a NC Star.

I think with a lot if people the question is where is the line between checking and not checking.

And I think that’s where a lot of the speculation and questioning comes from in regards to the drop test.
After such an incident most people are going to check zero anyway. IMO.

 

[Macintosh]

This is pretty much my take on it.

If I drop a rifle 3’ or have it on a pack and put full body weight on it when I fall, I’m going to check it.
And not trust it until I do.
Whether that’s a SWFA or a NC Star.

I think with a lot if people the question is where is the line between checking and not checking.

And I think that’s where a lot of the speculation and questioning comes from in regards to the drop test.
After such an incident most people are going to check zero anyway. IMO.

This question has come up many times before. To me it comes down to history. If its a “new” stress that has never been applied to that gun and scope, you perhaps dont have the background with that setup to make any sort of educated statement about whether it needs checked or not, so you have to default to checking it. If it’s a stress on the gun and scope that you have history with, then its easy to say “a similar or worse bump/drop/slip has happened at least 4 times before and it never lost zero, so odds of this one bump being different are very low”. To me thats part of the whole point of the evals, is so you have a baseline that you can refer to moving forward. If you use a gun a lot in field conditions, sure maybe that use is a stand-in to “build” that history, but its not really any different to intentionally do that in a controlled scenario. The benefit of the controlled scenario is time expediency and doing it against a graduated “scale”, ie 18” vs 36” vs 3x36”. Also its important to note that the evals on this site are more than just drops, it includes tracking and rtz test, 3000 round/3000mile test, etc.

 

[UpNorth89]

One of the best things about drop testing is that it eliminates the scopes that lose zero just from riding around in the truck. After an obvious drop I check zero. I'm not checking zero after every drive back and forth to go hunting.

 

[sndmn11]

I think with a lot if people the question is where is the line between checking and not checking.

And I think that’s where a lot of the speculation and questioning comes from in regards to the drop test.
After such an incident most people are going to check zero anyway. IMO.

Nobody is saying to ignore incidents in the field. The purpose of the zero retention testing isn't to drop proof a rifle. The purpose is to provide an extremely efficient evaluation process on if things will very likely stay zeroed under a lifetime of normal conditions. Proactively.

7 shots =
1) I have a trustworthy setup
2) I have some troubleshooting to do

The medical analogy is a treadmill walking ekg heart stress test. Rather than wearing a monitor for life waiting for something to happen, with no solution on hand, and not as extreme as a 5k jog.

 

[BLJ]

This question has come up many times before. To me it comes down to history. If its a “new” stress that has never been applied to that gun and scope, you perhaps dont have the background with that setup to make any sort of educated statement about whether it needs checked or not, so you have to default to checking it. If it’s a stress on the gun and scope that you have history with, then its easy to say “a similar or worse bump/drop/slip has happened at least 4 times before and it never lost zero, so odds of this one bump being different are very low”. To me thats part of the whole point of the evals, is so you have a baseline that you can refer to moving forward. If you use a gun a lot in field conditions, sure maybe that use is a stand-in to “build” that history, but its not really any different to intentionally do that in a controlled scenario. The benefit of the controlled scenario is time expediency and doing it against a graduated “scale”, ie 18” vs 36” vs 3x36”. Also it’s important to note that the evals on this site are more than just drops, it includes tracking and rtz test, 3000 round/3000mile test, etc.

Nobody is saying to ignore incidents in the field. The purpose of the zero retention testing isn't to drop proof a rifle. The purpose is to provide an extremely efficient evaluation process on if things will very likely stay zeroed under a lifetime of normal conditions. Proactively.

7 shots =
1) I have a trustworthy setup
2) I have some troubleshooting to do

The medical analogy is a treadmill walking ekg heart stress test. Rather than wearing a monitor for life waiting for something to happen, with no solution on hand, and not as extreme as a 5k jog.

I’m not disputing what you guys are saying.
I think rifle history is THE factor that decides if you check it or not after an incident.
I understand that a lot of people create that rifle history by dropping there rifle as a baseline.

My EKG will be different from everyone else.
And it will be handled differently than everyone else.

That’s why I agree with what @mxgsfmdpx said earlier. It’s all different for everyone.

And I also want to say that none of what I’m saying is meant to be combative/negative/controversial in any way.

I’m just trying to explain my perspective on the issue. No disrespect or intentional jabs meant.

I know sometimes these threads spiral. Not what I’m trying to do.

 

[sndmn11]

And I also want to say that none of what I’m saying is meant to be combative/negative/controversial in any way.

I’m just trying to explain my perspective on the issue. No disrespect or intentional jabs meant.

I know sometimes these threads spiral. Not what I’m trying to do.

What you typed out was a common argument on why people get upset about the testing, but concisely and politely written. It was a good opportunity to remind anyone what the tests accomplish and are intended for.

To someone's question of, "why care what others are doing?", the answer is wounded and lost animals. Vetting what one is using to try and fill their tag; rifle scope testing, broadhead tuning, etc., are steps to eliminating the need to shoot multiple animals per tag. That affects my hunting for sure when tag numbers are limited. The lack of the above is a common theme in the "help me find my animal" threads that will kickoff in 4 weeks. I think there's an example within this thread of someone writing of losing animals, with zero corrective action to that issue or mention of being proactive moving forward.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The other side of it is just a desire to help other people do things “better.” I have taken the time to attempt to befriend people I saw doing things “wrong” just so that I could politely give them advice.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[JGRaider]

My rifles ride in a truck and/or ATV/UTV over 100 days per year. Is that a good enough "drop test"?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

My rifles ride in a truck and/or ATV/UTV over 100 days per year. Is that a good enough "drop test"?

I would say that using your rifle 100 days per year puts you far above the average hunter. And if you keep getting good results, then you have it set up right. The proof of the pudding is in the cake. Dropping it once or twice is certainly not going to test the rifle’s performance as much as heavy use (assuming that dropping it once or twice has any use at all, which is a big assumption). If your zero isn’t shifting over those 100 days of use, then you clearly don’t need to change anything.

In my realistically perfect world, I will spend 40 days a year at the range, 40 days a year wandering around the farm with a rifle, and 40 days a year hunting. For me, even that isn’t as much time as I would like to spend with my rifles and isn’t enough to really do more than maintain proficiency. But I would have to fully retire to get more time than that.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Macintosh]

IF the zero is well established and checked.

 

[JGRaider]

My best hunting buddy takes care of me......he's got a 1 mile range and more pigs than we can possibly shoot......

 

[BLJ]

My rifles ride in a truck and/or ATV/UTV over 100 days per year. Is that a good enough "drop test"?

I’ll piggyback on this to hopefully explain my use case/POV better.

When I travel my rifles are in a cheap padded case in the back of the truck.
If on an ATV they are across my back or in the u shaped holders in the rack.

I’ll say 40 days a year like this.

I consider this to be normal use for me.

Turning around and bumping into a tree, not worried about it. I’ve verified my setup under what I feel to be “similar circumstances” for my use. I go with it.
Full body weight landing in the scope, I’d check it.

I think the style of hunting (and where) is a big factor for a lot of people in what they consider to be “off”. Or when the rifle/scope would need to be checked.

For example. Where I hunt I can have a 2 MOA shift from zero at 100 and still make a kill shot at my normal hunting ranges. Usually less than 150 yards.

I’d have to higher a logging crew to get much beyond that.

Is that what I want? Absolutely not.
Is it acceptable to most? I would say more than likely yes.
Am I at a point where I can outfit all my rifles with scopes that have both passed the drop test and are something that I want to use? No. Not at his time.
I’m playing the averages (that I’ve determined by what I use and how I use it), trying to do the best I can and be diligent with the components I have and rolling the dice.

It’s probably not the best way, but it’s the one I’m going with for now.

 

[hibernation]

Whats relevant, and what I know from watching, is that people at the range, by and large, do a supremely crappy job zeroing, dont quantify much of anything and “call it good”. This is the VAST majority of people I see at the range. Those people would not be able to say one way or another if their zero shifted. The fact is that they dont know that. It doesnt mean its not true, my observation is simply that based on me watching how they zero and check zero, they cant say with any certainty. This is so pervasive that I believe it to be the norm, and without photographic evidence I pretty much write off anything someone tells me that I didnt see with my own eyes. Yet those same people will recommend their scope and tell someone it’s “rock solid”, and extrapolate their methodology based on what works at short range, to someone who is trying to make hits at much, much longer range where small errors are compounded.

Man this is spot on, and why I appreciate the drop tests. I think it's shifted the conversation for a lot of hunters, myself included. How many hunters check their zero a week before a hunt, and expect to need a significant adjustment? Based on what I've seen at the range, a TON of people consider that the norm. Most people don't question it because "it's just the way it is".

 

[sndmn11]

My rifles ride in a truck and/or ATV/UTV over 100 days per year. Is that a good enough "drop test"?

No. 10 minutes of here and now removal of all practical variables, versus 100+ days of countless variables, excuses, and "well, buts". It is the same reason why the horses at the Kentucky Derby all run on the same track at the sme time, rather than submitting their chosen times for that distance throughout the season.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

No. 10 minutes of here and now removal of all practical variables, versus 100+ days of countless variables, excuses, and "well, buts". It is the same reason why the horses at the Kentucky Derby all run on the same track at the sme time, rather than submitting their chosen times for that distance throughout the season.

If the rifle rides the truck, ATV, and gets used 100 days a year without shifting zero (assuming it gets fired regularly during that time), that tells me far more about the reliability of the system than a controlled 18” drop.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[sndmn11]

If the rifle rides the truck, ATV, and gets used 100 days a year without shifting zero (assuming it gets fired regularly during that time), that tells me far more about the reliability of the system than a controlled 18” drop.

What is being aimed at?

One can buy this scope and drive around shooting randomly, but that doesn't mean it is reliable and it doesn't mean it isn't. It just means that it went for a ride.

 

[JGRaider]

What is being aimed at?

If you'd bother to actually read, that's already been addressed in post #54.