DIY drop tests

[BLJ]

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.

Would 100+ days of countless variables and still accomplishing the goal not count for something?

I compare these drop test to the frozen rifle tests.
I don’t need a rifle that goes off in -40* weather because I’m not going to be out in it.

I (personally) don’t need a rifle to survive multiple drops, 100’s of miles of dirt roads and 3k rounds.
I’ll never subject my rifle to that. And if I was going to, I’d prepare accordingly.

I don’t need a horse to win the Kentucky Derby, I need a mule.

Respectfully. IMO.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

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.

That’s not at all an honest interpretation of anything posted. No one is talking about shooting randomly.

Form’s drop test is done using a system where the scope is the only realistic point of failure. Everything else on the test rifle is as locked down as possible. More so than would be normal on a hunting rifle. It has its limitations due to small sample sizes, but it only needs to result in failure to be useful.

But what this thread proposes is dropping a regular hunting rifle with scope mounted and seeing whether *something* in the setup fails. To me, there’s no point in that. It’s not a substitute for real world use of the rifle. If it fails doing that, you know something in your system needs work. And then you can try to isolate the problem. But a rifle and optic that can hold up day after day of real field use is more than amply tested. And no non-destructive test is going to tell you that you can have confidence in your setup if a horse rolls over on it, it falls off the ATV rack going 20mph, it falls down an 18’ cliff, etc.

This is a pointless exercise, but if it makes you feel better to do it, then go right ahead. I’ll just keep carrying my rifle whenever possible, shooting it whenever possible, and recording data from each shot whenever possible.

By the way, if that $36.99 scope can be mounted on a rifle, sighted in, shoot a 1.5” group, and hold zero consistently for 100 days of use bouncing around on truck gun racks, ATV gun racks, being hunted with, and handling recoil from, let’s say 300-rounds of 6.5 CM, then it is a better value than many scopes costing 10-20x what it costs. And, if it could also pass Form’s drop test, that would be hilarious.

Our farm hands used to show up with cheap rifles and Kmart special scopes (much like that example) right before deer season. They would have them bore-sighted by the sporting goods store and want to shoot them on our 100-yard range. Inevitably, after messing with it for a while, and often shooting up half the box of ammo they bought with it, they would ask me to “sight it in for them.” My experience with such scopes was that you often couldn’t even get them sighted in. The recoil from a .30-06 or .270 would be more than the scope and cheap mounts could handle. But, if it could be sighted in, it only had to work for a few days spread across two weeks. The rifle was going to be sold back to the gun store or off to a pawn shop once the season was over or it was time to buy Christmas presents. The scope would go back into the closet until it got sold at flea market or mounted on next year’s rifle.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[sndmn11]

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

I did read. @Q_Sertorius is a regurgitator and needs to "find" things multiple times himself to connect the dots. That's why I posed the question to him.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I did read. @Q_Sertorius is a regurgitator and needs to "find" things multiple times himself to connect the dots. That's why I posed the question to him.

It’s perfectly clear to anyone honest and paying attention that we are talking about rifles that continue to hold zero (accuracy) and shoot good groups (precision), for a statistically significant number of rounds spread across months of hard use. If you can’t digest that, maybe you need to vomit it up and chew on it some more?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[sndmn11]

Would 100+ days of countless variables and still accomplishing the goal not count for something?

No, read below.

That’s not at all an honest interpretation of anything posted. No one is talking about shooting randomly.

Form’s drop test is done using a system where the scope is the only realistic point of failure.

Exactly. Rather than randomly taking a shot here and there, with no defined aiming point and no way of knowing if the bullet hit precisely where the reticle was, the evaluation is as controlled as possible. If "zero retention" is banging away at a pig with a 5 gallon bucket set of vitals, no control over angle, no defined aiming point, just simply one banged away at a pig and it fell over, ther's a lot of leeway in those results.
A shooter never knows if their POI and POA are identical when shooting at a dynamic target and/or a target with no defined aiming point. Those bits of "real life field use" are not the same as a controlled evaluation with memorialized results.

But what this thread proposes is dropping a regular hunting rifle with scope mounted and seeing whether *something* in the setup fails. To me, there’s no point in that. It’s not a substitute for real world use of the rifle. If it fails doing that, you know something in your system needs work. And then you can try to isolate the problem. But a rifle and optic that can hold up day after day of real field use is more than amply tested.

How does one identify a problem with so many variables? You were the person I referenced earlier who mentioned losing animals, although I was mistaken and it was a different thread. What exactly failed? How did you specifically come to that conclusion?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Speaking of DYIng @Formidilosus principles…

One of the OEMs I work with starting implementing one of my suggestions for a production line change…

Witness marks on hydraulic lines after they’ve been torqued to spec, so users can see if/when fittings come loose.

 

[SouthPaw]

Speaking of DYIng @Formidilosus principles…

One of the OEMs I work with starting implementing one of my suggestions for a production line change…

Witness marks on hydraulic lines after they’ve been torqued to spec, so users can see if/when fittings come loose.



View attachment 916247

View attachment 916248

Haha, I also started doing this on my skid steer and attachments.

 

[JGRaider]

That's a good practice. We've been doing that in Permian Basin gas processing plants for years. Quick and easy way to check for sure.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

How does one identify a problem with so many variables? You were the person I referenced earlier who mentioned losing animals, although I was mistaken and it was a different thread. What exactly failed? How did you specifically come to that conclusion?

Sure, I’ve failed to recover a deer I know I hit. If you’ve never had that happen, then the good Lord has smiled on you. And you are right, I don’t know exactly which of my failures caused the issue. I know that the 10-round group I fired before the season was good. I know that I killed a deer that same morning using the same rifle (one shot DRT). But I don’t know exactly where I went wrong with the deer I didn’t recover. I got rushed because I got busted by one of the does he was with and he turned partially away from me. I fired too quickly (first bad decision). Despite that, I know I hit him (he fell over). Based on the sight picture, I think I hit it further back than I intended (second bad decision, poor shot angle). And when he initially went down, I wasn’t immediately ready for a follow-up shot when he got back up (third mistake). And then there was no blood at all, even in the scattered snow around where I shot him, and no blood trail to follow. In the absence of blood, the eight does he was with destroyed any chance of following his particular trail. The rifle subsequently shot an excellent 10-shot group. So, I know the issue was the Indian, not the bow. So, having explained that, I am not sure what your point is…

For me, carrying and shooting a rifle roughly 40 days a year, hunting roughly 40 days a year, and going to the range roughly 40 days a year *should* be enough to test the reliability of a rifle/optic/shooter system. If firing 800-1000 shots a year, from a variety of positions, at targets of a reasonable size, doesn’t demonstrate the rifle and shooter’s ability, then I don’t know what does. I certainly won’t develop any more confidence in it from dropping it on the scope.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[JGRaider]

Sure, I’ve failed to recover a deer I know I hit. If you’ve never had that happen, then the good Lord has smiled on you. And you are right, I don’t know exactly which of my failures caused the issue. I know that the 10-round group I fired before the season was good. I know that I killed a deer that same morning using the same rifle (one shot DRT). But I don’t know exactly where I went wrong with the deer I didn’t recover. I got rushed because I got busted by one of the does he was with and he turned partially away from me. I fired too quickly (first bad decision). Despite that, I know I hit him (he fell over). Based on the sight picture, I think I hit it further back than I intended (second bad decision, poor shot angle). And when he initially went down, I wasn’t immediately ready for a follow-up shot when he got back up (third mistake). And then there was no blood at all, even in the scattered snow around where I shot him, and no blood trail to follow. In the absence of blood, the eight does he was with destroyed any chance of following his particular trail. The rifle subsequently shot an excellent 10-shot group. So, I know the issue was the Indian, not the bow. So, having explained that, I am not sure what your point is…

For me, carrying and shooting a rifle roughly 40 days a year, hunting roughly 40 days a year, and going to the range roughly 40 days a year *should* be enough to test the reliability of a rifle/optic/shooter system. If firing 800-1000 shots a year, from a variety of positions, at targets of a reasonable size, doesn’t demonstrate the rifle and shooter’s ability, then I don’t know what does. I certainly won’t develop any more confidence in it from dropping it on the scope.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

If you've hunted long enough and spent enough time in the field, stuff happens, sometimes you can't explain it. Not worth beating yourself up over it. Not every "bad shot", "lost animal", etc can be attributed to a bad scope. In fact, it usually isn't IME.

 

[sndmn11]

If you've hunted long enough and spent enough time in the field, stuff happens, sometimes you can't explain it. Not worth beating yourself up over it. Not every "bad shot", "lost animal", etc can be attributed to a bad scope. In fact, it usually isn't IME.

The point is to eliminate the equipment as a variable, instead of guessing. That ends up progressing away from, "you can't explain it" into something resembling knowledge. That concept speaks back to my first post in this thread regarding shooting multiple animals to fill a single tag. Example above demonstrating a wounded animal, no effort to determine the why, then "well, but" shot one later in the day. Uncoincidentally, someone who refuses to get past excuses to vet their equipment.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The point is to eliminate the equipment as a variable, instead of guessing. That ends up progressing away from, "you can't explain it" into something resembling knowledge. That concept speaks back to my first post in this thread regarding shooting multiple animals to fill a single tag. Example above demonstrating a wounded animal, no effort to determine the why, then "well, but" shot one later in the day. Uncoincidentally, someone who refuses to get past excuses to vet their equipment.

To whom are you referring?

In my example, the weapon system didn’t fail. It passed every objective test. The shooter failed. Please explain what testing would have resulted in a deer being successfully recovered in my scenario.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[rookieforever33]

Ba

If this has been covered before please forgive me. I am a FNG guy here and don't always find everything with a search.

Do you any of you drop test your rifle/scopes before big/expensive hunts?

Pretty much all the cool features of a scope are totally secondary to being zeroed after getting carried around for a week. of hunting. So I have followed Forms drop tests, but of course they are sample sets of one and don't necessarily cover all the scopes I own.

A have about 45 days before I leave out on my first hunt this year and have a second rifle worked up and ready. so I am wondering is it worth it for confidence and peace of mind to try the 36" drop tests on my primary rifle? The 36" drops wouldn't take too long nor use much ammo. But of course a bad result would destroy my confidence in my #1 rig.

Back to the op question. Since you have a backup that makes it easier to recover if your #1 fails. But will you then drop test #2 before you take it? What then?
Maybe a couple drops, or a rough ride as the tests do could help you build confidence. But dont go to the point of breaking your confidence.
Form may have the most consistent test protocol I have seen. There are many torture tests on YouTube where almost everything gets broken. A way to think of it is a hammer and concrete. Hit it once or twice, nothing. Hit it enough times, breakage. But its still concrete. Let Form and the torture tests break stuff and learn from it. Once you use that information to buy a reliable unit test it enough to prove it maintains that level of toughness because ANY MANUFACTURE has blips in QC.

 

[sndmn11]

To whom are you referring?

In my example, the weapon system didn’t fail. It passed every objective test. The shooter failed. Please explain what testing would have resulted in a deer being successfully recovered in my scenario.

I'm referring to you and the example you provided.

What testing? Any would be a good start; you've already said you don't do any zero retention testing.

Edit - upon further review, I think simply shooting your rifle often and recording your data is sufficient.

Yeah, upon further consideration, I think it is sufficient to have someone else test the general reliability of the scope.

I think that shooting often and recording all possible data is simply the best policy...
But passing that test won't tell you that your zero will be fine if you drop it 18' down a mountainside.

The 7 shot zero retention test would fit the bill. It is objective and eliminates variables. You don't know what failed because you have performed zero objective tests before your hunt or after to learn what is deficient.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I'm referring to you and the example you provided.

What testing? Any would be a good start; you've already said you don't do any zero retention testing.






The 7 shot zero retention test would fit the bill. It is objective and eliminates variables. You don't know what failed because you have performed zero objective tests before your hunt or after to learn what is deficient.

Hundreds of rounds into targets isn’t zero testing? A 10-shot 100-yard dead-on 1” group right before the season isn’t objective? A deer shot DRT the same morning at four times the range isn’t objective? I literally shot one deer at first light, gutted it, called my dad and brother to come get it, and kept hunting. Two hours later I wounded a deer (and that tagged me out for the season). After spending two days looking for my deer, including hiring a drone with a thermal camera, I shot a 10-shot 100-yard dead-on 1” group. How is that not checking zero retention? The rifle didn’t fail. I failed as the hunter. I got too eager and excited and rushed a bad shot on a moving deer that was quartering away.

What would dropping my rifle on the ground have revealed? You think that between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM I bumped my rifle out of zero far enough out of zero to miss a chip shot and then somehow bumped it again right back to zero before the post-rodeo group?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[BLJ]

@sndmn11

I didn’t type what I was thinking correctly.

Would 100+ days of variables (meaning riding in the truck, ATV, horseback, multiple dialings and 100’s of rounds of recoil) with no issues (zero retention and dead animals with an acceptable correlation between POA and POI) be an adequate determination of reliability for a rifle/scope combination?

This is what I wanted my original question to be. This is what I had in my head when “100’s of variables” was mentioned earlier.
Variables being different factors that could cause issue for a known combo.

All this after a rifle/scope combo has been properly assembled and zeroed.

 

[sndmn11]

@sndmn11

I didn’t type what I was thinking correctly.

Would 100+ days of variables (meaning riding in the truck, ATV, horseback, multiple dialings and 100’s of rounds of recoil) with no issues (zero retention and dead animals with an acceptable correlation between POA and POI) be an adequate determination of reliability for a rifle/scope combination?
.

I don't think so because you cannot replicate those 100s of days. They are uncontrolled.

When folks are trying to determine what works and what doesn't, AND DEMANDING others put that effort in for them, it must be repeatable and as standardized as possible. Two scopes head into the field to endure what you described, and one comes back out of whack, what caused that? The other scope shoots into the zero, how does one know it didn't shift just like first but then had a second shift and came back? The latter is repeatable with many scopes in the testing.

When variables are eliminated and control is put into testing, the results end up consistent and credible. Whether this is applied to your scope, rings, action, stock, etc., you can't vet these things through random acts. Once things are efficiently vetted in the controlled tests, then it is fair to send it out into the uncontrolled environment to proof the concept.

What people are also missing or ignoring is that the folks who do believe in the testing described here, are the folks encouraging others to do their own testing. Anybody can do it and learn from their results. There's no secret sauce and there's nothing to hide. The only negative to a person doing their own testing is that it opens the door to additional effort to fix what failed, and depending on the person, a hit to the ego. The upside is a great amount of confidence in the equipment and mentally moving on to other things to overthink.

For emphasis, the time needed to run through the zero retention testing in question, is less time than people have put into typing each response in this thread.

 

[BLJ]

Fair enough. Thanks.