Drop Test Pass/Fail

[fwafwow]

@JFK @fwafwow Sorry I didn’t see this. I keep meaning to do something like this. But it keeps getting put on the back burner and the forums is not a great place to store it. Maybe a live version on the front end or on the shoot2hunt website

I defer to you as to where to store "it" and what it looks like. Let us know if you have already got an idea as to the latter, and if there is something any of us can do to help with the lifting.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I defer to you as to where to store "it" and what it looks like. Let us know if you have already got an idea as to the latter, and if there is something any of us can do to help with the lifting.

More of a blog format with a running spread sheet at the top with a small synopsis of every scope dropped searchable by brand with tags

 

[Marbles]

@fwafwow , I hear what you are saying, I guess its the ability to quickly compare different aspects as a tool to identify what to look for in the evals that is helpful. I know for a fact a lot of people dont read that much--I do, but even I get lost in it sometimes, get distracted, etc. Example--the credo 3-9. This scope may have been a fail (I dont recall what is a fail vs a "partial pass")--but looking at this it sure would be a shame if the credo 3-9 and the leupold vx3 were both simply recorded as "fail"? Is this format too complicated? I personally think it provides additional clarity, allows comparisons at a glance, helps target what to look into deeper, but still offers a very quick, easy to digest format.

View attachment 639033

I think simplifying the number of columns, but something similar.

One column for the dialing portion (tall target and return to zero, a failure in either is the same). Given the sample size of 1, reading more into those is risky.

Zero retention could have two columns, one that would cover the columns for basic zero retention, 18", and single 36", then one for 36" x3. Again, given the sample size, I think reading more into it than that is risky.

A "fail*" would indicate passing some portion and if someone want to know more, they need to go to the full eval.

From a use standpoint, the scope is either good for dialing, or it is not, which is why I would consolidate that section.

For zero retention, I would consider carrying something that failed the 36"x3, failing any other portion is too questionable. If 10 of each scope was being tested, I would find the granular details more useful.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I think simplifying the number of columns, but something similar.

One column for the dialing portion (tall target and return to zero, a failure in either is the same). Given the sample size of 1, reading more into those is risky.

Zero retention could have two columns, one that would cover the columns for basic zero retention, 18", and single 36", then one for 36" x3. Again, given the sample size, I think reading more into it than that is risky.

A "fail*" would indicate passing some portion and if someone want to know more, they need to go to the full eval.

From a use standpoint, the scope is either good for dialing, or it is not, which is why I would consolidate that section.

For zero retention, I would consider carrying something that failed the 36"x3, failing any other portion is too questionable. If 10 of each scope was being tested, I would find the granular details more useful.

The drive around test is also important. If it doesn’t pass that I wouldn’t use the scope.

I will have time to work on this soon. I will ask for help.

 

[Marbles]

The drive around test is also important. If it doesn’t pass that I wouldn’t use the scope.

I will have time to work on this soon. I will ask for help.

Agree, I thought that was being referred to as "basic zero retention."

 

[stan_wa]

@Ryan Avery here is one idea to consider if you want to keep it easy! How about a link on the forum to a google sheet which a trusted user (you) owns that can be updated live but downloaded at any time? you can set the link permission to view only, this is what lusk does for his broadhead testing and it works out well.

 

[Ryan Avery]

@Ryan Avery here is one idea to consider if you want to keep it easy! How about a link on the forum to a google sheet which a trusted user (you) owns that can be updated live but downloaded at any time? you can set the link permission to view only, this is what lusk does for his broadhead testing and it works out well.

There’s no money in that

 

[DangerRanger]

The drive around test is also important. If it doesn’t pass that I wouldn’t use the scope.

Kind of absurd that this has to be a real sentence and is contested

 

[Macintosh]

@fwafwow @Marbles @Ryan Avery the example screenshot I posted is just a quick pivot table that pulls data from a larger worksheet. The actual eval and comments could essentially be filling in a “form” (the larger worksheet) without adding any work, it just provides a template and structure for consistent recording and communication of the results. The pivot “consilidated view” just allows you to look at whichever few criteria you want to compare scopes and get a quick overview of the results—its as easy as clicking a check-box to add or remove a column in that consolidated look, and it also allows you to filter by whatever criteria you want. For instance, the 3000-round “after test was a column, and could be added by clicking the box on the pivot table. I just threw it together a while back as an example when this topic came up before, and never finished it—its not meant to be final, just an idea to start from. Its literally 15 minutes of work—really just the template with a couple of the scopes filled in quickly—but am happy to send it to whoever wants if its at all helpful.

 

[fwafwow]

@fwafwow @Marbles @Ryan Avery the example screenshot I posted is just a quick pivot table that pulls data from a larger worksheet. The actual eval and comments could essentially be filling in a “form” (the larger worksheet) without adding any work, it just provides a template and structure for consistent recording and communication of the results. The pivot “consilidated view” just allows you to look at whichever few criteria you want to compare scopes and get a quick overview of the results—its as easy as clicking a check-box to add or remove a column in that consolidated look, and it also allows you to filter by whatever criteria you want. For instance, the 3000-round “after test was a column, and could be added by clicking the box on the pivot table. I just threw it together a while back as an example when this topic came up before, and never finished it—its not meant to be final, just an idea to start from. Its literally 15 minutes of work—really just the template with a couple of the scopes filled in quickly—but am happy to send it to whoever wants if its at all helpful.

Excellent. And maybe we are all talking about semantics. If the information is available and can be screened filtered in a spreadsheet, then if that can be done in a website format, that would be ideal - at least for me.

 

[JFK]

@Ryan Avery if the sheet I made is of any use I can send you the Excel doc. I’m not really interested in maintaining it, but do think that a quick resource like this would be useful and add value the site. Doubly so if you could hyperlink the full eval to each scope in the summary page so it’s easy to navigate back and forth between the summary and detailed scope evaluations.

 

[Monty3006]

In addition to the spread sheet if Form added Pass, Fail, or Ongoing to the title of each test it would make for a quick reference point.

 

[Shraggs]

@JFK @fwafwow Sorry I didn’t see this. I keep meaning to do something like this. But it keeps getting put on the back burner and the forum is not a great place to store it. Maybe a live version on the front end or on the shoot2hunt website

This is a great idea!

Ryan I think posting the complied list might be best placed in the optics forum as a sticky.

So many folks there are oblivious to the tests or it seems. Might get sone increased cross traffic

 

[Alder_]

I’d really like to know which scope passes the test and is also the lightest.
I would make new purchases based off of the following criteria, in this order:
1) reliability (tracking and zero retention)
2) weight
3) max magnification
4) reticle options
(Other options such as zero stop follow)

A blog post generating money, an excel sheet compiled by another member, whatever it may be there’s value in compiling all of the data. If I can be of help in anyway please let me know.

Could all of the reviews be pinned at the top of the optics forum?

 

[Reburn]

Could all of the reviews be pinned at the top of the optics forum?

You want to pin them again other then the entire subforum made for it?

Rifle Scope Field Evaluations

rokslide.com

 

[Alder_]

Nope. Appreciate it.

I was looking in optics. You know, scopes are optics.

 

[Wiscgunner]

I have been thinking of this myself. I was envisioning left column for the model and every column after that to the right being category of pass/fail, highlighting the cell in red or green. Far better on the eye to see than the read. Could even rate each category with a weighted number for a score total for better across the board comparison. Pretty simple.

If people want more details, read the damn review. If people want spec, go to the scope manufactures website for length, weight etc. I think you will never please people with the details so all the work will never be enough when the objective to get a quick comparison. People either already know the scope they want to compare or will look to see which scope are worth further research on the brand website for weight etc. If one was to be really nice then you could add a column for date evaluated and the weight in oz. Simpler is better or people get lazy and never read the actual test but will demand click value, paint color, direction of zoom ring, taste of the anodizing and other super useful info to the spreadsheet

 

[stan_wa]

on a Podcast with Shot 2 hunt they mentioned a 250$ scope that passed What scope is that.... i cant seem to find any of the scopes for 250$

 

[H80Hunter]

SWFA 6x42 SS - Mil-Quad Reticle, 30mm, .1 MIL Clicks, Rear Focus

SWFA is an optics manufacturing specializing in rifle scopes built for tactical, hunting, and long range shooting known for quality and precision optics.

swfa.com

Its $299 now and out of stock but this one

 

[redchinviking]

It’s crazy to think a test like form is doing and a compiled results list available to the public could single-handedly cause scope manufacturers to rethink their durability engineering and testing. Hopefully inevitably causing a shift in what is commonly acceptable in zero retention and durability. I am so thankful for you guys. This information list needs to go viral. Seriously like wildfire! All these other scope manufacturers better get their $&@! figured out or they will be losing market share. They already lost mine…form was just confirmation from what I already knew to be true for years. Let the truth be heard. That list is so valuable to us all. Invaluable.