Form your input on this test method please.

[PaulIV]

It doesn’t appear to test side impact but likely better than nothing. Do you have any experience with the product?
Thank you.

 

[Formidilosus]

It doesn’t appear to test side impact but likely better than nothing. Do you have any experience with the product?
Thank you.

It doesn’t appear to be any different than any other recoil test machine. They are not measuring or noting the reticles relationship with a target- in other words, they are not checking zero retention.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I noticed that the scope is not being impacted in any way either? To me this only simulates recoil not "drop"

 

[PaulIV]

Thanks for the response. I was considering one of the werkman rifles in 7 prc but it appears it’s currently only offered with the optic.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I haven't tested or used the optic so it may function. I'm not saying to not get it.

 

[jbspec]

If they oriented it ninety degrees and checked it on a collimation jig before and after it would be a very useful test, far more useful in fact than dropping a rifle and then test firing which introduces many uncontrollable variables.

 

[Formidilosus]

If they oriented it ninety degrees and checked it on a collimation jig before and after it would be a very useful test, far more useful in fact than dropping a rifle and then test firing which introduces many uncontrollable variables.

Uncontrolled means not able to be replicated- which portions can not be replicated?

 

[jbspec]

All of them

 

[Formidilosus]

All of them

So you can or can not tell me which can not be replicated?

It’s ok, no one else can either. Since it has been replicate with the same results thousand of times.

 

[jbspec]

So you can or can not tell me which can not be replicated?

It’s ok, no one else can either. Since it has been replicate with the same results thousand of times.

The actual drop portion isn’t repeatable and could damage the scope, which is a separate issue. Test firing introduces the imprecision of the rifle and ammunition and adds human error to the equation which can easily be removed. I’m not suggesting your testing is invalid and I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I am suggesting that there is a better way, especially if you want the testing to be taken seriously by manufacturers. I do not wish to argue but I am happy to offer my suggestions if they will be considered.

 

[fwafwow]

The actual drop portion isn’t repeatable and could damage the scope, which is a separate issue. Test firing introduces the imprecision of the rifle and human error to the equation which can easily be removed. I’m not suggesting your testing is invalid and I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I am suggesting that there is a better way, especially if you want the testing to be taken seriously by manufacturers. I do not wish to argue but I am happy to offer my suggestions if they will be considered.

What is the better way?

 

[jbspec]

What is the better way?

The scope would be placed in a jig, which could be as simple as two lower ring halves mounted to a picatinny rail fixed in a vice. The reticle would then be centred on a tracking test target whilst in the jig. The scope would then be dropped in a rig similar to that shown in the video, but would allow the scope to be mounted in a horizontal position in multiple orientations. It would then go back in the jig to check for reticle shift. The process would be repeated for different orientations and drop heights. The tracking and return to zero tests would also be performed in the fixed jig.

 

[Formidilosus]

The actual drop portion isn’t repeatable and could damage the scope, which is a separate issue.

How is it not repeatable? I mean really? It’s dropped from the same height (+/- .5”), on the same mats, from the same rifle, from the same person? And no matter how many times the same scope are “tested”, they show the same results. Furthermore, anyone can repeat the exact process using the same components, and get results that correlate. It very repeatable. “Errors” that are large enough to change the outcuome, would make it not repeatable.

It is a separate, and at the same time- the same issue. Holds zero and doesn’t break are both needed.

Test firing introduces the imprecision of the rifle and ammunition and adds human error to the equation which can easily be removed.

Everything eventually has to be used by humans in real testing- flying, sailing, crashing, etc. These products are already engineered and “tested” by the manufacturer. Field confirmation of the “tests” done by manufacturers are absolutely essential in every field, with every product. However, in the shooting world we don’t have that. Manufacturers come out with new rifles/scope/mounts/stocks/triggers/etc with less rounds total in “testing” that they do, then I will shoot tomorrow.

The amount of human error is quite small- otherwise you couldn’t ever zero a scope to begin with. Scopes that lose zero are losing zero by inches to feet at 100 yards- not by fractions of an inch. This isn’t checking absolute fractional differences- it’s checking catastrophic failures. Not only does live fire shooting show enough detail to check that, it must be done no matter what.

but I am suggesting that there is a better way, especially if you want the testing to be taken seriously by manufacturers. I do not wish to argue but I am happy to offer my suggestions if they will be considered.

Who said I care what manufacturers think?

What better way can shooters personally check their scope to hold zero and work through hard use?

 

[ORJoe]

The scope would be placed in a jig, which could be as simple as two lower ring halves mounted to a picatinny rail fixed in a vice. The reticle would then be centred on a tracking test target whilst in the jig. The scope would then be dropped in a rig similar to that shown in the video, but would allow the scope to be mounted in a horizontal position in multiple orientations. It would then go back in the jig to check for reticle shift. The process would be repeated for different orientations and drop heights. The tracking and return to zero tests would also be performed in the fixed jig.

A jig that you can take the scope out, drop it, and put the scope back in knowing that the jig itself is not introducing any errors? And the scope-test-reading public is going to have more trust in that jig than a firing test?
LOL.

 

[Axlrod]

A jig that you can take the scope out, drop it, and put the scope back in knowing that the jig itself is not introducing any errors? And the scope-test-reading public is going to have more trust in that jig than a firing test?
LOL.

This^^^^
Also I have a mat and I have gravity at my disposal 24/7. ANYONE can do this, OR you can read Form's tests, OR you can discount something you haven't tried or don't understand.

 

[SNelson]

I carry my scopes mounted on rifles. I’m quite keen to know what happens when that system is abused. And very keen to let someone else pay for the experience.
Thanks form.

 

[KenLee]

Wait, y'all use a mat for drop tests?
Somehow that's not what I invisioned.

 

[Formidilosus]

Wait, y'all use a mat for drop tests?
Somehow that's not what I invisioned.

Yes. A 1/2” padded shooting mat on soft ground; on hard ground a 1/4” EVA foam mat in conjunction.


The mat is necessary as without it on hard ground you are going to shear a lot of eye pieces and turrets. The drop eval that is posted here is checking zero retention and correct functioning, not seeing where they physically break.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Wait, y'all use a mat for drop tests?
Somehow that's not what I invisioned.

The drops aren't nearly as violent as you would think, considering very few scopes can pass the test.

 

[KenLee]

Yes. A 1/2” padded shooting mat on soft ground; on hard ground a 1/4” EVA foam mat in conjunction.


The mat is necessary as without it on hard ground you are going to shear a lot of eye pieces and turrets. The drop eval that is posted here is checking zero retention and correct functioning, not seeing where they physically break.

Thanks for the reply. I thought y'all were borderline maniacs. My natural clumsiness is much more brutal, but the testing takes awhile to reach a good level of confidence