POS Leuplold…

[fwafwow]

Also, your results dont conflict with the drop eval results, at least not yet. Its an eval designed to see if theres likely to be a frequent problem—nothing more. In no way, shape or form does it say there’s ALWAYS a problem.

Well said. It’s been said before but it seems to not be received.

[To be followed by a myriad of posts saying “But my xyz scope has never failed and I am a global traveler with 50 years of experience.”]

 

[2531usmc]

Scope Field Eval Explanation and Standards

This will be about the “why” of the field evaluations- specifically the drop “tests”. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let’s say you have spotted a buck across a valley, planned and executed a stalk which when you get to the last little knob up ahead, will put you within 400-450 yards of the...

rokslide.com

You should look at it. It’s simple and not excessive. 18-36” drops on a camping pad. It’s all the sort of impacts that could easily happen on a hunt. If a scope passes that it gets shot for 3k rounds and zero get tracked throughout. I’ve personally had scopes lose zero from falling over while leaned against a tire and even just from the vibration of riding in a truck on washboard roads in the desert. I would not say the results invalidate reasons to own a scope, but they do give you a better understanding of what to expect under field conditions when bad stuff happens.

Question…..why are you dropping it on a camping pad? I would think if you were trying to replicate real world conditions, you would drop it on hard packed dirt or a rocky outcrop?

 

[intunegp]

Question…..why are you dropping it on a camping pad? I would think if you were trying to replicate real world conditions, you would drop it on hard packed dirt or a rocky outcrop?

That's how low the bar is...most scopes can't even handle being dropped onto a pad, much less hard packed dirt or rocks.

 

[2531usmc]

That begs the question…….whats the point of the drop test? Dropping the rifle on a soft pad to see what happens?

 

[intunegp]

That begs the question…….whats the point of the drop test? Dropping the rifle on a soft pad to see what happens?

I don't understand the confusion. Yes, exactly, to see what happens. Most scopes tested can't handle being dropped onto a soft pad.

 

[Choupique]

Do you have anything to show that his dumpster evaluation isnt predictive of whatever failure he was evaluating for?

It was actually an excellent test. It was free, took about 10 seconds, and identified a design flaw.

Can't do anything except laugh, pick it up, and go whittle out something else.

I like the drop tests. 5 years ago if you told me there existed a scope that could be dropped on the scope from 3 feet in the air and not move zero at all, I'd have said no Fn way. I didn't know it was possible till I read that stuff.

Logical progression from there is "why do I have scopes that don't hold zero if dropped?" Its not like they cost more than comparable models that don't hold zero. They MAYBE weigh a little more? There's no negative to it, besides a good case of butthurt from being duped for a few decades on what I thought was a good scope.

 

[Kurts86]

I’m not sure how someone is honestly analytical if they have only owned 1 brand of scopes for decades at a time. Sure they can say it’s adequate for their needs but it’s hardly a competitive benchmark of what else is out there.

 

[Grundy53]

That begs the question…….whats the point of the drop test? Dropping the rifle on a soft pad to see what happens?

Perhaps you should actually check out the drop test threads...

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[NevadaMike]

For what its worth, I would personally welcome ANYONE to use data to show the drop evals are wrong. That is what WOULD be welcome.
Also, your results dont conflict with the drop eval results, at least not yet. Its an eval designed to see if theres likely to be a frequent problem—nothing more. In no way, shape or form does it say there’s ALWAYS a problem. Individuals may have claimed that, but its not what the eval says or claims to do as far as I can see. Nor does the info we have from you say there ISNT a problem, as theres no documented info provided on a previous zero, handling, and subsequent zero check. I am well aware you have no intention of providing that, just pointing out that without this info I have no way to tell if you have even tracked and checked the zero, or if you are basing your statements on minute of deer results at relatively short range, the way I see virtually everyone do it at the shooting range. Thats not a challenge or questioning you btw, its only to say that the beauty in all of this is that any one of us can easily check this stuff for ourselves without needing to trust any stranger from the interweb. And, if we dont have the item to check ourselves we have not only the documented evals, but also a poll, approaching a decade worth of monthly posts on the topic, AND the people such as you chiming in that theirs are all good. Based on all that we can all make our own decisions. But it sure would be nice if there was something more than unspecific anecdote to show the evals are baseless. Its not that I dont believe you, I do—its just that to a lot of folks anything documented trumps anything that isnt documented.

I have personally have seen one of the Nightforce scopes "fail" that "passed" this test on a competitors rifle. Is that definitive? I also saw an Arken fail on the same day as well as rings from a company all love here. Using the sample size of one the drop test is wrong. That would be ridiculous statement since my sample size is one! Virtually every scope that has 'Passed" has failures listed here on RS. Even a never dropped SWFA had a reticle failure. Hopefully not the Maven 1.2 because I have several of them now. The godgfather of the drop test once replied in a snarky way comparing his testing to the FAA and the NTSB. It was not worthy of a reply because it was ridiculous. My son works in aerospace and the button you push to recline your seats gets a more through CONSISTENT testing than scopes here. The NTSB test multiple vehicles in the exact way. We have all seen the cars on the track hitting the barrier. They all impact in exactly the same way. They test several IDENTICALLY. One is not tested on Tuesday in June at 80 degrees with a stick on the accelerator driven off a cliff at Bucks ranch and the other tested in January at 10 degrees on. I don't know but maybe the grease or lube is sticky when cold. Do we know the answer to that? It probably isn't but do we know? If so tells us and tell us why we know that. Have we all forgot "your groups are too small?" The same tester talks fancy about the WES calculator and we "all suck" as well and group size over 20 shot groups. You are going straight to HE double toothpicks if you dare think he may not have been perfect. Do you think if a tester shot a 20 shot group rather than 10 shot group it would be a larger group? Statistically the group would be larger and invalidate two separate 10 shot groups used in the drop as a comparison. It's a shame because the basic premise is great and if we were not locked in emotionally and started controlling variables the big hitters would pay attention. Heck the drop test may even be spot on! Right here there was a post about Maven and its already legendary 1.2 on a podcast and they(Maven) dismissed the test and hurt feelings. They also said the internals were the same as the 1.0 that did not do well on testing. What?! No way F sakes! I was standing at a competition as a judge with the Nightforce and Leupold reps when a competitor asked them about the drop test. They both chuckled and ignored it and gave it no time. Remember Leupold uses the "Punisher" to replicate impacts and Nightforce uses the Rubber pad we have all seen. What they both share is they use a collimator to see if there is a shift. This eliminates the human, BC variables from projectile to projectile, ES, SD and so on.

It does not make me crazy when someone does not like Leupold. It makes me crazy when someone sells gear that has been treating them well because a "hunter" that shoots his 10 rounds a year says scope A failed when they were sighting in their high power magnum.