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 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 we 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. 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, tell 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.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

I'd like to see a test where rifles are put in an ATV rack and run down a rough road at 30 MPH. That's a test that a lot of rifles are put to during hunting season. If mine ever failed, I never knew it.

 

[Kurts86]

I'd like to see a test where rifles are put in an ATV rack and run down a rough road at 30 MPH. That's a test that a lot of rifles are put to during hunting season. If mine ever failed, I never knew it.

That’s a pretty common test procedure for consumer goods to test items on a vibration table to simulate shipping in the back of a truck in addition to vertical, offset and incline impact testing, freezing and heating and compression in both horizontal and vertical axis’s. We had all of those machines in our transit testing lab. Those standards apply to a wide variety of shipped goods because shipping often applies much different forces than “normal” operation.

 

[2531usmc]

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

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

I have read the threads and originally concluded the Rokslide “drop test” is not really a test. It’s random guys dropping random rifles in random fashion, with scopes mounted in random fashion, getting random results and then proclaiming that “it passed” or “it failed and I have to buy a new scope”

With this new information, I have concluded the rockslide “drop test” is not really a test. It’s random guys dropping random rifles on soft pads, with scopes mounted in random fashion, getting random results and then proclaiming that “it passed” or “it failed and I have to buy a new scope”

Maybe it’s just me but I would guess the product development and quality control engineers at leupold are a tad more thorough.

And again, maybe it’s just me, but if I was buying a new riflescope I would take into consideration:
-3 decades of failure free Leupold hunting over two continents
-depth of leupold financial strength and engineering depth

Certainly, this would be more of a consideration than random guys dropping random rifles on soft surfaces……

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I'd like to see a test where rifles are put in an ATV rack and run down a rough road at 30 MPH. That's a test that a lot of rifles are put to during hunting season. If mine ever failed, I never knew it.

I do this weekly.

The scopes that “pass” the field evals and mounted properly almost never lose their zero.

Scopes that “fail” the field evals, even when mounted properly, often lose their zero.

It’s not rocket science here.

 

[Choupique]

the rockslide “drop test” is not really a test. I

It really is. A crude one, but it is one.

I do real design and testing of high volume stuff for the military. I get the value of highly scientific testing. At some point in the process, we always put it next to an explosion to see what it does, or give it to some marines to see what creative ways they destroy it. They could tear up a railroad track with a stick of bubble gum. Crude testing has great value in many applications and I think rifle scopes is one of them.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that it's just a guy trying to make sure his stuff works and happens to be sharing the results with us. Its not the sole test method of a major optics company.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I do this weekly.

The scopes that “pass” the field evals and mounted properly almost never lose their zero.

Scopes that “fail” the field evals, even when mounted properly, often lose their zero.

It’s not rocket science here.

It really is not, pretty easy concept to read and understand. It does require reading, which apparently is a bridge too far for some.

It’s really funny how much people like to take issue with the “drop” part without knowing what’s even being tested, OR without acknowledging the part about bumping around in a vehicle to see how easy zero wanders (or not). But no problem to get on here to be super negative about it, ha.

It’s cool the original post here has a scope that has worked. Implying there’s a conspiracy or that ALL of them will behave in a similar manner, with no zero retention testing, is an interesting take….

 

[intunegp]

I have read the threads and originally concluded the Rokslide “drop test” is not really a test. It’s random guys dropping random rifles in random fashion, with scopes mounted in random fashion, getting random results and then proclaiming that “it passed” or “it failed and I have to buy a new scope”

With this new information, I have concluded the rockslide “drop test” is not really a test. It’s random guys dropping random rifles on soft pads, with scopes mounted in random fashion, getting random results and then proclaiming that “it passed” or “it failed and I have to buy a new scope”

Maybe it’s just me but I would guess the product development and quality control engineers at leupold are a tad more thorough.

And again, maybe it’s just me, but if I was buying a new riflescope I would take into consideration:
-3 decades of failure free Leupold hunting over two continents
-depth of leupold financial strength and engineering depth

Certainly, this would be more of a consideration than random guys dropping random rifles on soft surfaces……

So lets follow that logic and ask ourselves what hunters are...random guys with random rifles with scopes mounted in random fashion, in random scenarios getting random results and then proclaiming that "it works" or "it doesn't" or "my scope is just fine".

Maybe it's just me but I would guess the product development and quality control engineers at Leupold are highly motivated to sell you a scope.

And again, maybe it's just me, but if I was buying a new riflescope I would take into consideration that anyone who makes and sells a product is going to tell you that their product works great.

Certainly, I would consider the fact that the seller of said item has much more reason to tell me it's great than a random person/random people who have no financial gain or loss associated with my purchasing decision has to tell me it's not.

Everyone is free to base as much or as little of their decision making on the available information as they see fit. If Leupold works for you then great, keep using them. If something else works for you then great, use that instead.

The argument has never been that you can't hit a deer/elk/sheep/coyote/beer can with a Leupold, and people posting "oh yeah well f your test look what I did with my Leupy" doesn't do anything but make them look butthurt about the opinions of random strangers on the internet.

 

[JGRaider]

I'd like to see a test where rifles are put in an ATV rack and run down a rough road at 30 MPH. That's a test that a lot of rifles are put to during hunting season. If mine ever failed, I never knew it.

Several hundred miles a year here........

 

[Grundy53]

I have read the threads and originally concluded the Rokslide “drop test” is not really a test. It’s random guys dropping random rifles in random fashion, with scopes mounted in random fashion, getting random results and then proclaiming that “it passed” or “it failed and I have to buy a new scope”

With this new information, I have concluded the rockslide “drop test” is not really a test. It’s random guys dropping random rifles on soft pads, with scopes mounted in random fashion, getting random results and then proclaiming that “it passed” or “it failed and I have to buy a new scope”

Maybe it’s just me but I would guess the product development and quality control engineers at leupold are a tad more thorough.

And again, maybe it’s just me, but if I was buying a new riflescope I would take into consideration:
-3 decades of failure free Leupold hunting over two continents
-depth of leupold financial strength and engineering depth

Certainly, this would be more of a consideration than random guys dropping random rifles on soft surfaces……

Well, I doubt you actually read any of Forms drop threads. The scopes are not mounted in a random fashion. Nor are they dropped in a random fashion.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

 

[Choupique]

The scopes are not mounted in a random fashion. Nor are they dropped in a random fashion.

Its one of those ACTUALLLY things. Dropping from the waist on the ground vs dropping from a calibrated test rig onto a specifically designed surface with X samples from Y lots, etc.

Its a guy dropping his stuff on the ground to see if he thinks it's reliable enough for him after undoubteldy seeing a bunch of scopes and mounts fail and piss him off. No more, no less. It's a good test considering the use case. He obviously shoots stuff for a living and has seen zero shifts enough to get mad enough to try to figure out how to not have to deal with that anymore. If everyone held their gear to the same standards and checked their stuff the same way, I think there would be a lot of very disappointed leupold owners.

Its not hard to fault someone for not wanting to throw their multi thousand dollar scope and rifle around, but when you need your stuff to work, how else do you verify that your rifle isn't going to lose zero when you turf out side hilling a snow bank with your rifle on your back? That's wha Form is doing with his own stuff and sharing the results with us.

I can say that in my circle of friends, leupold is by a very dramatic margin the most popular scope brand used. At least 10:1 vs other brands, maybe more. VariX 3 is the caddilac for us, thats what the rich among us use. The rest of us pleebs use varix 1's, riflemens etc. We are simple folk with families and tight budgets. Conventional knowledge is you check zero after you drop it and fully expect it to be off. Its a topic of conversation when somebody drops their rifle on the scope and it doesn't at least shift. As in if your rifle hits the ground, you go back to the camp because you can't risk it being off. Scopes have to be sent back occasionally. Forms test results aren't gospel to me, but they gave me a very serious mindset recalibration. After a few spills and rechecks, I don't worry about it any more. So for me, sample size of 1, he was right. My leupold had a wandering zero, and my swfa does not.

 

[ElPollo]

I'd like to see a test where rifles are put in an ATV rack and run down a rough road at 30 MPH. That's a test that a lot of rifles are put to during hunting season. If mine ever failed, I never knew it.

This is sort of like the vibration tests that some scope manufacturers use. The direction of the vibration matters. Some scopes may be sensitive to butt to muzzle-oriented vibration that you would get in this case. Others may be more sensitive to lateral vibration.

In my own experience, I’ve had more issues with lateral vibration. I often have a scopes rifle laying on the floor of the back seat or my truck on a pad, because my bird dogs are generally on the back seat. I’ve had multiple scopes lose zero from a day of washboard roads. Form seems to include this lateral vibration in the 3000 round, post drop evaluation. That portion of the test alone is more than most people’s normal day to day use for the life of their scopes.

I honestly think Form’s drop tests do a pretty good job of replicating the diversity of hard use and potential oops moments in a framework that is doable for anyone. Could it be a bit more rigorous and scientific? Sure. To make the evaluation more rigorous, specialized equipment would be required to quantify impacts and vibration. That’s a significant expense. There is also the question of sample size, and addressing that is also a budget killer.

Sometimes perfection can be the enemy of completion. His tests frankly seem to work pretty well. I don’t believe any scope that passed the drop portion of the tests has actually failed the long-term use portion. I also would not assume that a scope model that passed his tests would never fail. I am grateful that Form and Rokslide are doing these tests. The results have saved me ammo and sight-in time at the range that I can devote to other practice. They’ve also significantly reduced my expletive laced rants at the range and in the field due to loss of zero.