Q&A for Leupold Mark 5 Field Evals

[huntnful]

Also along these same lines.

The ZCO didn’t pass.

It was pointed out that there was maybe mounting issues but nothing was ever done to do a reevaluation and the review still stands that a ZCO doesn’t pass the “drop test”.

So yeah all a little interesting.

i already answered this in the other thread but had to play stay at home dad today. Going out his weekend and gonna drop mine. I’ll keep you all posted don’t you worry

I don’t personally see any bias. I’ve owned ZCO’s and Mark 5’s and didn’t feel the need to get defensive about my optics towards the tests. I’ve had 2 ZCO Parallax failures and two Mark 5’s lose zero riding in the side by side as well as a close buddy have an erector failure on his.

You may personally have a good scope, the testing just shows a potentially higher failure rate with certain optics. So far, every scope I’ve owned, that failed the drop tests, have also personally failed for me in some way. Not really a weird coincidence.

And conversely. The optics that have passed the drop tests have cause me zero headaches whatsoever. Shoot whatever you want, and what you feel confident in. It’s just data and info being presented in a clear and direct way.

I do look forward to you drop test results also

 

[Fever Buck]

My only issue is the lack of sample size. Statistically, you shouldn’t pull any conclusions from just one or a couple of failed or passed scope tests. You’d honestly need a bunch of Rokslide members to volunteer to test their scopes with the same means and methods to really nail down a statistical trend.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

No. A single failure is pretty conclusive that the design is flawed.

 

[Fever Buck]

No. A single failure is pretty conclusive that the design is flawed.

Then every scope ever made has a design flaw. I can guarantee that there hasn’t been a scope line made that has some sort of failure at some point.

 

[Jason Snyder]

My only issue is the lack of sample size. Statistically, you shouldn’t pull any conclusions from just one or a couple of failed or passed scope tests. You’d honestly need a bunch of Rokslide members to volunteer to test their scopes with the same means and methods to really nail down a statistical trend.

Read the evals. They aren’t conclusions. They are observations. There is a difference.

The results are documented. In order to draw conclusions you would need a statistically valid sample size.

 

[Formidilosus]

Then every scope ever made has a design flaw. I can guarantee that there hasn’t been a scope line made that has some sort of failure at some point.

That’s not how probability works. If 1 scope in 1,000 scopes is bad- what are the probability that is the one randomly checked? Further, if it is 1 scope in 1,000, and you land on it, what is the probability that the very next one is also bad? If I did it correctly it .0001% to get two in a row- that’s silly to believe that is what is happening. Three in row and it’s ridiculous.

This isn’t magic. One scope passing can’t be stated to mean a whole lot. Two working starts to point to an indication. However, the first scope failing a structured “test” does start to indicate an issue, and two in a row is about as close as you can get to knowing there is a foundational problem with the product.

 

[Fever Buck]

Read the evals. They aren’t conclusions. They are observations. There is a difference.

The results are documented. In order to draw conclusions you would need a statistically valid sample size.

That’s exactly what I mean though. I’m not saying that Form or other Rokslide staff are saying these are conclusions, but forum readers make conclusions based off the evals. I just think folks should use this as one piece of information with buying instead of the total gospel.

 

[Jason Snyder]

That’s exactly what I mean though. I’m not saying that Form or other Rokslide staff are saying these are conclusions, but forum readers make conclusions based off the evals. I just think folks should use this as one piece of information with buying instead of the total gospel.

Making a decision based off someone’s observations is an end user decision. If someone decides to overlook those observations, that’s on them. It’s a free country. Someone is just as free to take it as gospel as they are to say who cares. In the end, I control my purchases, not someone on the interwebz.

Lest anyone accuse me of being a cultish homer, I shoot a Christensen .300 WM that currently has a Leupy on it. When it warms back up, I’ll be checking zero on it. I abused the heck out of during elk season and am curious how it fared.

 

[ZAR EC]

No. A single failure is pretty conclusive that the design is flawed.

I dont have a dog in this fight and I dont get emotionally attached to optics. If a brand I own fails the drop test(s), I'll just move on to one that works - easy fix to the problem. That said I've had several "tier 1" scope brands fail in one way or the other. I had a 4-16X42 ATACR fail badly on me to the point it was unusable. That's one of the most reliable scopes made but they have a failure rate regardless.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Collecting stories of failures from all users is a population level statistic. In that case, yes, there will always be a failure rate equal to something.

However, for a random, new out of the box sample from a manufacturer with a quality control program, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of that single sample being representative of the overall population and functioning as designed. And that's exactly how forms drop tests are set up and conducted. A single failure indicates that the design more than likely is inadequate to pass the test.

If there were large discrepancies, or a scope model where half passed and half didn't, the conclusion would still probably be that its overall a failure, AND that the manufacturer has poor quality control. These are precision manufactured items, not coin tosses.

 

[ZAR EC]

Collecting stories of failures from all users is a population level statistic. In that case, yes, there will always be a failure rate equal to something.

However, for a random, new out of the box sample from a manufacturer with a quality control program, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of that single sample being representative of the overall population and functioning as designed. And that's exactly how forms drop tests are set up and conducted. A single failure indicates that the design more than likely is inadequate to pass the test.

If there were large discrepancies, or a scope model where half passed and half didn't, the conclusion would still probably be that its overall a failure, AND that the manufacturer has poor quality control. These are precision manufactured items, not coin tosses.

If my ATACR was used in that drop test it probably would have failed. There was a problem with that optic. That single sample wouldn't be a good representation of the population of ATACR 4-16's. I took a single sample out the box just like Form does and that sample failed. Can I conclude therefore that all ATACR 4-16's are unreliable? Of course not. I cannot base my population decison on the fact that my sample ATACR failed and therefore they are unreliable as a population. If we do several samples then that can start to approach a good representation of the population. I'm not disparaging the tests or methodology, I'm saying it's important to look beyond a single sample before making population level conclusions.

Form has been posting about these tests for at least 10+ years and has been quite consistent in doing multiple samples of 10+ scopes before making population wide conclusions. I'm not questioning that in any way and the tests shown here likely are backed by multiple other sample tests.

 

[Formidilosus]

If my ATACR was used in that drop test it probably would have failed. There was a problem with that optic. That single sample wouldn't be a good representation of the population of ATACR 4-16's. I took a single sample out the box just like Form does and that sample failed. Can I conclude therefore that all ATACR 4-16's are unreliable? Of course not. I cannot base my population decison on the fact that my sample ATACR failed and therefore they are unreliable as a population. If we do several samples then that can start to approach a good representation of the population. I'm not disparaging the tests or methodology, I'm saying it's important to look beyond a single sample before making population level conclusions.

Form has been posting about these tests for at least 10+ years and has been quite consistent in doing multiple samples of 10+ scopes before making population wide conclusions. I'm not questioning that in any way and the tests shown here likely are backed by multiple other sample tests.

Correct on all.

Every scope make/model will have a failure eventually. What I want is the lowest probability of failure possible. I have stated and it is true that I have not personally seen a NXS, ATACR, SHV,, NX8, or BEAST that wouldn’t hold zero. I have seen a couple zero stops locked up on NX8’s. Having said that, of course there has been and will be failures with all of those.
One failure from a known entity like NF is not a cause for concern to me- it has to happen eventually. However, if two from the same line failed out of the box back to back- I would be concerned and would have a conversation with them.

For some- like Leupold, because of repeated and consistently being mislead and lied to about “we really, for real, super seriously mean it this time- have fixed this new scope”- to include the Vari-X III long range, Mark 4 variable, all VX2, VX3x, VX6, Mark 8*, MARK 6, VX5, VX3HD, Mark 5, etc. lines; the amount of use and numbers of scopes I would need to see to even remotely believe they have have actually corrected would be staggering.


Leupold is similar to the girlfriend that you love more than any other, that has cheated and betrayed you hundreds of times, and after each time being caught she swears that she will never do it again. And each time people believe her, and they get betrayed again. And again. And again.

People are either ignorant of the history, or have battered wife syndrome.

 

[JNDEER]

Correct on all.

Every scope make/model will have a failure eventually. What I want is the lowest probability of failure possible. I have stated and it is true that I have not personally seen a NXS, ATACR, SHV,, NX8, or BEAST that wouldn’t hold zero. I have seen a couple zero stops locked up on NX8’s. Having said that, of course there has been and will be failures with all of those.
One failure from a known entity like NF is not a cause for concern to me- it has to happen eventually. However, if two from the same line failed out of the box back to back- I would be concerned and would have a conversation with them.

For some- like Leupold, because of repeated and consistently being mislead and lied to about “we really, for real, super seriously mean it this time- have fixed this new scope”- to include the Vari-X III long range, Mark 4 variable, all VX2, VX3x, VX6, Mark 8*, MARK 6, VX5, VX3HD, Mark 5, etc. lines; the amount of use and numbers of scopes I would need to see to even remotely believe they have have actually corrected would be staggering.


Leupold is similar to the girlfriend that you love more than any other, that has cheated and betrayed you hundreds of times, and after each time being caught she swears that she will never do it again. And each time people believe her, and they get betrayed again. And again. And again.

People are either ignorant of the history, or have battered wife syndrome.

Sorry for the ignorance- what is a BEAST scope? Not sure if an acronym for something or if something else autocorrected to it?

 

[Formidilosus]

Sorry for the ignorance- what is a BEAST scope? Not sure if an acronym for something or if something else autocorrected to it?

Nightforce BEAST. 5-25-56mm scope they no longer make. Was a superb scope.

 

[ZAR EC]

Form, any inside Info on whether the military issued MK5 are any different to the civilian commercial version? You've previously spoken about an issued Vortex 1-6 that was in someway "differently designed" to the commercial version on a different forum and I know NF have their milspec line which is nigh unkillable.

I don't use any leupolds (had my heart broken too) but it would seem that there would be a demand from the general public for issued optics that pass a higher standard of reliability, even if they come with a price premium.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, any inside Info on whether the military issued MK5 are any different to the civilian commercial version? You've previously spoken about an issued Vortex 1-6 that was in someway "differently designed" to the commercial version on a different forum and I know NF have their milspec line which is nigh unkillable.

I, nor anyone I know has seen any difference with mil Mark 5’s.

but it would seem that there would be a demand from the general public for issued optics that pass a higher standard of reliability, even if they come with a price premium.

Look at the responses on this forum- most still hang onto emotion and “but influencers say so”, instead of logic, reason, and observation. Every person can take their rifle, zero it exactly POA/POI, then drop it on a mat and check zero. But they refuse to. So no, I don’t thing there is any demand from the general public for a more durable scope because they don’t think it’s an issue, and it’s in the interest of most manufacturers, all influencers, and nearly all forums to all say there is no difference between scopes in reliability or durability- if they even understand that their is a difference.

 

[Axlrod]

I, nor anyone I know has seen any difference with mil Mark 5’s.





Look at the responses on this forum- most still hang onto emotion and “but influencers say so”, instead of logic, reason, and observation. Every person can take their rifle, zero it exactly POA/POI, then drop it on a mat and check zero. But they refuse to. So no, I don’t thing there is any demand from the general public for a more durable scope because they don’t think it’s an issue, and it’s in the interest of most manufacturers, all influencers, and nearly all forums to all say there is no difference between scopes in reliability or durability- if they even understand that their is a difference.

This is the only place you find any meaningful scope evaluations. All the other hunting/shooting forums just talk about what is going on over on Rokslide. There are those that make things happen (scope evals, 223 for Deer etc, Rokstok) and those that say "what just happened"!

The whole consumer scope use and lack of performance standards reminds me of Jack Nicholson, playing a novelist, in As Good As It Gets. When asked how he writes women so well. He replied
" I think of a man, and take away reason and accountability"

​

 

[Formidilosus]

The whole consumer scope use and lack of performance standards reminds me of Jack Nicholson, playing a novelist, in As Good As It Gets. When asked how he writes women so well. He replied
" I think of a man, and take away reason and accountability"

Well played sir…

 

[Dobermann]

If anyone wants a window into why so many scopes fail and/or the lack of understanding of what matters, check out this recent video, billed as 'An In-Depth Look at Scope Design'.

I'm not wanting to hassle either this particular YouTube channel or scope manufacturer as such. But when people make videos 'interviewing' scope company reps, and wear the t-shirt from that company, that's not a great look.

And when the scope company reps say this many things that are problematic ... it helps make sense why there are so few scopes that work.

Warning: don't use this video as a drinking game. based on all of the problematic or simply wrong stuff the scope company reps says. I started, got only halfway through, and am now quite tipsy. Or maybe do use it as a drinking game if that's the outcome you want ...

 

[ZAR EC]

I, nor anyone I know has seen any difference with mil Mark 5’s.





Look at the responses on this forum- most still hang onto emotion and “but influencers say so”, instead of logic, reason, and observation. Every person can take their rifle, zero it exactly POA/POI, then drop it on a mat and check zero. But they refuse to. So no, I don’t thing there is any demand from the general public for a more durable scope because they don’t think it’s an issue, and it’s in the interest of most manufacturers, all influencers, and nearly all forums to all say there is no difference between scopes in reliability or durability- if they even understand that their is a difference.

The general public I referenced might be a bit misleading. I was referring to the general high $ shooter that frequent this type of forum, shoot frequently and spend large amounts on shooting equipment - i.e the average shooter that spends Mark5 money . It's obviously not your average mom and pop 10 rounds a year VX-1 general public, but your average mom and pop isn't spending +$1000 on multiple scopes so that's not the target market anyway.

This forum has international reach (Im South African) and these tests are becoming very well known by schooters world wide. That's not an insignificant international market.

I dont know what sales Maven is getting on their new scope but the interest on the forum is clearly high enough for them to change their scope design from not very reliable to reliable. I imagine Trijicon interest has started to pick up since they changed their design and were shown to now be reliable.

That's 2 examples of companies changing their scopes to become more reliable just within the pages of this forum so the demand is clearly developing.