Questioning the "gold Standard Drop Test" and the conclusions of "This scope brand does/doesn't hold zero"

[NevadaMike]

When a guy has access to SRS and UM machine shops, precision measuring tools yet uses a hammer to interpret results.... Different scenarios every time. It would be so easy for the testing to be precise. Make a jig, drop the same way on video, shoot the same ammo on a fixture or better yet use a collimator to measure changes. There is a reason industry professionals do not give a rip about these tests. I have been with the Nightforce and Leupold reps at the same time and the laugh at these tests. Remember when Maven talked about "some guy dropping scopes" and it created quite the drama here on RS? I asked a similar but more basic question a year ago and the creator of the drop test compared himself to the FAA and the NTSB. The button that reclines my seat gets more testing than the drop test here. Just like the politics of the day, people need to believe.

My accuracy sucks so I will sell my scope that failed the test. I invest my money for scope A+, I will pay close attention to torque specifications and use good rings, might as well confirm the action screws are tight, breathe........slowly squeeze the trigger and damn if this scope is not spot on. Confirmation bias!

Despite all that, Leupold is still the scope used by most competitive shooters just behind ZOCO. Weird don't ya think?

Best Rifle Scope For Long Range Precision Shooting – What The Pros Use

Looking for the best rifle scope for long-range precision shooting? We’ve done the research, so you...

precisionrifleblog.com

 

[Jhconnected]

The most “scientific” way as the OP alluded to is to use a drop table with an impulse made to mimic those a dropped rifle/scope would see in the field.

I believe this was offered by Gunwerks. I think I even saw a GW social post where the guys from S2H were up there testing it.

Have those results been posted? It would be interesting to see a comparison of results.

Considering the funding behind this effort, things are done about as scientifically as possible.

In essence, I agree with the OP, things could be done more scientifically in a different way, but it takes time and money to do it and the funding required for that isn’t here.

And, as an engineer, I will guarantee you even the companies that make the scopes and actually do these tests don’t put the funding into it. They may use a drop table to a specific impulse based on a MIL-Spec. But, they probably only do one sample and if they do more it’s not a sample size big enough to get statistically significant results.

 

[Tom-D]

Personally i always find it funny how many products and cars go through a tonne of controlled testing in house but then end up getting recalled when something becomes apparent after people actually start using them. I actually value the fact that it’s a real world evaluation and isn't some perfect all factors controlled test.

 

[Jhconnected]

Personally i always find it funny how many products and cars go through a tonne of controlled testing in house but then end up getting recalled when something becomes apparent after people actually start using them. I actually value the fact that it’s a real world evaluation and isn't some perfect all factors controlled test.

This very well could be a sample size thing as the OP discussed.

You’d be surprised how small of a sample size some (lots! of) companies use. Then a product gets out in the wild and the sample size gets BIG.

But, like on Rockslide, companies don’t want to throw money at testing, hence a sample size of 1, and you end up with recalls or scopes that don’t hold zero when dropped in the field.

 

[glock233]

The significance of the drop tests isn’t that they’re scientific or adequate sample sizes. It’s that the failures demonstrated happen in most scopes with such modest adversity for the scopes. It’s a testament ti how fragile designs are that such a half assed test demonstrates such flaws.

Imagine a test where most car seatbelt buckles unbuckled by simply being bumped. Scientific or not that’s meaningful.

 

[Macintosh]

When a guy has access to SRS and UM machine shops, precision measuring tools yet uses a hammer to interpret results.... Different scenarios every time. It would be so easy for the testing to be precise. Make a jig, drop the same way on video, shoot the same ammo on a fixture or better yet use a collimator to measure changes.

The whole point, or at least a major component of the whole point, is to make it so anyone can do the eval without requiring an elaborate fixture. Sure, there are opportunities to make it more consistent before we get into multi-thousand-dollar contraptions, but as soon as you go here you negate the entire point of putting the consumer in the drivers seat. It also allows an evaluation of the entire system, which is another major point people arent accounting for in this discussion. There are times when the goal is to isolate one part of the system (ie gluing the action permanently to the stock to eliminate a major possible variable so as to better isolate the scope itself), and there are other times when you NEED that variable if you are to test your actual rifle that you actually use.

There is a reason industry professionals do not give a rip about these tests. I have been with the Nightforce and Leupold reps at the same time and the laugh at these tests.

Remember, one of those brands passes this eval +\- 100% of the time, and one fails +\- 100% of the time. That sure looks consistent to me. It strikes me they might be laughing for very different reasons.

Remember when Maven talked about "some guy dropping scopes" and it created quite the drama here on RS? I asked a similar but more basic question a year ago and the creator of the drop test compared himself to the FAA and the NTSB

You missed the point. No, he did not. He used the faa and ntsb as examples of legitimate testing that do not use large sample sets because they are looking for failures.

 

[omicron1792]

“I'm a surgeon... what did you expect?”

Exactly. Over n out.

Didn’t you already say you’re out once?

 

[Gribley]

The significance of the drop tests isn’t that they’re scientific or adequate sample sizes. It’s that the failures demonstrated happen in most scopes with such modest adversity for the scopes. It’s a testament ti how fragile designs are that such a half assed test demonstrates such flaws.

Imagine a test where most car seatbelt buckles unbuckled by simply being bumped. Scientific or not that’s meaningful.

This might be the best perspective on here. If I hit a Ford F150 with a pillow and it explodes in Looney Tunes fashion…we’re not going to spend time and money testing it further. We’re just going to buy a different truck. And we’ll be glad we did the unscientific pillow test.

He’s dropping it from 18”. Then 36”. Think about that.

I think Form is very aware of the limitations of his tests. He states it frequently. If a scope passes, he reminds everyone “Hey keep in mind, it’s just one. Here’s how I’m going to test it further. Also we need more examples.” He also tells us when variables exist. He tells us when the ground changes. “This one was on grass. This one was on frozen snow.” Him telling us that part demonstrates that he understands it’s a variable. Scopes are so crummy, it doesn’t take a very scientific test to prove it. While I agree with the OP that a more rigorous third party like uL would be awesome, the costs are extraordinary. What the OP is really getting at is, how do we get that scientific certification/lab going? The answer is exactly what Form/Avery/Rokslide is doing. The industry will eventually respond.

 

[Axlrod]

When a guy has access to SRS and UM machine shops, precision measuring tools yet uses a hammer to interpret results.... Different scenarios every time. It would be so easy for the testing to be precise. Make a jig, drop the same way on video, shoot the same ammo on a fixture or better yet use a collimator to measure changes. There is a reason industry professionals do not give a rip about these tests. I have been with the Nightforce and Leupold reps at the same time and the laugh at these tests. Remember when Maven talked about "some guy dropping scopes" and it created quite the drama here on RS? I asked a similar but more basic question a year ago and the creator of the drop test compared himself to the FAA and the NTSB. The button that reclines my seat gets more testing than the drop test here. Just like the politics of the day, people need to believe.

My accuracy sucks so I will sell my scope that failed the test. I invest my money for scope A+, I will pay close attention to torque specifications and use good rings, might as well confirm the action screws are tight, breathe........slowly squeeze the trigger and damn if this scope is not spot on. Confirmation bias!

Despite all that, Leupold is still the scope used by most competitive shooters just behind ZOCO. Weird don't ya think?

Best Rifle Scope For Long Range Precision Shooting – What The Pros Use

Looking for the best rifle scope for long-range precision shooting? We’ve done the research, so you...

precisionrifleblog.com

They re-zero their scopes at every match. So do you want a scope you have to re-zero right before you shoot an animal? Then get a Leopold. Prs is not hunting. Rokslide is not a Prs forum.
When the drop rests started, Form said something like, the tests replicate what will happen to a scope after hundreds of rounds fired.- The cumulative effect of recoil.
A lot of people on this thread could learn way more by shooting more, and typing less. Test your own stuff to your satisfaction whatever way works for ya. But if you can't or won't, the scope eval's are the easy button. If I had to choose between a NF ATACR and any scope that failed the scope eval, I would choose a set of Ping's and play golf instead!

 

[Wrench]

I've killed more scopes from rattling in racks on a wheeler and one time a objective lens rattled out from being in contact with my xfer case lever.

Ive never had one lose zero from a fall with one exception, I slipped coming out of our shoot house and had a rifle take a 5 foot drop onto blue ice. I can't say if it was the scope, mounts or rifle....but it move about .2 mils. I've put another 5 years on that scope and it's never budged since.

 

[QuikFire]

Good morning y’all, hope y’all had nice sleeps. I just walked in the door, was on call operating all day and night, but I’ll leave that there.

I’m glad the guest of honor found his way to the party. To answer your question, no.., I’m not gonna bite. I’ve read a handful of your reviews, and found the aspects of your protocol that left me with skepticism about confounding variables, but, I also gathered a lot of great information. I really appreciate what you’re doing. Just thought we could discuss it, but tbh, seems like said discussion is a bit unwelcome. Sorry, I didn’t intend it to be an attack on your work and valued contributions, and most, especially not a personal one. You’re going to great efforts, and I just think there’s some valuable data missing from the consumer, in general. You may not be interested at all in other methods to collect that data. You may disagree that abutting is missing, and you, as many have on you’re behalf, may justify your methods to even get me to better understand WHY you employ them, and aren’t interested in an alternative. I’m all ears.

We can beat up the stats and argue over what I meant by an upper or lower case n/N in the context of an Internet forum discussion. One shouldn’t assume what medical literature I read, either. A vast majority of us aren’t reading or publishing phased clinical trial data (that’s not to say I don’t understand it). More so, randomized controlled trials where methods and appropriately powered studies are paramount.

Also, if I’m “Dude” - No, I’m not an Ortho Surgeon, I’m the type who operates all over the body, practices internal medicine, critical care med, Emergency med, geriatric med, pediatric med… and I know the indications/contraindications for just about every abx, and use them all, too.

 

[Ewludwig]

“I'm a surgeon... what did you expect?”

Exactly. Over n out.

Thought you were already “out”. I guess you lied like Faucci.

 

[RWT]

To the OP, it’s a shame some people refuse to participate in an intelligent conversation designed to expand a view point. They are the reason we don’t evolve. I appreciate you taking the time to assemble a well thought out premise.

 

[Forkasauras]

First, I am by trade and training, somewhat of a scientist. I'm not the lab tech guy in the white lab coat and googles, but I am a doctor, a surgeon,

By trade, I am a scientist. MDs make the worst scientist as they are self-important and believe in the superiority of their own opinions over anything else. Almost at a 100% rate.

From your posts, you have a poor understanding of the drop test and the purpose of your posts seem to be to burnish your cedentials and talk down to the little people.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Guys.....
How bout we keep this thread to having an intelligent conversation? Enough of the snarky and useless comments.

Randy

 

[CRJR45]

Guys.....
How bout we keep this thread to having an intelligent conversation? Enough of the snarky and useless comments.

Randy

Oh all right , dammit . I was typing a snarky comment about doing research and buying Howa when your post popped up , so I won't .

 

[mtnwrunner]

Rokslide thanks you.

 

[1000yards]

I’m glad the guest of honor found his way to the party. To answer your question, no.., I’m not gonna bite.

Just thought we could discuss it, but tbh, seems like said discussion is a bit unwelcome.

Examine the state of yourself. I'd say the conversation is very welcome considering the response, it's just difficult to have this conversation when all you've done in this entire thread is (intentionally?) misinterpret and misrepresent what the rifle scope field evaluations actually are.

 

[Kramerica3]

I haven’t read through this entire thread. You also have variability in the chassis/stock, scope base, scope rings, how it was mounted, torqued, how good some shooters actually are at shooting good groups. Repeatability of the drops themselves. Different shooting conditions. Then there’s sample size. You need at least 20 rounds as a baseline or it really doesn’t mean jack. If you are talking about an apples to apples test then all of the above needs to be consistent.
I also like the idea of the drop test but I put very little stock in it personally.

 

[Axlrod]

Good morning y’all, hope y’all had nice sleeps. I just walked in the door, was on call operating all day and night, but I’ll leave that there.

I’m glad the guest of honor found his way to the party. To answer your question, no.., I’m not gonna bite. I’ve read a handful of your reviews, and found the aspects of your protocol that left me with skepticism about confounding variables, but, I also gathered a lot of great information. I really appreciate what you’re doing. Just thought we could discuss it, but tbh, seems like said discussion is a bit unwelcome. Sorry, I didn’t intend it to be an attack on your work and valued contributions, and most, especially not a personal one. You’re going to great efforts, and I just think there’s some valuable data missing from the consumer, in general. You may not be interested at all in other methods to collect that data. You may disagree that abutting is missing, and you, as many have on you’re behalf, may justify your methods to even get me to better understand WHY you employ them, and aren’t interested in an alternative. I’m all ears.

We can beat up the stats and argue over what I meant by an upper or lower case n/N in the context of an Internet forum discussion. One shouldn’t assume what medical literature I read, either. A vast majority of us aren’t reading or publishing phased clinical trial data (that’s not to say I don’t understand it). More so, randomized controlled trials where methods and appropriately powered studies are paramount.

Also, if I’m “Dude” - No, I’m not an Ortho Surgeon, I’m the type who operates all over the body, practices internal medicine, critical care med, Emergency med, geriatric med, pediatric med… and I know the indications/contraindications for just about every abx, and use them all, too.

I think you are looking at this a little sideways.
Before my youngest son was born I asked the baby doctor (I think that's his title) how many babies he had delivered. He said "9755". As a dad when you are in the scariest situation of your life, where you know nothing, and have zero control, having the guy that did this 10k times before is the guy you want!

There are guys on here that shoot A LOT. I have over 40 different cartridges I load and shoot. I shoot 2+ days a week, and I am WAY down the list on here for round count. And I still learn more all the time. But there is no replacement for going out and shooting with your equipment. Mark Twain said "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".

You seem like you know your doctoring stuff pretty well. But from your posts, out in the shooting world you have only seen a couple babies being born on a TV show. You need to go out and deliver some babies yourself, and quit getting wraped up in the weeds.