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

[BGF]

B

Thread 'A big thank you for the drop tests done on this site!!'

Apr 29, 2026

Hi all,
I came to this site a while back and have lurked for a while but mainly looked at the drop tests done on various scopes.
I have been running a Leupold VX3i on an Antonio Zoli .270 for the last 10 years with disastrous accuracy/consistency and was never sure if this was due to scope or rifle. I ruled out the scope by swapping scopes and had the rifle re-crowned, re-bedded and various other odds and sods seen to by the only person in South Africa that is willing to actually guarantee MOA after accurizing a rifle.
It now shoots a touch under MOA and playing around with 130gr Barnes...

• BGF
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Optics

• 
• 

Need I say more?

 

[medvedyt]

i do not know about drop tests per say but the days were i had a leupold scope on a rifle going in the sled and banged on trails while bison hunting are long gone.
i destroyed all the kind and always thought it was the mounts or the rings or what else then some scopes came back from oregon or alberta without being fixed but still not able to hold zero. i sold them at cost or loss and now im using the old elite bushnell made in japan by low and lrts and so far so good but again my experiences so valuable only for me ...

 

[Rhettster433]

I am gonna change direction a bit but i was just listening to episode 99 of S2H podcast and realized something when they were discussing the drop test.

Ryan said that the drop test and ride around test were separate but scopes that fail the drops also fail the ride around and vice versa. I would be interested in knowing how many of those scopes would have passed the ride around test before the drops. How is it determined that the drops didn’t damage the internals to where it cant pass the ride around test. @Wiscgunner kind of hit on this with the multi level ranking but i think doing a ride around test before the drops is the only way to get those rankings. Otherwise a scope that would be considered “deer blind appropriate” might not pass to that point due to internal failures from the large drops.

If that did not make sense i apologize but my mind to mouth translation is a little off sometimes.

 

[medvedyt]

@Rhettster433 cant speak for the testers but i did not do any drops and all leupolds failed my rides in the sled while going bison hunting and it was not brutal speed ... i wont dare to do a drop on them for sure ...

 

[theo423]

That’s part of the problem. Leupold is an American icon and institution. The drop tests gore our collective sacred cow. You can hear the faithful howl about it in this thread.
I’ve got very old Leupolds. I mean 20 to 30 years old. Guess what? One slid over and fell sideways this winter. First shot afterward was low. Then returned to zero for subsequent shots. Classic ‘spring bounce’ failure that illustrates a design weakness. But the faithful will explain it away. I’m still using it. Likely will for a long time to come, but it ain’t going elk hunting.

So if you’re on a hunt with a Lupey and drop it, touch off a round to bounce the spring and you’re good to go!

 

[medvedyt]

So if you’re on a hunt with a Lupey and drop it, touch off a round to bounce the spring and you’re good to go!

it is a gamble that you only can answer ...

 

[WAP1T1]

Would @Formidilosus test scopes sent to him?

 

[omicron1792]

Would @Formidilosus test scopes sent to him?

That’s how it works. He generally will test anything you send to him.

Which one you got in mind to send?

 

[1000yards]

Would @Formidilosus test scopes sent to him?

Yes. I have sent him more than a couple. Form and Ryan are easy to work with. Just keep in mind what this test is all about: he's dropping your stuff on the ground, and if it breaks it's on you. That's all worth it in my opinion for the goal to push this industry to higher standards and have more durable scope options.

 

[Marbles]

I am gonna change direction a bit but i was just listening to episode 99 of S2H podcast and realized something when they were discussing the drop test.

Ryan said that the drop test and ride around test were separate but scopes that fail the drops also fail the ride around and vice versa. I would be interested in knowing how many of those scopes would have passed the ride around test before the drops. How is it determined that the drops didn’t damage the internals to where it cant pass the ride around test. @Wiscgunner kind of hit on this with the multi level ranking but i think doing a ride around test before the drops is the only way to get those rankings. Otherwise a scope that would be considered “deer blind appropriate” might not pass to that point due to internal failures from the large drops.

If that did not make sense i apologize but my mind to mouth translation is a little off sometimes.

So, if you happen to hit the scope hard you throw it away and buy a knew one because now it might be damaged? Can't warranty it because you don't yet have an actual problem.

I don't know about others, but I'm not interested in equipment more fragile than my cell phone (which I literally just dropped from shoulder hight onto a hard floor while typing this to test my confidence). There was a time when I wouldn't have dared to do that as I have broken cell phones dropping them; but now the industry has standards and I don't shop for bulky tough phones any more because even the svelte ones service dunks and drops.

Edit: You can also flip this argument, what if a scope fails the drop because if broke during the ride around?

 

[RWT]

Would @Formidilosus test scopes sent to him?

I ve sent them 3 scopes and drop tested 6 of my own

Sent in.
Maven RS 1.0 FFP
Trij Huron 3x9x40 SFP
Crimson Trace 4x16 SFP

Tested my own
All 3 listed above
S&B fixed 6
SWFA 6x
NF SHV 4x14 FFP
Sightmark 3x18 FFP
Burris Veracity 4x16 FFP
Nikon Monarch 3x9x40

All taught me my entire system needed work. Even after bonding an action to a KRG Bravo I still had movement with known good scopes. The medium that you drop it on is just as important as the configuration. Some moved very little, but were still just outside of the cone. Others moved enough to question a hit at 200 yards. I also attributed a % of movement to the moron behind the trigger. It’s not as easy as acetone, locktite and a torque wrench.
If you send one in. Try the test yourself to see how you compare before you mail the scope. You don’t have to share here if you’re concerned about looking foolish. I gave up on that along time ago when I realized there will always be someone smarter, stronger, younger and tougher than you at any point in time.
Point is gather more data to improve your system and remove as many variables as possible. Do everything possible to keep Mr Murphy from squatting in the middle of your hunt. Time is too precious a commodity to waste on saving a few dollars. Will that extra $200 you saved on an Arken vs a Trij mean anything when you are sitting in the recliner telling you grandkids about the world record elk you missed because you were frugal. Have a better story to tell them.

 

[peaceful_ruler]

Too many variables to definitively prove that “x” scope will always hold zero through everything and “y” scope will always shift zero with only a small bump or drop.

However, I absolutely believe that there are better and lesser options to chose from in the industry.

I personally believe that 80%> of the premier quality scopes manufactured will hold zero indefinitely for 80%> of NA hunters and the scenarios that they find themselves in.

Especially those that are **al about their equipment(yours truly) and take very good care not to compromise their optic system in any way.

I’ve personally dropped a budget brand scope(Arken) 3’+ on its noggin(square on the elevation turret and objective bell end) on a hardwood floor and expected it to be compromised, but it wasn’t. Held zero precisely…you just never know.

IMO, the mounting system is just as critical as the scopes integrity in maintaining a zero through abuse.

 

[glock233]

80% is really optimistic when Leupold won’t even hold zero on a bumpy truck ride. Seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rhettster433]

So, if you happen to hit the scope hard you throw it away and buy a knew one because now it might be damaged? Can't warranty it because you don't yet have an actual problem.

I don't know about others, but I'm not interested in equipment more fragile than my cell phone (which I literally just dropped from shoulder hight onto a hard floor while typing this to test my confidence). There was a time when I wouldn't have dared to do that as I have broken cell phones dropping them; but now the industry has standards and I don't shop for bulky tough phones any more because even the svelte ones service dunks and drops.

Edit: You can also flip this argument, what if a scope fails the drop because if broke during the ride around?

I am not sure where i implied i would be throwing a scope in the trash because it got dropped. You test if zero moved, check tracking, try to identify an issue the drop may have caused, then decide whether to return, sell, or warranty it. Warranties are meant to be used.

I agree that all scopes should be able to meet a standard of withstanding reasonable drops. I would think most scopes would fail if the fall from 15+ feet and roll down a mountain. I would not want to test that either. But the reasonable 2-3ft drops should be passable.

I do however think that the ride around test is less harsh on the internals of the scope and it is possible for a mediocre scope to pass the ride around but do poorly on the drops. It is possible for the damage to occur from either test and affect the other. So why would you not do the “less” stressful test first?(i am not an engineer or a scope tester, i am assuming it is less stressful from experience with hammers and stuck pins. Many small taps dont work but one large tap does) If we were testing bullet proof glass, would you start testing with a 12 gauge slug you think would break it or a 9mm and work up? Start with the minimum and test to higher stress levels right? That was my question. For those of us that dont hunt out west as often. Would some of the “fails” have passed the ride around before they were dropped repeatedly? Is there a new possible data set to be gathered from the same test that requires no additional time or effort? Just reordered the test sequence?

If one of the failed scopes got tested in the reverse order and passed the ride around before being dropped, this would show validity to my hypothesis. I am not in a position financially to send a scope to be tested but i would if i could. If someone who has done testing can confirm that the order of the testing has no effect on results, then great. There is no need to change anything. I just wanted to pitch the idea i had and see if anyone else was thinking the same as i

 

[Marbles]

I am not sure where i implied i would be throwing a scope in the trash because it got dropped. You test if zero moved, check tracking, try to identify an issue the drop may have caused, then decide whether to return, sell, or warranty it. Warranties are meant to be used.

You didn't. My point is if you are correct and the drops are causing damage that makes the scope no longer reliable for riding around; but holding zero while riding around is all you need and you get a ride around only scope, as soon as falls once, you have an untrustworthy scope with presumably broken internals.

I agree that all scopes should be able to meet a standard of withstanding reasonable drops. I would think most scopes would fail if the fall from 15+ feet and roll down a mountain. I would not want to test that either. But the reasonable 2-3ft drops should be passable.

I do however think that the ride around test is less harsh on the internals of the scope and it is possible for a mediocre scope to pass the ride around but do poorly on the drops. It is possible for the damage to occur from either test and affect the other. So why would you not do the “less” stressful test first?(i am not an engineer or a scope tester, i am assuming it is less stressful from experience with hammers and stuck pins. Many small taps dont work but one large tap does) If we were testing bullet proof glass, would you start testing with a 12 gauge slug you think would break it or a 9mm and work up? Start with the minimum and test to higher stress levels right? That was my question. For those of us that dont hunt out west as often. Would some of the “fails” have passed the ride around before they were dropped repeatedly? Is there a new possible data set to be gathered from the same test that requires no additional time or effort? Just reordered the test sequence?

If one of the failed scopes got tested in the reverse order and passed the ride around before being dropped, this would show validity to my hypothesis. I am not in a position financially to send a scope to be tested but i would if i could. If someone who has done testing can confirm that the order of the testing has no effect on results, then great. There is no need to change anything. I just wanted to pitch the idea i had and see if anyone else was thinking the same as i

One, no it would mean nothing. You need 49 to pass with 0failures to have 95% certainty that 95% of those scopes will pass. In that test protocol one failure at any point in the 49 fails the entire product run. Thus, a single failure means a whole lot and testing is compete. A sing pass cannot statistically mean anything more than "it hasn't failed yet".

 

[Reed104R]

I have a garage kept 1969 Plymouth GTX with 54,000 original miles. I would like to know how this thing would hold up in a 40 mph head on collision with a large oak tree, but don't want my car destroyed. Would those guys help me? Maybe this is just a dumb idea??

 

[noKnees]

I am sure most of have seen the Nightforce video of the fellow at the trade show wacking the scopes on a post and then viewing the reticles on a collimator. It seems one could duplicate this test pretty easy by setting up a rifle in a vise with a bushnell collimator and setting the scope in the bottom half of the rings to look at the reticle between impacts

I wonder how folks ( mostly Form) think this would compare to the drop test? It would seem to me that it would have several advantages. One each impact could be applied consistently to sides of the objective, eye piece and turrets as compared to the drop test. It also would have the advantage of not having to be in the field and range to apply. Of course it doesn't really subsitute for the ride along and extended testing of Forms scope eval.

 

[omicron1792]

I have a garage kept 1969 Plymouth GTX with 54,000 original miles. I would like to know how this thing would hold up in a 40 mph head on collision with a large oak tree, but don't want my car destroyed. Would those guys help me? Maybe this is just a dumb idea??

You know for new cars they do a “drop test” and post them on the window with star ratings.

 

[Shortschaf]

You know for new cars they do a “drop test” and post them on the window with star ratings.

And thanks to standardized testing, we can tell him how most 1969 vintage vehicles will perform in said scenario (poorly)

Standards sure are neat

 

[ckt3]

Almost like rigorous testing with quantitative results and published data helps consumers by exposing poor performance.