Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[Castle Rock]

and @SDHNTR - I don't have a link, but think it's been covered here before a couple-few years ago.

Short version as I recall it was that Ilya actually spoke with Form. Confirmed his bona fides. Found it hard to believe someone could shoot that much. Chalked the scope failures to a mount that had springs - which showed he wasn't familiar with the whole suite of tests. And continued to say that he 'liked the people at companies x, y, and z very much' and that they made 'durable' scopes (while mainly still commenting on reticle design and optical quality, and acknowledging that he doesn't shoot a lot).

Frankly, I pay him no attention anymore.

Yep, dark lord of smoke would be more appropriate

 

[RockAndSage]

Ilya was just asked about this again on SH yesterday and proceeded to mistakenly (?) say that Form had tested the Maven RS1.2 and Tract 2.5-15, then failed one and passed the other despite them being the "same scope" internally. As far as I can tell I see no record of the Tract 2.5-15 being tested though, so not sure what to make of that.

People who gaslight others use this exact tactic - they grasp for any tiny thread they think they can get traction with, and use it to try to discredit everything someone or a group is saying, trying to make you think everyone's crazy or misguided for believing their own eyes and experiences. Deny, redirect, counter-accuse.

Ilya would probably also argue the Sig 320 problems are user error.

 

[Frozenlead]

I’m curious. Got a link?

DLO live episode 96

Not sure if this is @Dobermann was talking about, but I came across it today. They start discussing it around the 20min mark.

 

[eric1115]

DLO live episode 96

Not sure if this is @Dobermann was talking about, but I came across it today. They start discussing it around the 20min mark.

Yep, it's exactly what I'm talking about. They repeat the same "uncontrolled variables" argument, it could be bedding or mounting or or or, without mentioning that the rifle always somehow passes when it's got a NF, SWFA or Trijicon on it.

It'S nOt SciEnTiFic! Well isn't repeatability one of the core tenets of science? If your multi-thousand dollar highly controlled testing equipment can't replicate the issues people are seeing in the field, what are you really testing?

If a redneck dropping rifles is replicating the issues people report, and doing it consistently, and showing that the scopes people report as being bombproof do indeed consistently pass, then is it really that unscientific?

 

[Dobermann]

DLO live episode 96

Not sure if this is @Dobermann was talking about, but I came across it today. They start discussing it around the 20min mark.

The videos and posts I knew about were from a few years ago.

I'd not seen this one, and likely won't spend time doing so. Will leave to the rest of you to comment on it if you wish.

 

[SDHNTR]

DLO live episode 96

Not sure if this is @Dobermann was talking about, but I came across it today. They start discussing it around the 20min mark.

I tried. Made it about 3.5 minutes before losing interest. Snooze fest.

 

[JGRaider]

Yep, it's exactly what I'm talking about. They repeat the same "uncontrolled variables" argument, it could be bedding or mounting or or or, without mentioning that the rifle always somehow passes when it's got a NF, SWFA or Trijicon on it.

It'S nOt SciEnTiFic! Well isn't repeatability one of the core tenets of science? If your multi-thousand dollar highly controlled testing equipment can't replicate the issues people are seeing in the field, what are you really testing?

If a redneck dropping rifles is replicating the issues people report, and doing it consistently, and showing that the scopes people report as being bombproof do indeed consistently pass, then is it really that unscientific?

The biggest problem I see with your argument is that large numbers of hunters use failed RS drop test scopes successfully every year, they've held zero, killed loads of game, and have for years, hence the skepticism. 99% of hunters any/everywhere have never heard of RS or the RS drop test anyway.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The biggest problem I see with your argument is that large numbers of hunters use failed RS drop test scopes successfully every year, they've held zero, killed loads of game, and have for years, hence the skepticism. 99% of hunters any/everywhere have never heard of RS or the RS drop test anyway.I

And there are lots of guys that have had Luppy fail too. I’m 2/3 in fails, I’m also 2/2 on swaro. I really loved the mark 4HD 2.5-10x42 it shotte the bed on its third week of owner ship, the HD5 3-15 made is 1.5 years and failed on a hunt. Nothing like having to look down the barrel on a wounded bayed bear at 15 yards.

Luppy needs to invest in some Japanese H1Visa’s clearly they don’t have it figured out like LO does

 

[JGRaider]

2, 1" tube Swaros myself, and one VX3 out of probably 20 Leupy's, but I only have 1 left. Its a 14 yr old VX6 that won't die. I've had great luck with LRHS, a couple of Athlon's, and a couple of Arken's. I've got a 50+ yr old Weaver K4 that has held zero all that time.