Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[JGRaider]

Have you read them?

Negative, nor will I.

 

[Bubblehide]

Negative, nor will I.

Have you dropped tested a scope?

 

[JGRaider]

Have you dropped tested a scope?

Don't see the need to. I kill 30 deer a year, about 75 hogs, and a few other things every year. My gear bounces around in UTV's, ATV's, and trucks 150 days a year. I've got a pretty good idea what works.

 

[Bubblehide]

Don't see the need to. I kill 30 deer a year, about 75 hogs, and a few other things every year. My gear bounces around in UTV's, ATV's, and trucks 150 days a year. I've got a pretty good idea what works.

What's good enough for you, is good enough for you.

 

[Coleredding00]

Don't see the need to. I kill 30 deer a year, about 75 hogs, and a few other things every year. My gear bounces around in UTV's, ATV's, and trucks 150 days a year. I've got a pretty good idea what works.

Then it sounds like you have nothing to gain by reading any more on drop tests. If you have it all figured out, you can leave the rest of us to our groveling about products that don't do one of the only things they are supposed to do.

 

[JGRaider]

Then it sounds like you have nothing to gain by reading any more on drop tests. If you have it all figured out, you can leave the rest of us to our groveling about products that don't do one of the only things they are supposed to do.

I don't read them now. I asked Ryan Avery about them based on something he posted about NF and Trijicon, that's it. It got blown way out of proportion obviously.

 

[Jordan Smith]

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.

When it comes to logical arguments, there's a difference between the evidence supporting the possibility of an outcome and the high probability and reliability of that outcome. When users either have light-duty demands of the scope, or make excuses for it and continue to make small adjustments every year while claiming that the scope works as intended, it does not say anything about the reliability of the scope working correctly in difficult conditions and with no excuses.

A good analogy would be vehicle reliability. As a hypothetical, if specific testing showed that a Toyota truck was more reliable and could take more abuse without breaking than a Ford truck, indicating that Toyota trucks may be more reliable and durable in general, that result would not be invalidated by the fact that millions of people drive Ford trucks to get to work and move furniture every day, doing repairs more often but accepting that as normal. In addition to the reliability and fewer repairs, for harder use, like off-roading, that's when the durability advantage of the Toyota truck may be evident. For daily grocery trips, differentiating between the durability of Ford and Toyota trucks may be more difficult, and that's how most people use their trucks, but that doesn't mean that the Toyota truck isn't generally more reliable and durable (again, hypothetically).