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).

 

[Dobermann]

Can you provide links, for both?

Another scope manufacturer was throwing scopes off of the roof of their HQ or adjacent building. But that petered out for reasons that I am not privy to.

That stated, throwing a scope on the ground doesn't tell us much. Unless it's an obvious fail.

When I was doing product dev, we didn't have a drop requirement, but did it anyway with production representative models. This was considered severe abuse, but we used it for advertising. And customers expected it, but it was simply due to over-engineered products setting an unrealistic expectation in the past.

I left that industry, but now have clients that do drop tests for Hi-Rel and MIL-STD. I make sure that they don't make unfounded claims. You'd be surprised how many don't understand the complexity of a drop test.

While it's not drop-testing per se, in addition to the video above, there are multiple videos of NF staff banging scopes with significant lateral shock, and then testing on a collimator ... I think they've also done this live at various outdoors shows.

 

[Dobermann]

I went and picked a fight on SH, it's going as expected. Asked for actual reasoned, evidence based critique of the drop tests and the straw men and ad homenims came out of the woodwork. I was actually hoping for real discussion, but I'm apparently the most naive person on the internet. It's turning into a dumpster fire, but if anyone is interested in further exploring the "expert" opinions refuting the evals it's all there

If you hunt hard enough, you can find the Everyday Sniper podcast where Frank discusses how he and Marc used to test scopes and post the results ... and why he stopped doing that. He was pretty up-front about how it annoyed scope companies who paid for advertising on the Hide.

And to be clear: not throwing shade at Frank here, but the opposite - he was quite transparent that some scopes struggled (from memory of the spreadsheet, some Vortex had issues and Leupold had catastrophic failures). Not surprisingly, the NF and Bushnell Elites also did well. I've also quoted him here years ago saying that he kept SWFA 5-25s as back-up scopes for classes for when other more expensive scopes failed.

In other words: back when he was making his data public, there were a lot of similarities with Form's data. Main difference was that Frank and Marc were testing scopes out of the box and during class use, and not doing drop tests ... so there was some variance in results, but the headline outcomes were very similar.

And a lot of Frank's hard data back then did not square with the fanboyism (of Leupold and Vortex especially) that some on the Hide were very vocal about ... if you hunt hard on the Hide, you'll see him even call some people out about it ...