Rifle scopes you'd love to see Form test

[wapitispokes]

Another thing I would love to see, would be an official manufacturer response to one of these tests? I’d kind of like to see see their explanation. That ever happened?

Acknowledging this is a "late reply" I think it was the founder of Gunwerks (sp) who was recently on a podcast or video with the S2H guys as well as on one with Cliff Grey. Hopefully I'm getting the individuals / firms correct, but I guess I could be wrong on that.

I don't know much about the Gunwerks (sp) gentleman since I don't follow his company, but he seems to have a defensible point of view and is also an engineer.

IMO, his message was that dropping scoped bolt action rifles in a way that is not scientifically repeatable doesn't prove that a scope is poorly made and will not hold zero as well as another scope that "passed" the test.

My take aways are summarized below, not all of which were his literal talking points (I could be naming the wrong podcast etc., but I believe the points made are accurately summarized below).

Also, to be clear, I really like and respect what the S2H folks have been doing and are doing to improve shooting systems, test the systems, help improve hunters and riflemen's performance etc.

First, the drop tests conducted by S2H test a "shooting system as a whole" not just the scope.

Second, these are not a rigorous or scientifically repeatable test. Sure, they can show a failure, but they do not prove that a shooting system that doesn't fail from the drops has a scope that is better than the scope on a shooting system that failed the test. More importantly the drops do not show which element in the shooting system caused POI to shift. More on that below.

Third, the issue causing point of impact change may be the attachment system or the bedding job or something else with the "shooting system" not necessarily the scope's internals. Specifically, he commented that pic rail mounted scopes will sometimes fail drop tests because the pic rail mount is insecure ("insecure" was my interpretation, not his word choice), allowing movement because the fit between the scope bases and the pic rail has some slop in it- my word choice again (I'm guessing he prefers to have his scope mounts screwed, pinned and bedded directly to the action without a pic rail in the way).

Fourth, he says that in his experience, selling MANY shooting systems with Leupold and Nightforce scopes, the rate of issues are about equal between the two scope brands. He essentially projected that based on his significantly broad experience, the two scope brands are equally good (he did NOT get into details or discuss which line of each brand).

In other words, he politely pointed out that the S2H testing methodology is inconclusive for determining if the scope is at fault when an impact shift occurs. He also invited the S2H guys (I'm pretty sure it was a S2H podcast...but I guess i could be wrong) to his facility to conduct their tests in a more scientifically appropriate manner.....

 

[5811]

In other words, he politely pointed out that the S2H testing methodology is inconclusive for determining if the scope is at fault when an impact shift occurs.

In other words, he doesnt understand the testing.

 

[bullmtn]

Second, they are not a rigorous or scientifically repeatable test. Sure, they can show a failure, but they do not prove that a shooting system that doesn't fail from some random non-repeatable drop is better than one that did fail. More importantly the drops do not show which element in the shooting system caused POI to shift.

Aaron is great, and it's awesome to listen to his ideas, but I believe the drop tests do a great job isolating the scope as the testing variable. They use a proven rifle system with proven scopes as a baseline, bonded action to stock, and have switched different rings and torque specs to ensure the failure is with the scope. Also, they test scopes not only with the drop test, but check zero after driving dirt roads, which has constantly showed that if they fail the drop test, they fail the road test. For me it does not matter if the scope in an isolated environment passes rigorous tests, I am more worried that it will fail in the field, which I believe the drop tests replicate to the best of their abilities. My personal experience is by switching to SWFAs and Nightforce scope from Leupolds, Redfields, and Nikons my zero retention issues disappear. How would you change the drop testing to be rigorous or repeatable?

 

[wapitispokes]

Aaron is great, and it's awesome to listen to his ideas, but I believe the drop tests do a great job isolating the scope as the testing variable. They use a proven rifle system with proven scopes as a baseline, bonded action to stock, and have switched different rings and torque specs to ensure the failure is with the scope. Also, they test scopes not only with the drop test, but check zero after driving dirt roads, which has constantly showed that if they fail the drop test, they fail the road test. For me it does not matter if the scope in an isolated environment passes rigorous tests, I am more worried that it will fail in the field, which I believe the drop tests replicate to the best of their abilities. My personal experience is by switching to SWFAs and Nightforce scope from Leupolds, Redfields, and Nikons my zero retention issues disappear. How would you change the drop testing to be rigorous or repeatable?

BTW, I cleaned up my post since first draft. I am not an engineer or rifle builder or gunsmith, so I am not suggesting I know how to improve the drop test. It sounds like Aaron may have some ideas. I applaud all efforts to encourage scope manufacturers to get to the bottom of POI shift and improve the product if necessary.

Lots of folks swear by Nightforce being more stable in drops. Lots of folks outside of Rokslide say Leupold high end scopes are just as good. It's hard to know what is right. I'm in the market for a new FFP Mil scope but hate the Nightforce reticles, so I'm in a bit of a quandary....

I had this discussion with some well placed Leupold folks last spring, noting that POI shift of Leupold scopes vs. for instance Nightforce is becoming a concern in the shooting community (or at least the Rokslide community). I also noted in the discussion that surely Leupold knows if it is an issue or not and surely Leupold knows how to design a scope that is more (or less) resistant to POI shifts from "random impacts in the mountains". The individual acknowledged awareness of the Rokslide community concerns. The person repeated the [stale] arguments around their recoil machine and how all their scopes handle massive rifle recoil. The individual also stated that the VAST majority of scopes sent in due to POI shift have no such issue, thus if there was a shift it was likely due to something else in the shooting system.

I think most of us are grateful for Leupold's recoil machine testing, but we also don't shoot cannons with unidirectional forces on the scope. We drop our rifles in the mountains for crying out loud and would like to know what Leupold is doing to assure POI stability after lateral or other non-linear front to back impacts. I also commented that "surely they have some idea about POI shifts and how to address POI shift if it can be improved". Response: Crickets....

My guess is that Leupold is reluctant to advertise POI stability in situations that exert non-linear front to back forces for several reasons. First, it is probably too difficult to "prove" that they have done something to make their scopes better in that regard. If they can't prove it they can't advertise it. And if they can't prove it, then other scope manufacturers can't prove it and it becomes a game of who can lie the best. Also, it may be that some scope lines within a brand are more resistant than others...what are you going to do after you prove that? To pen a funny comparison, are they going to advertise that you can buy a "car" that doesnt pass the crash test for $500 or buy one that does pass the crash test for $2,000? They would probably just see a drop in the sale of the $500 product with no uptick on the "luxury car".

On the other hand, folks might argue that Leupold does not need to advertise "proof" that their scopes are more resistant to POI shifts. They just need to DO IT and the market will figure it out over time....

Heck, I don't know what the answer is. Hopefully Aaron and S2H can work together to get even better data and more focus on this by Leupold.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Forget about the drop tests, when Leupold makes a scope that tracks and repeats as reliably as a $350 SWFA, I might be convinced that they have solved the drop issue. I should not have to turn the dials past the point and then back again (and/or tap the scope with a screwdriver handle) to make sure that the adjustment is properly applied. If I don’t have to overcorrect or use taps to get it into place, I should not have to worry about a tap knocking it out of place.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Didn't realize it was either one of those. It's a single hair, a short one.

show us where your beloved Luppy has ever set up and showed their impact testing….

Is this a mark 5 or HD 5/6

 

[406Backwoods]

Acknowledging this is a "late reply" I think it was the founder of Gunwerks (sp) who was recently on a podcast or video with the S2H guys as well as on one with Cliff Grey. Hopefully I'm getting the individuals / firms correct, but I guess I could be wrong on that.

I don't know much about the Gunwerks (sp) gentleman since I don't follow his company, but he seems to have a defensible point of view and is also an engineer.

IMO, his message was that dropping scoped bolt action rifles in a way that is not scientifically repeatable doesn't prove that a scope is poorly made and will not hold zero as well as another scope that "passed" the test.

My take aways are summarized below, not all of which were his literal talking points (I could be naming the wrong podcast etc., but I believe the points made are accurately summarized below).

Also, to be clear, I really like and respect what the S2H folks have been doing and are doing to improve shooting systems, test the systems, help improve hunters and riflemen's performance etc.

First, the drop tests conducted by S2H test a "shooting system as a whole" not just the scope.

Second, these are not a rigorous or scientifically repeatable test. Sure, they can show a failure, but they do not prove that a shooting system that doesn't fail from the drops has a scope that is better than the scope on a shooting system that failed the test. More importantly the drops do not show which element in the shooting system caused POI to shift. More on that below.

Third, the issue causing point of impact change may be the attachment system or the bedding job or something else with the "shooting system" not necessarily the scope's internals. Specifically, he commented that pic rail mounted scopes will sometimes fail drop tests because the pic rail mount is insecure ("insecure" was my interpretation, not his word choice), allowing movement because the fit between the scope bases and the pic rail has some slop in it- my word choice again (I'm guessing he prefers to have his scope mounts screwed, pinned and bedded directly to the action without a pic rail in the way).

Fourth, he says that in his experience, selling MANY shooting systems with Leupold and Nightforce scopes, the rate of issues are about equal between the two scope brands. He essentially projected that based on his significantly broad experience, the two scope brands are equally good (he did NOT get into details or discuss which line of each brand).

In other words, he politely pointed out that the S2H testing methodology is inconclusive for determining if the scope is at fault when an impact shift occurs. He also invited the S2H guys (I'm pretty sure it was a S2H podcast...but I guess i could be wrong) to his facility to conduct their tests in a more scientifically appropriate manner.....

I feel like you and others are failing to grasp the fact that the drop tests have been repeatedly proven to show that a scope will lose zero during the drops the same way it will lose zero during normal use and transport over the course of 3,000 rounds. The drop tests are merely an accelerated catalyst to failure. If a scope loses zero during the drops, it WILL lose zero after riding on the back seat of a truck up a forest service road. FACT

 

[Tanner]

One thing that would be interesting to see and may be a test that I do for myself this winter if time allows it, is to take two or 3 “proven” scopes (mine would be a 3-9 SWFA, 2.5-10 NXS, and a 3-12 LRHS) and do independent testing on each scope, on one singular rifle, to isolate other means of loss of zero, whether it be rifle movement in the stock, minuscule movement in scope rings and/or mounts, or… (name your variable).

I have a solid as shit 6.5x47 that’s been the most consistently accurate hunting weight rifle that I’ve ever had and it may be the perfect test host.

Ok, back to poo slinging…

 

[douglasfir]

If we're still saying things we'd like to see tested, I'd like to see Form drop test one of the new Burris Fullfields.

 

[406Backwoods]

One thing that would be interesting to see and may be a test that I do for myself this winter if time allows it, is to take two or 3 “proven” scopes (mine would be a 3-9 SWFA, 2.5-10 NXS, and a 3-12 LRHS) and do independent testing on each scope, on one singular rifle, to isolate other means of loss of zero, whether it be rifle movement in the stock, minuscule movement in scope rings and/or mounts, or… (name your variable).

I have a solid as shit 6.5x47 that’s been the most consistently accurate hunting weight rifle that I’ve ever had and it may be the perfect test host.

Ok, back to poo slinging…

Form conducts these test on known rifles and known mounts. The only thing that changes is the optic

 

[Tanner]

Form conducts these test on known rifles and known mounts. The only thing that changes is the optic

Understand that, I have read a lot of the full reports.

I guess what I’m saying is I’m interested in knowing where my loss of zero could potentially come from, as every rifle/mount/scope system is different. I would hope the factors for LOZ would be minimal since my rifles are all bedded, with stout rings, on rails…. But it’d be nice to know for sure.

 

[406Backwoods]

Understand that, I have read a lot of the full reports.

I guess what I’m saying is I’m interested in knowing where my loss of zero could potentially come from, as every rifle/mount/scope system is different. I would hope the factors for LOZ would be minimal since my rifles are all bedded, with stout rings, on rails…. But it’d be nice to know for sure.

I follow now. Yeah that could have its benefits. And if you document it, the rest of us can benefit from it also

 

[willfrye027]

One thing that would be interesting to see and may be a test that I do for myself this winter if time allows it, is to take two or 3 “proven” scopes (mine would be a 3-9 SWFA, 2.5-10 NXS, and a 3-12 LRHS) and do independent testing on each scope, on one singular rifle, to isolate other means of loss of zero, whether it be rifle movement in the stock, minuscule movement in scope rings and/or mounts, or… (name your variable).

I have a solid as shit 6.5x47 that’s been the most consistently accurate hunting weight rifle that I’ve ever had and it may be the perfect test host.

Ok, back to poo slinging…

Maybe I am misunderstanding but sounds like the drop test in reverse. Start with a rock solid scope, assume it’s holding zero, and start isolating/fixing the other potential points of failure.

Went through this on a rifle with a swfa 3-9. I eventually bedded it, went back and retorqued/lok tited action screws and rings/bases, then changed rings (it still wouldn’t hold zero on a drop).

I concluded it was the scope (swfa 3-9) and then later figured out it was the barrel nut/torque issue and the scope was fine.


I love the evals because I now trust them, and don’t feel the need to rigorously drop test all of my setups because I learned how to make them work, and I do monitor for zero shifts that would require going back to the drawing board

 

[Tanner]

Maybe I am misunderstanding but sounds like the drop test in reverse. Start with a rock solid scope, assume it’s holding zero, and start isolating/fixing the other potential points of failure.

Went through this on a rifle with a swfa 3-9. I eventually bedded it, went back and retorqued/lok tited action screws and rings/bases, then changed rings (it still wouldn’t hold zero on a drop).

I concluded it was the scope (swfa 3-9) and then later figured out it was the barrel nut/torque issue and the scope was fine.


I love the evals because I now trust them, and don’t feel the need to rigorously drop test all of my setups because I learned how to make them work, and I do monitor for zero shifts that would require going back to the drawing board

I think you have described it perfectly by saying “the drop test in reverse”.

Using several different scopes may be introducing more work and/or variables than is necessary but it would be interesting to see, at the least.

 

[Formidilosus]

One thing that would be interesting to see and may be a test that I do for myself this winter if time allows it, is to take two or 3 “proven” scopes (mine would be a 3-9 SWFA, 2.5-10 NXS, and a 3-12 LRHS) and do independent testing on each scope, on one singular rifle, to isolate other means of loss of zero, whether it be rifle movement in the stock, minuscule movement in scope rings and/or mounts, or… (name your variable).

I have a solid as shit 6.5x47 that’s been the most consistently accurate hunting weight rifle that I’ve ever had and it may be the perfect test host.

Ok, back to poo slinging…

Use the 2.5-10x NXS as your baseline scope. Read the standards thread about the eval and pay heavy attention to the surface you are dropping it on. Then, when you get that rifle, rail, rings, to consistently hold zero with the NXS- start swapping just the scope and checking.

 

[JGRaider]

I feel like you and others are failing to grasp the fact that the drop tests have been repeatedly proven to show that a scope will lose zero during the drops the same way it will lose zero during normal use and transport over the course of 3,000 rounds. The drop tests are merely an accelerated catalyst to failure. If a scope loses zero during the drops, it WILL lose zero after riding on the back seat of a truck up a forest service road. FACT

Negative.

 

[406Backwoods]

Negative.

Then present your data. Unless you’re just here to argue like a child. Then, please, carry on

 

[JGRaider]

Then present your data. Unless you’re just here to argue like a child. Then, please, carry on

The only data I need is personal experience.......had my VX6 since 2012, hundreds upon hundreds of miles in ATVUTV, back and forth to Africa 5 times, Sonora MX 3, and hundreds of animals killed. No problems, zero, none.

We've only had our Arken's for a couple of years, several EP4's. Work like a charm after about 500 rds.

My Tract Toric of 10 years has been on four different rifles. Tracts, repeats, kills like a champ.

Stating absolutes as you did is an ignorant position to take.

 

[406Backwoods]

The only data I need is personal experience.......had my VX6 since 2012, hundreds upon hundreds of miles in ATVUTV, back and forth to Africa 5 times, Sonora MX 3, and hundreds of animals killed. No problems, zero, none.

We've only had our Arken's for a couple of years, several EP4's. Work like a charm after about 500 rds.

My Tract Toric of 10 years has been on four different rifles. Tracts, repeats, kills like a champ.

Stating absolutes as you did is an ignorant position to take.

My bad. I won’t point out your extremely small data set as equal ignorance. If you feel you have nothing to learn or garner from these tests, move along. This isn’t for everyone

 

[fwafwow]

My bad. I won’t point out your extremely small data set as equal ignorance. If you feel you have nothing to learn or garner from these tests, move along. This isn’t for everyone

He's trolling you.