Riflescope Drops.

[Bubblehide]

I just hung a dozen picture frames using my NightForce SHV as a hammer. No worries.

Was it attached to the rifle? Or do refer to that as the handle?

 

[Ryan Avery]

Everyone focuses on the drop test but if you are open to actually learning something you see other parts of Forms test. The part that we all do with our rifles. The infamous ride-along test. Notice the correlation, if it doesn't pass the drop test it generally doesn't pass the simple test of riding around in a truck.... GASP.

If you like zeroing a lot keep on keeping on.....


In the end, we report, YOU decide.

 

[Formidilosus]

The part that we all do with our rifles. The infamous ride-along test. Notice the correlation, if it doesn't pass the drop test it generally doesn't pass the simple test of riding around in a truck.... GASP.

I’m trying to think if there had been one that had failed the drop eval, but stayed zeroed just driving around..? I don’t think so.

Had four more people this past week swear that they’ve never had problems with losing zero with their scopes ever, and that their rifles/scopes were perfectly zeroed. So we checked. None were zeroed. They were all between .2 and .4 mils off. Funny how that goes….

 

[ramsdude47]

I know I could probably find this easily but are rifles inside the cabin for the drive test? Or at least in quality padded cases?

I see both sides. I probably won’t buy anything new based off the drop testing results. I would absolutely re-confirm zero if I dropped my rifle in the field before shooting something. Being off by 0.3 miles is only 6 inches at 500 yards I believe, I’m not someone to shoot beyond 300. I’m primarily an archery guy anyways.

 

[Formidilosus]

I know I could probably find this easily but are rifles inside the cabin for the drive test? Or at least in quality padded cases?

On the seat. No case.

I see both sides. I probably won’t buy anything new based off the drop testing results. I would absolutely re-confirm zero if I dropped my rifle in the field before shooting something. Being off by 0.3 miles is only 6 inches at 500 yards I believe, I’m not someone to shoot beyond 300. I’m primarily an archery guy anyways.

Being off 6 inches at 500 yards drops hit percentage on a 12” target (deer) by around 80%. It’s huge.

 

[Macintosh]

I think a lot of people interpret tests wrong. Most standardized tests are not designed to tell you "this item survived a test impact of 3 feet, therefore it is able to withstand an impact of 3feet"--there is almost never a 1:1 equivalency in a test like this. The point of the test is to say that after subjecting it to a battery of "major but realistic" trials, that failures in testing CORRELATE to a higher rate of failure from "normal use". Proper use of a test like this is to simply say "this scope passed this test, which based on history should correlate to a more reliable scope than one that didnt"--nothing more. I'd love to hear what some of the folks doing the testing think of that, but I personally worry much more about shifts from normal use where there ISNT an identified impact, than I do about impacts I can identify--at least if I know the scope got dropped hard I have a chance to make a judgement call and check it. It's the stuff that shifts from carrying it, driving with it, etc where there is no identified source of damage that scares me.
Also, the scopes I've owned that shifted without any identifiable cause, moved like 3-4" at 100 yards--combined with my own group-size in field-conditions that is plenty of a shift to cause a full-on miss or a wounded animal, so my opinion is that the zero shifts without cause I have personally seen ARE a failure of the scope to meet its most basic function.

 

[Pronghunter]

On the seat. No case.

By no means am I arguing with you. I absolutely agree that quite often rifles lose zero for what seems like no apparent reason. More than most would suspect. I personally can’t think of a time my most used rifles (coyote hunter) has lost zero just driving around on the seat. That includes the hours and hours of bouncing around in our PA-18 Supercub. I have had several rifles lose what I would consider zero by 1-2 MOA from other situation‘s or circumstances (usually hard falls) , but for me personally not just flying or driving. The number of coyotes has no relevance on the topic of losing zero, but it puts in perspective of how much flight time some of these rifles see. Usually around 200-400 dogs a year just out of the Piper. And they are checked for zero religiously before each flight. Fuel and maintenance won’t be taken for granted due to a rifle not being checked. I will say that your test do prove many optics don’t hold zero and I appreciate the test and information. I guess I wouldn’t own one that wouldn’t hold zero, but would be very suspicious if it lost zero on a pickup seat.

 

[sndmn11]

I personally worry much more about shifts from normal use where there ISNT an identified impact, than I do about impacts I can identify--at least if I know the scope got dropped hard I have a chance to make a judgement call and check it. It's the stuff that shifts from carrying it, driving with it, etc where there is no identified source of damage that scares me.

That is precisely what the testing procedure is designed to identify; based on @Formidilosus experiences he developed the protocol as a rapid way to predict the likelihood that the scope in hand will not have inexplicable wandering zero.

When folks accept that concept, they will understand that the primary purpose for this specific drop testing is applicable to every single scope on a hunting rifle regardless of if it is babied or "abused".

 

[Macintosh]

Exactly, if I didn't make that clear thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Better that people think of the "drops" and other portions of a test like this as a way to "condense" a longer period of more generic normal use into a short period of time that can be reasonably predictive of an inexplicable problem at some point in that scopes lifetime.
With regard to the original post, I don't get the impression the test was designed for others at least initially, I had thought it was designed for personal use and the test was experimented with until they were able to get results that correlated with the actual field-failures they were seeing. In that sense the test was calibrated agsint actual field failures already. It's a fair question if their field-failure rate is much higher than "normal people's" failure rate would be, but at least for them, if the manufacturers were doing whatever tests and these scopes passed, then by definition the tests were not rigorous enough. Having had personal problems with popular scope brands losing zero for no good reason, I am happy to have any reasonably good data that isnt marketing-dept smoke and mirrors.

 

[roosiebull]

That is precisely what the testing procedure is designed to identify; based on @Formidilosus experiences he developed the protocol as a rapid way to predict the likelihood that the scope in hand will not have inexplicable wandering zero.

When folks accept that concept, they will understand that the primary purpose for this specific drop testing is applicable to every single scope on a hunting rifle regardless of if it is babied or "abused".

I cannot even guess on the number of times I have tipped my rifle over sitting on the bipod, happens fairly often… when I stop to glass, unless it’s really quick, I take my rifle out of the gun bearer, and set it on the ground on the bipod… I generally don’t have my bipod on my rifle until I get to where I’m slowing down and doing some glassing, that’s a pretty big purpose of a bipod for me… I bump it and tip it over fairly often, and that’s probably led to rifles losing zero in the past, as well as bumpy rides off pavement, and if there is no traffic potential, I’m probably getting where I’m going pretty quick, which is jarring at least, and pretty punishing when I don’t see that pothole until it’s too late… tons of stuff I never connected to my scope losing zero, but the drop tests connected a lot of dots in my head… it all makes sense in hindsight

I don’t purposely beat my stuff up, but it all lives a hard life. When I recently put the rifle I had been primarily using in a chassis, I was surprised how beat up and scratched up the factory stock was, lots of dings and scratches… hunting rifles and optics have a hard life with me, I personally value the drop tests… nothing is absolute, but starting with a proven platform can save money and frustration

 

[Balderdash]

I think a lot of people interpret tests wrong. Most standardized tests are not designed to tell you "this item survived a test impact of 3 feet, therefore it is able to withstand an impact of 3feet"--there is almost never a 1:1 equivalency in a test like this. The point of the test is to say that after subjecting it to a battery of "major but realistic" trials, that failures in testing CORRELATE to a higher rate of failure from "normal use". Proper use of a test like this is to simply say "this scope passed this test, which based on history should correlate to a more reliable scope than one that didnt"--nothing more. I'd love to hear what some of the folks doing the testing think of that, but I personally worry much more about shifts from normal use where there ISNT an identified impact, than I do about impacts I can identify--at least if I know the scope got dropped hard I have a chance to make a judgement call and check it. It's the stuff that shifts from carrying it, driving with it, etc where there is no identified source of damage that scares me.
Also, the scopes I've owned that shifted without any identifiable cause, moved like 3-4" at 100 yards--combined with my own group-size in field-conditions that is plenty of a shift to cause a full-on miss or a wounded animal, so my opinion is that the zero shifts without cause I have personally seen ARE a failure of the scope to meet its most basic function.

Nice summation.

As has been stated, I believe that there's a decent sized cohort of hunters who don't even realize that their scope isn't doing what it's supposed to. I used to help out with a sight in day at a local range. The amount of shooters who fully expected to re zero their rifles every year or two was significant; many didn't think anything of the POI of their rig being several inches off from the last time they sighted in. Worse yet is that many would sit and argue about how xyz brand of scope was the best because they've shot piles of game with it, as if the fact that it hasn't yet failed catastrophically enough to miss game at 75 yards during a hunt is indicative of a quality product.

I have a couple of hunting buddies who will only work off their reticles for longer shots. They had bad experiences with inconsistent dialing through the years, so now they won't dare touch an adjustment unless they're re zeroing. They, too, love to tell people how great their pet brand of scope is, even though they know it would fail if they used it how it was designed to be used.

 

[BRTreedogs]

I know I could probably find this easily but are rifles inside the cabin for the drive test? Or at least in quality padded cases?

I see both sides. I probably won’t buy anything new based off the drop testing results. I would absolutely re-confirm zero if I dropped my rifle in the field before shooting something. Being off by 0.3 miles is only 6 inches at 500 yards I believe, I’m not someone to shoot beyond 300. I’m primarily an archery guy anyways.

Do you never go on adventure hunts?
Fly in Alaska, drop camps or backpack in 10 miles? Cause I highly doubt you would re shoot your rifle if you had to walk 20 miles to do it. Or are you gonna shoot at rocks and blast up your hunt area?

All I'm saying is because of these drop tests and or your own experimentation you could easy have a very educated idea that in the event you slip, fall, drop your rifle on a hunt weather or not it holds up.
If you've tested it at 18" 6 times and its never shifted that would probably cover most of the falls you would encounter in the field.