Scope Evaluation Donation

[ElPollo]

I made that suggestion to Tract and offered to have my replacement (new) sent directly to Ryan. They declined.

And folks who read about that on Rokslide and for whom drop testing is important look elsewhere for optics.

 

[fwafwow]

And folks who read about that on Rokslide and for whom drop testing is important look elsewhere for optics.

Agreed. I sold my Tracts.

 

[JGood]

What scope that has been evaled is causing you concern?

For example, the Vortex Gen III. To be clear, my best guess is that their scopes do not hold zero and it is a glorfied paper weight per the testing you did. I think what you guys are doing is the most important accounability testing being done and i will continue to send money every month.

My contention is that you have stated in the past that part of the reason to go through all the testing is to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire and make them make changes. To do this, i think they need to find the tests infallable.

If i worked at Vortex I would say "this tests proves nothing about our Flagship Scope given the abuse the scope took prior to Form's test"

In Justin's artcle https://www.rokslide.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-iii-6-36x56-ffp-review/ he hits the scope multiple times with a deadblow hammer then shoots presumably thousands of rounds through at PRS matches before he sends it to you guys. We have no idea how hard Justin hit the thing with the hammer. we have no idea how many rounds that irrector rod has on it, we have no idea how many times justin ever dropped the rifle off the top of a baricade on to concrete etc.

I just want Vortex and the other companies to have less wiggle room.

 

[StalkerJack]

JGood, You're making sense. The manufacturers will resist spending more money with "religious fervor".

 

[fwafwow]

For example, the Vortex Gen III. To be clear, my best guess is that their scopes do not hold zero and it is a glorfied paper weight per the testing you did. I think what you guys are doing is the most important accounability testing being done and i will continue to send money every month.

My contention is that you have stated in the past that part of the reason to go through all the testing is to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire and make them make changes. To do this, i think they need to find the tests infallable.

If i worked at Vortex I would say "this tests proves nothing about our Flagship Scope given the abuse the scope took prior to Form's test"

In Justin's artcle https://www.rokslide.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-iii-6-36x56-ffp-review/ he hits the scope multiple times with a deadblow hammer then shoots presumably thousands of rounds through at PRS matches before he sends it to you guys. We have no idea how hard Justin hit the thing with the hammer. we have no idea how many rounds that irrector rod has on it, we have no idea how many times justin ever dropped the rifle off the top of a baricade on to concrete etc.

I just want Vortex and the other companies to have less wiggle room.

Good idea. But unless manufacturers send in new scopes, or people who lend their scopes for testing decide to do so before having used them, I don’t see this happening. I also don’t believe many (any?) of the manufacturers are responding to these, other than to take shots at the methodology, or Form (or both).

 

[Formidilosus]

For example, the Vortex Gen III. To be clear, my best guess is that their scopes do not hold zero and it is a glorfied paper weight per the testing you did. I think what you guys are doing is the most important accounability testing being done and i will continue to send money every month.

My contention is that you have stated in the past that part of the reason to go through all the testing is to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire and make them make changes. To do this, i think they need to find the tests infallable.

If i worked at Vortex I would say "this tests proves nothing about our Flagship Scope given the abuse the scope took prior to Form's test"

In Justin's artcle https://www.rokslide.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-iii-6-36x56-ffp-review/ he hits the scope multiple times with a deadblow hammer then shoots presumably thousands of rounds through at PRS matches before he sends it to you guys. We have no idea how hard Justin hit the thing with the hammer. we have no idea how many rounds that irrector rod has on it, we have no idea how many times justin ever dropped the rifle off the top of a baricade on to concrete etc.

I just want Vortex and the other companies to have less wiggle room.

The issue here is that the contentious part of all of this for people and manufacturers is the drop eval portion. The Vortex Gen 3 Razor held zero through that- it passed that part. It just had a .1-.3 mil vertical shift in zero randomly day to day.
While I it would be best to have 10+ brand new scopes of each model and shoot them for 10,000 rounds a piece, it isn’t realistic at this time. Also, with what is trying to be seen I want brand new, lightly used, and heavily used versions of all. I want to se what they do across the board. If a company thinks that a lightly used scope is the cause for a failure, well that just further proves that they have an issue. But, all they have to do is say so, and a new one can be gotten.

 

[Reburn]

To do this, i think they need to find the tests infallable.

You can't make a test infallable.
A manufactor can and has tried to come up with excuses to invalidate the tests on any number of reasons before.
You learn real fast who cares and who wants to make excuses and give lip service.

 

[ZAR EC]

I'm quite happy to see scopes that are well used tested, and I'd actively encourage it. My concern isn't just that my new scope fails to hold zero. I want to know that my well used 5 year old scope holds zero too. If it can't hold zero once it's used then its of no practical use to me.

 

[JGood]

I'm quite happy to see scopes that are well used tested, and I'd actively encourage it. My concern isn't just that my new scope fails to hold zero. I want to know that my well used 5 year old scope holds zero too. If it can't hold zero once it's used then its of no practical use to me.

Sure, but the test itself does that. By the time the scope goes through the drop eval and has a few hundred rounds on it, it already has more use than most "hunting" scopes

You can't make a test infallable.
A manufactor can and has tried to come up with excuses to invalidate the tests on any number of reasons before.
You learn real fast who cares and who wants to make excuses and give lip service.

You can when you propperly apply the Scientific Method, which Form has done. The only variable keeping the test from being repeatable is the source of the scopes being tested. i.e. if someone wanted to repeat this tesing and come to the same conclusion, they would also need a scope banged up by Justin

 

[ElPollo]

JGood, you might be overthinking this a bit. If anybody fails to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire, it’s the people who give them money for products that don’t work. The more scopes that get tested and the more people who become aware of this process, the more market pressure gets exerted on the manufacturers. The people who read these test on Rokslide aren’t thinking about type 1 vs type 2 errors and proper application of the scientific method. They are thinking what happens to my scope if I fall down a slope on my once in a lifetime hunt. Where they go, the companies, or at least some of them, will follow. It sounds like these test are already starting to a change some things that some of the companies (like maybe Maven) are doing. But Leupold and Vortex are probably a lost causes.

 

[Reburn]

You can when you propperly apply the Scientific Method, which Form has done. The only variable keeping the test from being repeatable is the source of the scopes being tested. i.e. if someone wanted to repeat this tesing and come to the same conclusion, they would also need a scope banged up by Justin

While I agree with your logic the manufactors complaing about the testing proves your incorrect.
They have complained about everything from the drops to the way its dropped and everything in between on here. It could be a perfect scientific test and they would and have tried to find ways to invalidate it because the test makes them look bad.

I agree with you that the test should be as perfect as possible but disagree that using a used scope is a point of contention.

 

[manitou1]

Forms next victim.

View attachment 375892

Yesssss!

 

[Formidilosus]

Yesssss!

That one has been beat to hell. It passed everything including the 3,000 rounds without ever losing zero.

Got shot again today after it replaced two back to back failed scopes.

Boresight, one round, adjust then three rounds in the bottom dot, adjust, then three rounds in the top dot.

 

[elkguide]

That one has been beat to hell. It passed everything including the 3,000 rounds without ever losing zero.

Got shot again today after it replaced two back to back failed scopes.

Boresight, one round, adjust then three rounds in the bottom dot, adjust, then three rounds in the top dot.

View attachment 625055

Scope tracks well. You shoot that rifle well.
Glad to contribute $ to see your results.

 

[StalkerJack]

I am so happy that I've sent in a (monetary) donation to support these eval's!!!
They're so valuable to us!!!!!!!

 

[manitou1]

That one has been beat to hell. It passed everything including the 3,000 rounds without ever losing zero.

Got shot again today after it replaced two back to back failed scopes.

Boresight, one round, adjust then three rounds in the bottom dot, adjust, then three rounds in the top dot.

View attachment 625055

Thanks to you the trijicons will be my next purchase for two rifles.

Seriously, I wish you were doing this back when I bought VX 5s.

Thanks for what you do. Takes a lot of time and dedication.

 

[Nmguy]

Nothing definitive.

I just donated to the cause and a good cause it is.
I love my Cronus's. I would liketo see that test done even if it breaks my heart. I also am curious about the Bushnell LRTS. I am not seeing it in your testing but you said during the LHT test you removed a Bushnell LRTS that held zero from 36" drops. Did you test that scope or one of its brothers in the Elite Tactical 3.5-21X50 line?

 

[406Backwoods]

I’m waiting to hear back from a manufacturer to see if they’ll give me a discount on a scope to donate to the cause. It definitely falls under the “economical” price range but I have its cheaper little brother and it’s been incredibly reliable for several years on numerous rifles. Of course, I have never beat on it. So we’ll see

 

[Nmguy]

What about your Bushy's? It sounds like you have beat on them a bit? I have had good luck with them but am curious how they have held zero if you have done the drop tests with them?

 

[Justin Crossley]

For example, the Vortex Gen III. To be clear, my best guess is that their scopes do not hold zero and it is a glorfied paper weight per the testing you did. I think what you guys are doing is the most important accounability testing being done and i will continue to send money every month.

My contention is that you have stated in the past that part of the reason to go through all the testing is to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire and make them make changes. To do this, i think they need to find the tests infallable.

If i worked at Vortex I would say "this tests proves nothing about our Flagship Scope given the abuse the scope took prior to Form's test"

In Justin's artcle https://www.rokslide.com/vortex-razor-hd-gen-iii-6-36x56-ffp-review/ he hits the scope multiple times with a deadblow hammer then shoots presumably thousands of rounds through at PRS matches before he sends it to you guys. We have no idea how hard Justin hit the thing with the hammer. we have no idea how many rounds that irrector rod has on it, we have no idea how many times justin ever dropped the rifle off the top of a baricade on to concrete etc.

I just want Vortex and the other companies to have less wiggle room.

The scope I sent to Form was a replacement after the first one didn't hold zero after my initial tests. It wasn't dropped or hammered prior to him getting it.

The replacement scope worked well enough for me in matches and probably had around 500 rounds (from 223, 243, and 6.5-06) on it when I sent it to him for the full eval.