The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[Jason Snyder]

Yep. Operating off of probabilities you can predict certain brands of optics probably maintained zero after an impact.

It’s not a certainty. It’s a probability. Your comfort level with the degree of probability (which requires a statistical analysis to determine) is up to you.

 

[atmat]

Right ? Last 2 optics I bought second hand especially with being under warranty you can’t go wrong

You can go wrong if your scope completely craps the bed deep in the backcountry on an OIL hunt. The warranty is useless in that moment.

 

[Macintosh]

@UpSideDown i agree with you that the scope evals are misused by some, but you are falling victim to that mistake yourself. It is spelled out in the explanation that the drop eval is meant to be predictive of a future failure from general use that DOES NOT necessarily have an identified “trigger” such as dropping the scope. Its easy to deal with checking zero when its caused by a fall or impact, but thats completely missing the whole point—the merit of the test is that it provides some small amount of objectivity on how likely a specific model scope is to fail from general hunting use over time that is otherwise non-existant, in addition to how likely it is to be affected by relatively normal impacts. My limited experience, where it iverlaps with the evals, matches—so I have multiple data points to draw a line and extrapolate from. It’s literally the ONLY thing out there that attempts to evaluate this. Replace it with something more objective, more quantifiable, and I and everyone else will happily use another criteria, but until there is ANY other way to accomplish this, what objective reason is there for anyone concerned with reliability to choose a scope from among those that have consistently done poorly…when there are good options that have done well? To me, even though I see legit issues with the eval, the risk of ignoring the trends I see in the evals is FAR greater than the risk of taking them into account. There is zero additional risk to me if I take them into account.

 

[UpSideDown]

I don’t have to prove anything, bud. I asked you where the rule you stayed was non-negotiable came from, and whether it was from experience with scopes losing zero.



100% is an impossible bar in any study. You either don’t understand the scientific method, statistics, or both — or you’re just trolling, but I don’t think you are.



This is exactly the purpose. Though I would argue that 9 consecutive 36” drops doesn’t qualify as “small bumps.”



I do.



If I drop my rifle 9x from 36” and it holds zero, I trust it’ll hold zero from 1x 36” drop. Sure, there’s a non-zero chance it won’t. But the entire point of this is that it’s a risk probability game.

The "rule" that you have to test is simply the reality that you can never know something without proving it. You cannot know that your rifle is good to go without checking zero. You can assume - which is really what we're doing a lot of, and is a reasonable thing to do, and is where the drop tests help.

Please don't chastise my perceived understanding of statistics in order to oppose my opinion that proof requires confirmation, while using as proof a test that normally uses a... sample size of one.

It's a useful test when applied correctly, but my points are as follows:
1. If your rifle takes a hard hit, trusting it without confirming zero is going to be met with a high rate of disappointing results.
2. A lot of good scopes are getting ruled out by these tests when they shouldn't be.

 

[BBob]

I am interested in a scope's ability to hold zero riding in a vehicle with bumps and shakes. If that causes issues, that's a problem regardless of what terrain you hunt.

Part of the “drop tests” include longer term use doing exactly that, driving around with it bouncing in the back seat with periodic zero checks. That part of the testing I think gets forgotten or missed because too many focus on just the drops.

 

[General RE LEE]

Part of the “drop tests” include longer term use doing exactly that, driving around with it bouncing in the back seat with periodic zero checks. That part of the testing I think gets forgotten or missed because too many focus on just the drops.

Yep one doesn't have to be a Western spot and stalk hunter to run into issues if a scope won't hold zero riding in a vehicle. I'm interested in that data.

Although I'm a Leupold fan, I've moved over to Zeiss. I think Zeiss has better internals and the Conquest V4 and V6 series are SFP scopes focused more on the hunter than the target crowd. Zeiss also has better reticle options and their glass competes with Leupold.

 

[UpSideDown]

@UpSideDown i agree with you that the scope evals are misused by some, but you are falling victim to that mistake yourself. It is spelled out in the explanation that the drop eval is meant to be predictive of a future failure from general use that DOES NOT necessarily have an identified “trigger” such as dropping the scope. Its easy to deal with checking zero when its caused by a fall or impact, but thats completely missing the whole point—the merit of the test is that it provides some small amount of objectivity on how likely a specific model scope is to fail from general hunting use over time that is otherwise non-existant, in addition to how likely it is to be affected by relatively normal impacts. My limited experience, where it iverlaps with the evals, matches—so I have multiple data points to draw a line and extrapolate from. It’s literally the ONLY thing out there that attempts to evaluate this. Replace it with something more objective, more quantifiable, and I and everyone else will happily use another criteria, but until there is ANY other way to accomplish this, what objective reason is there for anyone concerned with reliability to choose a scope from among those that have consistently done poorly…when there are good options that have done well? To me, even though I see legit issues with the eval, the risk of ignoring the trends I see in the evals is FAR greater than the risk of taking them into account. There is zero additional risk to me if I take them into account.

We are in agreement about the tests and what they offer. I'm not misusing anything here that I can see. My point isn't what the tests offer - it is how they've been applid by many people. A lot of faith has been put into scopes that aren't that good because they pass the test and a lot of other scopes get passed by because they fail the test - based on single-sample testing. It's a good indicator, but I think it's applied too broadly by a good number of end-users. Maybe a lot of people just want a delineator to narrow the list of good choices to pick from with some kind of community approval to them; that isn't a bad thing, it just isn't the whole picture.

 

[Macintosh]

…A lot of faith has been put into scopes that aren't that good because they pass the test…based on single-sample testing….

Could you elaborate on this? I think thats where you may get some pushback. So far my personal experience aligns with the evals perfectly, ie the scopes I own that have failed miserably in evals I also had multiple failures (several before I ever heard of rokslide), while the scopes I own that have evaled well have been solid for me, including through a few hard falls, airline travel, etc. The idea of a false positive is a thing but Im curious which scopes you think are inherently “not that good” that have passed drop evals and what about them makes you say they are not good?

 

[JGRaider]

Why? Who made this rule? What is it based off of?

Is there any possibility its based off people’s experience losing zero with scopes not designed robust enough to hold zero?

No one here is saying you shouldn’t recheck zero if you drop the gun out of a tree stand. We’re saying any reasonable bump/drop while hunting should retain zero. That’s not a big ask: SWFA, Trij, SB, NF, and now Maven all have success with it.

So a scope identical to yours passed the 36" internet drop test, therefore yours passed as well. What if you drop it from 40", 45", 50".......? This mentality is lost on me. I'm still in the "we owe it to our quarry to be ethical hunters" mindset. At least we know without question where you stand, and that appears to be " even though I dropped my scoped rifle from 3+ feet, a scope identical to mine survived an impact test on the internet, so I"m OK with SWAGing a round at a big game animal anyway.

 

[id_jon]

So a scope identical to yours passed the 36" internet drop test, therefore yours passed as well. What if you drop it from 40", 45", 50".......? This mentality is lost on me. I'm still in the "we owe it to our quarry to be ethical hunters" mindset. At least we know without question where you stand.

Can you point to an example of someone actually thinking this?

 

[JGRaider]

Can you point to an example of someone actually thinking this?

read atmat's posts regarding this. That is his mindset and he admits it.

 

[ljalberta]

Can you point to an example of someone actually thinking this?

No one said it. He’s just making stuff up to argue against himself.

 

[fwafwow]

The "rule" that you have to test is simply the reality that you can never know something without proving it. You cannot know that your rifle is good to go without checking zero. You can assume - which is really what we're doing a lot of, and is a reasonable thing to do, and is where the drop tests help.

I hear what you are saying, and I expect many (including "drop test Cult members") would test zero after a major drop. But the first sentence can be interpreted broadly. Since riding in a truck or ATV can impact the zero on some scopes, should one check zero after each ride in a truck or ATV? I imagine that very cold weather or other circumstances/changes could also affect POI. When does checking zero (when possible and practical) become obsessive?

Personally, I don't put all of my faith in the drop tests anymore than I will choose not to use a seatbelt in a car that has airbags. I like that there are choices that I can make with additional information.

2. A lot of good scopes are getting ruled out by these tests when they shouldn't be.

I guess "good" is a personal opinion. Yes, scopes with some amazing features and glass have not done well in the tests (either in the drop, the "drive around" - or both). As to whether they have been "ruled out" - I think that is an assumption about the audience. If, as an example, there is a scope that doesn't lose zero in the "drive around" and only "fails" the 36" drop test, but has a kick-a$$ reticle, superb glass and zero stops, I think it would be pretty reasonable for someone to buy that scope, especially if their style of hunting (and ability to check zero) makes that a logical choice.

So a scope identical to yours passed the 36" internet drop test, therefore yours passed as well.

Has someone said this?

What if you drop it from 40", 45", 50".......? This mentality is lost on me. I'm still in the "we owe it to our quarry to be ethical hunters" mindset. At least we know without question where you stand.

I don't think anyone is saying that if a single scope passed a 36" drop that it means anything other than that. That same scope could still lose zero if it was dropped again - from any height. And "my" scope could too. But knowing that test result is information that I have - and which lets me make a "ethical hunter" choice. I think ignoring the test results completely is arguably not doing your quarry justice. If you zero your X brand of scope at the beginning of hunt camp and travel by ATV to some other location, that scope *might* have lost zero - and if that was reflected in the drop test (drive around portion), wouldn't that be good to know?

 

[id_jon]

Also, almost every drop test proponent agrees that everyone should drop their own stuff to test it too, not to just run with conclusions from someone else's.

 

[atmat]

The "rule" that you have to test is simply the reality that you can never know something without proving it. You cannot know that your rifle is good to go without checking zero.....

Please don't chastise my perceived understanding of statistics in order to oppose my opinion that proof requires confirmation

You can't 100% know your rifle is good after checking zero, either, as there's always the possibility that in checking zero, it lost zero from recoil. That's the point I made: you cannot test to 100% accuracy. You have to define what "proof" is, and it's always a risk tolerance. I wasn't chastising you, I'm trying to clarify for you.

...and a lot of other scopes get passed by because they fail the test

What scopes have failed the test that you think are worthy of field use?

So a scope identical to yours passed the 36" internet drop test, therefore yours passed as well.

One, I recommend everyone to drop test their own gear. So it's not a scope identical to mine, it's my scope and system.

Second, I've never said I won't re-check zero after a drop of 36". I'm saying you shouldn't have to if the system has been tested for reliability and durability.

You're making a lot of similar assumptions I am, but with a lower threshold. Do you check your gun after laying it down on the ground? What about after coming off your pack? What about after driving down the street? You probably don't, because you're assuming that incredibly minor jostling isn't causing loss of zero. But you can't be sure it hasn't until it's been shot.

 

[UpSideDown]

Since riding in a truck or ATV can impact the zero on some scopes, should one check zero after each ride in a truck or ATV?

That would suck! That's exactly the benefit of communal feedback and the drop tests - you can rule out really junk optics/mounts. It's nice to know that the scope model you've chosen has a certain baseline robustness. That just doesn't apply to major events, which frankly, dropping a 8-12lb rifle from 24+" is absolutely a major event and does far more than getting some bump/washboard vibration from in a vehicle.

 

[UpSideDown]

You can't 100% know your rifle is good after checking zero, either, as there's always the possibility that in checking zero, it lost zero from recoil. That's the point I made: you cannot test to 100% accuracy. You have to define what "proof" is, and it's always a risk tolerance. I wasn't chastising you, I'm trying to clarify for you.


What scopes have failed the test that you think are worthy of field use?


One, I recommend everyone to drop test their own gear. So it's not a scope identical to mine, it's my scope and system.

That is correct, you can never 100% know your gear is good, but it gives you a 99% answer which is exactly what you're hoping for. Hunting doesn't carry any guarantees anyway. But it's a very reasonable verification.

It also is exactly why I wouldn't drop test my own scope. It's a great test to see how of optics performs, but not for an individual optic which you'll be carrying. Beating up a scope is far more likely to induce issues than if you'd left it alone. It might proof out an optic and tell you it's no good, yes, that's true - it also induces fatigue and increases the likelihood of greater damage in the future. It's been a long running debate about the benefits vs the costs of proof testing in bolts for instance; proof tested bolts obviously pass the proof test, at the cost of a guaranteed shorter lifespan.

 

[atmat]

That's exactly the benefit of communal feedback and the drop tests - you can rule out really junk optics/mounts.

But you can’t. People are still defending Leupold when they often lose zero from jostling in a vehicle — which is insane.

That’s a big part of why people, myself included, defend drop tests.

 

[UpSideDown]

But you can’t. People are still defending Leupold when they often lose zero from jostling in a vehicle — which is insane.

That’s a big part of why people, myself included, defend drop tests.

The ruling out is a choice to be made by the purchaser. The drop tests aren't making companies stop producing the scopes. Leupolds have a long-running history of losing zero from silly stuff. The drop tests are useful and I haven't argued against that, only against mis-applying them.

Which scope failed the drop test that I'd use? The ZCO, 100%. I haven't looked through all the tests, a lot of the scopes I've been interested in haven't been tested here.

 

[JF_Idaho]

As far as Leupold they were the kings for so long that it obviously went to their head and the bean-counters prevailed. We can only hope that at this point they have lost enough market share that they will pull their head out of their ___ and deliver with the Mark 4. I think we would all be happy if they've come to the conclusion that they have to compete.