The New Leupold Mark 4HD?

[Axlrod]

It was speculation. I will be patient. Apologies

No worries. You might be onto something after all. @ID_Matt is wearing a Leupy hat! I hope they didn't give that to him...

 

[ID_Matt]

No worries. You might be onto something after all. @ID_Matt is wearing a Leupy hat! I hope they didn't give that to him...

Haha! I realized the hat after I was already to the range. I have no bias. I recorded most of it, even my self panting 100 yards down range to check the target

 

[ID_Matt]

Posted my findings in the field evaluations section….

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Link?

 

[mddat]

Link please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leupold Mark 4 6-24X52 mini drop eval

This is the first time I’ve dropped a scope so bare with me…. I’ll try to follow the normal protocol as best as I can while providing some subjective feelings as well. Have had this scope for a few months now. I would guess it has around 400 rounds through it in a 6.5 creed between NRL hunter...

rokslide.com

 

[NevadaMike]

Inventing a story out of nothing is never accurate. Be patient, i'm sure it will be posted when ready. Saying Leupold has control over these tests is way off base. To date they have zero current models that work at all, according to the tests. And the testors have gone above and beyond to show all tests are as objective ( no pun intended) as possible.

Leupold could give two s%^#s about the “drop test.” Maven scoffed at the drop test recently as well in an interview about the 1.2. I was at an event with both the leupold rep and the Nightforce rep when a competitor mentioned the “drop test.” They looked at each other and just laughed and nothing else was said. That same day I personally saw one of the Nightforce scopes that "passed" fail to hold zero. Do I think Nightforce is bad? Of course not! A sample size of one in varying conditions means nothing. Manufacturers that have machines dedicated to replicating shock way beyond the drop and collimators that measure changes much more precisely know this.

 

[LoH]

Leupold could give two s%^#s about the “drop test.” Maven scoffed at the drop test recently as well in an interview about the 1.2. I was at an event with both the leupold rep and the Nightforce rep when a competitor mentioned the “drop test.” They looked at each other and just laughed and nothing else was said. That same day I personally saw one of the Nightforce scopes that "passed" fail to hold zero. Do I think Nightforce is bad? Of course not! A sample size of one in varying conditions means nothing. Manufacturers that have machines dedicated to replicating shock way beyond the drop and collimators that measure changes much more precisely know this.

Would you point me in the direction of the interview with Maven that you mention here? I’d be interested to have a listen.

 

[fwafwow]

Me too. I also want to know more about the manufacturers that have machines that replicate shock.
Post in thread 'The New Leupold Mark 4HD?'
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/the-new-leupold-mark-4hd.342378/post-3443769

 

[NevadaMike]

Me too. I also want to know more about the manufacturers that have machines that replicate shock.
Post in thread 'The New Leupold Mark 4HD?'
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/the-new-leupold-mark-4hd.342378/post-3443769

@13 minutes
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs1-2-2-5-15x44mm-shr-mil-q-a.338757/ Post #560 Ish

 

[wapitibob]

Testing for recoil shift is almost worthless, they're designed to withstand it. What they aren't designed for is side impact.

 

[fwafwow]

@13 minutes
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/maven-rs1-2-2-5-15x44mm-shr-mil-q-a.338757/ Post #560 Ish

Thanks. I had already found that Leupold video and could not stomach it for very long (that was referenced in the link I posted to a prior post in this thread), but I did give it another shot (at 2x speed) and I got to 10 minutes. The Burris video was at least produced better. I couldn't find the machine referenced in the Maven thread.

I do agree with @wapitibob - it would be cool for a company to test for side impacts. And if there is some reason not to do so, for one of these companies to come out and discuss it.

 

[wind gypsy]

Would you point me in the direction of the interview with Maven that you mention here? I’d be interested to have a listen.

Assuming this. There's a summary of topics of discussion with associated time in the description if you want to skip to the drop test part.

 

[JGRaider]

Leupold could give two s%^#s about the “drop test.” Maven scoffed at the drop test recently as well in an interview about the 1.2. I was at an event with both the leupold rep and the Nightforce rep when a competitor mentioned the “drop test.” They looked at each other and just laughed and nothing else was said. That same day I personally saw one of the Nightforce scopes that "passed" fail to hold zero. Do I think Nightforce is bad? Of course not! A sample size of one in varying conditions means nothing. Manufacturers that have machines dedicated to replicating shock way beyond the drop and collimators that measure changes much more precisely know this.

Good post. Fact is, outside of a large group here, nobody anywhere gives a ratsasss about some drop test.

 

[fwafwow]

Assuming this. There's a summary of topics of discussion with associated time in the description if you want to skip to the drop test part.

Thanks. I think that's the one I listened as a podcast and was less than impressed with their coverage of the drop test. I was looking for a company that has come up with a method that could at least be responsive to a couple of the claimed faults of the drop test (repeatability and large numbers). So far, IMHO, I haven't seen one.

 

[JGRaider]

Are you in the large group?

I've posted many times on this.....are you too dense to remember or just trolling? Use the search function.

 

[Shortschaf]

And if there is some reason not to do so, for one of these companies to come out and discuss it.

Total speculation but:

1. Guessing that maybe 2% of scope consumers truly care
2. Much of that 2% of consumers only started to care about 2 years ago
3. Costs money to design and build a new test
4. Takes more than a year ($$$) to validate the test even if they build it
5. If existing scope's fail, will they then spend more money redesigning them to meet the demands of the 2%?
6. For new designs that have dozens of constraints to consider, my guess is that drop testing on a forum doesn't come up

Someone somewhere in the company has to decide "how tough is tough enough". Our line in the sand is just different than theirs. And it takes more than just a couple years for a company to change its attitude on a subject like this.

 

[steelheadmike]

Scope manufacturers may or may not care but I bet they are watching and listening. For example, I'm guessing Maven has taken note that their scope that has FFP, a functional mil reticle, and has passed the drop test is selling faster than they can keep them in stock.