The Shoot2hunt Podcast

NevadaMike said:
Wouldn't it put this MDS guy in his place if we eliminate the variables? If UM, SRS or someone would machine a jig that replicated an average rifle and took variables out like action screws and the scope mounts he mentioned, validity would become more indisputable. Obviously there would be scope mounts but something bomber and an integral part of the jig. Next, we could take the drops to a more consistent level by adding a platform that duplicates the drop consistently every time. The same would apply to riding around in the same vehicle at the same temperature or whatever makes it consistent. Finally, the scope tracking and zero retention would be measured on a collimator while still in the jig taking the shooter and ammunition out of the equation such as the Nightforce version seen here. What would their argument be then?
Click to expand...
IMHO, some engineered jig takes the validity out of it. The way the drop test is structured is literally perfect, and obviously repeatable.
 
NevadaMike said:
Wouldn't it put this MDS guy in his place if we eliminate the variables? If UM, SRS or someone would machine a jig that replicated an average rifle and took variables out like action screws and the scope mounts he mentioned, validity would become more indisputable. Obviously there would be scope mounts but something bomber and an integral part of the jig. Next, we could take the drops to a more consistent level by adding a platform that duplicates the drop consistently every time. The same would apply to riding around in the same vehicle at the same temperature or whatever makes it consistent. Finally, the scope tracking and zero retention would be measured on a collimator while still in the jig taking the shooter and ammunition out of the equation such as the Nightforce version seen here. What would their argument be then?
Click to expand...
We have videos of guys dropping the Maven’s on packed gravel from chest level and them holding zero. Watched a guy (not familiar w drop test), get handed a new to him UM Tikka build toss the damn thing from shoulder height bc someone told him it’d still work, it did. I see what you are saying, but it’s arguing w people who won’t take the time to try things. People want to believe their stuff is the best/toughest/most accurate, just don’t test it.
 
Ryan Avery said:
I DMed him on IG and asked if he would come to see the drop test in person.

People cherry-pick the info. They always miss the drive-around test. I guess I have to check zero every damn day?
Click to expand...
It surprises me how controversial it is to say "I use to have issues with my rifles losing zero using scope brand X, but now that i use scope Y my rifles don't lose zero anymore". I mean people losing money over the drop test probably don't like it I suppose....
 
Just finished 2500 mile round trip for cow hunt in NW WY. We packed 2 Tikka T3x with SWFA 6x and 3-15. One rifle has a 20 MOA SRS rail that I bonded to the action with loctite 380 per Form's instructions. The other is using factory dovetail and Sportsmatch rings. I followed Form's scope mounting directions (degrease everything, loctite, torque, etc...). After 1400 miles on the floorboard of the backseat of my lifted 2500HD Silverado, neither scope lost zero when re-checking zero at the ranch. The 7-08 used for the hunt left the house in IA shooting 10 shot 1-1.25 MOA at 200 yards and shot exactly the same in NW WY. No POI impact shift whatsoever. The backup rifle shot exactly the same as well, no POI drift or zero change.
 
Juan_ID said:
podcasts.apple.com

MDS Episode #0112 - Caylen Unplugged #1

Podcast Episode · Modern Day Sniper Podcast · 11/29/2024 · 1h 3m
podcasts.apple.com podcasts.apple.com

This guys may have things figured out in regards to the drop test validity in his talks with some industry experts. Anyone care to spend 20 minutes of their time to give this a listen then give your thoughts? Skip ahead to 38 minutes and listen to about minute 55. @Ryan Avery @Formidilosus what do you guys say? Get him on the podcast then let’s get this “significant wager” on video??

-If this is the wrong place for this I’ll gladly move it.
Click to expand...
I don't think he gets it on a very basic level. A bunch of stuff is popping out to me as I listen to it indicating he fundamentally doesn't understand what's going on and has the worst possible attitude towards it. To be fair he might just be gaslighting to cover for Leupold given his affiliations with them.

1. You'd have to do it hundreds of times to be valid.

I don't think he understands the underlying statistics of the failures. A pass isn't necessarily a guarantee that the scope model is all good for everyone. But a failure (normally they test a replacement as well if the first fails) is something to be concerned about because sure maybe the failure rate is 1/1000 or something but hitting that twice in a row is wildly unlikely.

2. If your rifle gets bumped you HAVE to check your zero (ignoring scopes losing zero from riding around in a truck)

The point of putting together a rifle/optic system for zero retention is to avoid having to do that. Accepting that it's just how things work is defeatist and sad.

3. His friend from Leupold, who also happens to be affiliated with his business, thinks it's dumb.

The guy from the company whose scopes get bashed for failing droptests thinks the droptests are dumb?

4. There are too many factors to blame the scope.

So make an attempt to control those factors? The testing procedure aims to control those factors as best it can. Throwing up your hands and declaring that it's not possible to improve things is, again, defeatist and sad. He's basically just conceding defeat and moving on without trying.

1. Bed your stock and stay on top of your action screw torque
2. Loctite/epoxy your scope base as needed
3. Use good scope rings and install them properly

Suddenly you can start narrowing things down then. Saying "Oh it's all just too complicated I give up" is such a weird attitude for a long range instructor. Especially one who spent awhile during this exact podcast episode extolling the durability/reliability of AI rifles. You're just cool with having an unreliable optic on top of your AI?

5. Scopes and scope rings aren't designed to withstand side impacts.

As far as the scopes, maybe that's something we should push for then. Also clearly some scopes are designed to withstand that. Hence why NF scopes get smacked against a hard surface from a bunch of different directions before they're sent out. That's one big point of the drop-testing.

As far as the scope rings, I don't know what he means. Nothing about the design of the premium rings I'm familiar with indicates a weakness to side impacts. Just no idea what he's talking about there.

6. If you're not dryfiring every day and shooting very often, your zero is moving from you not shooting well.

Then why does it stop when people move to better scopes?
 
Last edited:
JohnJohnson said:
I don't think he gets it on a very basic level. A bunch of stuff is popping out to me as I listen to it indicating he fundamentally doesn't understand what's going on and has the worst possible attitude towards it. To be fair he might just be gaslighting to cover for Leupold given his affiliations with them.

1. You'd have to do it hundreds of times to be valid.

I don't think he understands the underlying statistics of the failures. A pass isn't necessarily a guarantee that the scope model is all good for everyone. But a failure (normally they test a replacement as well if the first fails) is something to be concerned about because sure maybe the failure rate is 1/1000 or something but hitting that twice in a row is wildly unlikely.

2. If your rifle gets bumped you HAVE to check your zero (ignoring scopes losing zero from riding around in a truck)

The point of putting together a rifle/optic system for zero retention is to avoid having to do that. Accepting that it's just how things work is defeatist and sad.

3. His friend from Leupold, who also happens to be affiliated with his business, thinks it's dumb.

The guy from the company whose scopes get bashed for failing droptests thinks the droptests are dumb?

4. There are too many factors to blame the scope.

So make an attempt to control those factors? The testing procedure aims to control those factors as best it can. Throwing up your hands and declaring that it's not possible to improve things is, again, defeatist and sad. He's basically just conceding defeat and moving on without trying.

1. Bed your stock and stay on top of your action screw torque
2. Loctite/epoxy your scope base as needed
3. Use good scope rings and install them properly

Suddenly you can start narrowing things down then. Saying "Oh it's all just too complicated I give up" is such a weird attitude for a long range instructor. Especially one who spent awhile during this exact podcast episode extolling the durability/reliability of AI rifles. You're just cool with having an unreliable optic on top of your AI?

5. Scopes and scope rings aren't designed to withstand side impacts.

As far as the scopes, maybe that's something we should push for then. Also clearly some scopes are designed to withstand that. Hence why NF scopes get smacked against a hard surface from a bunch of different directions before they're sent out. That's one big point of the drop-testing.

As far as the scope rings, I don't know what he means. Nothing about the design of the premium rings I'm familiar with indicates a weakness to side impacts. Just no idea what he's talking about there.

6. If you're not dryfiring every day and shooting very often, your zero is moving from you not shooting well.

Then why does it stop when people move to better scopes?
Click to expand...
Well, he has to be correct, as he reached out to someone who writes for a magazine.
 
JohnJohnson said:
I don't think he gets it on a very basic level. A bunch of stuff is popping out to me as I listen to it indicating he fundamentally doesn't understand what's going on and has the worst possible attitude towards it. To be fair he might just be gaslighting to cover for Leupold given his affiliations with them.

1. You'd have to do it hundreds of times to be valid.

I don't think he understands the underlying statistics of the failures. A pass isn't necessarily a guarantee that the scope model is all good for everyone. But a failure (normally they test a replacement as well if the first fails) is something to be concerned about because sure maybe the failure rate is 1/1000 or something but hitting that twice in a row is wildly unlikely.

2. If your rifle gets bumped you HAVE to check your zero (ignoring scopes losing zero from riding around in a truck)

The point of putting together a rifle/optic system for zero retention is to avoid having to do that. Accepting that it's just how things work is defeatist and sad.

3. His friend from Leupold, who also happens to be affiliated with his business, thinks it's dumb.

The guy from the company whose scopes get bashed for failing droptests thinks the droptests are dumb?

4. There are too many factors to blame the scope.

So make an attempt to control those factors? The testing procedure aims to control those factors as best it can. Throwing up your hands and declaring that it's not possible to improve things is, again, defeatist and sad. He's basically just conceding defeat and moving on without trying.

1. Bed your stock and stay on top of your action screw torque
2. Loctite/epoxy your scope base as needed
3. Use good scope rings and install them properly

Suddenly you can start narrowing things down then. Saying "Oh it's all just too complicated I give up" is such a weird attitude for a long range instructor. Especially one who spent awhile during this exact podcast episode extolling the durability/reliability of AI rifles. You're just cool with having an unreliable optic on top of your AI?

5. Scopes and scope rings aren't designed to withstand side impacts.

As far as the scopes, maybe that's something we should push for then. Also clearly some scopes are designed to withstand that. Hence why NF scopes get smacked against a hard surface from a bunch of different directions before they're sent out. That's one big point of the drop-testing.

As far as the scope rings, I don't know what he means. Nothing about the design of the premium rings I'm familiar with indicates a weakness to side impacts. Just no idea what he's talking about there.

6. If you're not dryfiring every day and shooting very often, your zero is moving from you not shooting well.

Then why does it stop when people move to better scopes?
Click to expand...
Nailed it. Not to mention this isn't being conducted by your average shooters with small sample sizes. It's a well structured, repeatable test, with trending results. It's comical how many people refute the results because "their X brand has never lost zero", but they absolutely will not drop their scope once, or shoot a even a 10 shot group to prove it's "1/4 MOA". Am I going to drop my $1,000 scope on it's lid from 3 feet? Absolutely not. Did I replace my optics and mounts with ones that repeatedly pass the test? Absolutely.

It's amazing how all of the wonky issues I used to have when I got into long range shooting finally went away after joining Rokslide and replacing my stuff with known equipment. If people can't apply a bit of logic and interpret the results for themselves, that's their own fault.
 
Harvey_NW said:
Nailed it. Not to mention this isn't being conducted by your average shooters with small sample sizes. It's a well structured, repeatable test, with trending results. It's comical how many people refute the results because "their X brand has never lost zero", but they absolutely will not drop their scope once, or shoot a even a 10 shot group to prove it's "1/4 MOA". Am I going to drop my $1,000 scope on it's lid from 3 feet? Absolutely not. Did I replace my optics and mounts with ones that repeatedly pass the test? Absolutely.

It's amazing how all of the wonky issues I used to have when I got into long range shooting finally went away after joining Rokslide and replacing my stuff with known equipment. If people can't apply a bit of logic and interpret the results for themselves, that's their own fault.
Click to expand...
His attitude towards it is just so depressing and contradictory. He spent like 5-10 minutes talking about how he's using Accuracy International rifles as much as he can moving forward because of their overbuilt reliability. Then for scopes he just doesn't even imagine there's a world where you don't have to re-check your zero often. It's so odd and sad.
 
I'm not sure he even recognizes the contradictions in his arguments. And to end it with the position of "you suck at shooting" makes me think he likely never will.
 
JohnJohnson said:
Then for scopes he just doesn't even imagine there's a world where you don't have to re-check your zero often. It's so odd and sad.
Click to expand...
But he’s not saying that, he says to check it often if you believe it could have been knocked off. Check it on a rock while on a hunt, because suppressed shooting doesn’t spook animals. BUT scopes don’t often lose zero, you just suck
 
Juan_ID said:
But he’s not saying that, he says to check it often if you believe it could have been knocked off. Check it on a rock while on a hunt, because suppressed shooting doesn’t spook animals. BUT scopes don’t often lose zero, you just suck
Click to expand...
But we know scopes lose zero. And certain brands do it often. Guys over in the Leupold thread are talking about their scopes being off 4" at 100 yards.

And his minimums for the scope being knocked vary. He mentioned if your rifles falls over check your zero. Why do you or he find that acceptable?
 
JohnJohnson said:
His attitude towards it is just so depressing and contradictory. He spent like 5-10 minutes talking about how he's using Accuracy International rifles as much as he can moving forward because of their overbuilt reliability. Then for scopes he just doesn't even imagine there's a world where you don't have to re-check your zero often. It's so odd and sad.
Click to expand...
Where his arguments fall apart is that you can actually mount a NF ( as well as a few others) and it just stay where it needs to be.
I bought a 3-10 SHV about 4 years ago or so, and mounted it on my main hunting rifle. I've got it mounted mostly like Form has recommended here, loctite, torque, witness mark. It has fallen on rocks, been subjected to the airlines, and been laying loose in the back of a 4 runner in a rollover, without a loss of zero. You honestly have to experience a really reliable scope to get it.
I can't imagine using a scope that doesn't hold zero on a centerfire rifle.
 
Listened to latest episode.

So.... There's a wood rokstok that is going to be designed by Form and a "guy" and then scanned and a mold will be made. This however is not the rokstok lite. No other info

The rokstok lite goal is sub 20oz.

Not ETA on either of them.

I'm not liking the new finished weight of the first rokstok at 30oz. I don't want to add any weight on top of the factory stock. I'd like to drop a few oz. But, sub 20 would make my gun so front heavy it wouldn't point worth a damn.

What to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Owen@Shoot2Hunt
S2H WINTER CLASS 2026
Replies
6
Views
359
longrangelead
longrangelead
C
  • Poll Poll
Shoot2Hunt U in Alaska
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
Stocky
S
E
Podcast episode roundup
Replies
1
Views
507
displacedtexan
displacedtexan
Unknown Munitions
Rokstok Drop 21JULY2025!!
Replies
0
Views
273
Unknown Munitions
Unknown Munitions
Unknown Suppressors
OG-L Suppressor is live!
Replies
6
Views
593
JTL28
JTL28

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top