- Banned
- #201
When you travel with a rifle it goes through numerous planes and people. I also check my bows when I arrive at destinations. Nothing wrong with being diligent.Ryan gave Form a scope to test. He tested it his way. The scope failed Form’s test. Form posted the results. What benefit would Ryan and Form have to shit on a RS sponsors product? Whether I agree with exactly how he tests it or not, at least he is taking the time/money/gear/effort to test and post the results.
I haven’t seen anyone else test a scope as thoroughly and post the results. There’s other guys that type about shooting thousands of rounds on here and try to poke holes in the test. Yet for some reason they haven’t outlined their test procedures, showed results, etc.
I always wondered why clients had to shoot their gun right before leaving the airstrip on a sheep hunt. Obviously the landing must of been way to rough since most made adjustments.
Yes and they should be filmed and film posted.I agree that the Form's tests going forward should be in a separate, locked, thread. Comments regarding the test in another. There is too much b.s. to sort through to find the meaningful information as it is.
Are you skeptical that a Vortex product failed? I would be shocked if it didn’t.Yes and they should be filmed and film posted.
I think transparency is important.Are you skeptical that a Vortex product failed? I would be shocked if it didn’t.
I think that is, possibly, the crux of issue. How can a scope manufacturer put their units through "vigorous" testing without failure, yet a scope will (potentially) shift zero from riding in a padded case? There is no way a scope that can take "thousands of whatever G-force" impacts without fail yet fail from riding in a pickup/airplane/atv while surrounded by padding. The whole story isn't being told.When you travel with a rifle it goes through numerous planes and people. I also check my bows when I arrive at destinations. Nothing wrong with being diligent.
Having spent time on the ramp, always good to check.I think that is, possibly, the crux of issue. How can a scope manufacturer put their units through "vigorous" testing without failure, yet a scope will (potentially) shift zero from riding in a padded case? There is no way a scope that can take "thousands of whatever G-force" impacts without fail yet fail from riding in a pickup/airplane/atv while surrounded by padding. The whole story isn't being told.
Anybody can doctor a video to their liking. It’s not 100% proof.I think transparency is important.
It is good for entertainment but I have no reason to doubt or believe him. We don’t even know who he is. I doubt many people would think he is faking a video, but a video would certainly provide transparency and clarity.Anybody can doctor a video to their liking. It’s not 100% proof.
It basically comes down to whether you trust Form or not. Ryan obviously does, and I think that goes a long way. Form also said that it’s just information, it’s not like he’s stopping anybody from buying these unreliable scopes.
@Ryan Avery something like the cold bow challenge format would be great for these. One thread for the actual test and another thread for people to squabble… or discuss.I agree that the Form's tests going forward should be in a separate, locked, thread. Comments regarding the test in another. There is too much b.s. to sort through to find the meaningful information as it is.
I can do that.Can we stop with the useless bickering? It's just cluttering the thread up.
Don't want to trust Formidilosus on his testing? Cool. Don't.
Now that it is Rokslide sponsored it should have a better foundation than “either trust form or not”Can we stop with the useless bickering? It's just cluttering the thread up.
Don't want to trust Formidilosus on his testing? Cool. Don't.
Did you see this thread? https://www.rokslide.com/forums/threads/tanget-theta-3-15x50mm-scope-evaluation.242527/Now that it is Rokslide sponsored it should have a better foundation than “either trust form or not”
Yes, I follow most. Very informative.
Were you clamoring for the same "transparency" in that thread? If not, why not?Yes, I follow most. Very informative.