Why cant people accept the fact that some people dont need a drop tested scope?

[Macintosh]

I think the exchanges in this topic typically degenerate into a couple folks making subtle digs at each other, so it seems a fair point to me.

 

[Tod osier]

I dont read every thread but has anyone ever truly bashed someone for the scope they use? I cant say that I have ever seen anyone truly be bashed for that on this forum. Overall, Rokslide is pretty civil.

I agree, 90% of the time it is in a thread where someone is wondering scope X vs Y and Y has a record of misbehaving. DAMN I wish someone had taken me aside 15-20 years ago and helped me see the light that this forum's zealots push. I'm stubborn, but DAMN, I just wish I'd have heard.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

This is one thing I am wondering for the guys that say "just recheck your zero..." Are they really hiking miles back into a place and touching a round off to check zero after they bump their scope

Thats how you tell us all apart Some dude walking to a tree stand or hunting from the ATV or walking a mile or two up the trail, probably isn’t too worried about it.

 

[wyosam]

Work perfectly (until they predictably mess the bed) - is how many of us read that. FYI.

Seems like that might be a big part of the problem? I can understand being very frustrated chasing a problem around as you described a couple responses up (don’t know how to multi quote on this app). I’ve seen that sort of thing at the range, and generally offer to help- “want me to shoot it? Want to shoot one of mine?”. Particularly closer to hunting seasons, I keep enough tools in the truck to remount a scope/torque action screws, and maybe my “known reliable” extra scope, which is a 20x SWFA that I don’t really like a have a use for, but is reliable. Bummer nobody offered to help.

I’ve asked others to do the same for me (most often with handguns, so far those are always a me problem). It’s why I always take multiple rifles to the range, even it’s just a trip for a quick check of something. Makes it easy to rule out operator error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Thats how you tell us all apart Some dude walking to a tree stand or hunting from the ATV or walking a mile or two up the trail, probably isn’t too worried about it.

And folks that can shoot in their backyard to check regularly, etc. I don't think those folks have a clue about the time/expenses (gas and ammo) involved in driving distances just to shoot a zero check (needlessly with different equipment).

 

[CorbLand]

Thats how you tell us all apart Some dude walking to a tree stand or hunting from the ATV or walking a mile or two up the trail, probably isn’t too worried about it.

I dont hunt far from roads, probably a reason my success rate sucks, but even going a mile or two...your telling me that I hike two miles in, glass the morning, stand up and end up on my ass, I am going to hike two miles back out, check my zero, then hike two miles back in? Not going to happen.

Even going 500 yards to a tree stand. You walk in, lean your rifle against a tree to get ready to climb up and it falls over. Your going to walk 500 yards back out, wait for it to get light, check your rifle then go back to your stand? Seems like a waste of time.

 

[CorbLand]

And folks that can shoot in their backyard to check regularly, etc. I don't think those folks have a clue about the time/expenses (gas and ammo) involved in driving distances just to shoot a zero check (needlessly with different equipment).

Worked with a kid from California and we were talking about GunWerks. I said something to the effect of I dont understand why people would pay for what GunWerks offers. You could save yourself a couple thousand dollars doing basically the same thing yourself. He explained to me the cost of ranges in California, the time it takes to get to them and it made more sense to me.

Wasnt something I really thought of until he explained it.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Worked with a kid from California and we were talking about GunWerks. I said something to the effect of I dont understand why people would pay for what GunWerks offers. You could save yourself a couple thousand dollars doing basically the same thing yourself. He explained to me the cost of ranges in California, the time it takes to get to them and it made more sense to me.

Wasnt something I really thought of until he explained it.

For me to go shoot long range its 3hr round trip and 160mi in gas. During hunting season if I really need to check a zero for something a local range will let you sight in for $20 ($10 for each additional gun) out to 200yd, but that's not open year round (Sept-Oct approximately).

Being I have kids and such I don't go nearly as often as I'd like and end up needing to try and pack in a lot at once in terms of load work on guns, zero checks, ballistic profiles, etc. Questionable scopes REALLY mess with things if they screw up a few range sessions of attempted data, which has happened in the past.

 

[JGRaider]

Work perfectly (until they predictably mess the bed) - is how many of us read that. FYI.

If that's how you read what I said then you can't read.

 

[JGRaider]

Worked with a kid from California and we were talking about GunWerks. I said something to the effect of I dont understand why people would pay for what GunWerks offers. You could save yourself a couple thousand dollars doing basically the same thing yourself. He explained to me the cost of ranges in California, the time it takes to get to them and it made more sense to me.

Wasnt something I really thought of until he explained it.

the kid from California is right.

 

[Archer86]

Thats how you tell us all apart Some dude walking to a tree stand or hunting from the ATV or walking a mile or two up the trail, probably isn’t too worried about it.

That's funny then you got the guys the miss all the time that are overly worried about it.

 

[35WhelenAI]

A few pages back The comment was made/the question asked and this is a paraphrase: "What if you fall in the dark, on the way back to camp. Are you going to skip hunting at first light"? That is pitting the outcome a hunter wants vs. the outcome a wounded game animal deals with when it puts distance between itself and said fall-prone hunter.

Hell yes. If it crosses my mind the bump on any scope/mount/rifle would cause a game wounding shot based on unverified equipment I would verify. Done it, would do it again. Rifle season is full of shots ringing out for weeks at a time, no damn big thing. Yes, it can/could be inconvenient. My answer to that: I'm sorry the rifle took a good bump from a fall/leaning it on a tree/horse falls on it but shit happens.

I said this a while back in this thread, seems a scope that passes a drop test is rationalization for not needing to be concerned after it's taken a hit it would not normally be subjected to. It ain't only the scope, it's a whole system.

 

[BjornF16]

I wouldn't dismiss someone's scope problem as imaginary or inconsequential. Stuff happens with any brand. By the same token the "drop test or you're a freaking dumbass" advocates shouldn't dismiss those of us who question the test's validity when we have scopes that fail the drop test work perfectly adequately for us. It goes both ways.

Fixed it for you.

Maybe we should call it “durability evaluation”.

 

[CorbLand]

A few pages back The comment was made/the question asked and this is a paraphrase: "What if you fall in the dark, on the way back to camp. Are you going to skip hunting at first light"? That is pitting the outcome a hunter wants vs. the outcome a wounded game animal deals with when it puts distance between itself and said fall-prone hunter.

Hell yes. If it crosses my mind the bump on any scope/mount/rifle would cause a game wounding shot based on unverified equipment I would verify. Done it, would do it again. Rifle season is full of shots ringing out for weeks at a time, no damn big thing. Yes, it can/could be inconvenient. My answer to that: I'm sorry the rifle took a good bump from a fall/leaning it on a tree/horse falls on it but shit happens.

I said this a while back in this thread, seems a scope that passes a drop test is rationalization for not needing to be concerned after it's taken a hit it would not normally be subjected to. It ain't only the scope, it's a whole system.

I think the point most people are trying to make with that question is at what point does someone consider it needing to be checked?

If I someone has verified that their scope hold zero by doing testing, why would they need to check it?

While you are correct that the woods can be full of shots for weeks at a time, why would I want to add to it and potentially spook game in the area that I am hunting?

This is the part that people are missing. Yes, you can always check things after something happens or you could buy something that has a reputation of being able to handle those things. If my NXS falls over when I lean it against a tree, I am not going to check it. If I go ass over tea kettle down the mountain with it, I am going to check it.

The bottom line when it comes to buying things you need to do the following.
Determine what YOUR wants and needs are for the scope. Do YOUR research on the scopes YOU are interested in. Decide which one will fit YOUR needs and wants. Buy it and be happy with it. You shouldnt care what people think of the scope you use as much as they shouldnt care what scope you use.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

This is the part that people are missing. Yes, you can always check things after something happens or you could buy something that has a reputation of being able to handle those things. If my NXS falls over when I lean it against a tree, I am not going to check it. If I go ass over tea kettle down the mountain with it, I am going to check it.

AND this plays into if you take a RARE spill in the dark question, do you have confidence in your system (verified) or not?

Love how the question got turned into "fall prone hunter"...

 

[Archer86]

Fixed it for you.

Maybe we should call it “durability evaluation”.

You can't even call it that when you are testing used scopes. Who knows what the previous owner did to it.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

Holy smokes 21 pages of strong opinions..
I think there's certainly some limited validity to impact testing, but there are also variables that can not be totally isolated in making a truly definitive scientific statement that a scope is good to go or not.

@JohnJohnson made a great point about how and what is used to mount the optic.
I'll add to that and say angle or point of impact is just as important.

Here's my recent experience not based on someone else's test or theory:
I was messing with a bipod on my rifle recently and accidentally knocked it off my work table and the scope (a March fx 4.5-28) impacted the concrete floor on the rear objective and made a mark in the lens cap.

It dropped approx 20-24" and after looking everything over I determined the scope and mounts were totally fine.

So I go out a few days later and wouldn't you know it my poi was off about 6" at 200 yards.
At this point I looked things over more carefully and realized the impact shifted the scope forward and out of level slightly. It was so minor I'd missed it but you could clearly see the mark where the rings moved on the scope tube.

Point being it's lazy and bad practice to put totall faith that an optic is good to go after a drop based on one test.
There are too many variables and the only way to verify zero is to check it!

This is the mark that the drop made in the eye piece to show how it impacted.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I dont read every thread but has anyone ever truly bashed someone for the scope they use? I cant say that I have ever seen anyone truly be bashed for that on this forum. Overall, Rokslide is pretty civil.

Bashing the scope, not the person then. I should have phrased that better. Anyway I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people who bash the idea of using scopes which failed the drop-test are using it as a rhetorical cudgel as opposed to actually taking their rifle system reliability seriously like Form does. "Well I got an approved scope so I guess I don't have to think about THAT anymore!". Well maybe, but probably not.

@Marbles started a thread on rifle drop-testing using his drop-test approved scope and there was a shift. I think that's really cool and I appreciated that he was putting himself out there by showing a shift in the rifle system despite his (presumably) rock solid optic. Getting a drop-test approved scope does not mean that your rifle system is reliable and it's my personal feeling that most people assume it does.

Centerfire rifle drop testing: Tikka/SWFA

Edit: Post #65, repeated and passed, and I shoot better now. Keep in mind, I suck at shooting. I got a Tikka 223 recently, had some work done. First zero was over the hood of my truck and a "close enough" type thing not at a range. Since I've hunted with it some. Finally got around to...

rokslide.com

That's just my minor gripe about the tone of the drop-test browbeating. It doesn't amount to much and I think drop-test approved scopes are objectively better to get. That minor thing just sometimes feels a bit hypocritical. I'm very much hoping Marbles' idea of people posting the results of drop-testing their rifles catches on.

 

[Machingeaneer]

Holy smokes 21 pages of strong opinions..

Point being it's lazy and bad practice to put totall faith that an optic is good to go after a drop based on one test.
There are too many variables and the only way to verify zero is to check it

This is a strong opinion. The act of firing a round to check zero could change your zero. At least the testing provides us some data for each of us to make a decision on where we would recheck zero.

 

[wyosam]

AND this plays into if you take a RARE spill in the dark question, do you have confidence in your system (verified) or not?

Love how the question got turned into "fall prone hunter"...

I’ve certainly spent some time in this thread (and others) marveling at the apparent clumsiness of many on this forum, however that is more about the badge of honor falling down seems to be around here, not so much that falling down is the only reason to have a sturdy scope. I recently switched my hunting rifles from that brand that apparently can’t ride in a truck, to ones that did quite well in the drop tests, though I had no personal experience to make that switch. Honestly any drop or fall I’d have conformed zero for before, I probably still would now. Mounting hasn’t changed (no reason, they’re solid, probably even Form approved). I switched (in part) for durability in transport- specifically my boat. Last time I checked one in the field was probably 18 years ago or so after a horse wreck. I’ve hit the ground a fair number of times over that time, but not in a way that worried me about my scope. Most of those years were the same 6x leupold the horse rolled on (was fine then, never chased zero around with that one either).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk