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

[CorbLand]

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.

People bashing scopes has been happening far before Form showed up and far far before drop test.

While rings and bases aren’t built into the drop test Form has said many times that they are equally as important. I would bet money you couldn’t find one person preaching Forms test that would tell you to put a NF in cheap rings.

I get that there are many that feel like Forms stamp of approval is all that is needed but Form himself advocates for people to do their own testing because ALL products can and will fail.

I view this as I do buying a vehicle. I love Toyotas, they have always treated me well. Guess what, my Toyota has had issues but it has had far less issues in 23 years than my wife’s Kia (also like it) has had in 7 years. Both have had failures but the rate has been far lower on my Toyota That is what these tests are meant to show. It’s one more data point to be used when doing your own research.

If people just believing their system is reliable because they bought Forms recommended stuff is your biggest complaint, remember that people also just buy Leupold because grandpa had one and people buy Vortex because the warranty. It goes both ways.

The beauty of the drop test is that anyone can do it. It doesn’t require special equipment. You need a mat, your gun, ammo and dirt. Anyone can do it. For those that are so hell bent about one scope not being an indication of bad brand/model overall. Prove it. Seriously, I want you to prove it wrong because 1600 bucks for another NXS is going to get expensive.

 

[35WhelenAI]

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"...

Hey, I appreciate the call on the way I phrased that. Wasn't intended to point fingers at one person, was intended as a generalization for a number posts I've seen in this thread.

Many people talk about taking falls. They want a scope to count on still hitting where they aim. We all get it that, IMO. My point is if a hunter thinks anything with their delivery system could've been compromised they owe it to the next living thing they may shoot that it's not misplaced confidence simply because it survived a drop test.

My line of questioning isn't about whether some scopes are better than others at maintaining zero, it's very clear and agreed some are better than others. It's about the philosophy of saying my scope was fine during the drop test. Therefore, a person doesn't need to worry about anything else. IMO, there are equally important variables to consider versus an impact shift that a scope exhibits or doesn't exhibit in a test. This has gotten relatively little play by those accolading drop test scopes in this thread, despite being brought up many times.

Question for those who have taken a float trip to a hunting camp. Does the outfitter take hunters to verify zero before they head out? If yes, has anyone said, "No, thank you. My scope was dropped tested and I'm confident it will hit where I aim".

 

[JGRaider]

Question for those who have taken a float trip to a hunting camp. Does the outfitter take hunters to verify zero before they head out? If yes, has anyone said, "No, thank you. My scope was dropped tested and I'm confident it will hit where I aim".

I've been to Namibia 6 times and taken over 60 head of game with my Tikka 695 7Mag, 2-12x VX6, 160 Accubonds running 3050 at the muzzle. I've watched the baggage handlers literally toss my rifle (padded Americase case) onto and off of the baggage treadmill numerous times and am amazed at how little they care. The black case is beat to crap and looks like a team of pitbulls got after it given it's scars, gashes, etc. When you get to camp, you will check zero in front of the PH and trackers. It's not an option, even if your scope has a NF brand on it. When they're satisfied your equipment is ready, and you are ready, it's time to hunt. Hopefully the Land Cruiser will have some sort of gun rack in the back where you're riding, but most of the time your rifle is just laying in a basket on the roof in a soft case if they have one or if you remembered to bring one. It's takes a beating while riding back there a few hundred miles over 9 days. Never had an issue with holding zero or POA/POI. I'm sure the bedded lug and Optilock rings have something to do with it.

 

[Honyock]

I'd like to say I'm smarter after reading this thread but I'm not. I guess I don't see the need in the endless back and forth arguments trying to convince someone that whatever you have is "better" and the only way to hunt is with a $2,000 gun and a $3,000 scope. I think that's one of the reasons why there are less new hunters, they think they can't afford to hunt (cue the thread "I'm new to hunting and have a limited budget" and they are told they need Swaro NLs). Not everyone can afford "the best" and a lot have to make do with what they have. Some of the most experienced and successful hunters I have known hunted with open sights or a fixed four power scope in work boots, jeans and a wool coat. Unfortunately, most of them are dead now. Expensive equipment alone will not make someone a better hunter. Time in the field, time at the range honing your skills and experience do. Know your skills and the limits of your equipment and make the most ethical shot that you can make regardless of what is on top of your rifle.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Agree fully with the post above. The first years I hunted big game in Colorado back in the early 90s I was full of more youth than I have now. However, equipment didn't get the first elk or mule deer or pronghorn, I did. I became a reloader at the same time and put thousands of rounds through my rifles. I knew how they shot and I knew every season I would verify zero before heading to the field. And I would fill the freezer. Wash, rinse repeat for 30 years now with a few lean years in there where I didn't get an animal.

I appreciate a $500 scope that will pass the drop test that has been well thought out, in my opinion. Nothing is perfect, but it sure as heck is a decent indicator of the repeatability of one element in a fire control system.

When I hear there are $500-$600 repeatable scopes, where can I buy one tomorrow when I wanna put down my money and improve upon 30 years of success with well over 30 big game animals using poster child Leupold, Redfield, B&L scopes. Is the glass better than a 22 year old Leupold VX-II that has taken most of my game or the more recent VX3HD that has incredible glass and 3/3 on big game in the past two season including dialing it a modest amount with a 100 yd zero? Does it have eye relief that allows shooting from multiple field positions without having to think about it? Does it weigh less than a pound and a half?

Who makes it, is it on back order, is the company being questioned as to being in business a year from now? Talk to me.

 

[Machingeaneer]

When I hear there are $500-$600 repeatable scopes, where can I buy one tomorrow when I wanna put down my money and improve upon 30 years of success with well over 30 big game animals using poster child Leupold, Redfield, B&L scopes. Is the glass better than a 22 year old Leupold VX-II that has taken most of my game? Does it have eye relief that allows shooting from multiple field positions? Does it weigh less than a pound and a half?

Who makes it, is it on back order, is the company being questioned as to being in business a year from now? Talk to me.

Trijicon Credo 3-9x40 meets this criteria from what I've seen and read. Now I haven't personally looked through one but someone who has can chime in here.

 

[Macintosh]

Trijicon Credo 3-9x40 meets this criteria from what I've seen and read. Now I haven't personally looked through one but someone who has can chime in here.

My 2 credos replaced my last 2 vx’s. Have only had them a short time, but so far they have been drama free. They arent perfect, but in a trade I’ll take it. Street price is the same as a vx3. Apart from reliability, quality seems very comparable. Will it improve on 30 years of success? I dont know. But I didnt feel like I had anything to lose, and I had everything to gain. Ymmv.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Good points, all of them. Leupold eye relief has always typically been better than anything else. 1.1" more than the Credo at high magnification, almost 1" more at low mag. I'm not gonna lie... I get down over a backpack, over shooting sticks, and don't wanna worry about the eye box.

Assuming I can get past the marked difference in eye relief, how does the Credo glass compare to a VX3HD? VX3HD glass is damn good. So, let's look at it compared to a previous generation VX-II which did me well for two decades.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I don't see anyone telling a new hunter that they need a $2000 gun, $3000 scope and $3000 bino's to get into hunting. That's a ridiculous statement.

I do see people recommending heavy recoiling calibers and cheap, unreliable optics to beginners with zero clarifying information.

Who's doing the beginner hunter more harm? From my experience as a beginner hunter who was told to buy a 30-06 and a Nikon buckmaster, it's the latter.

 

[762 ULTRAMAGA]

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.

There's strong opinions and there's facts, don't let them get in the way of your argument

 

[tony]

Guilty. Because chasing a zero on a couple scopes caused me to think I was the problem, and I wasted years and hundreds of $ in ammo trying to solve the “me” part, when a decent part of the problem was the scopes, and it chafes my ass when people dismiss it as inconsequential or imaginary. It was consequential for me, and this was just basic scopes for shooting at shorter ranges. A vx3, certainly one of the most popular “basic” scopes available, is about $500. Coincidentally, so is a trijicon credo at europtic. If someone is talking about spending that much money or more there are legitimately good options with minimal, if any, additional cost to choosing a scope that has been objectively shown at least a couple times to be more reliable.

And I’m right there with you. I remember wanting my first deer rifle when i moved to WV back in1990. So I went to the “experts”. Guys I worked with at the fire dept. I mean they deer hunted and knew way more than I did. “Get a .270! It shoots flat!” So I went to wal mart and bought a Remington 700 ADL. Then I went to the local general store and the guy that owned the place sold me a Tacso “High Country” 3x9. Believe Tasco rings and bases as well. He hunted, so he knew more than me. He even installed it and “bore sighted” it for me. Said “here ya go kid”. ”Go and sight it in.”
Remember the internet was in its infancy way back then. This information was not around then.
I shot boxes and boxes of ammo through that rifle and it was never right. I did get deer with it. Some kills that were less than desirable ( gut shot). Come to find out it was the scope. Nobody was dropping scoped rifles on purpose back in 1990 to test them, that I knew of.
I heard of Leupold but scoffed at the price. Who pays $400.00 for a scope! I always thought those were for the guys on TV. This brings me to today. I have a Leupold/Redfield on that gun and a Leupold VX3 1.5x5 on a .45/70. Both seem to hold zero. But I’ve not given them the “test“ on purpose.
I see and understand the need to drop test. Coming from the occasional hunter that hunts deer. I also understand the question, do I need a drop proof scope. Obviously the majority voice and test results say yes. But, at what price? I want a working man’s price.
That looks to be
Maven
Nightforce
Trijicon
What else am I missing

Maybe it’s me. But I can read the “emotions“ in some of these posts.

 

[KenLee]

And I’m right there with you. I remember wanting my first deer rifle when i moved to WV back in1990. So I went to the “experts”. Guys I worked with at the fire dept. I mean they deer hunted and knew way more than I did. “Get a .270! It shoots flat!” So I went to wal mart and bought a Remington 700 ADL. Then I went to the local general store and the guy that owned the place sold me a Tacso “High Country” 3x9. Believe Tasco rings and bases as well. He hunted, so he knew more than me. He even installed it and “bore sighted” it for me. Said “here ya go kid”. ”Go and sight it in.”
Remember the internet was in its infancy way back then. This information was not around then.
I shot boxes and boxes of ammo through that rifle and it was never right. I did get deer with it. Some kills that were less than desirable ( gut shot). Come to find out it was the scope. Nobody was dropping scoped rifles on purpose back in 1990 to test them, that I knew of.
I heard of Leupold but scoffed at the price. Who pays $400.00 for a scope! I always thought those were for the guys on TV. This brings me to today. I have a Leupold/Redfield on that gun and a Leupold VX3 1.5x5 on a .45/70. Both seem to hold zero. But I’ve not given them the “test“ on purpose.
I see and understand the need to drop test. Coming from the occasional hunter that hunts deer. I also understand the question, do I need a drop proof scope. Obviously the majority voice and test results say yes. But, at what price? I want a working man’s price.
That looks to be
Maven
Nightforce
Trijicon
What else am I missing

Maybe it’s me. But I can read the “emotions“ in some of these posts.

The upper line of old Tascos made in Japan were pretty dang good scopes, but the High County line were sketchy.
Trijicon accupoint 2.5-10x56 duplex with illuminated center dot around $650 are the best dependable bang for the buck in my opinion.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

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.
View attachment 662370

Thats why you do everything you can to minimize a zero shift outside of scope failure. My scope took a hard fall on rocks from 3 ft and there was no shift because I my rings were squared away.

I have had March scopes lose zero, so I was thinking the scope lost zero when I started reading your comment lol

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I'd like to say I'm smarter after reading this thread but I'm not. I guess I don't see the need in the endless back and forth arguments trying to convince someone that whatever you have is "better" and the only way to hunt is with a $2,000 gun and a $3,000 scope. I think that's one of the reasons why there are less new hunters, they think they can't afford to hunt (cue the thread "I'm new to hunting and have a limited budget" and they are told they need Swaro NLs). Not everyone can afford "the best" and a lot have to make do with what they have. Some of the most experienced and successful hunters I have known hunted with open sights or a fixed four power scope in work boots, jeans and a wool coat. Unfortunately, most of them are dead now. Expensive equipment alone will not make someone a better hunter. Time in the field, time at the range honing your skills and experience do. Know your skills and the limits of your equipment and make the most ethical shot that you can make regardless of what is on top of your rifle.

$300 SWFA holds zero better than some $3000 scopes. It isn’t about the money. People who think it is are missing the point. Go buy a ruger american and 6x swfa and you are around $700.

 

[Marbles]

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?

I find it telling that none have quantified this, despite disparaging those who apparently don't meet their undefined standard of caution. An undefined standard is no standard at all.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I also understand the question, do I need a drop proof scope. Obviously the majority voice and test results say yes.

Folks aren’t telling you what you need, they are clarifying what scopes tend to hold zero better so folks can make educated purchases.

 

[Macintosh]

Good points, all of them. Leupold eye relief has always typically been better than anything else. 1.1" more than the Credo at high magnification, almost 1" more at low mag. I'm not gonna lie... I get down over a backpack, over shooting sticks, and don't wanna worry about the eye box.

Assuming I can get past the marked difference in eye relief, how does the Credo glass compare to a VX3HD? VX3HD glass is damn good. So, let's look at it compared to a previous generation VX-II which did me well for two decades.

Max eye relief is less than the leupold. The wiggle room is perhaps a little less in this regard as well. But its not at all a hard scope to get behind, and the glass is absolutely comparable to my eyes. It has other warts, the biggest being the throw lever that gets in the way of a lot of bolt-handles. Like I said its not perfect, I had to take a hacksaw to mine to deal with the lever on my wifes kimber, I dont think thats well thought out. There are multiple threads detailing the trijicons, warts and all, if you search. If I had faith in leupold and hadnt beat my head against those scopes for so long, I’d sing a different tune. Its why everyone is doing this—because everyone including me would rather have a leupold if we hadnt been burned. And I think that’s by and large because people arent asking for 100% reliability, they are buying based on 8x magnification ranges, weights, fancy turrets, whiz-bang reticles so you can hold elevation at 1000yards and wind in a tornado. It’s all just trying to get enough people to ask for reliability to bring it to the front of the conversation so manufacturers think its worthwhile to address true reliability the way people THINK they do. If more people are aware of these issues, I’m under no illusion, that every scope will be bad, but those that are are more likely to be noticed, and I think (hope) the manufacturers will start to do something about it at that point.

 

[Reed104R]

I dare say more game has been taken utilizing a Leupold scope than any other brand. Nothing holds value any better, and for good reason. Many, if not most, drop issues are likely caused by the mount/rings and not the scope.

 

[freddyG]

I dare say more game has been taken utilizing a Leupold scope than any other brand. Nothing holds value any better, and for good reason. Many, if not most, drop issues are likely caused by the mount/rings and not the scope.

Here we go again! Lol

 

[Wrench]

I've seen enough random scope failures to keep my list of trusted glass short.

I had an objective lens rattle out on a 300 mile road trip because the rifle was touching the shifter for the transfer case. That was a Japanese world class Tasco 3x9.

I had a m8 bust a reticle on a steyr scout in 223....just shooting and it popped.

I lost a Swarovski in about 60 rounds on a 300rum. It scrambled the guts due to recoil.

These weren't zero retention issues, these were 100% failed, not going to proceed....you're not hunting with this gun issues.

The number of zero retention issue scopes is longer. If you ride an atv with a gun in a rack on it...zero retention is important.