"All tests state where the scope came from, IE new purchase by Ryan, user sent it, etc. All are a data point for a reader to take into account. There is no end all be all. If a user sent in scope was tested and you feel it may have been previously damaged and YOU really want that scope tested in new conditions then test it yourself or send it in for testing, take personal accountability for the data YOU want."
This is (IMHO) a good point that has been raised and addressed in other threads. A couple of responses have been made. First, no scope manufacturer (to my knowledge) is willing to provide new scopes for the test (or even a single scope). Second, even if a manufacturer did provide a scope, some would point it it might have been tweaked or otherwise build differently from the retail version in order to pass the tests. Third, the tests are limited by what is available (source of scope), the time of the testers, and by budget. As far as I know, all of the scopes are being provided by RS and/or RS members. And even a "new" scope provided by a member isn't technically KNOWN to be "new" since I could have messed it up and said it was new.
Burying it in the long range forum instead of the optics forum probably doesn't help
It's really doesn't seam that hard to test scopes in normally everyday use before it is drop tested all you have to do is change around the sequence drop test last or after so many miles in a truck and shots fired of the test. Eliminate a variable.
I'm not looking to get sucked into this back-and-forth by either side, but Form has pointed out at least once that scopes that pass all portions of the drop test do not exhibit loss of zero issues during the ride-along portion of the eval. Whereas scopes that don't pass all portions of the drop test do tend to show issues during the ride-along portion of the eval. Assuming that's true, and I don't have any reason to believe he's being disingenuous in that statement or any other portion of these evals, then to me he could pretty much stop after he drops them, as the drops themselves - whether an actual drop seems relevant to you or I or not - tend to indicate potential issues in the long-term, rather than simply being a test of whether the scope can survive a 36-inch fall.
Addressed above by the highly esteemed @Drenalin. But this is a constructive suggestion - just not one that I personally agree with.
I didn't say, and didn't mean to suggest, that the same people would hold those two views. And if anyone is concerned about anything, they can just use the results as a data point. Or not.
I think many are in agreement on this point.
Now I'm just "another poster." Sheesh. I heard for the first time yesterday that MHG had broken up, now I believe it.
Sorry bro. I'm getting too lazy. I will edit accordingly.
Unless the scope has been tampered with by disassembly, I don’t think testing a used scope really makes any difference. There are Nightforce scopes with six digit round counts still going, so if a scope breaks with regular use, its junk anyway.
Vast numbers of hunters/shooters don't need a group of self proclaimed experts on the internet to test their gear, mount riflescopes, do load development, or reload ammo for them. They are perfectly capable of doing it without any outside help. I'd guess optics makers/sellers probably feel the same way.
I’m not sure how your post is responsive to mine, but I think your point of view is known.
If it was used and broke spontaneously before being sent in for the test..that is not a scope I would want to consider personally.
Testing a Used scope is another variable regardless how you FEEL about it doesn't matter its a uncontrollable variable that Could likely influence the out come of the evaluation.
Sure. And that information is posted in the drop evals for the reader to factor in. Just because all of my scopes are currently “used” doesnt mean I expect less from them.
Read the title of the thread and take your own advice
