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

[roosiebull]

The new Leupold thread got me thinking. A person says their Leupold works fine for their purpose and someone else just cant let it go. Why?

If nobody puts wood on the fire, it goes out

 

[JohnJohnson]

I think a lot of it gets lost when people ignore the context of use. Form had a quote about christmas-tree reticles that goes something along the lines of "People spend so much time thinking about what they might do that they ignore what they actually do with their scope". I see that play out on the subject of droptests sometimes. It seems to genuinely irritate a small (but vocal) group of people that not everyone is picking out their scope as if they're doing an Alaskan wilderness hunt. Where you might drop your rifle on some rocks or your rifle falls off the plane when it's landing and 500 yards away, as you get off the plane, is a broadside moose with 90" antlers that you have to shoot now or let it walk.

If someone babies their rifle or is treestand hunting out east they may very well not have to worry that much about scope droptests and that's okay. I worry more than I should about that sort of stuff so if I ever have an issue with my Vortex LHT (which has actually taken some major abuse well but I bought it before reading about its droptesting and still worry for no good reason), I'll buy a Nightforce or something.

 

[5MilesBack]

A lot of it is human nature........"I'm on the bandwagon, and you're not........so you're wrong".

I think about the scope argument sometimes in relation to my archery gear. I'll do durability testing of my arrows and broadheads like crazy. But you're not going to find me pounding on my bow sights, bow cams and limbs, or my rifle scopes with a rubber mallet just to see how durable they are. They either perform as I expect in practice and actual hunting situations......or they don't. If they don't, they get replaced with something that hopefully will.

 

[Marbles]

Alaskan wilderness hunt. Where you might drop your rifle on some rocks or your rifle falls off the plane when it's landing and 500 yards away, as you get off the plane, is a broadside moose with 90" antlers that you have to shoot now or let it walk.

Don't do that, it is illegal. Cannot hunt the same day you are airborne in Alaska, so you have to let it walk.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Don't do that, it is illegal. Cannot hunt the same day you are airborne in Alaska, so you have to let it walk.

I knew that when typing it but ignored it for the sake of being facetious.

Edit: I also do not think 90" moose antler spread is a thing either in case anyone thought I did. Oh and I don't think scopes which passed the droptests can fall out of a plane while it's landing and not lose zero. Just want to cover all my bases here.

 

[5MilesBack]

Where you might drop your rifle on some rocks or your rifle falls off the plane when it's landing and 500 yards away, as you get off the plane, is a broadside moose with 90" antlers that you have to shoot now or let it walk.

For my first elk hunt at 15, the used rifle I bought had a Burris scope on it. That scope fogged up internally the first day out. I took it off, and shot an elk with the fixed sights that were already on the gun. For a "legal" 500 yard moose, I'd get closer and do the same.

 

[roosiebull]

Don't do that, it is illegal. Cannot hunt the same day you are airborne in Alaska, so you have to let it walk.

That’s because they know how popular leupolds are up there so they want to make sure everyone can rezero before hunting

 

[Marbles]

The drop tests don’t motivate me to perform destructive tests on my expensive equipment, because it’s expensive and I don’t want to wreck it and have to replace it. The drop tests are points on a curve to me and I watch and take notes of the tests and all the other fantastic data on this site!! Parroting is to repeat something without knowing what you are repeating. Many hunters do this, I strive not to. You don’t have to participate in the drop tests or do your own drop tests to understand them and what they mean and what Form means. Like me, for instance. I do not parrot if I tell people, that for instance Leupold rifle scopes are unreliable for dialing and holding zero after dropping. I am not parroting, because I thoroughly understand the drop tests and what Form has said. Do some parrot Form and the drop tests? Probably, however most probably are not parroting.

The drop test should not be destructive, if it is, than do you really want to carry that piece of gear?

I'm not going to plug a barrel, load a round with handgun powered, sandbag the rifle and see what happens.

I will drop my rifle. I did break a stock (the scope was fine), I would not want that stock in the field as the test should not have been destructive (the impact was to the elevation turret).

I knew that when typing it but ignored it for the sake of being facetious.

Edit: I also do not think 90" moose antler spread is a thing either in case anyone thought I did. Oh and I don't think scopes which passed the droptests can fall out of a plane while it's landing and not lose zero. Just want to cover all my bases here.

Sorry, I missed it. My mind said 'fell out while unloading' and I ignored the 90" bit. I will now hang my head in shame.

 

[realunlucky]

The drop tests don’t motivate me to perform destructive tests on my expensive equipment, because it’s expensive and I don’t want to wreck it and have to replace it. The drop tests are points on a curve to me and I watch and take notes of the tests and all the other fantastic data on this site!! Parroting is to repeat something without knowing what you are repeating. Many hunters do this, I strive not to. You don’t have to participate in the drop tests or do your own drop tests to understand them and what they mean and what Form means. Like me, for instance. I do not parrot if I tell people, that for instance Leupold rifle scopes are unreliable for dialing and holding zero after dropping. I am not parroting, because I thoroughly understand the drop tests and what Form has said. Do some parrot Form and the drop tests? Probably, however most probably are not parroting.

I think we are just not going to agree. Parroting might not meet the actual definition but when I look at the synonymous it fits pretty damn well.

 

[Loper]

I didn’t think I needed a drop tested scope or bought into the idea that Leupold’s shift their zero. However, I was at the range last year and my rifle with a VX-3 fell 3-4 feet off the bench while shooting a different rifle. Before the fall my rounds were zeroed in great shooting 1 MOA, then after it fell I shot it and it was off 4 MOA. I was shocked at how much of a shift there was.

At that point I realized that stuff happens that is out of our control and I wanted a scope that could hold zero after a drop and I could be 100% confident in.

 

[Turkeygetpwnd38]

Do a lot of people drop their rifles when out hunting? I've been hunting the coastal mountains of Kalifornia for 55 years and can't remember dropping my rifle.

If you hunt a lot and in adverse conditions, it can happen. The 2022 season, I hunted 2 weeks in November where temps were -25-0 every day with wind and snow. Even with gloves on, it was really difficult to hold a rifle all day. I bet I dropped that thing 5 times a day. After 13 days I shot an elk and was really glad to have a scope that didn't shift throughout all those falls.

I swapped all my scopes to NF after missing a really nice mule deer and bear due to zero shifts in previous years. Stuff happens, why not be covered? It definitely doesn't upset me if someone else doesn't care about it though, no point in arguing.

 

[realunlucky]

While I appreciate a moderator answering me, I’d really like my question to actually be answered. Perhaps @Ryan Avery can answer if Post #16 was addressing the OP

To your comment, what makes you think that I haven’t contributed? Ryan knows the answer…

I don’t believe I’ve ever asked anyone to “put up or shut up”. If so, please point it out.

My participation in this thread was trying to answer the OP on why some people respond the way they do…

I've edited my post as it was intended more of a broad generalization not specifically for you.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[isItFallYet]

All of the tests are subjective to how the scoped rifle will be used. A lot of people won’t change their minds after seeing the anecdotal tests. I did. I still own Redfields, Nikons, Leopolds, and Vortex scopes. But I have a few bad experiences with loss of zero instances during slip and falls, scabbard carry on horseback while rising in extremely rough terrain (Frank Church), etc. I decided my next purchase would be one that was not on the failed list.

I don’t think we should chastise people for their scope choices. The best we can do is present the data that is offered by the work of @Formidilosus and let people come to their own conclusions. I do appreciate all of that data, btw.

The confirmation bias from both sides of the argument does sorta get annoying on this forum. With that being said, hyper-emotional posts by folks that have rattled egos is why this post count is growing. If anything, it is entertaining!

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

Kind of like how any gun not called tikka is poop?

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

In fairness, I own quite a few leupolds. Every gun I shoot has a leupold. I just mounted a zeiss on on 6.5 and I’ll be mounting a teijicon credo hx 1-8 on my 458 socom.

I enjoyed reading the drop tests and it has given me pause with the new vx3hd I bought for my 30-06. But looking at what the data shows and how much it shifts, I’d be ok hunting with it. I like the clarity that the leupolds offer. I’ve tried cheaper scopes and the fishbowl effect I see from vortex and the cloudiness of the swfa and sigs I’ve owned.

 

[isItFallYet]

Kind of like how any gun not called tikka is poop?

Exactly

 

[Billinsd]

I think we are just not going to agree. Parroting might not meet the actual definition but when I look at the synonymous it fits pretty damn well.

I agree with you on those synonyms. Where we disagree if we do, we might have a misunderstanding, is that someone like me, who has educated himself about the drop tests and learned from Form can repeat what he said without parroting what he said. We aren’t really repeating, that’s a poor choice on my part, we know and understand. Repeating means to duplicate. I’ll stop writing that word. A better description in my case is, “I’m a Rokslider who agrees with Form and the drop test. And I could reply to posts stating Leupold quality is poor with repeating because I know it to be true.” I’m not just saying it because I like Form or think he’s smart, or want to go along. I don’t believe I need to actually perform drop tests myself, or witness them personally to be able to state without parroting that Leupolds are not reliable and Nightforces are. I know that from being able to critically decipher information that has been presented to me over the years, with some of my own experiences to formulate my own opinion.

 

[SDHNTR]

Because of what I read on here, I am interested in scopes that have a good showing in the drop test when I'm in the market for a new scope. How does their glass rate compared to each other or compared to options that didn't do well with the drop test. Are some manufacturers, without naming one, putting money in the glass and sacrificing internals?

Yes, 90%+ of them. Because they know most shooters don’t stress them and won’t know if there’s a problem. They know what sells. Light weight and pretty glass.

 

[JGRaider]

I agree with you on those synonyms. Where we disagree if we do, we might have a misunderstanding, is that someone like me, who has educated himself about the drop tests and learned from Form can repeat what he said without parroting what he said. We aren’t really repeating, that’s a poor choice on my part, we know and understand. I don’t believe I need to actually perform drop tests myself, or witness them personally to be able to state without parroting that Leupolds are not reliable and Nightforces are. I know that from being able to critically decipher information that has been presented to formulate my own opinion.

Or to put it another way, you know what you've heard, or read. I could really freak people out by reporting that the 2 Arken's I have, and the Athlon Helos I have, have all performed excellent as well, but I won't.

 

[Billinsd]

Or to put it another way, you know what you've heard, or read. I could really freak people out by reporting that the 2 Arken's I have, and the Athlon Helos I have, have all performed excellent as well, but I won't.

No, not exactly. I am a critical thinker, trained and educated in the hard sciences and engineering. Working as a registered, professional civil engineer for over 30 years and having written and presented technical papers, and some hunting stories, throughout the country for 35, I have an EXCELLENT ability to research, read, learn, evaluate and then explain complex and difficult subjects to a wide variety of people, from experts to people on the street. I have parroted very little and much less now.

I’m most proud of my two kids, who are much smarter, patient, caring, empathetic, harder working, and KINDER than me.