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

[realunlucky]

What format would you expect/want “data” posted in? I certainly don’t drop scopes on purpose so that’s out…

I personally have been posting my findings in certain dedicated scope threads or threads that I’ve started myself. Is that acceptable? Is posting updates after continued field use “data” or should I stop and just let everyone read the evaluation threads?

A little bit confused on what exactly you’re after here, it’s a very broad statement that “both sides” of the scope “reliability” argument, I think, may think is targeted at them.

People spend alot of time trying to interject thier opinion, where those that value that opinion will seek it out.

If you take the Leupold thread do you think a single opinion in there was valued by those in opposition?

I do think you can dilute a solid argument with petty pile on regurgitated ideals.

Just my opinion from spending a lot of time following threads from their beginning to end.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Billy Goat]

@fngTony @Billy Goat

I think its spelled right and the finer points of "buster" the dummy are lost on these guys.

Clearly Buster Goat is in the middle

View attachment 660416

I actually worked at a crash test facility a few times....

 

[realunlucky]

Serious question.
So if I drop my scope how form does it and it holds zero but I dont video it or take pictures is that data or an opinion? Since I can't quanitify it with proof who gets to make that call?

I thought the entire point was for YOU to evaluate YOUR equipment so that it meets YOUR expectations.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

People spend alot of time trying to interject thier opinion, where those that value that opinion will seek it out.

If you take the Leupold thread do you think a single opinion in there was valued by those in opposition?

I do think you can dilute a solid argument with petty pile on regurgitated ideals.

Just my opinion from spending a lot of time following threads from their beginning to end.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

That didn’t even come close to answering the question sorry. I’ll answer your question…

I would say that those in opposition did not at all value my field results (not opinion) in the slightest. But just as my original post in here stated, it’s not about those 2 or 3 folks. It’s about the folks making buying decisions based on recommendations.

I can certainly do my best to simply post my own results and not “pile on” if it seems to be diluting arguments. I will no longer quote folks or question them if that’s more appropriate. Easy enough. My apologies for diluting threads, not my intent.

 

[Reburn]

I thought the entire point was for YOU to evaluate YOUR equipment so that it meets YOUR expectations.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

If you don't present your data you have an opinion formed over 50 years.

Opinions are important but rely on the person who holds it, data on the hand stands on its own merit.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

So you don’t want people to post here about what they found?

Isn’t this a forum specifically for that? To talk about results and gear?

You didn't answer the question. If I didnt video it or take pictures is it fact or opinion?

 

[JakeM51]

That goes both ways! I scratch my head a lot reading folks tout drop testing. Some folks will type out their rifle scope inventory and harp on non-believers, while simultaneously demanding scopes they own be tested by others.

The recent Maven thread is a good example of verbal tribalism; "my scope arrived, love it, when is someone else going to drop test it?". I've only seen any sort of testing of any scopes by @Formidilosus , @Juan_ID, and maybe @mxgsfmdpx . I still don't know how to meme, so if I can figure out how to test, video, photo, and post multiple scopes being tested, there should be dozens of people here taking that same action.

There is that, and then there are people that drop their scopes on hard ground and wonder why the turret broke off or why the bell bent.
They just don't post those publicly.

 

[realunlucky]

That didn’t even come close to answering the question sorry. I’ll answer your question…

I would say that those in opposition did not at all value my field results (not opinion) in the slightest. But just as my original post in here stated, it’s not about those 2 or 3 folks. It’s about the folks making buying decisions based on recommendations.

I can certainly do my best to simply post my own results and not “pile on” if it seems to be diluting arguments. I will no longer quote folks or question them if that’s more appropriate. Easy enough. My apologies for diluting threads, not my intent.

These are solely my opinions.

For your field results to be valuable, I have to evaluate your online persona to establish how much trust I put in your finding. That comes down to a best guess senerio.

Tangible Data can be evaluated on its own merit no matter who presents it.

To me I value each differently. Again this is my personal opinion.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[roosiebull]

You must have missed where I've stated having had a SwaroA lose it's erector while shooting at a big 190" mule deer. A buddy of mine had 2 samples of this scope do the same. Also had a VX3 4.5-14 with bad erector. They fixed 'em, I sold 'em.

I hunt alot, a whole, whole lot, as it's open season 24/7 here for something. I kill lot's of animals, a whole lot, and I know how to check zero and do so.

Anonymous internet posters most definitely don't offend me no matter the subject . I also don't give a ratsazzz what you or anyone else thinks about what I use. I know what works for what I'm doing, and come to think about it I don't recall you or anyone else on this whole forum who's ever been in one of my hunting camps, so howthehell would you know how I hunt?

Most scopes would get an erector for a 190” buck, not lose it.

Has that scope lost an erector on smaller bucks or does, or just the big ones?

 

[JGRaider]

I only have to prove things to myself, not anyone else. To expect anyone here to believe results beyond their preconceived idealogies is not realistic. Only a complete moron would continue to use gear that doesn't function correctly for the task at hand.

 

[realunlucky]

So you don’t want people to post here about what they found?

Isn’t this a forum specifically for that? To talk about results and gear?

You didn't answer the question. If I didnt video it or take pictures is it fact or opinion?

I'm only posting my personal opinion.

Without documentation I consider it opinion.

I trust some people's experience without question, others not so much. That is where something tangible will remove that variable.

Again this my opinion

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[JGRaider]

Most scopes would get an erector for a 190” buck, not lose it.

Has that scope lost an erector on smaller bucks or does, or just the big ones?

Hadn't done it before that episode, and I shot that poor buck to pieces. I've got pics but some here get their panties twisted when I post 'em. Zero moved to 9" high and 9" right.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I'm only posting my personal opinion.

Without documentation I consider it opinion.

I trust some people's experience without question, others not so much. That is where something tangible will remove that variable.

Again this my opinion

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Again. What format? What documentation?

I go out and use a thing. I take pictures, show myself using the thing. Document what I did that day in particular with the thing and then post results in a thread dedicated towards that thing…

Is this not tangible enough? What exactly are you looking for?

 

[JGRaider]

Again. What format? What documentation?

I go out and use a thing. I take pictures, show myself using the thing. Document what I did that day in particular with the thing and then post results in a thread dedicated towards that thing…

Is this not tangible enough? What exactly are you looking for?

Honest question.....why do you feel compelled to try and persuade or please someone else, especially someone you don't know and never will?

 

[realunlucky]

Again. What format? What documentation?

I go out and use a thing. I take pictures, show myself using the thing. Document what I did that day in particular with the thing and then post results in a thread dedicated towards that thing…

Is this not tangible enough? What exactly are you looking for?

Yes that is tangible documentation.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[sndmn11]

So you don’t want people to post here about what they found?

Isn’t this a forum specifically for that? To talk about results and gear?

You didn't answer the question. If I didnt video it or take pictures is it fact or opinion?

I don't think a summary of results is data, but pictures definitely are. Otherwise, your efforts are no different in validity than the folks who say they have 4x super slams after training on their canyon using their UUQ and never resighting.

There's a claim in this thread about an infallible Athlon.
There's this https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/mini-eval-helos-btr-gen22-12x42-ahmr2-ffp-ir-moa.286981/

Rather than he said/he said, supporting data/provenance/evidence allows anyone to observe and draw their own conclusion. Holes in paper for all to see are as objective and bias free as can be on the topic of shooting.

(All my opinion of course)

 

[Billy Goat]

Honest question.....why do you feel compelled to try and persuade or please someone else, especially someone you don't know and never will?

I don't think it's a matter of persuasion.


It's that a lot of us have had actual problems with scopes that people proclaim to be free of faults.

It's more correcting misinformation, or that's how it feels.


However, since we don't video everything, or post lots of pictures with lots of big animals our credibility is suspect. I get that.
It's the internet, and many are here from mom's basement, for all anyone knows, that's me.

 

[Team4LongGun]

Use whatever you want to use if it’s consistently working for you. Have fun and enjoy it.

The issue for me lies when your “use case” is used an argument for or against an optics ability to maintain its primary function under normal/regular field use.

I’ve been lucky enough to shoot and hunt enough, and with enough people, that you start to see repeatable patterns with certain make and model rifles and scopes. So if somebody comes into a scope recommendation thread, touting that a certain make/model scope has been “great” for them; it potentially contradicts what I’ve seen on multiple samples over multiple years.

I’ve become more vocal on this forum regarding delivery systems that actually function as expected; and I’ll continue to let guys and gals know what my experience has been with certain optics under field use. Whether it’s a positive or negative outcome for the delivery system, I don’t really care. I’m interested in using what actually works and has proven to work for me; and I’ll continue to be vocal about what hasn’t worked.

That would be the main reason why I guess I “care” about what somebody else uses for a rifle scope and delivery system as a whole. It’s when the same few folks consistently come into threads recommending scopes that I, and many others have seen utterly fail on decent sample sizes. I will continue to make the argument against using those optics when being recommended to other hunters/shooters.

To me that’s a lot of what this excellent forum is all about. Helping other hunters understand what gear works and what doesn’t. Not everybody has the luxury of getting to shoot and use their gear very often, so recommendation threads here are important in my opinion.

Since some of you have seemingly been bothered by the "parrot" moniker, and every one is so hung up on "data", let me give an example:

delivery system
field use
sample size

(and I'm not calling you out @mxgsfmdpx, simply using your post as an example)

these are terms that were not used by hardly anyone on here until Form started sharing methodologies. Fast forward, now everyone is an expert repeating HIS data as if it were their own. There are several more-

aiming device
field positions
cone

Now before anyone assumes I take issue with any of this-I don't. My opinions are purposely left out of this, and most threads.

I am pointing this out, as some of you love to go back and forth, argue for the sake of arguing, and even call out mods. To be clear, my usage of the word "parrot" was bonafide, verifiable DATA.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Since some of you have seemingly been bothered by the "parrot" moniker, and every one is so hung up on "data", let me give an example:

delivery system
field use
sample size

(and I'm not calling you out @mxgsfmdpx, simply using your post as an example)

these are terms that were not used by hardly anyone on here until Form started sharing methodologies. Fast forward, now everyone is an expert repeating HIS data as if it were their own. There are several more-

aiming device
field positions
cone

Now before anyone assumes I take issue with any of this-I don't. My opinions are purposely left out of this, and most threads.

I am pointing this out, as some of you love to go back and forth, argue for the sake of arguing, and even call out mods. To be clear, my usage of the word "parrot" was bonafide, verifiable DATA.

I’m not bothered at all with the term “parrot” in the slightest. I simply use my own gear and post results. That’s it. Sorry if certain terms are triggering you.

 

[Team4LongGun]

You must have not read the thread, or comprehend what I stated.

Knowing your M.O., you’ll keep this back and forth going on and on. I’m out, you win. Have a good evening

 

[Marbles]

You must have missed where I've stated having had a SwaroA lose it's erector while shooting at a big 190" mule deer. A buddy of mine had 2 samples of this scope do the same. Also had a VX3 4.5-14 with bad erector. They fixed 'em, I sold 'em.

Thanks for the correction.