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

[mxgsfmdpx]

Because of the info on this forum I've moved to NF only, and I appreciate the time/resources Form has put in to give us that info.

For most people "use case" (their field use) is how they evaluate a scope's ability to stand up to normal use and those cases should be included in any discussion, whether good or bad as it's another data point.


I would bet that there are more animals killed with Leupold scopes than most other scope companies combined. Does that mean the scope has held zero or dialed exactly what it should have, no it doesn't, but to that person the scope has performed as it should. Those are all use cases and data points that need to be taken into account. I have a NF NX8 that is 5 months old and never been off the range but it is at Nightforce right now because the parallax isn't working. So, in my "use case" I'm not to happy right now with NF and their "proven reliability", but it's only a sample of one. Although a friend of a friend had to send his NF back for a similar issue last year but his problem wasn't as drastic as mine is. In my personal experience, "use case", I've had a 25% failure rate with NF.

Once again, you state you will use scopes that have proven to work for you. Those same people who are stating that Leupold are working for them should be given the same respect. In my experience (and that of a friend of friend) should I stop recommending NF because we've had problems with them? Of course not, the track record of NF is great and why I went with them but there are also tons of people who apparently haven't had problems with their Leupold and that can't be discounted as well.

I think one way we could avoid all of these threads is any time someone posts a question asking about a scope a MOD just posts a link to the scope testing thread and then they should close the thread down, no responses needed. Same way with rifle questions, a MOD just links the .223 thread, says the words Tikka/7prc and then shut it down. Lots of "trash" product discussions could be avoided.

With all that being said, I'm personally glad everyone has an opinion and insights that I might not have, it's how we all learn.

I’m still learning everyday. Great post.

 

[Clark33]

Dude!

They are babied and rezeroed constantly in PRS!

 

[Bubblehide]

My 1985 Yugo car is the best car vfc ever made. I mean, it still runs perfect after all this time. Can you say that about your car after so many years? Granted, it has only been driven 100 miles thus far.

With that said, I'm sure some won't get my point.

 

[jhm2023]

The best part of #metoo is that most adults still refer to # as pound.

 

[Marbles]

The other thing I noticed is when someone has brand x that ‘works’, it’s on that person to fly somewhere or ship their scope somewhere so someone else can prove it doesn’t. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone ask if they can go shoot with that person for a day to see for themselves.

Tell you what, make me the below offer on NF NXS and I will show up. The scopes fail, I pay for my expenses. The scopes pass, you pay for my expenses and I keep the scopes. Someone who does not take the below offer, is someone who does not believe their own bullshit about how awesome the produce they recommend is.

If I/we’re lying, I offered to give an all expense paid trip for you to come prove it. All you have to do is show up- we’ll go buy several Mark 5’s from the store with you. You can mount them, you can shoot them, and you can drop them. If they hold zero you can have them. This should be easy if it’s all BS- show up and prove they hold zero.

@Ryan Avery @Bwhntr Has stated that we are lying, I have offered him to come out and show it. If he comes out and the Mark 5’s hold zero through the drop eval, he gets his expenses paid for.

Same for this, you want proof that an SWFA or S&B work, I would take you up on this deal (we might have to work something out to insure the person offering is not scamming for a free scope).

Ah yes your mythical VX6 that never loses zero is here again… You’ve been asked in multiple threads, multiple times, to put up or shut up and you never do.

Send me this exact scope. I’ll properly mount it and take it on just one single off road trip in the jeep and shoot it. I won’t drop it. If it still holds zero after the jeep trip/ full day of shooting, I’ll send you $500 for your troubles.

Easiest $500 you’ve ever made right? I’ll PM you my ship to address.

I would take these offers because I know the odds are in my favor. No one will make me these offers because they too know the odds are in my favor.

 

[sndmn11]

No, I like page views and posts. It has to be a 95% label... sounds better

Sounds like 19X more work.

Page views and posts? Do a Rokstok, custom green Maven RS1.2, UM something or other giveaway for a "drop test your own rig on video" and see who is a 1%er.

 

[JGRaider]

Tell you what, make me the below offer on NF NXS and I will show up. The scopes fail, I pay for my expenses. The scopes pass, you pay for my expenses and I keep the scopes. Someone who does not take the below offer, is someone who does not believe their own bullshit about how awesome the produce they recommend is.

Same for this, you want proof that an SWFA or S&B work, I would take you up on this deal (we might have to work something out to insure the person offering is not scamming for a free scope).


I would take these offers because I know the odds are in my favor. No one will make me these offers because they too know the odds are in my favor.

LMAO.........

 

[TaperPin]

The funny thing about scope debates is most people aren’t reliable sources of information. My prediction is more poi changes are from poor bedding than the scope. Add in small numbers in groups, inaccurate rifles, inconsistent shooters, poor technique, poor shooting supports, lack of wind indicators, plastic stocks, bias from marketing/forums and the water is so muddied as to be nearly unusable.

How many posts show up every year with someone trying to figure out a moving poi that turns out to be bedding? Many more times that are never posted about, and many more times that are slight movements that the shooter simply thinks is a function of the barrel accuracy.

When cased rifles are stacked in the back seat, driven on rough roads and the poi changes, that’s bedding. The g forces are minimal, but enough to move the barreled action with normal action screw torque if the bedding isn’t good. You can see easily see this for yourself - take two black gas pipes or strips of flat as long as your barreled action, drill two holes matching the spacing of your action screws and torque 1/4“ bolts to 65 inch pounds. With a pinky on what would be the muzzle end you can move them. With a pinky.

I have a horrible memory so writing things down is second nature and looking back through the shooting journal of every change in scope zero can highlight small issues that otherwise go unnoticed. It is also a great way to compare multiple rifles, and comparing multiple rifles is a great way to know if what is happening is normal. If one rifle moves around and another with identical treatment doesn’t, it makes sense to figure out why. If a rifle is 1/2moa off that’s one thing, but if both are maybe the wind isn’t doing what you think it is.

The best thing that happened in my late teens was having an internal lens come loose in a scope. It increased group size by 1/2moa over a ten year period before I bought it and it wasn’t until it completely failed that the rifle’s accuracy went back to how it shot when new. That experience taught me to never trust a scope, pay close attention to change in group size and small poi movement, and have a backup scope that‘s easily swapable.

 

[BjornF16]

When cased rifles are stacked in the back seat, driven on rough roads and the poi changes, that’s bedding. The g forces are minimal, but enough to move the barreled action with normal action screw torque if the bedding isn’t good.

What if the action is bonded to stock?…how do you explain poi shift then?

 

[Jimbee]

Maybe we could have a "my delivery system holds zero challenge" .....? Maybe it would be as humbling as the cold bore challenge?

 

[Tod osier]

The funny thing about scope debates is most people aren’t reliable sources of information. My prediction is more poi changes are from poor bedding than the scope. Add in small numbers in groups, inaccurate rifles, inconsistent shooters, poor technique, poor shooting supports, lack of wind indicators, plastic stocks, bias from marketing/forums and the water is so muddied as to be nearly unusable.

How many posts show up every year with someone trying to figure out a moving poi that turns out to be bedding? Many more times that are never posted about, and many more times that are slight movements that the shooter simply thinks is a function of the barrel accuracy.

When cased rifles are stacked in the back seat, driven on rough roads and the poi changes, that’s bedding. The g forces are minimal, but enough to move the barreled action with normal action screw torque if the bedding isn’t good. You can see easily see this for yourself - take two black gas pipes or strips of flat as long as your barreled action, drill two holes matching the spacing of your action screws and torque 1/4“ bolts to 65 inch pounds. With a pinky on what would be the muzzle end you can move them. With a pinky.

I have a horrible memory so writing things down is second nature and looking back through the shooting journal of every change in scope zero can highlight small issues that otherwise go unnoticed. It is also a great way to compare multiple rifles, and comparing multiple rifles is a great way to know if what is happening is normal. If one rifle moves around and another with identical treatment doesn’t, it makes sense to figure out why. If a rifle is 1/2moa off that’s one thing, but if both are maybe the wind isn’t doing what you think it is.

The best thing that happened in my late teens was having an internal lens come loose in a scope. It increased group size by 1/2moa over a ten year period before I bought it and it wasn’t until it completely failed that the rifle’s accuracy went back to how it shot when new. That experience taught me to never trust a scope, pay close attention to change in group size and small poi movement, and have a backup scope that‘s easily swapable.

Personally, I've bedded a rifle and had it turn out to be a scope. Lotta work for nuthin.

Following problem rifle threads, I can't recall a time here when a person had a problem rifle and bedded it and it was fixed (I'm not talking accuracy enhancements from bedding), I can recall many times that scopes were the issue and were fixed and replaced - this is very common.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Personally, I've bedded a rifle and had it turn out to be a scope. Lotta work for nuthin.

Following problem rifle threads, I can't recall a time here when a person had a problem rifle and bedded it and it was fixed (I'm not talking accuracy enhancements from bedding), I can recall many times that scopes were the issue and were fixed and replaced - this is very common.

I had a wood stocked M70 that developed a crack between the recoil lug and front action screw that gave me fits until I found it. A repair and full pillar bedding job put it back to MOA.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Maybe we could have a "my delivery system holds zero challenge" .....? Maybe it would be as humbling as the cold bore challenge?

That's an interesting concept. I wonder how many people are using drop-tested scopes with bad rings, a scope base that isn't loctited or torqued right, or a rifle/stock combo which experiences shift due to bad bedding contact or being undertorqued. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing to have a drop-tested scope, just that there are other parts of the equation people need to address and I do wonder how many do that.

 

[TaperPin]

What if the action is bonded to stock?…how do you explain poi shift then?

Glue in stocks in competition rifles only exist because that’s the only way to eliminate movement. That doesn’t mean a scope is the only source of poi change. If someone shoots a lot I’m much more likely to believe the shift is scope related, but I’ve watched a guy who shot competitively for decades try to convince a group a scope maker had sent him 4 bad scopes, so he was lent a scope and the same issue surfaced, and turned out to be ignition related.

Some time back a benchrest guy wrote up an article about aluminum bedding blocks and how fretting (microscopic scratches from repeated movement) was observed even with a heavy barrel and small cartridge. So even properly bedded actions move every shot, it’s just a small amount.

 

[Jimbee]

That's an interesting concept. I wonder how many people are using drop-tested scopes with bad rings, a scope base that isn't loctited or torqued right, or a rifle/stock combo which experiences shift due to bad bedding contact or being undertorqued. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing to have a drop-tested scope, just that there are other parts of the equation people need to address and I do wonder how many do that.

Yes, obviously the scope is only one variable. My son and I did a drop test on 4 hunting rifles last fall. One didn't pass, it wasn’t the scope.

 

[TaperPin]

Personally, I've bedded a rifle and had it turn out to be a scope. Lotta work for nuthin.

Following problem rifle threads, I can't recall a time here when a person had a problem rifle and bedded it and it was fixed (I'm not talking accuracy enhancements from bedding), I can recall many times that scopes were the issue and were fixed and replaced - this is very common.

The last one I can remember was last week.

 

[willfrye027]

Maybe we could have a "my delivery system holds zero challenge" .....? Maybe it would be as humbling as the cold bore challenge?

Yup. A lot of fuss over forms drop tests on the scope but not a lot of discussion on bedding/action screw torque, free float, bonding rails, rings and torque. All that stuff can and does present an issue. But most guys are not finding a true 100 yard zero and tracking it.

Call me a parrot but this parrot also has learned to do the shit that form is preaching and shockingly it works.

The delivery system matters and the scope is one aspect of that which seems to get the most attention.

 

[Jimbee]

Yup. A lot of fuss over forms drop tests on the scope but not a lot of discussion on bedding/action screw torque, free float, bonding rails, rings and torque. All that stuff can and does present an issue. But most guys are not finding a true 100 yard zero and tracking it.

Call me a parrot but this parrot also has learned to do the shit that form is preaching and shockingly it works.

The delivery system matters and the scope is one aspect of that which seems to get the most attention.

I'd add that the scope is the one thing a person can't correct, only replace.

 

[TaperPin]

Personally, I've bedded a rifle and had it turn out to be a scope. Lotta work for nuthin.

Following problem rifle threads, I can't recall a time here when a person had a problem rifle and bedded it and it was fixed (I'm not talking accuracy enhancements from bedding), I can recall many times that scopes were the issue and were fixed and replaced - this is very common.

Aren’t accuracy enhancements the result of eliminating bedding movement?

I agree, there are many scope issues. That’s why I said I never trust a scope and always have a good backup scope that’s easily swapable to double check if an issue is scope related or not.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Maybe we could have a "my delivery system holds zero challenge" .....? Maybe it would be as humbling as the cold bore challenge?

We should. But I don’t think you can call it “delivery system” anymore. I heard it’s going to be auto corrected to “******* ******” very soon.