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

[Macintosh]

Tolerance stack, controlling the variables, repeatability of testing, statistical significance of the data all seems to be of no consideration in this entire thread.

To make a decision on what scope to take on a critical hunt based on the information in this thread is beyond bizarre (at least to me)

I’m not sure if that is a statement in favor of the testing, or opposed to it. Regardless, it’s fair to point out that the information is not in this thread, the information is in the forum, dedicated only to that topic. There’s plenty of information there. So that said, if you don’t think it’s valid, what alternative do people have? Seems to me, the danger is a false failure, which poses zero risk to the consumer. So why would someone ignore it? Show me a better alternative, and I’ll jump ship yesterday.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

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.

Tell me you haven’t actually read Forms testing protocol (including baseline scopes in the same rings and different ring torque tested sequentially) without telling me.

 

[Archer86]

I’m not sure if that is a statement in favor of the testing, or opposed to it. Regardless, it’s fair to point out that the information is not in this thread, the information is in the forum, dedicated only to that topic. There’s plenty of information there. So that said, if you don’t think it’s valid, what alternative do people have? Seems to me, the danger is a false failure, which poses zero risk to the consumer. So why would someone ignore it? Show me a better alternative, and I’ll jump ship yesterday.

I dont see the scope test as signification data one test doesn't tell you much.
you can't test used product with unknown history and get a valid test. Then to top it off you don't test a product worest case scenario I think they do it that way as a cost saving measure because for them if it doesn't handle a 3ft drop its not usable to them. When realistically you could start with the zero and tracking test shoot a thousand rounds and haul it however you are going to on dirt roads on a atv in a rifle scabbard on a horse. Whatever then proceed to the drop test and realistically if a scope makes it through all that and a 18inch drop doesn't shift it will likely be good for a majority of hunters even if it fails the 36 inch drop. But then you would have a true baseline what a scope can handle and where it actuall failed it vs did we break it with the 9 drops and now it won't hold zero

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I dont see the scope test as signification data one test doesn't tell you much.
you can't test used product with unknown history and get a valid test. Then to top it off you don't test a product worest case scenario I think they do it that way as a cost saving measure because for them if it doesn't handle a 3ft drop its not usable to them. When realistically you could start with the zero and tracking test shoot a thousand rounds and haul it however you are going to on dirt roads on an atv in a rifle scabbard on a horse. Whatever then proceed to the drop test and realistically if a scope makes it through all that and a 18inch drop doesn't shift it will likely be good for a majority of hunters even if it fails the 36 inch drop. But then you would have a true baseline what a scope can handle and where it actuall failed it vs did we break it with the 9 drops and now it won't hold zero

Sounds also like you haven’t read the tests… they don’t start at 36” drops.

 

[Archer86]

Sounds also like you haven’t read the tests… they don’t start at 36” drops.

Apperantly you don't read the entire post

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Apperantly you don't read the entire post

I read it, they don't shoot 1000rds between RTZ testing and the drop tests to appease your sequence and instead do RTZ, 18" drops, 36" drops and then do extended shooting on scopes that have passed so they don't waste their time on ones that haven't.

You as the reader are absolutely encouraged to consume that data and go from there, if you see a scope that passes RTZ and 18" drops you may feel that could serve your needs great and YOU can do that testing you desire on the scope you like. On the flipside it a scope passes RTZ but fails 18" drops do we really need to waste time with it? The testers don't think so, I don't think so BUT as always YOU are welcome to test it too!

All Forms tests are is a fairly consistent (as practical) set of steps that have consistently proven some scopes can hold and some can't, the user knowing that is a sample of one (or in cases multiples) can digest that. But when you have scope X fail that test and also fail it for numerous other folks doing a 18" drop you start to get some statistical significance to not want to bother with scope X and instead start focusing in on scope Y that passed Forms testing and others too, and as always YOU test it yourself as the ultimate validation of your own criteria.

 

[TaperPin]

The drop tests aren’t the only point of information someone should look at, but they shouldn’t be discounted - it would be silly to ignore them. My hat is off to Form for all the work he’s put into it - and while it seems easy, it’s a lot of work to do something the same way over and over.

Fogging is just as deadly as dropping when you‘re hunting, and the conditions are more common - cold rain followed by near freezing conditions creates an mild internal vacuum that sucks moisture in. Inexpensive scopes are notorious for leaks, so I like watching anyone who also puts scopes under warm water to look for escaping bubbles. Burris uses a water filled vacuum chamber to pull a mild vacuum on the scope to identify any leaks.

I‘m pretty easy on scopes, both at the range and while hunting, but I also keep track of any scope adjustments made to weed out anything with a wandering zero. Old school fixed power scopes are reliable enough for me.

 

[Archer86]

I read it, they don't shoot 1000rds between RTZ testing and the drop tests to appease your sequence and instead do RTZ, 18" drops, 36" drops and then do extended shooting on scopes that have passed so they don't waste their time on ones that haven't.

You as the reader are absolutely encouraged to consume that data and go from there, if you see a scope that passes RTZ and 18" drops you may feel that could serve your needs great and YOU can do that testing you desire on the scope you like. On the flipside it a scope passes RTZ but fails 18" drops do we really need to waste time with it? The testers don't think so, I don't think so BUT as always YOU are welcome to test it too!

All Forms tests are is a fairly consistent (as practical) set of steps that have consistently proven some scopes can hold and some can't, the user knowing that is a sample of one (or in cases multiples) can digest that. But when you have scope X fail that test and also fail it for numerous other folks doing a 18" drop you start to get some statistical significance to not want to bother with scope X and instead start focusing in on scope Y that passed Forms testing and others too, and as always YOU test it yourself as the ultimate validation of your own criteria.

So the ones that don't pass most are used? Not all but a majority are scopes sent in how doe you know if the where not broke before they started the test and you are still just wasting time and money doing the drop test? And bashing a company that's scope might be fine for most and easy to get.

My rifles are proven every year they go with on camping trips everytime we saddle horses and ride there are thrown in a scabbard on my horses no matter what we are doing and I constantly shoot lucky to have a range 10 min from my house my scopes have all held zero.for the record I have nightforces on 2 of my rifles so they pass the test just fine they other is a older vortex razor. I tend to have a hard time with some saying we need lots of data for statistical significance then testing one USED scope and saying its a failure.

What they do during the drop test sure its constant as far as the test process goes but the products tested are not constant one may be used one maybe new one may have been used as a hammer who knows they are being sent in from random people. I think it's been proven on here with some trying to do there own drop test is not good data.

 

[Macintosh]

I dont see the scope test as signification data one test doesn't tell you much.
you can't test used product with unknown history and get a valid test. Then to top it off you don't test a product worest case scenario I think they do it that way as a cost saving measure because for them if it doesn't handle a 3ft drop its not usable to them. When realistically you could start with the zero and tracking test shoot a thousand rounds and haul it however you are going to on dirt roads on a atv in a rifle scabbard on a horse. Whatever then proceed to the drop test and realistically if a scope makes it through all that and a 18inch drop doesn't shift it will likely be good for a majority of hunters even if it fails the 36 inch drop. But then you would have a true baseline what a scope can handle and where it actuall failed it vs did we break it with the 9 drops and now it won't hold zero

Even if all of that was correct—some may be valid criticisms but it’s not all correct—WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? I keep asking people and no one ever responds: regardless of whether it is perfect science or not, what is ANY objective alternative (edit: for someone shopping for a scope, ie assuming you dont already own it), and what is the risk of paying attention to the current evals?

 

[Jason Snyder]

A data point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thread 'Field proofing rifle and scope'
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/field-proofing-rifle-and-scope.344296/

 

[sndmn11]

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

I disagree.
I just checked Sportsman's and $399 gets one a rifle https://www.sportsmans.com/shooting...lack-bolt-action-rifle-65-creedmoor/p/1541393

$120 more gets someone a Ruger American.

$299 gets one a great scope https://swfa.com/swfa-10x42-ss-mil-quad-reticle-30mm-1-mil-clicks-rear-focus/
Splurging to $399 gets side focus which I think most would find easier.


There's a thread on here talk about a mindset of purchasing equipment being a replacement for practice. I think it's a product of information being so readily available versus decades ago. There's nothing that can't be done with the above that a 95% of hunters would want or need to do.

For someone who says 10x sucks, I threw the side focus above model on my 6yo kids 10/22 replacing the aimpoint. He was doing just fine whacking steel plates from 35-150yds once he figured out what an eye box was.

When I hear there are $500-$600 repeatable scopes, where can I buy one tomorrow when I wanna put down my money Talk to me.

See above

 

[Archer86]

Even if all of that was correct—some may be valid criticisms but it’s not all correct—WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? I keep asking people and no one ever responds: regardless of whether it is perfect science or not, what is ANY objective alternative, and what is the risk of paying attention to the current evals?

Simple shoot it and do the the driving around test even if it's a reduced amount of shooting it would be beneficial to see if it doesn't hold zero its done doesn't even go to the drops.

Risk is you can't evaluate a broken product effectively. And you never will know if a product is broken or not if it's used and once you start dropping it how do you know what really caused the shift?

 

[Macintosh]

A data point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thread 'Field proofing rifle and scope'
https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/field-proofing-rifle-and-scope.344296/

Kudos. Will be interested if you see any shift over time, ie a couple range trips etc. this is among the first, if not THE first post Ive seen documenting this on their leupy scope.

 

[Macintosh]

Simple shoot it and do the the driving around test even if it's a reduced amount of shooting it would be beneficial to see if it doesn't hold zero its done doesn't even go to the drops.

Risk is you can't evaluate a broken product effectively. And you never will know if a product is broken or not if it's used and once you start dropping it how do you know what really caused the shift?

Ok, but not what I mean. What if Im scope shopping and dont already have the scope? I cant very well test it if I dont have it. So what resource is there for me to somewhat objectively find out about relative reliability of scopes? And what is the risk to me if I make a purchase based on the existing evals from this site?

 

[Jason Snyder]

Kudos. Will be interested if you see any shift over time, ie a couple range trips etc. this is among the first, if not THE first post Ive seen documenting this on their leupy scope.

I’ve got a box of 250 Hornady BTHPs being delivered today. I’ll load up 100 and fire away.

My next step will be to cinch it tight on my pack and drop the pack.

I’m trying to isolate the most common things I do in the field that might affect zero.

Normally I transport my rifles in a Pelican case. I may do so in a soft side for a while to see if that causes any wandering.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

So the ones that don't pass most are used? Not all but a majority are scopes sent in how doe you know if the where not broke before they started the test and you are still just wasting time and money doing the drop test? And bashing a company that's scope might be fine for most and easy to get.

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.

No one is bashing companies outright. It isn't bashing to say X model from Y company or most models from Y company tend to fail. Folks are still welcome to use them, just with that awareness now of potential limitations. Some brands produce a scope that passes in their heavy/expensive lines. Some companies can produce scopes that pass that are lighter and more affordable and/or pass more consistently in their product lines. MOST companies don't have scopes that pass across the board even if they have ones that do. The specific models of scopes matter, not just a company.

This is all information for the users to digest when making purchases and then the user can take personal responsibility for their system from there to see how their gear works for them. Nothing more or less to it.

You want some extensive controlled testing? Campaign the scope industry to develop an acceptable set of standards they'll all test their stuff against on their dime. In the meantime rokslide and others are doing what they can to bring awareness of this issue.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

and once you start dropping it how do you know what really caused the shift?

If you have a bonded chassi rifle with a rail loctited to the reciever and can slap a baseline scope on it that passes but the testing scope doesn't (even with increased torque to the ring manufacturer recommendations vs the scope manufacturer initially) and go back and forth why would you think its anything but the scope?

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Kudos. Will be interested if you see any shift over time, ie a couple range trips etc. this is among the first, if not THE first post Ive seen documenting this on their leupy scope.

4 have been tested by Form. Do folks not realize there is a sub group documenting all of this?

Leupold VX-3HD 3.5-10x40mm CDS-ZL Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of a Leupold VX-3HD 3.5-10x40mm CDS-ZL scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The ammunition used was Hornady Black 168gr AMAX that was purchased by Ryan. The 20 round proof group was just over 1.3 MOA. The scope and weight- Turrets...

rokslide.com

Leupold VX-3HD 2.5-8x36mm CDS-ZL Field Evaluation

This is a field evaluation of a Leupold VX-3HD 2.5-8x36mm CDS-ZL scope. This scope was sent to Ryan Avery for an evaluation. The ammunition used was 175gr SMK from Winchester that was personally purchased. The 20 round proof group was just over 1.3 MOA. The scope and weight- Turrets...

rokslide.com

2x Leupold Mark 5 Field Evaluations

This is a field evaluation of the Leupold Mark 5 3.6-18x44mm and the Leupold Mark 5 5-25x56mm. These scopes were brought to me from Ryan Avery for evaluation. The ammunition used for the 3.6-18x was Federal 168gr GMM, and for the 5-25x was Hornady ELD-M Match 168gr that was purchased by Ryan...

rokslide.com

Leupold Ultra 10x M3A Field Evaluation

This is a partial field evaluation of the fixed power Leupold Ultra M3A 10x40mm scope. It is the same as the Mark 4 fixed 10x. This scope is personally owned. The ammunition used was 175gr SMK. The 20 shot proof group with this ammunition was 1.6moa. This one is a bit different as the scope...

rokslide.com

 

[Archer86]

If you have a bonded chassi rifle with a rail loctited to the reciever and can slap a baseline scope on it that passes but the testing scope doesn't (even with increased torque to the ring manufacturer recommendations vs the scope manufacturer initially) and go back and forth why would you think its anything but the scope?

Your missing the point if it's used it could be broke and causing the shift. I fully understand the rifle set up they use. But a used scope is another variable why wouldn't you want to know its in normal working order? To eliminate that variable.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Your missing the point if it's used it could be broke and causing the shift. I fully understand the rifle set up they use. But a used scope is another variable why wouldn't you want to know its in normal working order? To eliminate that variable.

"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."