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

PSA: I think with all of the emotional attachment to the brand Leupold in particluar, it might be time to call for a Rokslide-wide truce of sorts on the matter. I was contemplating starting a thread in optics asking for this same thing.

I'm not saying don't post stuff to help people asking about Luepold, because I think that's worthwhile, just like @pods8 (Rugged Stitching) did above with the tests. But I think it's high time that those "for" and those "against" Leupold in general just agree to disagree. It's been well documented. Those swooping in to save the internet in "defending" Luepold by attacking drop test protocols etc is the first place where it needs to stop - we get it. And I think the "every L scope will fail" post in response to this (true or not) also needs to be curtailed - we also get it. Niether side is going to convince each other.

I really think this would clean up a lot of threads.
 
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.
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.

Not directed at you @Archer86, but plenty of people (and scope makers) have taken issue with the methodology of the tests (in addition to many who take issue with even the concept of any test being needed). But for those who get past the issue of whether the tests are needed, or at least helptul, not many of those who point out limitations in the methodology have offered constructive ways of improvement - or at least realistic ones (given the time and cost constraints).
 
…or outlined how I stand to lose even if the test “fails” some scopes that may have passed had they been new or the test closer to truly standardized. From my seat a “false failure” is the only possible downside to the test not being perfectly scientific on these evals, so what is the risk to me if I DONT buy a scope that might have passed the eval but didnt, and instead buy one that did pass the eval?
 
Every scope that broke was gonna break on the next shot....the shot before it broke.

I prefer to have the odds in my favor.....and to NEVER deal with Swarovski warranty service again.
 
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.

Not directed at you @Archer86, but plenty of people (and scope makers) have taken issue with the methodology of the tests (in addition to many who take issue with even the concept of any test being needed). But for those who get past the issue of whether the tests are needed, or at least helptul, not many of those who point out limitations in the methodology have offered constructive ways of improvement - or at least realistic ones (given the time and cost constraints).
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.

It's funny to me that you pointed out some would be worried that the manufacture would tweak a factory scope to pass the test but those same guys are not concern a used scope being sent in isn't damaged?

To each there own any used scope test I take with a grain of salt and that's just how I approach it
 
…or outlined how I stand to lose even if the test “fails” some scopes that may have passed had they been new or the test closer to truly standardized. From my seat a “false failure” is the only possible downside to the test not being perfectly scientific on these evals, so what is the risk to me if I DONT buy a scope that might have passed the eval but didnt, and instead buy one that did pass the eval?

The main thing you give up as near as I can tell is weight. Seems light and durable don’t go together currently, I think it is probably achievable to a degree, but something else likely has to be given up. Scopes that pass the drop tests tend to be north of 20 oz, generally 22 and up. The Credo 3-9 that did well but failed was as good as it gets at 17oz. I’d love to see the accupoint 3-9 tested as it’s 14ish I think (though not enough to buy one to send for testing).

Not a risk so much, just an acceptance of trade offs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

Please bear in mind that in the above paragraph I am simply sharing information that has been shared in other places on this forum. I am not an evangelist for or against the scope evals, nor am I saying you or anyone else is wrong. I think people can look at the information themselves and choose to accept it, deny it, apply it, ignore it, or any combination thereof.
 
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.
Addressed above by the highly esteemed @Drenalin. But this is a constructive suggestion - just not one that I personally agree with.
It's funny to me that you pointed out some would be worried that the manufacture would tweak a factory scope to pass the test but those same guys are not concern a used scope being sent in isn't damaged?
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.
To each there own any used scope test I take with a grain of salt and that's just how I approach it
I think many are in agreement on this point.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
 
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.

Not directed at you @Archer86, but plenty of people (and scope makers) have taken issue with the methodology of the tests (in addition to many who take issue with even the concept of any test being needed). But for those who get past the issue of whether the tests are needed, or at least helptul, not many of those who point out limitations in the methodology have offered constructive ways of improvement - or at least realistic ones (given the time and cost constraints).
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

The drops tests are good at identifying rugged scopes that tend to work extremely well. They are probably not as good for teasing out the “tweeners”..scopes that might work ok for awhile and for most guys under most situations.

Not everyone needs or wants rugged durability..probably because they already own something they like and get their feeling hurt when they realize there are better options out there. For someone purchasing a new scope I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t appreciate the information in the drop tests.
 
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.

The drops tests are good at identifying rugged scopes that tend to work extremely well. They are probably not as good for teasing out the “tweeners”..scopes that might work ok for awhile and for most guys under most situations.

Not everyone needs or wants rugged durability..probably because they already own something they like and get their feeling hurt when they realize there are better options out there. For someone purchasing a new scope I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t appreciate the information in the drop tests.
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.
 
Testing a Used scope is another variable regardless how you FEEL about it doesn't matter it’s an 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.

Would you still feel confident in your personal scope if you saw that it failed the drop test, but someone sent in a used model?

A well built scope SHOULD pass the drop eval new, used, abused…

Again if a scope fails, no amount of excuses or reasons are going to make me feel good about buying that model.

Obviously you are free to make your own personal conclusions about the information presented in the drop evals..
 
People bashing scopes has been happening far before Form showed up and far far before drop test.

While rings and bases aren’t built into the drop test Form has said many times that they are equally as important. I would bet money you couldn’t find one person preaching Forms test that would tell you to put a NF in cheap rings.

I get that there are many that feel like Forms stamp of approval is all that is needed but Form himself advocates for people to do their own testing because ALL products can and will fail.

I view this as I do buying a vehicle. I love Toyotas, they have always treated me well. Guess what, my Toyota has had issues but it has had far less issues in 23 years than my wife’s Kia (also like it) has had in 7 years. Both have had failures but the rate has been far lower on my Toyota That is what these tests are meant to show. It’s one more data point to be used when doing your own research.

If people just believing their system is reliable because they bought Forms recommended stuff is your biggest complaint, remember that people also just buy Leupold because grandpa had one and people buy Vortex because the warranty. It goes both ways.

The beauty of the drop test is that anyone can do it. It doesn’t require special equipment. You need a mat, your gun, ammo and dirt. Anyone can do it. For those that are so hell bent about one scope not being an indication of bad brand/model overall. Prove it. Seriously, I want you to prove it wrong because 1600 bucks for another NXS is going to get expensive.
That’s a pretty fair comparison… I have almost always driven Toyota pickups, a few years ago bought a new 18’ trd off road taco, and was a great rig while I had it… I had to go test drive a Colorado zr2 and I couldn’t fill out the paperwork fast enough to trade in my Toyota… it was a better rig everywhere, especially power and on/off road handling

Had to get a bigger pickup to pull my bigger boat so traded it in for a tundra… got my wife talked into driving the tundra so I could get another zr2, it’s my favorite vehicle on the road period

Now I’m just over 90k and need to change the sway bar end links, have a broken baffle in my muffler, have an oil leak, and have a transmission shudder… I’m not looking forward to the bill to get it back in order (oh yeah, one of the bed brackets fell off too)

I have never had a Toyota that developed that many problems, especially in that timeframe. I’m certainly not easy on pickups, but I never have been.

My pickup is the leupold of pickups… it’s seriously the best production vehicle in existence for what I do, but apparently at the cost of reliability, it sucks because it works so good, and fun to drive, and it was the pickup I was going to drive until it was dead (still might be 😂)

It has all of the features right, it performs excellent, but it’s not proving to be very tough. Now I’m thinking of getting this thing fixed, trading it in for a non trd Tacoma and building the suspension system myself trying to get it handling as well as my pickup, because reliability is still the most important feature
 
Back
Top