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

[S-3 ranch]

I just need a 55-60 lbs of recoil test for the 375 ruger & 416 Remington
the leupold 2-7 on tally quick detachment rings have held zero fine for me

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Customer on car lot “Can we take it out for a test drive?”

Salesman “Why yes of course!”

Customer purposely hits a parked car and airbags deploy

Salesman “Why in the world did you do that? Are you nuts?”

Customer “No, I’m a disciple of Form’s drop test on Rok Slide.”

This analogy assumes there isn't an independent crash test rating being done on all vehicles....kinda like an independent drop test guy on a forum

 

[jimh406]

This analogy assumes there isn't an independent crash test rating being done on all vehicles....kinda like an independent drop test guy on a forum

I think it was just a joke but haven't some on this forum suggested everyone should test their setups, too?

In that case, validating your vehicles ability to withstand a crash would be similar.

 

[Shraggs]

Small sample size, lack of formal statistics and analytics training, and confirmation bias come to mind as the top three contributors to these opinions (this goes far beyond scopes).

Catching up here.

Just something noteworthy - JD powers and consumer reports evaluated, tested cars/trucks for a variety of function and performance including initial quality and longer term reliability. Their sample size was one. One.

Premise, if it’s a finished product then it is indicative of all since the manufacturer has quality checks and testing in place throughout assembly.

For many many buyers it was gospel for a purchase.

initial resentment from manufacturers was rampant. A decade or so later it was a goal and honor to be on those lists.

In the end, cars got better. Manufacturers learned that they really weren’t spot on in want consumers wanted. The features yes but only if they worked, as reliable function was highly regarded.

Ha not sure we can say that about some of our trucks today though!

Ok still on page 25.

 

[Shraggs]

An important bit of distinction is missing from most of the threads that argue incessantly about drop testing. It is NOT about falling with your rifle. It is to predict which scopes will withstand the cumulative effects of recoil and general use, and still function. The same scopes that fail the drop test, have also been found to fail after just being used as a scope. So the tests are like a free time machine ride into the future.

This is what I too thought the drop tests were modeling. A prediction of function over time. Not will it fail if I fall.

Cripes with 10… extra pounds of holiday winter I’d crush my NF at the icy range then.

 

[Archer86]

Catching up here.

Just something noteworthy - JD powers and consumer reports evaluated, tested cars/trucks for a variety of function and performance including initial quality and longer term reliability. Their sample size was one. One.

Premise, if it’s a finished product then it is indicative of all since the manufacturer has quality checks and testing in place throughout assembly.

For many many buyers it was gospel for a purchase.

initial resentment from manufacturers was rampant. A decade or so later it was a goal and honor to be on those lists.

In the end, cars got better. Manufacturers learned that they really weren’t spot on in want consumers wanted. The features yes but only if they worked, as reliable function was highly regarded.

Ha not sure we can say that about some of our trucks today though!

Ok still on page 25.

A little different they didn't take a used car and run it Into a wall and then test for reliability

 

[Shraggs]

A little different they didn't take a used car and run it Into a wall and then test for reliability

No, but consumers reports did log thousands of miles from 6 months to a year of use To determine reliability. I suppose they could have built a special track of curbs, hills and pot hole abuse to condense that tho.

In my mind the drop tests attempts to replicate use over time. Same end prediction goal. Agree or not I’m not arguing - I’m in the stands in this one

I just chimed in only cause the drop test many feel are statistically not significant, but the two organizations I sited above, very credible btw, did nothing statistically valid either. One sample.

Yet they drove sales to high performers and over time their data predictions bared out. American companies in particular had to improve compared to Toyota and honda.

 

[Marty]

Catching up here.

Just something noteworthy - JD powers and consumer reports evaluated, tested cars/trucks for a variety of function and performance including initial quality and longer term reliability. Their sample size was one. One.

Premise, if it’s a finished product then it is indicative of all since the manufacturer has quality checks and testing in place throughout assembly.

For many many buyers it was gospel for a purchase.

initial resentment from manufacturers was rampant. A decade or so later it was a goal and honor to be on those lists.

In the end, cars got better. Manufacturers learned that they really weren’t spot on in want consumers wanted. The features yes but only if they worked, as reliable function was highly regarded.

Ha not sure we can say that about some of our trucks today though!

Ok still on page 25.

Great comment right here. Well said Sir, “if it’s a finished product then it is indicative of all since the manufacturer has quality checks and testing in place throughout assembly.”

 

[jimh406]

There are plenty of people who still don't trust Consumer Reports to decide for them what to buy. Any type of tests is always subjective. Someone has to decide what to test. Those metrics may or may not be what you want.

For instance, years ago when Toyotas/Hondas were the "best" according to Consumer Reports, many people found their feature set to be lacking. Sure, they were "reliable", but it didn't matter if you didn't like them when they were brand new.

Some people found that the Consumer Reports testing was perfect for them. Others, not so much and kept buying the unsuggested products.

 

[5811]

Catching up here.

Just something noteworthy - JD powers and consumer reports evaluated, tested cars/trucks for a variety of function and performance including initial quality and longer term reliability. Their sample size was one. One.

Premise, if it’s a finished product then it is indicative of all since the manufacturer has quality checks and testing in place throughout assembly.

For many many buyers it was gospel for a purchase.

initial resentment from manufacturers was rampant. A decade or so later it was a goal and honor to be on those lists.

In the end, cars got better. Manufacturers learned that they really weren’t spot on in want consumers wanted. The features yes but only if they worked, as reliable function was highly regarded.

Ha not sure we can say that about some of our trucks today though!

Ok still on page 25.

I think this is an awesome post. People like to compare vehicle failure rates to scopes but a vehicle has orders of magnitude more parts.

Any individual part in any number of dozens and dozens of sytems can cause a vehicle reliability problems. A scope is much, much less complex, meaning it's reliability is more design dependent than production dependent. I'm not an engineer, so I could be way off.

I look at the scopes that failed most dramatically and they have super short, sleek turrets. This is the opposite of the big ugly trash cans on swfa, or the towers on NF and Trijicon. Maybe some companies just decided they could make more money with a sleek looking, nicely featured scope than with something that maybe looks less like what their customers were used to and might put buyers off. Is there any chance it's that simple?

 

[General RE LEE]

I look at the scopes that failed most dramatically and they have super short, sleek turrets. This is the opposite of the big ugly trash cans on swfa, or the towers on NF and Trijicon. Maybe some companies just decided they could make more money with a sleek looking, nicely featured scope than with something that maybe looks less like what their customers were used to and might put buyers off. Is there any chance it's that simple?

The scopes mentioned are considerably heavier than Leupold VX5/6HD or Zeiss Conquest V4 HD. Hunters might not want a 2.5-3lb scope on top of their lightweight sporter.

 

[sndmn11]

The scopes mentioned are considerably heavier than Leupold VX5/6HD or Zeiss Conquest V4 HD. Hunters might not want a 2.5-3lb scope on top of their lightweight sporter.

40oz scopes? Which models?

 

[5811]

The scopes mentioned are considerably heavier than Leupold VX5/6HD or Zeiss Conquest V4 HD. Hunters might not want a 2.5-3lb scope on top of their lightweight sporter.

For sure. I didn't mean to say turret height is the only factor. Just a readily apparent and potentially significant design difference.

 

[General RE LEE]

40oz scopes? Which models?

Math is hard. 2 lb scopes (16ozs = lb not 12 ozs)

I'm still guzzling coffee

 

[Archer86]

No, but consumers reports did log thousands of miles from 6 months to a year of use To determine reliability. I suppose they could have built a special track of curbs, hills and pot hole abuse to condense that tho.

In my mind the drop tests attempts to replicate use over time. Same end prediction goal. Agree or not I’m not arguing - I’m in the stands in this one

They only way consumer report could do a similiar test would be to take a 2 or 3 year old toyota from a unknown location take it through the Baja 500 then start the reliability test I am willing to bet there results would differ?

You don't take a product and destructive test it then start testing normal use testing.

when something doesn't work what was it? was it the fact that something was used not as designed or the fact that it failed just from normal use the way these drop test are set up you would never know

 

[Machingeaneer]

You don't take a product and destructive test it then start testing normal use testing.

when something doesn't work what was it? was it the fact that something was used not as designed or the fact that it failed just from normal use the way these drop test are set up you would never know

If the test was intended to be destructive, wouldn't they all fail?

There's no way to argue that the tests show certain brands/models are more durable than others. How important that durability is to you is your decision. It would seem to me there's no risk to use the more durable optic other than a narrower pool to choose from?

 

[Archer86]

If the test was intended to be destructive, wouldn't they all fail?

The test is literally set up to try and make them fail yes some are more durable. But that doesn't mean they won't work for some users.

I am just saying why would you not want a baseline before doing a destructive test.

 

[fwafwow]

They only way consumer report could do a similiar test would be to take a 2 or 3 year old toyota from a unknown location take it through the Baja 500 then start the reliability test I am willing to bet there results would

The scopes tested are not always used. If limited to new in box scopes, how would that work from a practical (and funding) standpoint?

 

[Ratbeetle]

Same can be said for the ones who think the drop test is the end all be all.

I think he has a good point though why would you buy the drop tested scopes and not verify you mounted it correctly and there is no shift in the system. Since that was the reason for buying the scope they purchased.

I would bet that 90 percent of the guys that do buy a drop tested scope just mount it sight it in and off they go and the other 10 percent try to drop test and don't get the same results

Because they want an easy button. Someone said its good based on a single tested scope so it must be good...right.

A single test of one example really means nothing.

 

[5811]

Because they want an easy button. Someone said its good based on a single tested scope so it must be good...right.

A single test of one example really means nothing.

Just to be sure I'm understanding your point of view, you are asserting that scopes pass or fail based on random chance, not design/build differences?