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

[Billy Goat]

For some reason, this feels appropriate content now.

 

[Ratbeetle]

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?

I'm suggesting that a single test of a single scope tells you nothing other than how that particular scope performs. You can't infer that one model or manufacturer is better or worse than another based on one test. It's not statiscally significant in any way whatsoever.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I'm suggesting that a single test of a single scope tells you nothing other than how that particular scope performs. You can't infer that one model or manufacturer is better or worse than another based on one test. It's not statiscally significant in any way whatsoever.

To quote @Shraggs again..."if it’s a finished product then it is indicative of all since the manufacturer has quality checks and testing in place throughout assembly."

 

[atmat]

For some reason, this feels appropriate content now.

That’s such a great commercial. I miss when commercials were good.

 

[5811]

I'm suggesting that a single test of a single scope tells you nothing other than how that particular scope performs. You can't infer that one model or manufacturer is better or worse than another based on one test. It's not statiscally significant in any way whatsoever.

Okay, but let me counter that a bit if I may.

Let's say I need a new truck, and it has to tow my camper. If I try that with light truck like a tacoma or a ranger, I'm burning something up. If I get a half ton v8 with a towing package, it does it without any drama. It was built to do that, where the light model was not designed or built in the same way. Do I need to burn the powertrain out of 30 consecutive light trucks to have statistically valid results?

Or is it in the design goals of one vs the other? One is designed to be lighter and more efficient and easier to use, and that works for a lot of users. That's not what the test is about. The test is to determine which models are built and tested with those capabilities.

It is not a test designed to determine the best model for everyone's use case. It is not a test that tells everyone what to buy. It is a test that says, if you require this capability, these are the models that provide it.

 

[JGRaider]

Okay, but let me counter that a bit if I may.

Let's say I need a new truck, and it has to tow my camper. If I try that with light truck like a tacoma or a ranger, I'm burning something up. If I get a half ton v8 with a towing package, it does it without any drama. It was built to do that, where the light model was not designed or built in the same way. Do I need to burn the powertrain out of 30 consecutive light trucks to have statistically valid results?

Or is it in the design goals of one vs the other? One is designed to be lighter and more efficient and easier to use, and that works for a lot of users. That's not what the test is about. The test is to determine which models are built and tested with those capabilities.

It is not a test designed to determine the best model for everyone's use case. It is not a test that tells everyone what to buy. It is a test that says, if you require this capability, these are the models that provide it.

That's all well and good, but it always morphs into "your scope failed the drop test so it can't possibly work worth a crap for anyone, anywhere", in spite of many, many people proving it can and does, through actual use.

 

[Billy Goat]

That’s such a great commercial. I miss when commercials were good.

I enjoy the mayhem commercials.

I'll pause and backup just to watch them.
However, overall it seems the creativity in advertising has left. At least for television advertising. The social media advertising is probably way more creative and it's hidden to the extent that we frequently don't recognize it as advertising.

 

[5811]

That's all well and good, but it always morphs into "your scope failed the drop test so it can't possibly work worth a crap for anyone, anywhere", in spite of many, many people proving it can and does, through actual use.

I agree. But it's worth keeping things in line on both sides, just like saying the test tells you nothing is hyperbolic.

 

[General RE LEE]

That’s such a great commercial. I miss when commercials were good.

That's because everything now has to be prescreened by a team that looks for anything that may be offensive. We have become a humorless culture.

 

[JGRaider]

I agree. But it's worth keeping things in line on both sides, just like saying the test tells you nothing is hyperbolic.

Agree as well. The test tells you that particular scope, with those particular mounts, torqued to that particular setting, on that particular rifle, passed, or not.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

That's all well and good, but it always morphs into "your scope failed the drop test so it can't possibly work worth a crap for anyone, anywhere", in spite of many, many people proving it can and does, through actual use.

What about the numerous threads of scopes being used that won’t hold zero, don’t track reliably, and constant zero wandering. Isn’t that an issue as well?

 

[JGRaider]

What about the numerous threads of scopes being used that won’t hold zero, don’t track reliably, and constant zero wandering. Isn’t that an issue as well?

Yep. If guiding 160+ hunters over the years is any indication, the majority of folks don't shoot well enough, or understand wind well enough to know if it's shooter error or equipment error.

 

[Ratbeetle]

To quote @Shraggs again..."if it’s a finished product then it is indicative of all since the manufacturer has quality checks and testing in place throughout assembly."

Lol. If you say so. It's a mechanical device and anything can happen. A sample of 1 means nothing. But by all means. You do you.

 

[Shraggs]

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

You must be referring to that knife guy Knoss who destroyed knives. Have never seen a destructive test on rokslide.

Agree with the methodology or not I wouldn’t miss characterize the tests. Maybe contact form and Ryan directly to be sure you are fair, or read and quote the protocol.

The point JG made (just this one ) is spot on. The scope judgement is subject to poor mounting and it’s relevant. But also believe that is documented at nausea in those threads.

 

[fwafwow]

Lots of letting perfect be the enemy of the good in here, and making red herring arguments up (like the tested scopes are all 2-3 years old). A sample of zero means nothing. A sample of one means more than a sample of zero. What value you personally attribute to a sample of one is up to you.

Part of the arguing back and forth is because the industry has set up this debate. If you insist on a statistically valid sample size, you are merely pointing out that the manufacturers hold all of the power (funding). If they did any sort of basic testing, they are not showing it. If I'm mistaken, please point me to any information on any scope manufacturer that is testing for reliability. I can't even find much on the testing done on recoil testing (apart from some brief YT video).

 

[Pickettpuncher]

Yep. If guiding 160+ hunters over the years is any indication, the majority of folks don't shoot well enough, or understand wind well enough to know if it's shooter error or equipment error.

I won’t argue that point, but some can and expect their equipment to function properly. Hunting it probably doesn’t show as much and could be excused as excitement, but shooting in general and it’s a much different atmosphere.

 

[Elmer J. Fudd]

For some reason, this feels appropriate content now.

I was always a fan of the Loch Ness monster one as well.

 

[5811]

Agree as well. The test tells you that particular scope, with those particular mounts, torqued to that particular setting, on that particular rifle, passed, or not.

All true. I think its important to note that scopes don't pass on accident. The scopes that pass are made by companies that engineer and test with that level of durability in mind. It's not because of some unique set of conditions, it's by design.

 

[Ratbeetle]

Okay, but let me counter that a bit if I may.

Let's say I need a new truck, and it has to tow my camper. If I try that with light truck like a tacoma or a ranger, I'm burning something up. If I get a half ton v8 with a towing package, it does it without any drama. It was built to do that, where the light model was not designed or built in the same way. Do I need to burn the powertrain out of 30 consecutive light trucks to have statistically valid results?

Or is it in the design goals of one vs the other? One is designed to be lighter and more efficient and easier to use, and that works for a lot of users. That's not what the test is about. The test is to determine which models are built and tested with those capabilities.

It is not a test designed to determine the best model for everyone's use case. It is not a test that tells everyone what to buy. It is a test that says, if you require this capability, these are the models that provide it.

I get what you're trying to say but I don't think it's a very good analogy to these scope tests. The fact is that hundreds if not thousands of people have burned up those light duty trucks doing exactly what you described, that's how we know it's a bad idea to put a 10000lb load on a ranger powertrain. For analogy to be equivalent, you'd need more data.

All I'm saying is that one example does not make a statisically important revelation. The tested scope could be an anomaly...or not. But 1 test doesn't tell you anything about the toughness of a line of scopes, it just doesn't. I'm not sure how that's controversial.

If a guy wants to buy or not buy based on a single internet test that they weren't present for, go for it. It's not my money.

 

[sndmn11]

If a guy wants to buy or not buy based on a single internet test that they weren't present for, go for it. It's not my money.

That's the point of people doing this on their own, with their own stuff, and their own shooting skill. I think it is pretty eye opening to take scope A, B, and C on the same day, same procedure, same rifle, same ammo, same shooter, etc., and see how they differ in their results.

It also shouldn't cause damage to anything and I think the evidence to that is when some scope brands have inspected their scopes afterward and said all is well.

This is where I get hung up on folks from both sides of the topic. Just go test your stuff and see what you learn rather than typing about it.