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

[atmat]

But let's just say a 1% failure rate on 100000 units versus 1% on 10000 units. 900 more chances to end up with a bad unit. They have the same failure rate so is one bad or do you just have a greater chance at that 1%.

You don't end up with "more chances to end up with a bad unit." That's not how probability works. You still have exactly the 1% chance (i.e., probability) of ending up with the bad unit.

Let's say you have 100 balls in a bag, of which 1 is blue. If you reach in and randomly grab one, you have a 1% chance of grabbing blue.

Now let's say you have 1,000 balls in a bag, of which 10 are blue. If you reach in and randomly grab one, you have a 1% chance of grabbing blue.

Yes, there are 10x more blue balls in the larger bag. But there are also 10x more non-blue balls.

 

[Tod osier]

But let's just say a 1% failure rate on 100000 units versus 1% on 10000 units.

100% failure rate on 1 or 100 is 100%.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Yes, there are 10x more blue balls in the larger bag. But there are also 10x more non-blue balls.

Blue balls?

 

[Mule3006Elk]

I have my regimen for verifying turrets, adjustments, return to zero, etc. Never drop tested my scope. Not a horrible idea. I have tripped/fell a few times. I hunt back country. Might be nice to know my scope can take a beating and still hold zero, not for my sake, but for an ethical shot.

 

[atmat]

You're correct. Poor phrasing on my part.

No worries. So then the “factor in volume” argument falls apart, as we’re dealing with probabilities.

Which goes back to the initial principle:

• Single drop tests are better at identifying poorly-designed scopes than they are at proving the best-designed scopes

 

[Tod osier]

Sure, I'll concede that point. You changed my mind. And while your initial principle stands, that doesn't mean these tests are actually good at identifying poorly designed scopes.

I do believe volume matters but perhaps not in the way I initially thought.

The test is excellent for identifying poorly designed scopes.

You may not like the answer, but the mental gymnastics you are going through to try to convince yourself and others is telling.

 

[Tod osier]

Wow, I'm convinced. Great argument!

sometimes people have to hear they are wrong from multiple people for them to pause and think about something.

 

[atmat]

Sure, I'll concede that point. You changed my mind.

Honestly, it's so rare online to have someone concede a point and be open to having their mind changed. Big kudos to you for real.

And while your initial principle stands, that doesn't mean these tests are actually good at identifying poorly designed scopes.

Yeah, the two principles have to be accepted in tandem to find value in the drop tests. I personally think a few drops from moderate height on a thick pad, as well as driving around in the back of a truck, are sufficient to determine if your scope will lose zero during basic use. But others may disagree on that.

 

[fwafwow]

Honestly, it's so rare online to have someone concede a point and be open to having their mind changed. Big kudos to you for real.

Ditto and bravo for @Ratbeetle. I almost memed (I got distracted) something along the lines of "You won the internet today" because people rarely admit mistakes or concede even a point.

 

[wyosam]

No worries. So then the “factor in volume” argument falls apart, as we’re dealing with probabilities.

Which goes back to the initial principle:

• Single drop tests are better at identifying poorly-designed scopes than they are at proving the best-designed scopes

Proving reliability is hard, but I think a scope is more likely to fail this test based on an anomaly/one off, than one is to pass by an anomaly.

Having one slip through quality control that wasn’t put together quite right sounds reasonable. Having one slip though that was a rare example of quality seems less likely.

I do think there are a lot of scopes out there that provide good service for people (including me) that haven’t done well on these tests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JF_Idaho]

I know Leupold in their own words have said that if you spin the turrets and return to zero it should "return to zero". Has this been invalidated? (I apologize for not going back and reading 8000 pages of 35 threads).

Sincerely just wondering if there is any variation in the results from such practice.

 

[wyosam]

I know Leupold in their own words have said that if you spin the turrets and return to zero it should "return to zero". Has this been invalidated? (I apologize for not going back and reading 8000 pages of 35 threads).

Sincerely just wondering if there is any variation in the results from such practice.

The two that I have owned meant to dial (both VX6hd 2-12) have dialed reliably and returned to zero reliably for the few years I used them. Neither was dialed extensively or to the ends of the travel- one was spun to ~9 moa rarely, generally more in the 5moa range for both. That is not the experience of a lot of people it seems. I trusted them until I spent a bunch of time reading scope threads on rokslide, because they never gave me a reason not to. Be warned, these threads are not budget friendly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xyzzy]

I'm a newbie.

I found this forum while searching the Internet for scope reviews.

I "invested" a few hours reading a bunch of threads, and stumbled upon the drop-testing stuff.

To be blunt, I had no idea scopes could be unreliable. I assumed a more expensive scope had more features or had a better view.

My time and money are valuable to me. Especially my time.

In the end, my time invested in learning about scope reliability, and the fact that I'm going to purchase a scope with a passing drop test record, and the fact that I now know I have to test my setup should, in the end, save me time and money, even though the initial outlay in both time and money will be higher.

Something to consider is that many people read forums and never post. Maybe a lot more than you would expect.

Posting useful and true information matters. IDGAF about how someone "feels" about something or whether or not their identity is tied to something. I do care about solid facts. In all areas of my life the simple application of basic scientific principles has made everything easier and more tolerable.

I am very grateful for this information, so thank you!

 

[crich]

The new Leupold thread got me thinking. A person says their Leupold works fine for their purpose and someone else just cant let it go. Why?

Ever seen the movie mean girls? Thats why.

 

[GreyBeck]

I fell gong down a hill this year with rifle in hand. While falling I pulled my rifle up so as not to fall on it and screw up my gun/optic. It was fine. But I’d rather worry about my skull next time. I appreciate the drop tests as imperfect as they may be.

 

[Bluumoon]

I'm a newbie.

I found this forum while searching the Internet for scope reviews.

I "invested" a few hours reading a bunch of threads, and stumbled upon the drop-testing stuff.

To be blunt, I had no idea scopes could be unreliable. I assumed a more expensive scope had more features or had a better view.

My time and money are valuable to me. Especially my time.

In the end, my time invested in learning about scope reliability, and the fact that I'm going to purchase a scope with a passing drop test record, and the fact that I now know I have to test my setup should, in the end, save me time and money, even though the initial outlay in both time and money will be higher.

Something to consider is that many people read forums and never post. Maybe a lot more than you would expect.

Posting useful and true information matters. IDGAF about how someone "feels" about something or whether or not their identity is tied to something. I do care about solid facts. In all areas of my life the simple application of basic scientific principles has made everything easier and more tolerable.

I am very grateful for this information, so thank you!

I landed here after a rifle system failure. Glad I did. I bought into the Rokslide "system" but didn't commit to proofing my own sh*t initially. That has been an interesting next step. I would encourage you to set up a system as described and then test it for yourself, maybe start with an appropriate surface though unlike what I did at first.

 

[lawstudent]

I finally got around to the drop testing on the Athlon Helos BTR 2-12 that seemed infamous and now find 30+ pages of discussion here, too much to read, just wanted to say the drop testing in my opinion is awesome and necessary. My question is this - is there a link or spreadsheet chart that shows which scope/brands actually pass and which ones consistently fail the drop test. Is there a way to view ALL drop test quickly?

 

[sndmn11]

I finally got around to the drop testing on the Athlon Helos BTR 2-12 that seemed infamous and now find 30+ pages of discussion here, too much to read, just wanted to say the drop testing in my opinion is awesome and necessary. My question is this - is there a link or spreadsheet chart that shows which scope/brands actually pass and which ones consistently fail the drop test. Is there a way to view ALL drop test quickly?

No

 

[jimh406]

Drop testing would only be reliable if you tested hundreds of each scope models and variations for each brand in exactly the same conditions, and even in that case the conditions need to match what you expect to do with the scope/rifle of the same weight, same drop distance, etc. A single pass doesn't mean the next subject wouldn't fail. It's better than nothing.

Obviously, that's not going to happen. So, drop your scope if you want. It might prove it's ok, or enough of a jar to make it fail on the next drop. Relative to other types of testing done repeatedly, it's a data point in time.

I may be wrong, but I'm not a believer.

 

[Marbles]

Talking about parrots, being as I'm in the "parrot" category per this thread (unless I'm mixing it up with another hold a lighter to your own balls thread), it would be really nice if people stopped parroting things about statistics and testing in a way that shows they don't fully understand either.

It is also interesting, in a thread that harped on testing ones own gear to now see doing so criticized as "just" one data point.

I'm pretty sure, again if remembering correctly, this post also means I broke the stated goal of not posting again in this thread. We all need to flick a cigarette butt on a dry field sometimes, what can I say.