Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Koshkin.......Drop Test Question Please.

As a respected optical engineer, would you mind commenting on Formidilosis' drop testing please.....the validity of the results, etc. Some say you've done this before, and if you'd rather provide a link to your comments please do. I'd like to see what you have to say Thanks.

His test are uncontrolled and statistically incompetent. The results are meaningless. Moreover, the conclusions he gets are statistically impossible and somewhat contradictory to some very well structured tests I have seen. That's the bad part.

The good part is that the scopes he likes to push for whatever reason are perfectly reasonable scopes and should work just as well as other scopes of similar quality. It is not like he is pushing you to buy crap.

In my personal experience, the bulk of problems with good quality scopes shifting come from mounting issues. Most optics companies do not like to tell their customers that they are [bleep] idiots and can't mount a scope, so they simply swap the scope out and take a loss.

Again, in my personal experience, I have yet to see someone in a gunstore who knows how to mount a scope properly or how to tell when there is an issue with a mount or rings. It is not hard, but seems to be well beyond a typical gunstore employee. Now, I am sure there are perfectly competent gunstore employees out there and I have not done an exhaustive survey, but I have yet to see one.

Given that most riflescopes are made by the same few OEMs, often though not always, to a very similar standard, a lot simply comes down to how much QC was paid for both at the OEM and the company's office. For my dayjob, I make some of the equipment used for this kind of stuff. Some companies take it more seriously than others, but competitive pressure is pushing almost everyone to sorta shape up (there are some exceptions; for example, I am not seeing any improvement with Arken so far).

If you want confidence, use a scope that has been out for a bit, have a backup sighted in and ready to go since anything can fail, make sure you use a torque wrench and keep good records.

If you care about zero retention, stay away from any and all QD mounts. If I wanted to setup a particular scope to increase the probability of a failed side impact test, I would put it into a QD mount.

Given that I can not release the results done by the manufacturers (lots of NDAs) and given that I do not have the means to test myself enough identical scopes for any sort of statistical data, for my own personal use I do a very simple thing to deal with infant mortality. Any scope I might go hunting with is subjected to some number of recoil cycles and then lives in the trunk of my car properly mounted on a rifle in a soft case bouncing around for a couple of weeks. If something snuck by QC, it will come out. Beyond that, you are just playing the odds. Anything can break and occasionally does.

ILya

Thank you.

I suggested to Form that a machine test could be developed to impart the same impact forces on a scope so that it would be repeatable. He was quick to dismiss the notion.

Paul;
Good afternoon sir, I hope the day down in LA is behaving and you're all well.

Regarding machine tests, that's one of the reasons I enjoy Project Farms in that he seems to take great pains to be consistent in how he gathers his data.

In a former life I did some QA stuff for the cabinet industry I was in and can say in my experience if one wasn't very, VERY consistent in how one tested, well anything really Paul, one didn't learn very much.

Whether that has any bearing on the optics conversations or not is open to discussion for sure, but that's what we found when trying to gain data in order to improve what we were making.

All the best.

Dwayne

What are the brands you find retain zero the best?

This I very much agree with. Further I think in cases where the scope may be mounted ok but the zero shift is from shifting in the rings from the impact. Any slight shift in the rings causes a pretty big poi difference in most cases. Heck even adding a bit of torque on the rings causes a shift.

Thanks for that post koshkin.

Especially enjoyed this:

“Again, in my personal experience, I have yet to see someone in a gunstore who knows how to mount a scope properly or how to tell when there is an issue with a mount or rings. It is not hard, but seems to be well beyond a typical gunstore employee. Now, I am sure there are perfectly competent gunstore employees out there and I have not done an exhaustive survey, but I have yet to see one.”

How many companies and which do you have "NDAs" with?

Could you go more into detail about the "well structured tests" you've seen? What did the tests consist of?


I'm sure you're aware that what you posted in the quote above is a small part of what Form does, correct? Are you implying that when you do it, it's valid? Or do you do it knowing it means nothing and isn't statistically meaningful?

Just as I've said before Formidilosis is full of crap


Thanks lLYA

I’ve often wondered if that is why Leupold closed up the custom shop,

Imagine people ordering custom turrets or Long range dots based on the fps from the factory box.

I work in the service industry, trust me when I say People/customers can be their own worst enemy,

A handful of people can mess up an entire system to the point that changes are necessary.

Very interesting post koshkin. The information you present seems logical to me and I doubt that even the most skilled firearms enthusiast has the means to do statistically accurate testing due to the sample size requirements. Thanks!

Machines for this exist, but are expensive. Many riflescope manufacturers use machines that do this along with live fire testing and a variety of other things that are half way between anecdotal and statistical. When they see something fail is a happy day. That means they have something to tear apart, analyze and fix.

ILya

It is most certainly not meaningful in any statistical sense. I am implying it is valid on that one scope and one scope alone. That has no bearing whatsoever on any other sample of the same product line.

I am trying to get past the period where any infant mortality issues with my specific scope might pop up to minimize the chance of catastrophic failure in the field for that one specific scope. That's it. Nothing more.

Also keep in mind that I never fudge the business with the mounts since I have no interest in making any scope look good or look bad.

As for NDAs, one of the first sentences in almost any NDA is that I am not supposed to disclose who that NDA is with.

ILya

What if you performed your own trunk test with four different samples of the same scope and all four failed to retain zero. Would you be concerned or just chalk it up to bad luck?

What does "udge the business with the mounts" mean and what are you inferring?


So you can't talk about your NDAs, but you can make accusations about others? (It's well documented you've accused form of being paid by optics companies) Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

I do not have any statistical data to share, so it is not hugely relevant to the brands themselves. Most well made scopes seem to hold up well. I tend to use pretty expensive stuff and I do not shoot ultralight boomers. Most scopes I have run into in recent years hold up just fine in my experience (i.e. the specific scopes I have tested).

For some brands, there is enough anecdotal data to suspect that there is something there: tracking issues with older Leupolds, durability with several Swaros (I have seen enough 1-6x24 Z6i scopes die at 3gun matches to think there might be something there, for example), QC issues with Arken, odd problems with older Vortex Crossfire and Diamondback HP scopes, issues with Gen1 PST scopes (they changed significantly through their production run to become pretty good in the end), etc

Most newer scopes from respectable brands seem to hold up quite well. Chinese OEMs got a LOT better at this and that put pressure on OEMs in the Phillipines and other places. Essentially, rising tide, lifts all boats.

Statistically speaking, with companies that ship large volumes, you will see more failures in terms of straight number. If, let's say 1% of a particular product is likely to fail, and one company ships 500 scopes while the other ships 5000, you will be much more likely to hear about failures from the latter. People with scopes that break are pissed and vent online. They are a lot more vocal than the ones who are out in the field with perfectly functioning scopes. However, it is the same 1% failure rate, so keep that in mind.

That's one of the problems with anecdotal data: on one hand you should not ignore it. On the other, you should not give it too much credence.

There is also always a source problem. I had one guy complain that his Razor Gen3 6-56x56 in ARC M-Brace mount is shifting zero. Pretty damn nice components. He claimed he used a torque wrench to mount it. He probably did. He had a slightly undersize picatinny rail and he bungled up the tightening sequence on the clamp. The scope was slowly and consistently shifting zero laterally. There was no way to convince him that he is an idiot and there is nothing wrong with the scope although I re-mounted everything in front of him and problems stopped. He had the manufacturer swap out the scope. Then he sold the replacement scope. It has been a bit over a year now and he still tells everyone that his Razor failed. Otherwise, he would have to admit to himself that he did something retarded and that is more than he can bring himself to do.

Or, there is a well known internet blowhard who has been telling everyone for years that multiple Razor 1-6x24 scopes have been shifting zero on him when bumped. Sounds good, except he had them in Bobro QD mounts (admittedly quite a few years ago). If you are planning to beat the crap out of your weapon system, a QD mount is usually the weak point in the system. Here is the fun part: if you ask him now, he will absolutely deny that he every used Bobro mounts. People are funny that way.

That is one of the reasons I do not spend a ton of time on durability issues and I never claim that I can do any statistical analysis. I simply do not have the ability to do that.

ILya

That was supposed to say "fudge". Typo.

Four is not enough for anything statistical, but it would be more significant than a sample of one. It would still not tell us anything about a probability of a long term problem, but it would tell us more about the possibility of an early issue or lack thereof, than looking at just one. Not a whole lot more though since it is not like I have a set off road course I drive through to replicate the exact impacts. There are always small manufacturing inconsistencies and machining marks. Sometimes simply using the scope works through that. Again, it does nothing statistical, but it is meaningful for that specific scope. I remember I once had a 5-25x56 Strike Eagle that did a weird tracking thing. My best guess is that there was a tiny machining mark on the turret contact pad. After twisting the turrets back and forth a few dozen times it went away. My best guess is that the machining mark simply wore in. Does that imply anything for the rest of the Strike Eagle scopes? Not a damn thing.

ILya

Thanks Ilya. What’s your scope mounting process? Do you bed bases, lap rings, bed scope in rings? Do you have specific bases and rings you prefer? Thanks.

I started going through different rings and mounts and keeping a catalogue of what I find. Most of what I look is bad engineering. It is surprisingly common.

In modern world, you should not have to lap anything. Bedding bases is sometimes a good idea if the receiver is not up to par. I tend to shoot rifles where none of that is required, but it can go either way. If I am messing with something old or cheap, I use Burris Signature rings of some sort. Those self aligning inserts take care of non-uniformities.

With single piece mounts, Area 419 is one of the best I have seen to date. I am very partial to Aadmount, but Jon stopped making them for now. He is really busy with his other products. Badger has been consistent in my practice. With lightweight single piece mounts, Reptilia is excellent. Horizontally split Warne rings are pretty good. Element rings seem to be well designed. There are a few others.

There are, of course, many I have not seen, so I do not have an opinion on them.

ILya

Custom shop was bound to be a can of worms. I do not know why the closed it, but I would not be surprised if this was one of the main reasons. It could also be personnel issues.

ILya