Originally Posted by prairie_goat
Originally Posted by bhoges
If the first test in my opinion was flawed why send another scope to be ruined? The scope in question was a $400 scope and I'd never throw one of my rifles to test it. If you want to buy a scope and test it be my guest. We will never be on the same page with this so the point to moot.


Your opinion is not that of many potential consumers, and Form's tests carry a lot of weight around here, whether or not you think they're valid.

What's hilarious is somehow a Nightforce survived those same tests without being "ruined". By the way, the rifle wasn't being thrown around, it was initially dropped 12" onto a padded mat, and the Tract failed that test. If you're worried about a scope being ruined by being dropped from a foot off the ground, then I don't have a lot of confidence in your interpretation of what constitutes a stoutly constructed scope. Hard use rifles see those sorts of impacts regularly.


As I've mentioned a time or two, or maybe three, that scope was a dud before the first drop, as it simply wouldn't let the rifle group to its potential. The problem I have with the drop test is that it's not consistent or repeatable, so the "geometry" of the impacts can't really be compared directly. Even in a test fixture designed to deliver such impacts different scopes would undergo different levels of stress by virtue of length, bell diameter, etc. I would expect a true tactical or military grade optic to survive a good bit, but would be surprised at a "toy tactical" like the Response taking much of a beating, aside from recoil in the expected direction like any scope should endure. Comparing a Nightforce to a Response is like pitting a Subaru Brat against a (true) Humvee. Hell, lots of so-called high-end scopes would go tits-up after a brief stint on a powerful springer airgun, yet there are scads of cheap aigun scopes that hold up just fine because they spend a couple bucks building that capability into them.

What fresh Hell is this?