Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by Magnumdood
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
You are randomly selecting a scope every time you buy one and the retailer randomly picks one off the shelf. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. If a model of scope has a failure rate of 1 in 1000 over the entire population, and you randomly select a sample of 30 test scopes, chances are high that you will see zero failures in those tests.


The point I'm trying to make is just because the first scope you pick is a dud doesn't mean you can infer that that scope and/or scope manufacturer is going to have a higher failure rate on their scopes than a manufacturer that did not yield a dud on the first scope you grab. As you note, they are all random picks, and as such each scope, dud or not, has an equal chance of being selected. If you get a dud on the first pick, it is more than likely bad luck rather than the manufacturer's bad product. Now, if a lot of people are getting duds (which according to folks who are running the Tract Optics, is not the case) on the first random selection then you have an argument for poor manufacturing/quality and poor QC.

This is my point. Every single “dud” you test is statistically meaningful, and the more duds you have, the more statistically meaningful they become. Not enough legitimate, 3rd-party testing of Tract scopes has taken place yet to have any statistically meaningful information about their correct functioning and longevity.

I’d disagree about a single dud being more likely bad luck than indicative of the failure rate of the product. That depends on the failure rate of the population of the product. If the failure rate is 50%, then you getting a single failure is not just a case of bad luck, but is indicative of the probability of getting a dud. In that case, you are as likely to get a dud as a good scope. But if the failure rate is 1 in 1,000,000, then getting a dud is indeed a case of very bad luck.



Send me a scope and I will pass it around to 5 or 6 of my friends and when we are done I'll send it to Form to be tested. Seriously I am beginning to wonder why you leave so many variables out of the mathematical equation........not to mention, your numbers are far from reality or real world results to begin with.

Form himself said his Test was invalid at best. I'm surprised he even waisted his time doing the test knowing the scope had been God knows where and who knows what was done. Hell, maybe I had the scope and I performed my throw it at the freight train test and it didn't pass.

Do you seriously think Forms test had any degree of validity to it given the previous history of the scope in question??? Form stated as a matter of fact that his test had no validity whatsoever and I take his word at that.

You seem to be trying to give validity to a test that the expert you keep referring to said had zero validity. The argument doesn't seem logical nor the course of wisdom.

You used to make some of the most logical arguments around here......that is until you decided the smear and complain crowd had something to offer you and thus decided to follow them around in support of ill ideology.

Bad Association spoils useful habits






Trystan

Last edited by Trystan; 06/23/18.
Good bullets properly placed always work, but not everyone knows what good bullets are, or can reliably place them in the field