Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Tract Toric drop test part deux

Sam inspired me. Same scope, Tract Toric 2-10x42. Rings are Seekins 1", base is a talley (flat). Rifle and scope took a tumble last Saturday so I had to check zero. Zero was good at 100 so the drop this past week didn't hurt it. Backed up to 200 and dialed elevation and shot a quick group for reference. Circled the group and took a pic of it for reference....the original pic wasn't needed. I dropped it from chest height 3 times (directly on the scope) then fired 3 shots from 200 yards. .....I should have used a bigger target post drop. May be a lot to ask of a scope....I'm not sure what's fair to ask of one. Plan to mount a SWFA 6x42 on it in a couple of days and do the same test.

Chest height, directly on the scope:




Results:

Thanks for doing that test. A simple drop ain't looking good for the Toric.

It made it through a sling swivel popping and it dropping from my back down a pretty good slope last weekend. It held 0 through that...but not to good on this. It was a good 5' drop, 3 times, directly on the scope where the scope took the majority of the impact. I don't know if that's fair to ask of a scope or not.

This particular impact must have something to do with these radical shifts in zero. Hopefully this will lead to more transparency regarding internal mechanical schemes and their various strengths and weaknesses.

Those were some solid knocks. Not surprised it shifted POI.

It really would be nice if you could count on a scope to hold zero after a few blows like that. I’d love to see more of the internals on the known commodities like NF/SWFA SS/LRHS compared to most others that seemingly have issues with accurate and repeatable adjustments and zero retention.

Everybody who expects a rifle scope--any rifle scope-- and the mounts/rings to perform flawlessly after being dropped directly on the ground three times please raise their hand...............

Please stop. It hurts to watch. I would expect any scoped rifle to lose zero if you dropped it three times. I would check the zero, action screws and mounts of any rifle if it just fell over. This is a test for which you could write the report before you did the test.

The military does drop tests but it is for equipment in their packaging if the packaged equipment is dropped during transport.

What bothers me is that there are no standards in all this testing. Pick a scope that is regarded as good, compare other scopes of varying price ranges and roles to that one and pronounce it a success or failure.

I am from an industry that delivers defense communications that absolutely have to work under military usage. They are designed and built to a specification, including an environmental specification, usually the latest variation of MIL-STD-810. This specifies required performance under environmental conditions of shock and vibration in a temperature range of subzero to intense heat. The radios are designed and tested to this standard, then qualified for production. Part of the production run is a burn-in test after they are built, where they are operated in a continuous duty cycle in an environmental test chamber, called a "shake and bake". For some radios build for fast mover fighter aircraft, the second most severe standard after space, the burn-in lasts seven days. You get a yield of radios for delivery after completion of the burn-in and the failed radios are scrapped. The tests identify all the latent defects, electronic and mechanical. before delivery. The radios that pass come with a two year warranty (you can buy more but at some point the cost of the warranty matches the price of a new radio.) The ability to ramp up production is limited by the number of shake and bake chambers you have as capital equipment.

Specs for the ground environment aren't as severe in many ways but have their own challenges. Vehicle mounted communications are often required to pass a "Munson road" test during development. If you ever had a Munson last in a boot, same officer.

I don't see any of that here. You are pretty haphazardly conducting impromptu tests to unspecified standards of which the manufacturers had no knowledge of when they developed the scopes of varying price ranges and capabilities.

I could not find a MIL-Spec for scopes. Except for the Unertl 10x built for the Marines, most military scopes are commercial-off-the-shelf and the ones I looked up (Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender) don't discuss performance under shock and vibration other than the act of firing a cartridge.

If you want the same level of required performance as mil-spec electronics, you will first need a military specification, including specifying such things as shock and impact from the side and drop against earth, rocks or concrete from a specified height in measurable terms (metrics). Vendors that wanted to meet this standard would develop scopes to it and qualify them. For best performance, you would run the finished scopes through a shake-and-bake and deliver the ones that passed. Let me make a prediction. You are now no longer talking a $300 scope, a $1000 scope or even a $2000 scope. I think you are talking about a $10,000 scope. If you think this is outlandish, look at the AN/PSQ-23A STORM-PI. Small Tactical Optical Rifle Mounted-Product Improved (STORM-PI) which is a weapon mounted laser designator. The improved version in lots of 1000 runs about $9700 each. Compare that to a COTS laser range finder.

I'm thinking that's a bit much to expect of anything short of mil-spec, and maybe even of that. If the impacts were from the side, the four dinky mount scews might easily have failed.

I'm waiting for somebody to try running over one with a Monster Truck, or maybe just shoot it.

Hurry up with the SS test!

For that matter, I had a SS 10x42. I was removing the Butler Creek on the objective, when I noticed the lens shade rotating with the cover, coming loose as the cover was removed. I decided to remove it to see what the scope looked like without the lens shade. It wasn't the lens shade. It was the entire objective lens assembly. This scope had a design that allowed the objective lens to loosen after which you could disassemble the scope with much less pressure than you mount an action screw or scope ring. That's not very much mechanical integrity. I threw it away as so much junk.

I don't care what the adjustments do as you twist turrets which I will never do, I will take a scope with a one piece tube or even a two piece tube joined at the turret any day over that design.

Its been done, this one was supposedly from a 7.62x39 from the sandbox...

The solidger used that scope for several days after being shot and it still worked. I’ve looked through that scope b

Thanks for sharing Cubic.

For the record, I don't think those impacts are that severe. Myself and others that hunt the PNW coast, Cascades, and even eastern regions have numerous stories of scopes/rifles hitting the ground harder. Sometimes on rocks and logs. In fact, a good buddy went down face first with the rifle and scope hitting a large rock this past Saturday. The scope and DNZ mount have marks to prove it. He went to the range on Sunday to check zero. All was well.

Jason

Jason, what scope was it wearing?

kingston,

The scope that my buddy smacked on a rock was a Viper 3-9x, on a T3 Tikkler in 7mm Rem Mag. Scope has survived hundreds and hundreds of rounds. I've seen the shooter/rifle/load/scope consistently shoot well out to 600 yards using the dotz/lines, for the past several years. To be honest, I thought the scope would have died a long time ago but it keeps on chugging along.

Previous scope was a 3-9x VXII that wouldn't hold zero. It went back to Leupo, but they never fixed it. Sent it back again, and asked a contact to make sure it was mounted on a rifle and shot. They confirmed that it wouldn't hold zero and sent a new one. Buddy gave up on Leupold, sold the new scope ASAP, and bought the Viper from Doug/Neil for a great price.

I've got a theory about some of those old Viper designs and why they hold zero, but don't know if it holds water.

Jason

Yep, it's not specific or measurable...but I think it's applicable. I don't know what's fair to expect of a scope but I'm going to learn. I'm going to test a $300 scope in the same way and see how it does. I think you're incorrect on the scope cost. It appears Nightforce does a pretty good test and can be purchased for less than $2000:

Patience grasshopper... It will be Friday at the earliest, most likely Sunday.

That part of the SS design has always bothered me. Another member posted about unknowingly disassembling it and having to call SWFA. Probably one of the reasons they can be produced at a lower cost....but if it holds up, what can I complain about....

I hear what you guys are saying but comparing any scope to NF isn't fair. Your talking about a $2500 MIL SPEC unit. That's like comparing a 911 to an Escort. I have scopes from NF, Vortex, Zeiss, Swarovski and Steiner all high end units. I bet most of them wouldn't fair that good unless there were MIL SPEC. I'm curious myself now. I know my GEN 2 Razor is tough I've dropped mine a few times but that thing is a tank.

Most Nightforce scopes are a good bit less than $2500, starting at $800ish, and "milspec" is an abused term that has taken on a whole new meaning. Nightforce scopes are just made right and I can't wait to see what they keep bringing to the market.

If Nightforce is out there, (cough, SHV F1 5-20X50 w/ illuminated MIL-C, cough)