Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Form's Drop Tests

The Athlon thread got derailed and it's a topic that interests a lot of people, so I thought I'd break the discussion out into its own thread and try to let the Atlhon thread run as an Athlon thread.

There are no shortage of Form felching cultists who hang on his every word and test, summarily and evangelically dismissing scopes that fail his tests. Some are regulars here. Lots more over on Rokslide. One thing we can say for certain is that if a scope pass his tests, it's a robust scope, and that's where the true value in his test lies. I'll say too that Form definitely knows his stuff and gets stuff done. He's far from full of schidt.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of game animals killed in this country are killed by guns bearing scopes that his tests destroy. How does that happen? Well, most people don't drop their guns. I hunted the mountains in Kodiak pretty hard for the three years that I was there. I never dropped a gun. I've leaned guns up against trees for all of the 45 years I have hunted. I have never knocked one over. I've climbed trees with a gun banging around on the stand and ridden rough roads on an ATV to get to the stand. Every time I put the plus sign on an animal and pull the trigger, it dies. I guess most people are able to kill the animals that they shoot at because they don't drop their guns.

I suppose it's possible that if I were shooting 500 plus yards out west that I may have noticed some issues, but I'm not, and neither are most people killing animals.

A more useful test for me would be putting one in an ATV gun rack and running it several miles down a washboard road. Then putting it in an el cheapo soft gun case and strapping it to an ATV gun rack for several miles. That's the extent of the abuse most scopes see.

Form has reported zero shift from some scopes riding on the seat of a pickup truck. That's certainly concerning.

In these discussions, I also see people comment as if good glass with good features is inconsequential. Nope, not at all. That is important. A person can have great glass and features on a scope that doesn't stand up to purposeful abuse, but works perfectly as a game-getter or match winner.

I'd also like to see him develop an objective standard for low light performance. Like can I sort out the hardware on the deer's head and make out the crease in the shoulder, one minute before legal shooting time ends, in dark woods on a cloudy night. For those of us east of the Mississippi, that's more important than ability to withstand abuse.

Put me in the camp that thinks his tests are interesting and they have some value, but there are a lot of good scopes in use, reliably taking game and winning shooting competitions that don't fare well in his tests. In summary, for me, a Form test failure does not equal do not buy. A Form test pass equals a tough scope.

So, before you start felating Form in a thread, remember reality.

That's a very fair assessment Paul. Most people don't abuse their rifles or scopes. I've had scope failures with no abuse, including multiple Leupolds, multiple Burris, and one Vortex.

An example I can think of that still blows my mind is an old acquaintance that got a Sauer bolt action 270 when he was young. I think he may have gotten it as a reward for selling newspapers or candybars or some schit, I forget the story now. Anyway, it came with a Bushnell Sportview scope. He hunted deer and elk with that crappy $40 Bushnell for decades. When I helped him work up a load for that rifle it shot a half inch with Nosler bullets. By all accounts, it should have schit the bed the second day he had it.

I hear people that swear their Tasco scope has been flawless.

It seems like the set it and forget it crowd has much better odds at getting away with a cheapo scope than someone who twists. That would no doubt trip up many a scope that otherwise serves fine for the average guy.


Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

It's a fascinating constant,that the Crying Kchunts who "do" the least,bitch the most. Paula never misses an opportunity to reiterate her Do Nothingness and her annual tally of spent cases,wouldn't fill a TicTac dispenser. Hint.



Fhuqking LAUGHING!..............

The problem I tend to have with "before legal shooting time ends" is - that's different for everyone. State to state.

Also - your eye's general health factors a lot into that. What you see at 6:55 pm is different than what I see at 6:55 pm - handling the same exact scope on the rifle as we sit next to one another. I just don't put a ton of faith in what people report on that particular point. I have to see it for myself.

That said - I don't worship the altar of Form or Ilya or others. I do know tho - if Stick tells me a scope is robust, it's likely robust enough for me, same as you said about passing Form's tests.

I wonder if there's a touch of a generational shift going on too.

People I know who really started hunting and did a lot of it prior to the 90's - they had a deer rifle. They hunted with it. They might bang paper once in a while but not all the time. A POA shift was unlikely to be noticed because ranges weren't long and round counts were low for the year.

Today - I think people do a lot more shooting. That is the "average guy" burns more powder today vs the "average guy" in 1981. There's more PRS, tactical games, 3 Gun etc. More shooters back then but they did less shooting overall.

So today - a guy has a game rifle they use to hunt with rather than a hunting rifle they use for games. Because the range is longer today, the round counts are higher today - failures are more readily noticed and the heartburn begins on the forums. Attitude seems to shift too. "Damned scope/barrel/ammo puked. I lost out. Wasn't my day" to today's "I paid 8 dollars for a scope and it's not perfect, I paid 2 dollars for ammo and it's not perfect, I paid 10 dollars for this barrel and it's not perfect" - I want my pound of flesh damn it!!! Everyone assumes that chit don't happen and when it does - class action lawsuit time vs the past where it was understood - chit happens, adapt/overcome and move on.

It was interesting watching a few flock to Formidwhatever when he was posting here, from optics to one clown latching on to his 10 shot group phase hoping for recognition from Form.

This is the Information age and if a person takes it all in, you can make pretty informed decisions.

Paul;
Top of the morning to you from the smoke filled south Okanagan, I trust that all is well in your world down there.

It's an interesting thread topic in my view, especially on a forum with members from all over the globe who will conceivably subject their gear to much different conditions.

While I did hunt in Kenya a long, LONG time ago, most of my experience with firearms use has been either Saskatchewan during the first 1/3 of my life or here in the mountains of BC for the second 2/3.

As well before diving into any observations based on my admittedly limited and arguably parochial experience, I'll agree with my cyber friend Teal that I think a lot of you all do a lot more shooting than I do, or ever will - or even know anyone who will. Component availability, costs and time are part of it that equation.

Out here I've seen more scopes banged up by quads/ATV's than anything else. For that matter I've repaired two stocks which were snapped in pieces during quad hunting "events" as well.

When we got into horses back in the day, I was amazed at how fast they'd loosen up all sorts of stuff on a rifle. Again that's on rocky trails in the mountains so maybe that's a factor as well? Likely?

Friends who live in the north tell me if one isn't careful transporting rifles in a jet boat they can get pretty banged up. We see some of the jet boats with a fair sized winch up on the front so they must be fairly serious about getting to wherever it is they want to go.

I've never had a scope get knocked out of zero back packing, despite using a Trapper Nelson type pack for years which had all sorts of protrusions to gently massage the rifle and scope being used.

While I've never dropped a rifle that I can recall, I do know that there were at least a handful of times over the decades in the mountains that I went down hard and landed on the rifle. None of those times injured anything other than my pride that I can recall.

Lastly for me there was a definite age I hit where the overall weight of the rifle became a much bigger deal. For sure I'm no giant either Paul, but I can recall a little 6 hour hike looking for elk, mulies and whitetail where I decided on hour 4 that the Ruger No. 1 wasn't coming along on extended trips again. That was in my 50's and now that my age starts with a 6 I pay even more attention to the total weight of the gear, rifle included.

Anyways, just a few random thoughts from an even more random Canuck this morning.

All the best.

Dwayne

Form posts over at Rokslide now? His superhuman backpack hunting tales were always amusing.

He draws both his cultists and his affirmation seekers. Not slagging on Form, but damn, people should be embarrassed.

You certainly should. Hint.



Fhuqking LAUGHING!............

I don't do a lot of shooting or hunting. I have and I hope to in the future, it's just not where life has me right now. I suspect I am fairly representative of a HUGE slice of the hunting public. That's precisely why I can get perfectly good service from scopes that fail Form's tests.

Now that you mention falling with your gun, there were a few times in Kodiak where I slipped or otherwise lost my footing while hiking at port arms. My gun/scope took some of that impact, but never the full force.

Always good to hear from you Dwayne.

Absolutely agree. I, like most people, work a full time job and have a family. I can’t waste time or money with stuff that doesn’t work. Are there scopes that don’t pass his tests that would work for me? Undoubtedly. But if a $300-600 scope passes his test and it’s features work well for me, that’s an easy choice.


There’s some bias in this statistic though. While it is easy to estimate how many animals are killed every year through mandated reporting systems, no one is tracking how many animals are missed or wounded (at least not here in KY). Is that number substantial? I don’t know. I do, however, know how I can minimize my own risk of missing or wounding an animal - by using equipment with with low risk of failure; and I do know that I’ve had less trouble out of scopes since I started using optics that are built for reliability first.

I don’t know Form, never spoken to the man in my life. But I’ve found value in his tests. YMMV.

Yeah, we'll never know how many are missed or wounded and why. It is possible to determine if it was the scope or the shooter after a miss by verifying zero from the bench. In the past when I have seen this done, it has always been the shooter or a shooter trusting a bore sighting. I am shocked by how often hunters will hunt with an Academy Sports bore sighted rig.

You are right on the money about the "why not" of buying one that his tests have shown to be durable. If it checks the features and price box and has passed his test, why not?

Another important fact is that, judging from too many to count range sessions over the past few decades, there are just as many hunters and shooters who can't shoot for squat no matter what equipment they use. They also don't know squatola about how wind affects bullets even at 100 yds, and just as many are clueless as to scope mounting, torquing, etc. Also, if anyone ever dropped or bashed their scope in the manner Form does while hunting, the first thing anyone with half a brain will do is check zero and re-zero if necessary.

His test results are "interesting", I'll concede.

I own quite a few scoped rifles, but I have to travel hours to hunt with them. I shoot them some, but hunt with them little. Nonetheless, I've never had any issues with any brand, save one, holding zero whether it's a .22 or a .300 win mag. But admittedly, I don't shoot them that much. At least as much as my shotguns. I live in shotgun land and hunt mostly with slugs and buckshot. I've scoped a lot of slug guns and a few turkey guns. I've used Bushnell/Bausch and Lomb, Burris, Weaver, Redfield, Leupold, Nikon, Trijicon and probably some others I've forgotten, and despite being mounted on guns that recoil harder than most centerfires anyone in North America would use, I've never had one wander off zero after being set, except for Burris.

Those scope tests on Rokslide are interesting to me, but that's it. I'll draw my own conclusions. I'm not going to live vicariously through that guy and accept his conclusions as holy. There is no substitute for one's own experience.

Saying that form is the first and last word in optics is, stretching it big time. I think he greatly exaggerates his experience. I uncovered this when he claims 100k rounds shot and then posts a tikka with a factory barrel still on it. I agree with him on some things not all.

As for recoil and drop tests. It’s very early but I was able to use a lapping bar and lap a set of scope rings that allows me to only use the bottom ring halves to allow me to set the scope in and out of them and still get it to RTZ. this meant I was able to drop the scope, bang it against my palm etc and put it back in the fixed lower ring halves and check for shift on a tall target. I have checked a meopta optika 5 and a swaro z5. Neither I could get to shift zero. Short of actually damaging the scope. The meopta I could feel the erector compressing against the inner scope tube when doing a 9 o clock hit into my hand palm. It was actually compressing the erector spring and letting the erector slap internally. Basically a pretty darn violent impact. It’s would hurt my hand lol. Still it would not shift zero when checked in the ring saddles.

This is only 2 scopes but I personally think a lot of the zero shifting from drops people are seeing is from the scope shifting in the rings themselves rather than an internal issue. Of course this is when the scope isn’t broken which does happen. I have had my cz 527 dropped hard twice to cause zero shifts, falling out of the truck and falling over onto a hard floor. The scope isn’t broken and holds zero once it’s rezeroed again. I can only chalk it to movement in the rings.

cumsincowboys,

I remember reading the HILARITY of your Retardation,as that ALL sailed over your pointy head. Biden would have done a far better job of "understanding". Dig it up and dangle it,along with your hose clamp playground scope "review". HINT.

You are easily amongst the Top 5 DUMBEST Fhuqks on this Board. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!.................

You didn’t uncover squat.

All you did is demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension.

How many guns does he post pics of with custom barrels on them? Not seen any actually. I shoot about 2000 centerfire rounds a year. 90% are from custom barrels. It’s interesting how sure you are of what he says. You likely don’t know him and you sure as heck don’t know me. Notice how it’s always a personal attack on me. When you don’t have an argument you attack the messenger.

What part of my theory about most zero shifts likely being shifts in the rings are you disagreeing with? Contrary to most people I do enjoy my thinking challenged. It makes me better. I welcome it.

He never claimed that he had 100K rounds out of a factory barrel. Your "ah ha gotcha" was your misunderstanding.

Who said that?